Well, Jeannie Regan-Dinius and I took our dog-and-pony show to the joint House and Senate Natural Resources Committee this afterrnoon. The Committee met at McCormick Creek State Park in Spencer, Indiana (west of Bloomington). Dan Mathis (Legislative Liaison for the DNR), Jeannie and I were asked to speak about the situation concerning the ridiculous ease with which cemeteries can be dismantled and relocated, a tactic being widely used (at least down here in this end of the State) to increase profits in real estate development and to circumvent Indiana Code 14-21-1-26.5 < http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title14/ar21/ch1.html#IC14-21-1-26 >, which requires developers to obtain approval by DNR of a development plan BEFORE disturbing the soil within 100 feet of a known cemetery. If they get a Order to Disinter, they don't have to get a development plan approved and, further, DNR is not even notified that the cemetery has been MOVED. BTW, Jeannie was able to confirm (perhaps through Mr. Mathis, who is an attorney) that my interpretation of the pertinent statutes has been correct. If a developer gets a Court Order to Disinter, then the State Dept. of Health has no option but to grant the Disinterment Permit and DNR never has to know that the cemetery has been moved, thus circumventing the prohibition against disturbing the soil within 100 feet of the site. I have been pretty sure of my interpretation of the statutes but, since I'm not an attorney and know little about Indiana law except what I have figured out on my own, I feel reassured that I'm not missing something important that could change what the statutes appear to say. We certainly got Rep. Lytle's attention with the 2,300+ petition signatures that we delivered to him on 10/6/2001 in Madison. He was obviously disturbed with what we told him was going on and he placed this issue on the Committee's agenda for today. I was impressed to see that he went so far as to bring the 3" thick stack of petitions on the table in front of him during the meeting and made specific reference to it. (I also delivered to him 23 additional signatures that my preacher gave me last week!) I put together a 17-page handout for each of the members of the Committee. It included copies of two Petitions to Disinter and subsequent Orders to Disinter, copies of deeds proving that neither the Petitioner nor the property owner on one Petition even OWNED the cemetery property, subdivision plats that show how closely one builder intended to build to a 106x126' deeded cemetery, and a couple of pages of bullet lists consisting of the following text: HOW DIFFICULT IS IT TO MOVE A PIONEER CEMETERY IN INDIANA? Not difficult at all. It requires FIVE OR LESS PIECES OF PAPER filed with a local Court. Ownership of the cemetery is not required. No notice to the public is required. Some disinterment orders are entered the same day as the filing of the Petition to Disinter. If a cemetery was an exception on the Deed and then is dismantled and relocated, WHO then owns the former cemetery location? Is this rash of disinterment orders a way for developers to circumvent the 100-foot buffer around a cemetery or burial site within which a developer must obtain DNR approval of a development plan before disturbing the soil? ====================================== Since January 1, 2001, at least TWO Orders to Disinter have been entered in Clark County. Since January 1, 2001, ONE cemetery has already been moved in Floyd County. A developer tried to move Slate Run Cemetery in Floyd County this year, but the Township Trustee backed them down. Plans are underway to move at least TWO MORE cemeteries in Floyd County. THAT'S SIX AFFECTED CEMETERIES IN ONLY TWO COUNTIES IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR. HOW MANY ARE THERE IN THE ENTIRE STATE???? =============================== Can Indiana Code 23-14-57 be rewritten to require developers and others seeking to move cemeteries to prove to the satisfaction of the Courts: . Ownership of the cemetery property (including copies of deed records going back at least 100 years) . Current survey of the property in question . Publication of prominent Legal Notice of intention to disinter in the county's newspaper of record permitting descendants and interested parties an opportunity to object to the disinterment . Verification of the tax status of the cemetery property . The acquiescence of the Township Trustee . A disinterment plan prepared by a qualified Archeologist . The date of the last known burial . A record of all known stones and markers . Approval of the plan by the Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Archeology and Historic Preservation . Filing of the post-disinterment report with the County Recorder, pursuant to IC 14-21-2-3 ========================================= BACK TO COMMENTS BY LOIS: ========================================= Rep. Lytle remarked that he was reluctant to bring up the subject of pioneer cemeteries yet again and that he had hoped that steps taken in previous years' legislation might be sufficient to address the issue for at least the time being. BUT, he felt that, after having received our petitions, after reading the materials I gave him with the petitions and after talking with officials with the DNR, that it was important that the Legislature deal with this issue in the upcoming short session. Several members of the Committee made remarks that led me to believe that they understood what was happening out here in the State. I expressed that I was particularly dismayed that a local court granted an Order to Disinter when the moving party did not OWN the cemetery and felt that this set a DANGEROUS precedent. The suggestions that I made for changes to the statute have one important thing going for them. Aside from developers having to get a relocation plan pre-approved by DNR, nothing in the changes will cost the State a dime. The financial and proof burden would all be squarely upon the shoulders of the moving party. As it should be! If we make relocations difficult and expensive, my hope is that relocation won't be the first and only option considered by developers. I tried to make a point of one very important factor: If I own property that has an EXCEPTED cemetery on it and I get a court order to disinter those remains and I get them moved off the property, WHO THEN OWNS THE PROPERTY? Is this just another land grab? How is the title to the "former" cemetery resolved? The Committee members seemed to grasp the importance of putting a stop to these tactics. Let's see what develops. In the meantime, if you know any of the Committee members (listed below), go to http://www.IN.gov/cgi-bin/legislative/contact/contact.pl and send him/her an e-mail asking for their support. The members (all of whom were present today) are: Rep. Markt Lytle, Chairperson Rep. James Bottorff Rep. Richard Mangus Rep. Phyllis Pond Sen. Potch Wheeler Sen. Becky Skillman Sen. Richard Young Sen. James Lewis Thank you. Lois

Lois, You are an amazing gal. Thank you for going and giving it your best. L. A. Clugh

Lois, Sounds like you did a bang up job. Good for you! I am so impressed with your approach. Politicians just love it when you ask them to do something that will cost them next to nothing. Sue Silver CA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lois Mauk" <loismauk@home.com> To: <INPCRP-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:03 PM Subject: [INPCRP] Presentation to House/Senate Natural Resources Committee > Well, Jeannie Regan-Dinius and I took our dog-and-pony show to the joint > House and Senate Natural Resources Committee this afterrnoon. The Committee > met at McCormick Creek State Park in Spencer, Indiana (west of Bloomington). > >

Way to go, Lois! Thanks for organizing the effort for us all - I know how hard you've worked on this, and it sounds very encouraging. We'll see what transpires. Dale Drake Cemetery Committee Morgan Co History & Genealogy Assn Lois Mauk wrote: > Well, Jeannie Regan-Dinius and I took our dog-and-pony show to the joint > House and Senate Natural Resources Committee this afterrnoon. The Committee > met at McCormick Creek State Park in Spencer, Indiana (west of Bloomington). > etc.