Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Mark,
I left a message with Tom last week at his residence with no return phone
call. I don't want to "diss" the whole thing just because we have something
holding our bill down. I was going to talk to Tom to get HB 1097 unattached
from our bill and explain our reasons. I did not get the opportunity to do
that. I will be trying to get in contact with Tom, but I guess it is too
late.
I am frustrated because we have worked so hard and spent a lot of time
working on HB 1441, and now we have this 1097 attached that will definately
kill ours. There is always the next session.
Angela Tielking
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kreps" <mjkreps(a)tmcsmail.com>
To: <INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [INPCRP] HB 1097.
> I did get a chance to talk to State Rep. Tiny Adams from Delaware County
> today, Dec. 13. He told me today was the deadline to get bills
> introduced/submitted for next years legislature. Did any of the Henry Co.
> folk talk to State Rep. Tom Saunders? Tiny said "Go to Tom first He's the
> one" to get in touch with. I told Tiny the INPCRP's displeasure with HB
1097
> Tiny said he would try to Tom in Indy. Meanwhile he wanted us to know
that
> if INPCRP wanted to diss the whole thing then I should let him know. Tiny
> said we want to see the "glass as 1/2 full is better than none." The 1097
> bill can be amended or changed as needed in the future Tiny added.
> The INPCRP can still use it's influence to gut out the troublesome words
at
> any time in the future. We will not go away. We shall return (if need be).
> Nothing ventured nothing gained.
> Mark Kreps
> Delaware Co.
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Rich Green
> Date: 12/09/04 09:03:46
> To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [INPCRP] HB 1097.
>
> Howdy Ernie,
>
> I'm pretty sure that the " before December 11, 1816" is supposed to be
> stricken and replaced with "that is at least one hundred (100) years old".
> Otherwise the sentence you provided below wouldn't make much sense.
>
> This will alter the definition of the age of an artifact in Indiana from
"an
> object made or shaped by human
> workmanship before December 11, 1816" to...
>
> "an object made or shaped by human workmanship that is at least one
hundred
> (100) years old".
>
> This definition change seems broad and somehow out of place when looking
at
> the rest of the proposed amendments; most of which seem directly intended
> for and would certainly be beneficial to Indiana pioneer cemetery
> preservation. Several folks on the list, myself included, raised questions
> about this earlier in the year.
>
> I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the concept of a
100-year
> artifact definition could be very beneficial to and provide needed
> protection for Indiana's cultural resources as it will ultimately make
much
> of the state a potential archaeological site and offer legal protection to
> endangered resources not currently considered with the existing definition
> before December 11, 1816".
>
> But on the other hand, I'm not sure that a broad definition like this one
> doesn't constrain legitimate preservation activities, open the door for
the
> state government to infringe on private property rights, and perhaps more
> importantly, I just don't see how a law like this one can be uniformly
> applied and enforced by the DNR without provision for a huge increase in
> their budget. If this law changes without adequate funding, it will most
> certainly be applied selectively and probably only in special interest
cases
>
>
> Some of us here on the list tried to pose probative questions when one of
> the bill's proponents sought support for this amendment from INPCRP
members
> earlier this year. The discussion escalated (as they often do) to argument
> when most of the direct questions concerning this particular part of the
> proposal were side-stepped or ignored altogether. And, there are still
many
> more issues and problematic scenarios that come to mind, not the least of
> which is that the 100-year artifact definition changes with the passing of
> each calendar year. This wasn't adequately discussed on the INPCRP list in
> January and it doesn't seem that this definition change has been or is
> likely to be exhaustively considered and debated by our elected officials
> either.
>
> In my opinion, over-reaching and thus controversial amendments like this
> artifact definition should NOT be attached to legislation designed and
> intended to protect Indiana's pioneer cemeteries. I think we would all
> really like to see new and unambiguous protections proposed and passed for
> our early cemeteries and indeed for all Indiana cultural resources.
> Personally though, and I am only speaking for myself, I'd rather not see
> well-conceived cemetery preservation legislation voted down because of
> something like the extraordinarily broad definition of an artifact or some
> other potential show-stopping budget constraints.
>
> As it stands, I'm agin it.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rich Green
> Historic Archaeological Research
> 4338 Hadley Court
> West Lafayette, IN 47906
> Office: (765) 464-8735
> Mobile: (765) 427-4082
> www.har-indy.com
>
> From: Ernie & Connie Lasley
> To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 12:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [INPCRP] HB 1097.
>
>
> I think this is the latest printing of HB 1097, I cannot see what is wrong
> with it or how it will "destroy the State"?
>
> SOURCE: IC 14-8-2-289; (04)IN1097.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 14-8-2-289, AS
> AMENDED BY P.L.52-2001, SECTION 4, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS
[EFFECTIVE
> JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 289. "Unit of local government" has the following
> meaning:
> (1) For purposes of IC 14-12-1, has the meaning set forth in IC 14-12-1-3.
> and
> (2) For purposes of IC 14-21-1 and IC 14-22-10, means a:
> (A) county;
> (B) city;
> (C) town; or
> (D) township;
> located in Indiana.
> SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-2; (04)IN1097.1.2. --> SECTION 2. IC 14-21-1-2 IS
> AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 2. As used in
> this chapter, "artifact" means an object made or shaped by human
> workmanship before December 11, 1816. that is at least one hundred (100)
> years old.
