>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@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@usa.net. >> >> >> >