Governor's office clarifies intentions for Indiana Historical Society building
Despite language in the proposed state budget that could put the Indiana Historical Society (IHS) headquarters in jeopardy, Gov. Mike Braun's office now maintains the intention is not to force the nonprofit to give up its building.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported last week that provisions in the state's draft spending plan could leave the historical society in a bind.
In Braun's proposed spending plan — and the House-approved version — Republican budget writers penned language that appear to terminate the state's contract with the Indianapolis-based institution.
State's proposed budget could cost Indiana Historical Society its building
The historical society owns the downtown Indianapolis building where its headquarters, museum and archives are housed. It does, not however, own the land on which the building sits.
The contract in question — in tandem with a provision in state code — allows IHS to pay $1 per year to lease that land from the state, and in return, Indiana's Department of Administration (IDOA) handles various operational maintenance costs.
In current form, the state budget would repeal that existing code in Indiana law. Another section cobbled into the budget pulls language directly from the cancellation clause of the IHS contract.
The cancellation provision makes clear that '[i]f the Director of the State Budget Agency makes a written determination that funds are not appropriated or otherwise available to support continuation of this Lease, the Lease shall be canceled.'
Exact wordage appears in the budget: 'The director of the budget agency shall make a written determination that funds are not appropriated or otherwise available to support continuation of the performance of any contract or lease entered into under IC 4-13-12.1-8 (before its repeal).'
According to the contract, in the event of a canceled lease, IHS can either purchase the land or sell its building to the state.
A joint statement said 'The Indiana Historical Society and the Braun Administration are cooperatively working toward an agreeable solution.'
But Braun's office said he does not intend to completely void the agreement, and emphasized that 'this process was always intended to be collaborative.'
His team maintained the repeal would eliminate existing contract requirements and open the door for a new or renegotiated IHS contract. That could ultimately provide fewer maintenance services at the state's expense.
Even so, there is no proposed language in budgets penned by either Braun or House Republicans to explicitly trigger contract renegotiation with IHS.
Indiana's next budget is now in the hands of Senate Republicans. Both chambers have until the end of April to finalize the plan.
The House Republican caucus deferred questions about the IHS budget provisions to the governor's office. Senate Republicans have yet to take up the two-year spending plan.
The 2007 lease agreement between IHS and the state was intended to last until 2098. A second contract signed in April 2009 — meant to last through March 2039 — details an additional agreement around the parking lot located adjacent to the IHS building.
The last state budget, approved in 2023, appropriated close to $1 million per year to maintain the building, its exterior and the surrounding site. A legislative fiscal analysis estimated that repeal of the IHS lease would reduce state expenditures by roughly $2.3 million over the biennium.
One section of the contract says that 'upon the expiration or sooner termination of this lease, (IHS) shall surrender to (the state)' the land in question.
The cancellation provision, however, further states that IHS 'shall have the sole and exclusive option to purchase' the land if the agreement is terminated. In such an instance, the state and IHS must each obtain an appraisal of the land before agreeing on a purchase price.
If IHS did go through with a purchase, it would still have to notify the state before selling the property to a third party, however. The nonprofit would then have to provide the state an opportunity to purchase the land back 'at the same price' paid to the state, adjusted for inflation.
It's not clear in the contract what would happen if a deal can't be reached.
A separate provision in state law also says 'after completion of construction and negotiation of a lease under section 8 of this chapter, the society shall convey title to the building to the state.' Notably, the next state budget does not propose a repeal of that language.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats across US rip Texas House passage of new congressional lines
Democratic leaders from coast-to-coast ripped Texas Republicans on Wednesday for approving a new Congressional map that gives the GOP an opportunity to gain five additional House seats in next year's midterm elections. The map passed along party lines in an 88-52 vote. State senators are expected to consider the measure on Thursday for final approval before it heads to Gov. Greg Abbott's (R) desk. 'Tonight, Texas Republicans delivered Donald Trump the rigged map he demanded,' New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said, after the measure passed. 'Trump, Greg Abbott and their allies know they can't win on their record of stripping health care, tanking the economy and making families pay more with less.' 'This is a last gasp of a desperate party clinging to power,' she added. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) echoed her disdain, saying the mid-decade redistricting effort signaled a sign of weakness for Republicans and an attempt to regain strength ahead of the midterms. 'You only try changing the rules if you think you're losing — and that's exactly what Texas Republicans are attempting to do,' Newsom shared in a post on social platform X. 'We want to give Californians the power this November to counter redistricting power grabs and stand for independently drawn maps in every state,' he added. In a subsequent video message, Newsom offered the Texas GOP an 'off-ramp.' 'If they don't move. If Republicans stand back — they have an off ramp — this initiative, our efforts, don't go forward. We're doing this only in response to what he's doing,' he said. 'So if he doesn't want us to move forward, he has some capacity to influence that.' The governor added later, 'we should let voters choose their representatives.' The criticism comes after Texas Democrats, who fled the state to delay the vote, returned home following threats of arrest or involvement by the FBI, and as the state lawmakers racked up fines. Newsom and Hochul have both vowed to fight Texas's effort with similar proposals to restructure district lines in their respective states. Democrats in California released a proposed new map last week to offset the five seats the Lone Star State is poised to gain and has called for a special session in November to vote on the measure. Golden State Republicans pushed back on the effort, filing a petition to the state Supreme Court to halt the move, though their petition was rejected. Newsom has pressed his Democratic counterparts in New York and Illinois to move quickly on their redistricting efforts. 'In New York, we'll confront Trump's legal insurrection head on,' Hochul said Wednesday. 'We'll meet him on the same field and beat him at his own game.' Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff (D) also weighed in on the effort, lauding his counterparts for creating plans to ensure what he called an equal balance of power. 'Democrats need to strike back,' Ossoff said during an appearance on MSNBC's 'The Weeknight.' 'We have no time or luxury for high-minded hesitation, because Trump and MAGA are going to do everything within their power to hold on and to lock in one party rule in America,' he continued. 'That's the reality that we face.'