>
> SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-8; (04)IN1097.1.3. --> SECTION 3. IC 14-21-1-8, AS
> AMENDED BY P.L.46-2000, SECTION 7, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS
[EFFECTIVE
> JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 8. (a) As used in this chapter, "plan" refers to:
> (1) an archeological plan, as described in subsection (b); or
> (2) a development plan, as described in subsection (c).
> (b) As used in this chapter, "archeological plan" means a plan for the
> systematic recovery, analysis, and disposition by scientific methods of
> material evidence and information about the life and culture in past ages.
> (c) As used in this chapter, "development plan" means a plan for the
> erection, alteration, an activity that will disturb the land surface or
> subsurface and that will:
> (1) erect, alter, or repair of any a structure;
> (2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
> (3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas well; or
> (4) remove sand and gravel.
> SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-26.4; (04)IN1097.1.4. --> SECTION 4. IC 14-21-1-26.4 IS
> ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
> JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 26.4. (a) This section does not apply to the
following:
> (1) A surface coal mining and reclamation operation permitted under IC
14-34
>
> (2) The repair of a structure.
> (b) If a person intends to engage in an activity that will disturb the
land
> surface or subsurface to:
> (1) erect or alter a structure;
> (2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
> (3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas well; or
> (4) remove sand and gravel;
> the person, before beginning the activity, must contact the department to
> determine whether the ground that will be disturbed is within one hundred
> (100) feet of a recorded burial ground or cemetery.
> (c) The department shall respond in writing to a request made under
> subsection (b) within thirty (30) days.
> (d) A person shall attach a copy of the department's written response
> issued under subsection (c) regarding the proposed activity with any
> application for a permit that is submitted to the state or a unit of local
> government.
> SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-26.5; (04)IN1097.1.5. --> SECTION 5. IC 14-21-1-26.5,
AS
> AMENDED BY P.L.177-2001,
> SECTION 3, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004]: Sec.
> 26.5. (a) This section applies to a person who intends to disturb the land
> surface or subsurface to:
> (1) erect or alter a structure;
> (2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
> (3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas well; or
> (4) remove sand and gravel.
> Notwithstanding IC 23-14-44-1, this section does not apply to the
following:
> (1) A public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1(a)).
> (2) A corporation organized under IC 8-1-13.
> (3) A municipally owned utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1(h)).
> (4) a surface coal mining and reclamation operation permitted under IC
14-34
>
> (b) Except as provided in this subsection, subsection (b), subsections (c)
> and subsection (c), (d), a person may not disturb the ground within one
> hundred (100) feet of a burial ground or cemetery: for the purpose of
> erecting, altering, or repairing any structure
> (1) without having a development plan approved by the department under
> section 25 of this chapter; or
> (2) in violation of a development plan approved by the department under
> section 25 of this chapter.
> The department must review the development plan not later than sixty (60)
> days after the development plan is submitted.
> (b) (c) A development plan:
> (1) must be approved if a person intends to construct a new structure or
> alter or repair an existing structure disturb the land surface or
> subsurface in a manner that would significantly impact the burial ground
or
> cemetery; and
> (2) is not required if a person intends to erect, alter, or repair an
> existing land or building structure for an incidental or existing use that
> would not impact the burial ground or cemetery.
> (c) (d) A development plan for a governmental entity to disturb ground
> within one hundred (100) feet of a burial ground or cemetery must be
> approved as follows:
> (1) A development plan of a municipality requires approval of the
executive
> of the municipality and does not require the approval of the department.
> However, if the burial ground or cemetery is located outside the
> municipality, approval is also required by the executive of the county
> where the burial ground or cemetery is located. A county cemetery
> commission established under
> IC 23-14-67-2 may advise the executive of the municipality on whether to
> approve a development plan.
> (2) A development plan of a governmental entity other than:
> (A) a municipality; or
> (B) the state;
> requires the approval of the executive of the county where the
governmental
> entity is located and does not require the approval of the department.
> However, if the governmental entity is located in more than one (1)
county,
> only the approval of the executive of the county where the burial ground
or
> cemetery is located is required. A county cemetery commission established
> under IC 23-14-67-2 may advise the county executive on whether to approve
a
> development plan.
> (3) A development plan of the state requires the approval of the
department.
> (d) (e) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally violates this
> section commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D
> felony if the person disturbs buried human remains or grave markers while
> committing the offense.
>
>
> At 11:36 PM 12/08/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >INPCRP,
> > This HB 1097 has the capability of destroying the entire state of
Indiana,
> >lock, stock and barrel. All our efforts will be forever lost in a
quagmire
> >of red tape.
> >Mark Kreps
> >Delaware County
> >-------Original Message-------
> >From: rick.brumfield(a)tellcity-cannelton.com
> >Subject: [INPCRP] Indiana legislators and concerned groups and
individuals
> >HB 1097 is bad legislation and can only do harm to our
> >preservation goals. HB1097 will cause many tax payers in the State of
> >Indiana to become criminals including all of our farmers and most anyone
> who
> >toils with the soils of Indiana.
> >Please look over both bills and pass HB 1441 and reject HB 1097.
> > On behalf of all Indiana Preservationist, Farmers, and Taxpayers, Thank
> You
> >Rickey P. Brumfield
> >
> >
>
>
> ==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
> INPCRP State Coordinator: Brad Manzenberger < INPCRP(a)inpcrp.org >
> http://www.inpcrp.org
>
>
>
> ==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
> Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know.
