Update from Monday's House hearings Randy Klemme Franklin County Genealogy and PCRP Coordinator -----Original Message----- From: Lois Mauk <lawofficeinformationsystem@worldnet.att.net> To: INPCRP-L@rootsweb.com <INPCRP-L@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@usa.net. > >