Public Access Handbooks

Request the free updated Handbooks on Indiana's Public Access Laws for your newsroom. CLICK HERE for information.

Q&A: Sheriff’s sale notices in two different papers?

From The Benton Review (Fowler) and The News and Review (Monon):

Q: Can the required publication of notice of a sheriff’s sale (mortgage foreclosure), which must run three times, be split up? Can it run two weeks in one publication and then run one week in another publication within the same county on consecutive weeks? Read more »

Q&A: Charter school ballots

From a charter school director:

Q: I am a director on the board of our local charter school. Our board president believes that, because our ballots will be distributed to members, those ballots cannot be cast in secret based on IC 5-14-1.5-3 (the Open Door Law provision prohibiting secret ballots). Our legal counsel agrees with him.

I think he’s mistaken because I don’t believe our membership is a governing body. The qualifications for membership are only that one has a student at our school, be an employee of the school, or serve on its board. Other than the board members, none of those positions are elected. Can you help me? Read more »

Reporter works education beat

Recent Indiana Wes­leyan University graduate Eric Stoff, 22, has joined the Peru Tribune staff.

Stoff will take over the education and general assignment beats with the Tribune.

He graduated with a degree in convergent journalism and a minor in music.

2013 General Assembly wrap-up

The 2013 General Assembly was successful for HSPA based on what was not passed by the state’s legislators.

The “ag gag” bill, which would have been challenged as an infringement on the First Amendment, died in the waning hours of the last day of the session. Four bills attacking the concept of publication of public notices either died or had the offending language removed from the bill. (I’ll discuss them in the Public Notice section of this wrap-up.)

S.B. 373, authored by Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, originally would have made the dissemination of photos/videos of agricultural, manufacturing or mining operations without the owner’s permission a crime.

The threshold for whether the crime occurred was if the intent was to annoy, defame, harass or harm the business owner. Read more »