>
>
>
>
> ==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
> Visit the INPCRP on the web at http://www.inpcrp.org
>
I would hope the justification of this legislation would also include the
work that NEEDS to be done in addition to that which HAS been done. That survey,
however, would be nearly impossible to compile. The Hall of Shame on the
INPCRP web site would be a good start, however.
Kyle D. Conrad
Brook, IN
Theresa,
Hope this list of Indiana cemeteries we worked on during 2004 will help some:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knox County, IN
GPS location survey, GIS site mapping, digital photography of 11 severely damaged/threatened cemeteries for Knox County Cemetery Commissioners: Jon Andrews, Bob Hill.
(3 personnel, 1 not on the INPCRP list)
Medley Cemetery
Parker Cemetery
Walker Cemetery
Maria Creek Baptist Cemetery http://www.har-indy.com/maria_creek_baptist.html
Hagemeir Cemetery
Thorne Cemetery
Vantlin Cemetery
Philips Cemetery
Martin-Thorne Cemetery
Buckthal Cemetery
German Zion Evangelical Cemetery
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bartholomew County, IN
Work performed in conjunction with restoration specialists, Mark Davis and Helen Wildermuth. Non-invasive survey to locate subsurface features in five abandoned Columbus areas cemeteries. Surface feature survey and mapping, subsurface imaging to identify utilized areas. (3 HAR personnel, 2 not on the INPCRP list)
Mount Pleasant Cemetery
Thompson Cemetery
Lambert Cemetery
Carter's Chapel Cemetery
Garden City Cemetery
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warrick County, Newburgh, IN
Surface feature mapping, electromagnetic detection, subsurface imaging to delineate utilized but unmarked areas within the cemetery. (3 HAR personnel, 2 not on the INPCRP list)
Outer Lincoln Cemetery (proper name unknown)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark County, Jeffersonville, IN
Surface feature survey and mapping, electromagnetic detection/magnetometer survey to identify areas compromised by development. (2 HAR personnel, 1 not on the INPCRP list)
Colston Park (unmarked Civil War cemetery)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren County, IN
Volunteer project (incomplete) Preliminary electromagnetic detection, subsurface imaging.
(2 HAR personnel, 1 not on the INPCRP list)
Hooker Cemetery
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Green
Historic Archaeological Research
4338 Hadley Court
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Office: (765) 464-8735
Mobile: (765) 427-4082
www.har-indy.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Theresa Berghoff
To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:18 AM
Subject: [INPCRP] cemetery work survey
List,
The legislation committee needs some help to build a case in support of our our pioneer cemetery bill HB 1441. We need to know how many cemeteries you worked in this year in the state of Indiana. Please respond with
1. the name of the Cemetery
2. county the cemetery is located in
3. number of people involved in the project, who are not on the INPCRP list
Thanks for your help!
Theresa Berghoff
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know.
Hi, Theresa,
I represent Madison County. Our cemetery commission is presently finishing
the Cottrell Cemetery, and we've begun reclamation of the
Hardy-Culp. Also, we have done GPS readings throughout the year for
approximately 30 of the pioneer cemeteries as well as odd jobs like
erecting signs and fixing gates at 8 different locations. Besides myself,
there is John Brundage, Rob Hains, Ranny Simmons, and Nancy Draper.
Let me know if you need any further information.
Melody Hull
At 01:18 AM 12/15/04, you wrote:
>List,
> The legislation committee needs some help to build a case in support
> of our our pioneer cemetery bill HB 1441. We need to know how many
> cemeteries you worked in this year in the state of Indiana. Please respond with
> 1. the name of the Cemetery
> 2. county the cemetery is located in
> 3. number of people involved in the
> project, who are not on the INPCRP list
>
>Thanks for your help!
> Theresa Berghoff
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
> Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
>
>
>==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
>Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know.
From Linda Grove
Liberty Township Trustee
Howard County Indiana
2004
1. Lindley Cemetery (Pioneer Cemetery)
Howard County
Group 1: United Way Spring Day of Caring 16 high school student
volunteers
2. Lindley Cemetery (Pioneer Cemetery)
Howard County
Group 2: United Way Fall Day of Caring 7 adult volunteers
3. Freeman Cemetery (Pioneer Cemetery)
Howard County
Eagle Scout Project - restore abandoned cemetery
4. Lindley Cemetery (Pioneer Cemetery)
Howard County
Ken Grove (spouse) - cleared 2 fence rows - spring and fall
Batson Cemetery, Jackson Township, Wells County.
Rhonda Stoffer
Head of Indiana History and Genealogy Services
Marion Public Library
-----Original Message-----
From: Theresa Berghoff [mailto:tres257@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:18 AM
To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [INPCRP] cemetery work survey
List,
The legislation committee needs some help to build a case in support of
our our pioneer cemetery bill HB 1441. We need to know how many cemeteries
you worked in this year in the state of Indiana. Please respond with
1. the name of the Cemetery
2. county the cemetery is located in
3. number of people involved in the project, who
are not on the INPCRP list
Thanks for your help!
Theresa Berghoff
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know.
Theresa:
We worked on three and finished two this year:
Turner Cemetery in Liberty Township,
5 people
Arch Small Cemetery, Jefferson Township, 5 People
Tucker Cemetery, Jefferson Township,
5 people with 2 others helping with big equipment.
These are all pioneer cemeteries in
Tipton County. I am the only one on the list, rest are my helpers.
Joan Wray
Tipton County
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Greenlawn Cemetery
Franklin, Johnson Co.
