Angela,
Keep trying. It took me about 5 times to get a hold of Tiny Adams. I also
e-mailed him as well. From his wife I found out when Tiny gets home, goes to
sleep and gets up.
Mark
-------Original Message-------
From: Gregory D. Tielking
Date: 12/15/04 10:01:09
To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [INPCRP] HB 1097.
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
==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
This list is for discussion of topics related to the Indiana Pioneer
Cemeteries Restoration Project only.
Please do not send genealogical queries through this list. The surname and
geographic Mailing Lists on Rootsweb at
http://lists.rootsweb.com are a
better venue.
Thank you.