1996 General Assembly brings mixed bag for consumers.CAC fought for consumers in three main areas during the 1996 Indiana legislative session: telephone, home care and the environment.TelephoneTwo bills were pushed by telephone monopolies to try and achieve unprecedented deregulation and make it easier to implement anti-consumer schemes like Local Measured Service (LMS). While SB 251 -- which makes it easier for small telephone companies to deregulate -- passed, the worst of the two bills, HB 1083, died in the House. SB 251, authored by Sen. Morris Mills (R-Indianapolis) and sponsored by Rep. L. Jack Lutz (R-Anderson) "turns the tables" on the customers of a telephone company with less than 40,000 lines when that company seeks deregulation. Under SB 251, the burden is on customers or the state Utility Consumer Counselor to intervene and prove deregulation is not in the public interest, or deregulation is granted automatically. This is different from past laws which put the burden of proof on the company asking for deregulation, requiring it to make its plan public and prove that it would benefit customers. A company that deregulates as a result SB 251 would be free to implement rate hikes, changes in service offerings, or even LMS without public hearings or customer input. That would make it even more difficult to stop Ameritech or GTE from doing the same. In addition, the deregulation allowed by SB 251 makes small telephone companies a more tempting target for hostile take-overs by out-of-state conglomerates. Fortunately, customers can petition for re-regulation of their telephone company, but only after the damage is done and customers still have the burden to prove that re-regulation would be in the public interest. HB 1083 was pushed by Ameritech and was also sponsored by Lutz, chairman of the House Commerce Committee. HB 1083 would have entitled Ameritech to as little regulation as any company that was alleged by Ameritech to provide an "equivalent" or "similar" service. This would allow Ameritech to effectively deregulate itself and implement profit schemes like LMS or to engage in anti-competitive practices. For example, under HB 1083, Ameritech could claim that cellular telephone service is equivalent or similar to plain basic telephone service (which it has claimed in the past in sworn testimony before state regulators) and therefore should be regulated the same as a cellular company. This would virtually deregulate Ameritech and allow it to charge by the minute for local calls as cellular phone companies do. Ameritech's lobbying efforts distributed over $9,350 to 24 state legislators with over $1000 going to Rep. Lutz. In addition, Ameritech also spent over $1100 to host Rep. Lutz and his wife at the Indianapolis 500 last year. Rep. Lutz subsequently barred consumers from the closed-door meetings that were held among industry insiders to craft changes to HB 1083, and Lutz shepherded his bill through his committee by a vote of 9-1. HB 1083 died without a vote on second reading in large part because of hundreds of calls and letters from senior citizens and consumers that members of the House received. The Indianapolis Star called HB 1083 "an attempted end-run around the public and another illustration of how big money lobbying interests try to influence legislation." However, the paper stated, "[t]he result was a demonstration that citizens can still exercise clout" and win. Home Care Indiana citizens needing home health care and related services were once again turned away by the 1996 General Assembly. The legislature failed to provide additional funding for CHOICE and/or Medicaid home care waivers despite the evidence of overwhelming public support for those programs. As a result, the biennial budget established by the 1995 General Assembly of under $54 million for the CHOICE program will not be increased, and services will only be marginally expanded, if at all, by the Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs). The AAAs are the local administrators of CHOICE and the Medicaid waivers, the publicly funded home care programs in which services are delivered through private providers. "This is a very frustrating situation," said John Cardwell, CAC's Legislative Director and Chairperson of the Indiana Home Care Task Force. The Task Force is an alliance of 63 state and local organizations that sought additional funding for the CHOICE program and the Medicaid home care waivers during the 1996 legislative session. "The state administration released a report earlier this year that showed dramatic savings for consumers and taxpayers when tax dollars are spent on home care instead of institutional care," Cardwell said. "Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming evidence of savings for taxpayers and better services for consumers, neither the Governor nor the General Assembly could be convinced to add more dollars to the CHOICE program's budget before the legislature adjourned in March." As things now stand, the current biennial state budget for the CHOICE program is nearly $6 million short of the funding that was available to the program in the 1993-1995 biennium. This means that as many as 8,000 Hoosiers who need CHOICE and/or Medicaid waiver home care services each day fail to get those services. This also means people are arbitrarily being forced to use more expensive institutional care as home care becomes impossible for too many individuals and their families without assistance from a program such as CHOICE. So what are the prospects for things improving in the future for the thousands of Hoosiers who desperately need help with the financial, medical, physical and psychological burdens of home care? "Those prospects appear good if you have the ability to wait until the 1997 General Assembly," according to Nancy Griffin, Vice-President of the CAC Board of Directors and the Executive Director of the Indianapolis Resource Center for Independent Living. "The Home Care Task Force has plans for an aggressive public education campaign this summer and fall regarding the benefits of CHOICE and other alternatives to long term care. With a new administration and a new General Assembly next year we expect no less than the funding that is needed to serve all Hoosiers who need service alternatives to institutional care," said Griffin. Environment CAC worked to improve several environmental bills during the 1996 Indiana General Assembly. The legislation was not desirable; however, killing them was not possible given the amount of corporate backing. HB 1401 began as a wish-list originating from various corporate interests. The bill passed the General Assembly only after significant changes urged by CAC, Hoosier Environmental Lobby, HEC and others were made in the bill. Provisions that would have otherwise undermined many environmental laws were substantially amended. These provisions included attacking the state's water quality standards, weakening laws addressing asbestos removal and gutting ground water withdrawal limitations. The only detrimental provision to remain in the bill that could be abused by industry makes it difficult for IDEM to exact fines for what are considered "minor violations." These would usually be record-keeping problems. HB 1265 was also introduced with extremely detrimental provisions. As introduced, the bill would have allowed construction of landfills, pollution control equipment, waste water treatment plants, etc. before the approval of a construction permit. The bill was contested vigorously by a coalition of organizations and individuals in the South Bend area as a result of the firm Ed Coat planning to site a steel coating plant near South Bend. The plant represents a significant source of air pollution, and local officials slid through their approval of the plant without adequate public input or support. However, HB 1265 was amended to render the bill less onerous to public processes and to the environment. The overly broad provisions were dropped at the urging of CAC, the South Bend coalition, Hoosier Environmental Lobby, HEC and others. As passed, the bill only allows construction to begin as the result of a modification of existing installed equipment. However, it also mandates IDEM to study the possibility of allowing construction to begin before the necessary permits are obtained by the applicant in other contexts. This must be carefully watched as corporate interests continue to pressure government to reduce public participation and to disrupt due process in decision making regarding waste management facilities and pollution control equipment. Other significant environmental legislation addressed by this year's
General Assembly included: HB 1184: The Extension of the Hazardous Waste Facility Site Authority. This was
a bad bill that was filed at the request of Chemical Waste Management of Fort Wayne. The
bill was sponsored by Rep. Wolkins (R - Warsaw) and Sen. Pat Miller (R - Indianapolis).
Last year, Chem Waste was able to extend the Authority for one year. This year, HB 1184
passed to extended the Authority to the year 2000. The authors of SB 174 completely ignored all the negotiations and time spent in creating Indiana's water standards, where many interests were represented. The bill was defeated on third reading in the Senate. Another attempt to amend an altered version of the bill onto a House bill was thwarted by CAC and the Hoosier Environmental Lobby (Sierra Club, Save the Dunes Council, and Isaak Walton League).
| CAC Home Page
| Table of Contents | Issues Index |
|