Project 1- about 35 people reset toppled stones after vandalism.
Project 2- 1 person (who is on the INPCRP list)
Brad
Theresa Berghoff wrote:
>List,
> The legislation committee needs some help to build a case in support of our our pioneer cemetery bill HB 1441. We need to know how many cemeteries you worked in this year in the state of Indiana. Please respond with
> 1. the name of the Cemetery
> 2. county the cemetery is located in
> 3. number of people involved in the project, who are not on the INPCRP list
>
>Thanks for your help!
> Theresa Berghoff
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
> Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
>
>
>==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
>Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know.
>
>
>
>
>
Theresa,
The amount of damage to these cemeteries is terrible. We are losing so much
history.
Rick and Grace Brumfield
Cliff Hill Cemetery
Perry County, Indiana
2 people
St Michael's Catholic Cemetery
Perry County, Indiana
2 people
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theresa Berghoff [mailto:tres257@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:18 AM
> To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: [INPCRP] cemetery work survey
>
>
> List,
> The legislation committee needs some help to build a
> case in support of our our pioneer cemetery bill HB 1441. We
> need to know how many cemeteries you worked in this year in
> the state of Indiana. Please respond with
> 1. the name of the Cemetery
> 2. county the cemetery is located in
> 3. number of people involved in the
> project, who are not on the INPCRP list
>
> Thanks for your help!
> Theresa Berghoff
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
>
>
> ==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
> Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know.
>
>
>
List,
The legislation committee needs some help to build a case in support of our our pioneer cemetery bill HB 1441. We need to know how many cemeteries you worked in this year in the state of Indiana. Please respond with
1. the name of the Cemetery
2. county the cemetery is located in
3. number of people involved in the project, who are not on the INPCRP list
Thanks for your help!
Theresa Berghoff
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
Call/write and ask for support on HB1441
Indiana House of Representatives
200 W. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2786
(317) 232-9600
(800) 382-9842
Rich probably has the best ability to most eloquently express the concerns
that many of us have had over the last couple of years when this idea first
surfaced. In a more general sense, most of us would probably agree with the
intent of this legislation, as most of us probably have a deep sense of
appreciation for history in general. The downfall with this legislation is likely the
lack of exceptions in the definition of artifact, or, as Rich states, the broad
and loosley utilized definition itself.
Those who support this proposal can say what they do and don't intend for it
to mean, but for that to truly be tested will take a plaintiff, at least one
attorney, and a Court of law. Or possibly a legal opinion or two from the
staff attorney at the DNR or attorney general. In the meantime, those of us with
interests in cemetery preservation will be the potential targets of these
complaints.
While it may sound trivial to some, the best case in point I can make is the
legislation that prohibits the disturbing of the soil in or within 100 feet of
a cemetery. Hmmmm... now why would we be opposed to that? Any person with
common sense wouldn't, until they realize that the act of probing to find a
grave stone, uncovering that covered stone, or leveling off the soil to properly
position that stone could be considered a crime, depending on the
interpretation. Take that scenario and apply it to the proposed new definition of
artifact. Today is December 9, 2004....and any tombstone created by a craftsman on
or before December 9, 1904 is now an artifact. Sure it would be nice to
protect it from vandals, but a broad interpretation could also be applied to protect
it from us. Is that likely? I hope not, but it's possible. And that, to
me, is reason enough to not only remove this language from any cemetery
preservation legislation, but to oppose it entirely.
As Rich mentioned, this discussion has been bantered about before on this
list. My comments are not intended to incite any hot discussion. However, it is
important that we discuss these issues and try to fully understand them
before asking for support or opposition. And even after that, we may all agree to
still disagree...
Kyle D. Conrad
Brook, IN
Howdy Ernie,
I'm pretty sure that the " before December 11, 1816" is supposed to be stricken and replaced with "that is at least one hundred (100) years old". Otherwise the sentence you provided below wouldn't make much sense.
This will alter the definition of the age of an artifact in Indiana from "an object made or shaped by human
workmanship before December 11, 1816" to...
"an object made or shaped by human workmanship that is at least one hundred (100) years old".
This definition change seems broad and somehow out of place when looking at the rest of the proposed amendments; most of which seem directly intended for and would certainly be beneficial to Indiana pioneer cemetery preservation. Several folks on the list, myself included, raised questions about this earlier in the year.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the concept of a 100-year artifact definition could be very beneficial to and provide needed protection for Indiana's cultural resources as it will ultimately make much of the state a potential archaeological site and offer legal protection to endangered resources not currently considered with the existing definition "before December 11, 1816".
But on the other hand, I'm not sure that a broad definition like this one doesn't constrain legitimate preservation activities, open the door for the state government to infringe on private property rights, and perhaps more importantly, I just don't see how a law like this one can be uniformly applied and enforced by the DNR without provision for a huge increase in their budget. If this law changes without adequate funding, it will most certainly be applied selectively and probably only in special interest cases.
Some of us here on the list tried to pose probative questions when one of the bill's proponents sought support for this amendment from INPCRP members earlier this year. The discussion escalated (as they often do) to argument when most of the direct questions concerning this particular part of the proposal were side-stepped or ignored altogether. And, there are still many more issues and problematic scenarios that come to mind, not the least of which is that the 100-year artifact definition changes with the passing of each calendar year. This wasn't adequately discussed on the INPCRP list in January and it doesn't seem that this definition change has been or is likely to be exhaustively considered and debated by our elected officials either.
