ARound IndIAnA Quorum requirement assures and


effective meetings make great engagement opportunities


—By MinDy reeF PuBlic relations teaM


The county action goal


year is about half-finished, and many counties have taken steps to meet one or more of the goals with new programs, new activities and new ways to approach relationships. Elkhart and Steuben counties have been working hard on building relationships by holding meetings on topics impor- tant to farmers, which meets the second action goal: “The county Farm Bureau will host, participate or facil- itate at least four meetings/ events to address a priority issue with local officials, Farm Bureau members or the general public (mini- mum three members at each event).”


Elkhart County has been


involved in a debate about proposed changes to the county’s land use and zon- ing regulations. The county Farm Bureau formed a sub- committee tackle the issue and asked for assistance from IFB staff and the Indi- ana Land Resources Council to work on appropriate zon- ing language. “At various times there


have been terms and plans set forward in the differ- ent versions that would reduce or constrain the property rights of anyone living, working or owning a business in Elkhart County,” Elkhart County PR coordina- tor Dwight Moudy wrote in a letter to the editor. “This has created a confusing and hard to interpret situation.” To help educate the pub-


lic on what the revisions could mean for them, the county Farm Bureau planned a public meeting to inform residents of the proposed language in the ordinance. They directly contacted other groups that may have


a stake in the issue, such as homebuilders, agribusi- nesses and the Amish com- munity, to spread the word among their members. Elkhart County has also been able to check off ele- ments of the public relations goal with its meetings by sending letters to the editor and news advisories to their local media.


Steuben County has been


working with its area plan commission to challenge and correct existing zoning ordinances that involve sig- nage and livestock density issues. Farm Bureau mem- bers had been adversely affected by ordinances and were issued steep fines. County Farm Bureau Presi- dent Ralph Holman met with the county’s area plan commissioner, who was then invited to meet with the county Farm Bureau board to hear about how the en- forcement and interpretation of the ordinances have af- fected rural residents. To further their message, Steuben County members spoke with members of the board of zoning appeals, county council members and commissioners about the challenges the ordi- nances cause farmers. These communications led to a moratorium on the signage and livestock density issues. Farm Bureau members plan to be at the next plan commission meeting to continue discussing the or- dinances and any proposed changes. These two counties have


drawn attention to relevant local issues by holding meetings with stakeholders and decision makers. If you have questions about hold- ing a meeting to tackle local issues, contact Greg Slipher, 317-692-7886 or gslipher@ infarmbureau.org.


prevents a representative legislature and-fast statutory deadline. The only procedural


—By BoB KraFt iFB PuBlic Policy teaM


To understand the walk-


out that has stymied action in the General Assembly for over a month, it’s appropri- ate to look not just at the issues that precipitated it but the rules that facilitated it. Much has been said in the public media about the reasons being cited by the Democrats for denying the House a quorum but there has been only limited dis- cussion of the procedural frameworks that enables them to exert this leverage. The quorum requirement


is established in the Indiana Constitution, which specifi- cally states: “Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business.” This is a constitutional re- quirement which cannot be changed or waived to ad- dress the current situation. The Indiana Constitution


also provides that, “The length and frequency of the sessions of the General Assembly shall be fixed by law.” The legislature has fixed April 29 as the adjournment date in odd- numbered years. Therefore legislative leaders have no flexibility to lengthen the session; April 29 is a hard-


tools that House Speaker Brian Bosma has at his dis- posal are the internal rules that the House adopts to govern the conduct of its business. The deadlines for second-reading of a bill or its passage in the house in which it was introduced are set by rule and can be waived. Bosma has already indicated that he plans to extend these deadlines if and when the Democrats return. However, the House rules cannot be rescinded, changed or suspended without the yes vote of two- thirds of the total members of the House. So, the rules cannot be suspended until the Democrats return and provide a quorum to do business. Another interesting pro-


vision in the rules is that which empowers seven members of the House if the Speaker is one of the seven – otherwise eight – to compel the attendance of absent members. If the absent members do not return the committee may levy fines on them or order a doorman to bring them back. Bosma has ordered substantial daily fines which he has indicated will


IFB needs information from members to aid in ongoing review of sales tax law


—By Kathleen M. Dutro PuBlic relations teaM


Over the past several months, Farm Bureau staff and leaders have received reports of farmers being charged sales tax on pur- chases of material or equip- ment that is necessary for the production of crops or livestock. “Members have been


alerting our leaders and staff that they have been sub- jected to an Indiana sales tax audit by the Indiana Department of Revenue or have received a notice of tax owed from the Department of Revenue as a result of au- dit of one of their suppliers,” said Katrina Hall, IFB tax and local government specialist. The commissioner of the


Department of Revenue has asked IFB for as much infor- mation as possible about the problems farmers have faced with sales tax audits and/or tax due notices from the De-


www.infarmbureau.org


partment of Revenue. “To take advantage of


this unique opportunity to submit information, we must count on IFB leaders to help us gather specifics from any farmer you know of who has been audited or billed for sales tax by the IDOR,” Hall said. “We are asking that af- fected members email their details to fbtax@infarm bureau.com or fax their de- tails to 317-692-7854. “We need as many re-


sponses as possible by April 15,” she added. Among the details IFB needs, Hall said, are name, county, and ad- dress of the farmer, along with the items that the IDOR determined should not be exempt. Also useful would be actual Department of Revenue notices, correspon- dence, or a summary of those. “We are looking for mag-


nitude of the problem and the prevailing issues,” she said.


IFB and the various com-


modity groups have been meeting to review the law and the regulations that the Indiana Department of Rev- enue uses to administer the Indiana sales tax laws. The meetings are being coordi- nated by the Indiana State Department of Agriculture, which also facilitated a meeting with representatives of the Department of Rev- enue. Department of Revenue


representatives have asked the various agriculture groups to assemble informa- tion about modern agricul- tural production processes that they could use as a reference for their audit staff and as guidance in poten- tial updates to their sales tax regulations related to agriculture. This process is underway, and on March 13, the various IFB commodity advisory committees were enlisted to assist in this ef- fort.


April 4, 2011


not be waived when the Democrats do come back to work. The clear purpose of the


Indiana Constitution’s quo- rum requirement is to as- sure that representatives of at least two-thirds the citi- zens of the state are present when the laws that will af- fect them are debated and voted on. It is truly ironic that this year, the provi- sion designed to assure a representative legislature has been used to deny the citizens of Indiana any leg- islature whatsoever.


3


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8