Update from Monday's House hearings
Randy Klemme
Franklin County Genealogy and PCRP Coordinator
-----Original Message-----
From: Lois Mauk <lawofficeinformationsystem(a)worldnet.att.net>
To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com <INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 11:56 PM
Subject: [INPCRP-L] Lois' Report of 2/15/99 House Hearings
This is a public apology from me to the House Committee on
Agriculture,
Natural Resources and Rural Development. I've forwarded a copy of this
message to Committee Chairman Markt Lytle.
I was WRONG and I'm deeply sorry for not having more faith in the men and
women of the Committee. My "worst fears" were apparently unfounded and it
looks like the House Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural
Development is going to stand up and do the right thing. Hallelujah!
I apologize for my outburst over the weekend. After I talked with an
attorney a few days ago who had reviewed the existing laws and pending
legislation, I felt so disappointed, distressed and dismayed because it
looked like my deepest concern was justified and that the Legislature was
going to continue the practice of exempting anyone involved in any form of
agriculture from any proposed regulation. Apparently our prayers, pleas
and
petitions were heard by the members of the Committee.
The exclusionary language I was so concerned and worried about has been
STRICKEN from the bill. That is, the language which excluded anyone
involved in any form of agriculture from the requirements of the proposed
language included in Rep. Markt Lytle's House Bill 1522. Rep. Lytle said
tonight that the decision to strike this language was discussed at last
Monday's hearing, but I don't recall hearing that. Doesn't mean it
wasn't
said; just means I didn't hear it.
I'm now convinced that Rep. Lytle and the Committee are well-meaning and
good-intentioned. I believe they sincerely want to straighten out this
situation and put an end to cemetery abuse, neglect and destruction in
Indiana. The problem is not going to be completely solved today or even
this year, but we're on the verge of making serious headway.
As for my report on the hearings on Monday, 2/15/99:
I haven't had a chance to review my notes but here's what I recall off the
top of my head from tonight's hearing. (Sorry. It's late, I'm tired and
I'm too lazy to go down to my car to get my files.)
A good number of lobbyists appeared, primarily the ones who didn't have an
opportunity to speak last Monday because of the lateness of the hour.
The homebuilders association spokesman asked for some assurance that, if a
cemetery were discovered on a construction site it would not necessarily
halt construction on the entire site but only in the immediate area of the
burial place. I didn't hear any final resolution on this query so I can't
say what they will or will not do on that topic.
A spokesman for the Township Trustees spoke in objection to Rep. Cleo
Duncan's bill to take the care of cemeteries out of the hands of the
Township Trustees and put it into the hands of the County Cemetery
Commissions. I'm sure there's more to it than meets the eye, but it looked
to me like that bill may have "died in Committee". I think the bottom line
was that Rep. Duncan's concern was that -- regardless of who does it -- the
cemeteries must be properly cared for. Personally, I don't care WHO does
it, as long as it gets DONE! I hope the Trustees now realize how deeply
the
public cares about this subject and if we can work WITH the Trustees
on
cemetery restoration projects, then more power to them.
As I understand the process, all of the "good stuff" from all the other
house bills will get rolled into Rep. Lytle's bill (HB 1522), including the
language from HB 1588 (a mirror of SB 280) regarding the process and
procedure for moving graves.
The Committee adopted my suggestion that the party moving a grave or
cemetery be required to tender photographs of the grave markers AND the
site
along with their report filed with the County Recorder. My concern
is
two-fold: (1) a lot of the markers I've seen (especially the sandstone
ones) aren't going to survive a move and (2) I worry about the accuracy of
the notetaker in interpreting stone markings. (How many of you have
abstracted a stone and, when you went back a second time, couldn't believe
how far off you were? Especially with those pesky 1s and 4s!)
I forgot to suggest to the Committee the need for including a plat of the
cemetery site with the report filed by the moving party with the County
Recorder or to require that a copy of that report be given to the public
library in the county seat. The latter would be a terrific boon to public
access to these records as so many of us can't get to the courthouse
because
we're working when the courthouse is open. The library, on the
other hand,
is usually open most evenings and weekends.