In my opinion, over-reaching and thus controversial amendments like this artifact definition should NOT be attached to legislation designed and intended to protect Indiana's pioneer cemeteries. I think we would all really like to see new and unambiguous protections proposed and passed for our early cemeteries and indeed for all Indiana cultural resources. Personally though, and I am only speaking for myself, I'd rather not see well-conceived cemetery preservation legislation voted down because of something like the extraordinarily broad definition of an artifact or some other potential show-stopping budget constraints.
As it stands, I'm agin it.
Best Regards,
Rich Green
Historic Archaeological Research
4338 Hadley Court
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Office: (765) 464-8735
Mobile: (765) 427-4082
www.har-indy.com
From: Ernie & Connie Lasley
To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: [INPCRP] HB 1097.
I think this is the latest printing of HB 1097, I cannot see what is wrong
with it or how it will "destroy the State"?
SOURCE: IC 14-8-2-289; (04)IN1097.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 14-8-2-289, AS
AMENDED BY P.L.52-2001, SECTION 4, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 289. "Unit of local government" has the following meaning:
(1) For purposes of IC 14-12-1, has the meaning set forth in IC 14-12-1-3. and
(2) For purposes of IC 14-21-1 and IC 14-22-10, means a:
(A) county;
(B) city;
(C) town; or
(D) township;
located in Indiana.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-2; (04)IN1097.1.2. --> SECTION 2. IC 14-21-1-2 IS
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 2. As used in
this chapter, "artifact" means an object made or shaped by human
workmanship before December 11, 1816. that is at least one hundred (100)
years old.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-8; (04)IN1097.1.3. --> SECTION 3. IC 14-21-1-8, AS
AMENDED BY P.L.46-2000, SECTION 7, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 8. (a) As used in this chapter, "plan" refers to:
(1) an archeological plan, as described in subsection (b); or
(2) a development plan, as described in subsection (c).
(b) As used in this chapter, "archeological plan" means a plan for the
systematic recovery, analysis, and disposition by scientific methods of
material evidence and information about the life and culture in past ages.
(c) As used in this chapter, "development plan" means a plan for the
erection, alteration, an activity that will disturb the land surface or
subsurface and that will:
(1) erect, alter, or repair of any a structure;
(2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
(3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas well; or
(4) remove sand and gravel.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-26.4; (04)IN1097.1.4. --> SECTION 4. IC 14-21-1-26.4 IS
ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 26.4. (a) This section does not apply to the following:
(1) A surface coal mining and reclamation operation permitted under IC 14-34.
(2) The repair of a structure.
(b) If a person intends to engage in an activity that will disturb the land
surface or subsurface to:
(1) erect or alter a structure;
(2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
(3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas well; or
(4) remove sand and gravel;
the person, before beginning the activity, must contact the department to
determine whether the ground that will be disturbed is within one hundred
(100) feet of a recorded burial ground or cemetery.
(c) The department shall respond in writing to a request made under
subsection (b) within thirty (30) days.
(d) A person shall attach a copy of the department's written response
issued under subsection (c) regarding the proposed activity with any
application for a permit that is submitted to the state or a unit of local
government.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-26.5; (04)IN1097.1.5. --> SECTION 5. IC 14-21-1-26.5, AS
AMENDED BY P.L.177-2001,
SECTION 3, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004]: Sec.
26.5. (a) This section applies to a person who intends to disturb the land
surface or subsurface to:
(1) erect or alter a structure;
(2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
(3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas well; or
(4) remove sand and gravel.
Notwithstanding IC 23-14-44-1, this section does not apply to the following:
(1) A public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1(a)).
(2) A corporation organized under IC 8-1-13.
(3) A municipally owned utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1(h)).
(4) a surface coal mining and reclamation operation permitted under IC 14-34.
(b) Except as provided in this subsection, subsection (b), subsections (c)
and subsection (c), (d), a person may not disturb the ground within one
hundred (100) feet of a burial ground or cemetery: for the purpose of
erecting, altering, or repairing any structure
(1) without having a development plan approved by the department under
section 25 of this chapter; or
(2) in violation of a development plan approved by the department under
section 25 of this chapter.
The department must review the development plan not later than sixty (60)
days after the development plan is submitted.
(b) (c) A development plan:
(1) must be approved if a person intends to construct a new structure or
alter or repair an existing structure disturb the land surface or
subsurface in a manner that would significantly impact the burial ground or
cemetery; and
(2) is not required if a person intends to erect, alter, or repair an
existing land or building structure for an incidental or existing use that
would not impact the burial ground or cemetery.
(c) (d) A development plan for a governmental entity to disturb ground
within one hundred (100) feet of a burial ground or cemetery must be
approved as follows:
(1) A development plan of a municipality requires approval of the executive
of the municipality and does not require the approval of the department.
However, if the burial ground or cemetery is located outside the
municipality, approval is also required by the executive of the county
where the burial ground or cemetery is located. A county cemetery
commission established under
IC 23-14-67-2 may advise the executive of the municipality on whether to
approve a development plan.
(2) A development plan of a governmental entity other than:
(A) a municipality; or
(B) the state;
requires the approval of the executive of the county where the governmental
entity is located and does not require the approval of the department.
However, if the governmental entity is located in more than one (1) county,
only the approval of the executive of the county where the burial ground or
cemetery is located is required. A county cemetery commission established
under IC 23-14-67-2 may advise the county executive on whether to approve a
development plan.
