I am forwarding this to keep you informed of the events of today at
the
House Hearings. I appoligize if you recieve it from another list.
Connie Brubaker
>Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:43:21 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Lois Mauk" <lawofficeinformationsystem(a)worldnet.att.net>
>
>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.
>
>
>