I'm sure the revised bill will be posted on the Internet in the next day or
so. I'll let you know as soon as I find it on-line.
The Committee is going to establish a Summer Study Program on this issue
and, as I understand it, members of the Committee will travel around the
state, soliciting comments and ideas from the public on the subject of
cemetery preservation. I'll keep you posted on that as the plans
materialize.
The battle is not won yet. The amended bill adopted by the Committee must
now get past the vote of the House of Representatives and then be referred
to the Senate. There's a lot more to be done, but I feel VERY optimistic
about the process -- much more so than I did a few days ago.
Finally, the bill to create a cemetery preservation license plate was
passed
by the Committee. That has some exciting potential, though I doubt it
will
generate truly enormous sums of money. There are just so many such plates
available that the potential market is somewhat diluted. I will, however,
be among the first in line to buy one.
Rep. Lytle did express his wish that anyone with constructive suggestions
get in touch with him. He seems absolutely sincere in his desire to do
something to correct this situation, though he does not wish to act in
haste. I think the passage of HB 1522 will go a long way as a first
measure
to protect our pioneer cemeteries -- including the long-neglected ones
on
private property.
Rep. Lytle's amendment of HB 1522 is going to include pioneering
legislation
making it illegal to steal or traffic in stolen cemetery art,
statutary,
headstones, monuments, etc. Though this has not been a big problem in
Indiana, it has been a increasing problem in other states. If the bill
passes and becomes law, the courts will have some meaningful legislation
with which to prosecute the thiefs and the sellers.
One really exciting (and surprising) development was Rep. Lytle's idea to
mandate that all cemetery monuments created after 1-1-2000 must have
engravings indicating the name of the cemetery in which they are to be
placed. His thinking (which I commend as innovative) is that, in the
future, if those stones are stolen, they will have permanent markings
indicating from what cemetery they were taken. This would alleviate the
future problem of trying to determine where a stolen stone was taken from.
As modern stones become more ornate and more desirable by cemetery thiefs,
this could be a big help in finding the "home" for these stones when they
are recovered.
No small measure of the credit for the success of our efforts goes to Bill
Shaw, the Indianapolis Star-News writer who has done so much for spreading
the word among the Legislature, the government and the public. Bill was at
the Capitol again this afternoon, but had to leave before the session
began.
If you haven't already done so, take a minute to drop a note to
the Star to
thank them for publishing Bill's stories and to Bill for writing them.
I got the impression that the Committee did not realize how easy it was for
those folks in Dubois County to get a permit from the Health Department to
perform a do-it-yourself-with-a-backhoe exhumation so they could build
their
house on that little hill. The name of Federal Judge Hugh Dillin (a
descendant of the people buried in that cemetery) was mentioned SEVERAL
times. A friend of the Judge who happens to be a former State
Representative spoke quiet eloquently about the level of outrage among the
descendants that this ever happened. I hope the Committee got the full
impact of his statement that the property owners got a permit to move THREE
graves when, in fact, there were more than 60 graves there, mostly
unmarked,
and that, until the Trustee law was changed a year or so ago, the
Township
Trustee was tending to that cemetery despite the fact that it was on
private
property. Of course, after that change went into effect, the Trustee
could
no longer care for the site and it was shortly thereafter "moved".
Again, I apologize for blowing my top last weekend. I spoke in despair and
in haste. It appears that it was not necessary as the powers that be (in
this case the Committee) had already realized that continuing the exclusion
of agricultural purposes from this bill was not in the best interest of
protecting these sites. Now, I just hope and pray that the Committee will
be successful in convincing the rest of the House and then the Senate to
see
it this way.
I think everyone came away from the meeting with renewed faith and trust in
the "system" and with renewed expectations for what we CAN accomplish. It
ain't over, but the possibilities are certainly exciting for all of us.
Good night.
Lois
==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
If you know of some good cemetery related links, send them to
LoisMauk(a)usa.net.