(3) A development plan of the state requires the approval of the department.
(d) (e) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally violates this
section commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D
felony if the person disturbs buried human remains or grave markers while
committing the offense.
At 11:36 PM 12/08/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>INPCRP,
> This HB 1097 has the capability of destroying the entire state of Indiana,
>lock, stock and barrel. All our efforts will be forever lost in a quagmire
>of red tape.
>Mark Kreps
>Delaware County
>-------Original Message-------
>From: rick.brumfield(a)tellcity-cannelton.com
>Subject: [INPCRP] Indiana legislators and concerned groups and individuals
>HB 1097 is bad legislation and can only do harm to our
>preservation goals. HB1097 will cause many tax payers in the State of
>Indiana to become criminals including all of our farmers and most anyone who
>toils with the soils of Indiana.
>Please look over both bills and pass HB 1441 and reject HB 1097.
> On behalf of all Indiana Preservationist, Farmers, and Taxpayers, Thank You
>Rickey P. Brumfield
>
>
==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
INPCRP State Coordinator: Brad Manzenberger < INPCRP(a)inpcrp.org >
http://www.inpcrp.org
In a message dated 12/9/04 12:25:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
elasley(a)spamcop.net writes:
> (c) (d) A development plan for a governmental entity to disturb ground
> within one hundred (100) feet of a burial ground or cemetery must be
> approved as follows:
> (1) A development plan of a municipality requires approval of the executive
> of the municipality and does not require the approval of the department.
> However, if the burial ground or cemetery is located outside the
> municipality, approval is also required by the executive of the county
> where the burial ground or cemetery is located. A county cemetery
> commission established under
> IC 23-14-67-2 may advise the executive of the municipality on whether to
> approve a development plan.
> (2) A development plan of a governmental entity other than:
> (A) a municipality; or
> (B) the state;
> requires the approval of the executive of the county where the governmental
> entity is located and does not require the approval of the department.
> However, if the governmental entity is located in more than one (1) county,
> only the approval of the executive of the county where the burial ground or
> cemetery is located is required. A county cemetery commission established
> under IC 23-14-67-2 may advise the county executive on whether to approve a
> development plan.
>
This is the part that I never could understand. What makes the officials
of a Government entity, or Municipality such an authority on cemeteries that
they can make up their own mind without submitting a plan to someone that knows
and (Understands) When I talk to city, or county officials, they give me a
blank stare and usually say "you worry to much." We have to take our time. We
don't want to ruffle any feathers. In the past cities and municipalities have not
been very adept at assuming their responsibilities to preserve much of
anything.
I have been quiet, now I feel better.
Jack
In a message dated 12/8/04 11:17:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tielking(a)knightstown.net writes:
> I don't want it to look to our legislators like it is only a Henry Co.
> problem again! If we are going to accomplish anything, we have got to do it
> together.
>
I was to Ill to make this trip, but future ones I hope to make. If my wife
and I can drive to Southport to work on a cemetery, Crawfordsville for a work
shop, from the banks of the Ohio River, we can attend some meetings. As long
as I know when they are. Angela, I tried to impress everyone with the fact
you (and Greg) were the most impressionable and aggressive two people I have
met. I'm following your work closely, the Legislature won't believe it's just
Henry, CO. I am sure you will let them know that. Good Luck, Politicians try to
attach a weak Rider bill onto a good one so it will pass, even though it might
be debatable about whether it should even be presented.
Jack E. Briles Sr
It seems the cart has somehow gotten before the horse. While there were strong feelings expressed about HB 1097 [the artifact bill] at the meeting last night, we do not yet know for sure that it will be combined with HB 1441 [ the Pioneer Cemetery bill].Of course we don't want them combined, but lets find out. I thought that in contacting the people listed in Angela's report we could get a better feel for where things stand.I emailed Cheryl Munson, and Rep. Matt Pierce today, to ask if they were willing to change the language of HB 1097, and to let them know of our concerns. I was thinking about it on the way home & I'm just not ready to give up two years of work on HB 1441, if there is any way to work this out, or the issues can be voted on separately. Can we give this a couple days & see what response we get from everyone?
Theresa
"Gregory D. Tielking" <tielking(a)knightstown.net> wrote:
Hello everyone,
We wanted to let everyone know how the legislative meeting went on Tuesday Dec. 7 at the New Castle library.
Those in attendance were:
Theresa Berghoff - Marion Co.
Mark Kreps - Delaware Co.
Rick and Grace Brumfield - Perry Co.
Ulysses "Bud" Bush - Henry Co.
Ken and Ann Holmes - Henry Co.
Me- Henry Co.
I want to extend a big thank you to Rick and Grace for coming to our meeting. They drove quite a distance to be a part of the discussion, and we sincerely appreciate their thoughts, ideas and their time. I agree with Rick and Grace - it was like meeting old friends.
I truly think we have something unique with the INPCRP group. Even though most of us have never met one another, I think we do have a bond. We are like old friends or even a family. We have our moments where we bicker and disagree, but we are always here and ready to help one another when we can. We share a common bond, and one, that I think, is unbreakable. We are truly unique.
O.K., O.K. enough emotional stuff... on to the meeting..........
As for the "Artifact Bill" we all disagreed with it and oppose its attachment to our bill, H.B. 1441. An idea was proposed that language needed to be added to the Artifact Bill to exclude cemetery restorationists, but that was dismissed. This artifact bill will most likely be rejected anyway. We want our bill to have a fair chance of being passed, which we think, eventually, it will.