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Colorado Dems split on AI regulations ahead of special session
In a special legislative session that starts today, Colorado lawmakers are poised to answer one of the thorniest questions about artificial intelligence: Who's liable when it goes wrong? Why it matters: Big Tech, including Amazon and Meta, and policymakers in other states are closely watching to see where Colorado sets the bar for its first-in-the-nation AI regulations. Catch up quick: The guardrails put into law in 2024 are set to take effect next February. They would prohibit discrimination by algorithms in high-risk areas — such as health care, education, employment, housing, insurance and finance — and require greater transparency when used. Yes, but: Colorado Gov. Jared Polis reluctantly signed the bill, but now he is joining tech and finance industry executives in expressing concern that the regulations could hamper innovation. The latest: The Democratic legislative majority at the Capitol is split on how to best hold AI creators and companies using the technology accountable, and in a rare scenario, plans to present rival bills. Zoom in: The original bill's sponsors drafted legislation that simplifies current rules, while still requiring consumer disclosures and holding developers and companies accountable. "The bill simply says that if technology is used to make major decisions about your life, you should know about it," said Rep. Jennifer Bacon (D-Denver) at a Wednesday rally in support of the legislation. A competing bill, led by moderate Democrats, is drawing bipartisan support. It would allow the state attorney general to pursue litigation against AI creators and deployers under the state's existing consumer protection laws, but limit individual lawsuits. Bill sponsor Rep. William Lindstedt (D-Broomfield) told the Denver Post the bill tries to "find a middle ground that protects consumers and also protects our innovative economy here in Colorado." Between the lines: It's unclear where Polis stands on the legislation. In a recent interview, he told Axios Denver he wants "to prevent discrimination from any source [including AI]… but make sure that this is a law that works for consumers and for our state." The other side: Two Republican bills also are set for introduction during the special session. One would repeal the original law, while the other would narrow the regulations to AI systems that make employment or public safety decisions. Neither is expected to advance.
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Maybe Newsom's redistricting effort is for his own political gain. So what?
To the editor: I'm sure that I could not be a more generic or less important voice or voter. And count me in for being uninformed in many ways, but I can't help but say something. Mark Z. Barabak's column struck me as a know-it-all-type criticism ('Power grab may energize Newsom and Democrats. But it won't fix their bigger problem,' Aug. 20). I own a real estate company in Washington, D.C. Many of the liberal voices here are my clients or friends. I care. And living here at the moment is extremely challenging for all the reasons you already know about. In my little lane, I can't help but see that we are all struggling for anything we can do. Gov. Gavin Newsom at least brought something to the table, an action that might matter. Something we can support that might make a difference. And Barabak paints Newsom's efforts as purely for his own political gain. So what if it is? Does Barabak have another suggestion? What is it? If all we can do is snivel at one another about political philosophy while our democracy is being undone, then we're cooked. Judy Cranford, Washington, D.C. .. To the editor: If anyone thinks Newsom's redistricting effort is anything but a boost for another presidential campaign, I have a bridge to sell you. We don't need more Democratic districts in this state — we need balance. I'm not a MAGA believer or voter. I just know when one party dominates, it's not good. It boggles my brain to think about what Newsom is going to talk about if/when he hits the national stage. He and his buddies in Sacramento have caused so many problems that if I named them all, you would have to give me the whole page. Residents of states that have their act together would laugh him off the stage. Jan Slater, Irvine .. To the editor: It may be true, as Babarak opines, that Newsom is motivated by political ambitions in proposing the special November 'gerrymandering' election. But there is much more at stake here and Barabak's ire points in the wrong direction. Voters in other states who see our democracy slipping away don't care about motivation. Republican shenanigans in Ohio show this. Although we have overwhelmingly passed anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendments, Ohio remains one of the most gerrymandered states. Our Republican legislative supermajority has simply thumbed their noses at the voters' will. For our democracy to survive, no one can be so provincial as to ignore what is happening in other states. The way to confront President Trump's anti-democratic plan is to fight fire with fire. Texas voters have no opportunity to voice their will on gerrymandering. Under Newsom's proposal, California voters will. The message you all send may be one that helps preserve our democracy. Stephen Gladstone, Shaker Heights, Ohio .. To the editor: So, Barabak doesn't want to use the 'fight fire with fire' analogy? How about 'if we get punched in the face, we punch back'? Barabak fails to recognize that we need to be thinking of the short term, because that is when the fight for our democracy is. We cannot afford to wait and play by the rules when all the norms are being thrown out by fascists. Fighting back might hurt at times, but if we don't engage in this fistfight, it's lights out. I don't support Newsom for president (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be a better candidate), but he hasn't decided to lay down and get knocked out. Let's punch back. Chase Brown, Rancho Santa Margarita
