Indiana 2025 Regular Session

Indiana House Bill HB1197

Introduced
1/8/25  
Refer
1/8/25  
Report Pass
1/21/25  
Engrossed
1/29/25  
Refer
2/18/25  
Report Pass
3/31/25  
Enrolled
4/16/25  
Passed
5/1/25  
Chaptered
5/1/25  

Caption

Election matters.

Impact

The implementation of HB 1197 is intended to enhance accountability for county officers, ensuring they are held to certain standards regarding their availability and office presence. By formalizing the procedure for removal, including the public hearing requirement, the bill aims to promote transparency and due process in any actions taken against county officers. This may have implications for local governance, as it allows for community input before such significant actions are taken.

Summary

House Bill 1197 seeks to amend various sections of the Indiana Code concerning elections, specifically focusing on the processes for the removal of county officers. The bill establishes specific criteria and prerequisites for petitioning to remove a county officer from office, which includes the requirement of a public hearing by the county executive. Additionally, it outlines the conditions under which a county officer may be found in violation of their duties, such as failing to be physically present at their office or neglecting to perform official duties effectively.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1197 appears to be generally positive among proponents who view it as a necessary step for ensuring integrity and accountability within local government. However, there may be some concerns about the additional bureaucratic processes involved, which could potentially delay timely actions in cases of misconduct. This duality reflects a balance between ensuring proper governance while also respecting the rights and processes governing local officials.

Contention

One notable point of contention surrounding the bill is the added procedural requirements for removing county officers. Some may argue that these requirements could hinder prompt actions needed to address significant issues with an officer's performance. Critics might argue that the necessity for public hearings and explicit resolutions could complicate and slow the removal process, thereby allowing misconduct to persist longer than it should. Thus, while the bill promotes accountability, it raises questions about efficiency within the system.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

AZ SB1378

Technical correction; national guard

MN SF1813

Brady-Giglio lists prosecuting agencies guidelines and process provision

AZ SB1060

Internal investigations; notice; confidentiality

NJ S2623

Requires law enforcement agencies to adopt pregnancy policy for law enforcement officers.

NJ A3736

Requires law enforcement agencies to adopt pregnancy policy for law enforcement officers.

NJ S2116

Requires law enforcement agencies to adopt pregnancy policy for law enforcement officers.

NJ A2498

Requires law enforcement agencies to adopt pregnancy policy for law enforcement officers.

AZ SB1660

Law enforcement officers; investigations; representative