I will be contacting Rep. Tom Saunders to politely tell him our feelings of the artifact bill. Theresa will be contacting Cheryl Munson to see what her intent of this bill is and how it would affect us; and she will also try to contact Rep. Pierce who has asked Rep. Saunders to attach the artifact bill to ours. Mark Kreps will be contacting Rep. Tiny Adams, who co-authored H.B. 1441.
We will continue to update the group as needed.
Maybe now is the time for all of us to educate and rally other groups besides ourselves into backing us (i.e. genealogy groups, historical societies) and to be present at the hearings and voice their opinions. I don't want it to look to our legislators like it is only a Henry Co. problem again! If we are going to accomplish anything, we have got to do it together.
If anyone else from the meeting wants to add anything else, please do so.
Does anyone on the list want to comment? We are trying to represent the list and we can't do that effectively if there is no discussion on the issues.
Thanks for your time,
Angela Tielking
==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
THIS IS A CEMETERY -----
"Lives are commemorated - deaths are recorded - families
are reunited - memories are made tangible - and love is
undisguised. This is a cemetery.
"Communities accord respect, families bestow reverence,
historians seek information and our heritage is thereby enriched.
"Testimonies of devotion, pride and remembrance are carved
in stone to pay warm tribute to accomplishments and to the life -
not the death - of a loved one. The cemetery is homeland for family
memorials that are a sustaining source of comfort to the living.
"A cemetery is a history of people - a perpetual record of
yesterday and sanctuary of peace and quiet today. A cemetery
exists because every life is worth loving and remembering - always."
--Author unknown -- Seen at a monument dealer in West Union, IA
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
I think this is the latest printing of HB 1097, I cannot see what is wrong
with it or how it will "destroy the State"?
SOURCE: IC 14-8-2-289; (04)IN1097.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 14-8-2-289, AS
AMENDED BY P.L.52-2001, SECTION 4, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 289. "Unit of local government" has the following meaning:
(1) For purposes of IC 14-12-1, has the meaning set forth in IC 14-12-1-3. and
(2) For purposes of IC 14-21-1 and IC 14-22-10, means a:
(A) county;
(B) city;
(C) town; or
(D) township;
located in Indiana.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-2; (04)IN1097.1.2. --> SECTION 2. IC 14-21-1-2 IS
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 2. As used in
this chapter, "artifact" means an object made or shaped by human
workmanship before December 11, 1816. that is at least one hundred (100)
years old.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-8; (04)IN1097.1.3. --> SECTION 3. IC 14-21-1-8, AS
AMENDED BY P.L.46-2000, SECTION 7, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 8. (a) As used in this chapter, "plan" refers to:
(1) an archeological plan, as described in subsection (b); or
(2) a development plan, as described in subsection (c).
(b) As used in this chapter, "archeological plan" means a plan for the
systematic recovery, analysis, and disposition by scientific methods of
material evidence and information about the life and culture in past ages.
(c) As used in this chapter, "development plan" means a plan for the
erection, alteration, an activity that will disturb the land surface or
subsurface and that will:
(1) erect, alter, or repair of any a structure;
(2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
(3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas well; or
(4) remove sand and gravel.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-26.4; (04)IN1097.1.4. --> SECTION 4. IC 14-21-1-26.4 IS
ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 26.4. (a) This section does not apply to the following:
(1) A surface coal mining and reclamation operation permitted under IC 14-34.
(2) The repair of a structure.
(b) If a person intends to engage in an activity that will disturb the land
surface or subsurface to:
(1) erect or alter a structure;
(2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
(3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas well; or
(4) remove sand and gravel;
the person, before beginning the activity, must contact the department to
determine whether the ground that will be disturbed is within one hundred
(100) feet of a recorded burial ground or cemetery.
(c) The department shall respond in writing to a request made under
subsection (b) within thirty (30) days.
(d) A person shall attach a copy of the department's written response
issued under subsection (c) regarding the proposed activity with any
application for a permit that is submitted to the state or a unit of local
government.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-26.5; (04)IN1097.1.5. --> SECTION 5. IC 14-21-1-26.5, AS
AMENDED BY P.L.177-2001,
SECTION 3, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004]: Sec.
26.5. (a) This section applies to a person who intends to disturb the land
surface or subsurface to:
(1) erect or alter a structure;
(2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
(3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas well; or
(4) remove sand and gravel.
Notwithstanding IC 23-14-44-1, this section does not apply to the following:
(1) A public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1(a)).
(2) A corporation organized under IC 8-1-13.
(3) A municipally owned utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1(h)).
(4) a surface coal mining and reclamation operation permitted under IC 14-34.
(b) Except as provided in this subsection, subsection (b), subsections (c)
and subsection (c), (d), a person may not disturb the ground within one
hundred (100) feet of a burial ground or cemetery: for the purpose of
erecting, altering, or repairing any structure
(1) without having a development plan approved by the department under
section 25 of this chapter; or
(2) in violation of a development plan approved by the department under
section 25 of this chapter.
The department must review the development plan not later than sixty (60)
days after the development plan is submitted.
(b) (c) A development plan:
(1) must be approved if a person intends to construct a new structure or
alter or repair an existing structure disturb the land surface or
subsurface in a manner that would significantly impact the burial ground or
cemetery; and
(2) is not required if a person intends to erect, alter, or repair an
existing land or building structure for an incidental or existing use that
would not impact the burial ground or cemetery.
