Kruse Report: The process: How good ideas keep bouncing back

One thing I’ve learned in my years here at the Indiana General Assembly is that good ideas are like boomerangs. They may run into a roadblock now and then, but if they’re truly good, they will keep coming back. Such is the case with the issue of Sudan divestment.

Some may have thought that issue was dead after I decided not to give the bill a hearing in the Senate’s Pensions and Labor Committee. Some may have even misinterpreted my actions as committee chair, thinking I was opposed to the core issue of requiring state pension fund managers to stop investing in companies that do business with a Sudanese government where at least 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2 million displaced.

 Nothing could be further from the truth. The reason I didn’t let this bill proceed was the way it could have been altered from its original form. Suddenly, it had potential amendments that could have been attached to it -- amendments I believed would have made it difficult to garner full support, thus jeopardizing its chances of passage.

 It’s all part of this legislative process, where bills sometimes end up with amendments so drastic, legislation barely resembles what it was intended to be. The process can be confusing and confounding, yet good ideas thrive in it, because there’s sometimes a second or third chance to get something passed.

Now, an idea some may have thought dead because of procedures problems or changes may have new life later in the legislative process.

I have worked with State Rep. Dave Crooks (D-Washington) to have the original Darfur language attached as an amendment to House Bill 1067. That bill dealing with pension issues has already passed by a big margin in the House and Senate. After the House dissents on the bill, it will have to go to a conference committee, but I believe it will have an excellent chance at that stage. I would contend adding the Darfur language -- which deals with pension issues -- is connected to House Bill 1067 as much as the amendments were to the original Darfur divestment bill.

Some might think our legislative process strange when a bill that was rejected once can suddenly reappear on the back of another. But I think this represents the true strength in our form of government. After this bill passed in flying colors in the House, it received greater scrutiny by Senate members. After it was ultimately taken off the table, the parties that supported it met and actually came up with a better proposal than the original bill that passed the House.

 Bills that bounce back don’t do so without having lots of merit -- and legislators engaging in lots of conversation and compromise. I’ve always viewed this as a healthy exercise in a representative democracy. We shouldn’t do anything in the Statehouse without a lot of thought -- and the process implores us over and over again to keep thinking, keep debating and to keep refining good ideas until they are better ideas.

 So the Darfur issue will likely be revived in a conference committee -- in a better form than it started. If it is successful -- and I believe it will be -- two strong messages will be sent. First and foremost, that the state of Indiana wants no part of a Sudanese government that treats its people this way. Secondly, that the Indiana legislative process is healthier than ever, fostered by an environment where truly good ideas can bounce back better than ever.