(c) (d) A development plan for a governmental entity to disturb ground
within one hundred (100) feet of a burial ground or cemetery must be
approved as follows:
(1) A development plan of a municipality requires approval of the executive
of the municipality and does not require the approval of the department.
However, if the burial ground or cemetery is located outside the
municipality, approval is also required by the executive of the county
where the burial ground or cemetery is located. A county cemetery
commission established under
IC 23-14-67-2 may advise the executive of the municipality on whether to
approve a development plan.
(2) A development plan of a governmental entity other than:
(A) a municipality; or
(B) the state;
requires the approval of the executive of the county where the governmental
entity is located and does not require the approval of the department.
However, if the governmental entity is located in more than one (1) county,
only the approval of the executive of the county where the burial ground or
cemetery is located is required. A county cemetery commission established
under IC 23-14-67-2 may advise the county executive on whether to approve a
development plan.
(3) A development plan of the state requires the approval of the department.
(d) (e) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally violates this
section commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D
felony if the person disturbs buried human remains or grave markers while
committing the offense.
At 11:36 PM 12/08/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>INPCRP,
> This HB 1097 has the capability of destroying the entire state of Indiana,
>lock, stock and barrel. All our efforts will be forever lost in a quagmire
>of red tape.
>Mark Kreps
>Delaware County
>-------Original Message-------
>From: rick.brumfield(a)tellcity-cannelton.com
>Subject: [INPCRP] Indiana legislators and concerned groups and individuals
>HB 1097 is bad legislation and can only do harm to our
>preservation goals. HB1097 will cause many tax payers in the State of
>Indiana to become criminals including all of our farmers and most anyone who
>toils with the soils of Indiana.
>Please look over both bills and pass HB 1441 and reject HB 1097.
> On behalf of all Indiana Preservationist, Farmers, and Taxpayers, Thank You
>Rickey P. Brumfield
>
>
Hello everyone,
We wanted to let everyone know how the legislative meeting went on Tuesday Dec. 7 at the New Castle library.
Those in attendance were:
Theresa Berghoff - Marion Co.
Mark Kreps - Delaware Co.
Rick and Grace Brumfield - Perry Co.
Ulysses "Bud" Bush - Henry Co.
Ken and Ann Holmes - Henry Co.
Me- Henry Co.
I want to extend a big thank you to Rick and Grace for coming to our meeting. They drove quite a distance to be a part of the discussion, and we sincerely appreciate their thoughts, ideas and their time. I agree with Rick and Grace - it was like meeting old friends.
I truly think we have something unique with the INPCRP group. Even though most of us have never met one another, I think we do have a bond. We are like old friends or even a family. We have our moments where we bicker and disagree, but we are always here and ready to help one another when we can. We share a common bond, and one, that I think, is unbreakable. We are truly unique.
O.K., O.K. enough emotional stuff... on to the meeting..........
As for the "Artifact Bill" we all disagreed with it and oppose its attachment to our bill, H.B. 1441. An idea was proposed that language needed to be added to the Artifact Bill to exclude cemetery restorationists, but that was dismissed. This artifact bill will most likely be rejected anyway. We want our bill to have a fair chance of being passed, which we think, eventually, it will.
I will be contacting Rep. Tom Saunders to politely tell him our feelings of the artifact bill. Theresa will be contacting Cheryl Munson to see what her intent of this bill is and how it would affect us; and she will also try to contact Rep. Pierce who has asked Rep. Saunders to attach the artifact bill to ours. Mark Kreps will be contacting Rep. Tiny Adams, who co-authored H.B. 1441.
We will continue to update the group as needed.
Maybe now is the time for all of us to educate and rally other groups besides ourselves into backing us (i.e. genealogy groups, historical societies) and to be present at the hearings and voice their opinions. I don't want it to look to our legislators like it is only a Henry Co. problem again! If we are going to accomplish anything, we have got to do it together.
If anyone else from the meeting wants to add anything else, please do so.
Does anyone on the list want to comment? We are trying to represent the list and we can't do that effectively if there is no discussion on the issues.
Thanks for your time,
Angela Tielking
I am sending the following to all Indiana legislators and concerned groups
and individuals:
I attended a meeting in Dec. 7, 2004 in New Castle Indiana where members of
the 'Indiana Pioneer Cemetery Restoration Project', 'Henry County Cemetery
Committee', Henry County Cemetery Advisory Board' , 'Pioneer Cemetery
Preservation Committee of the Delaware County Historical Society' spoke on
up coming legislation. Two bills were looked at by the present members. HB
1441 and HB 1097. After much discussion and consideration we were unanimous
in our decision to support HB 1441 and reject HB 1097. HB 1097 is attached
to our approved bill HB 1441 and we wish it to be taken off. We do not
support HB 1097. HB 1097 is bad legislation and can only do harm to our
preservation goals. HB1097 will cause many tax payers in the State of
Indiana to become criminals including all of our farmers and most anyone who
toils with the soils of Indiana.
Please look over both bills and pass HB 1441 and reject HB 1097.
On behalf of all Indiana Preservationist, Farmers, and Taxpayers, Thank You
Rickey P. Brumfield
I certainly appreciate all the wonderful comments about my new book.
Because I saw a posting from someone asking about where to see some
information about it, you may check our our website at
http://www.studioindiana.com/
--
John Bower
The Healthy House Institute is at http://www.hhinst.com/
John's photography is at http://www.studioindiana.com/