Governor's office clarifies intentions for Indiana Historical Society building
A lease agreement between the state and the Indiana Historical Society could be in jeopardy under the latest state budget draft. (Niki Kelly/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
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
San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Congress exists': Bay Area lawmakers deride Trump's decision to bomb Iran as unlawful
Bay Area congressional Democrats condemned the U.S. bombing of nuclear sites in Iran Saturday, saying President Donald Trump overstepped his authority and thrust the country into another risky Middle East conflict. Gov. Gavin Newsom said California's State Threat Assessment Center is monitoring for potential impacts in the state. 'While there are no specific or credible counter threats we are aware of at this time, we urge everyone to stay vigilant and report suspicious activity,' he tweeted. 'Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization,' House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi posted on X. 'I join my colleagues in demanding answers from the Administration on this operation which endangers American lives and risks further escalation and dangerous destabilization of the region.' Rep. Ro Khanna said on X called on congressional leaders to return to Washington to pass a resolution 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war.' After announcing the attack on social media Saturday afternoon, Trump said during a speech at the White House Saturday night that the bombings of the Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan sites had been 'a spectacular military success' that 'totally obliterated' the targets. Other Democratic politicians voiced concern with the escalation of the conflict with Iran, while Republicans backed up Trump's move. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, called Trump's action 'an act of war,' that could lead to 'terrible consequences for our troops, our national security, the Middle East region, and what's left of our global credibility.' Huffman said there were smarter ways to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. 'This is a dark day for the Constitution and for peace,' Huffman said. Khanna and Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Antioch, both pushed members of Congress to return to session to pass Khanna's War Powers Resolution, co-sponsored with Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican. The resolution aims to limit the president's power to commit the United States to armed conflict. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Castro Valley, said Congress 'should have been briefed, voted on and able to set parameters on this action.' 'Donald Trump is not a dictator. And Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. That's why in a democracy, Congress exists,' Swalwell wrote on social media. 'Trump's actions — without pursuing proven congressionally authorized diplomatic efforts — threaten to mire the United States in ANOTHER endless Middle East Conflict.' The San Francisco Bay Area chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations California condemned Trump's 'illegal and reckless' bombing, calling it an 'act of war that prioritizes (Israeli) Prime Minister Netanyahu's agenda over the interests of the American people.' 'This escalation, driven by pressure from an out-of-control Israeli government, risks dragging the U.S. into yet another unjust war in the region,' the organization said in a statement. CAIR said that while Trump previously promised to not start wars, he is now 'fueling dangerous escalation based on lies.' Rep. Sam Liccardo, D-San Jose, was more reserved in his criticism of the action, calling to 'refrain from further military action, and urge all parties back to the negotiating table before there is additional escalation.' Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, also criticized the lack of congressional authorization, but affirmed that 'Israel, the United States, and the world are safer without Iran having nuclear capabilities.' Rep. Lateefah Simon, D-Oakland called Trump's bombing of Iran 'lawless, dangerous, and immoral. This decision was made without the consent of Congress and without regard for the human lives that will be lost. This kind of power, wielded without accountability, puts all of us, our American troops and American families alike, in danger.' Rep. Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, voiced his support for Trump's 'decisive action to eliminate the nuclear capabilities posed by the Iranian regime was a necessary one to prevent a real and catastrophic threat.
San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes." Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional." Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. "Enough.'
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans express concern about lack of Trump trade deals
A number of Republicans are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of tariff deals from President Trump two weeks away from a July 8 deadline that could lead to the reinstating of heavy tariffs on imports from around the world. The administration has announced deals with China and the United Kingdom, and it insists it is working hard on others. Officials have also suggested there could be some wiggle room on the deadline. 'I think they're working very hard on them — I know that for a fact,' said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). 'I think the approach that was taken in the first place creates a lot of complications because it does produce this enormous workload and need for negotiation with an enormous number of countries.' Asked whether she is concerned the administration's negotiators are stretched thin, Collins was blunt. 'Yes,' she said. 'Very.' Trump announced wide-ranging tariffs in April, saying heavy duties would be placed on imports from countries around the world. The announcement contributed to a stock sell-off, and the president quickly shifted his tune, saying the larger tariffs would be put off for 90 days to provide time for negotiations. That has helped markets rebound, though they have not reached their highs from before the tariffs. The short time period and the lack of deals so far are raising nerves on Capitol Hill. 'Members want the president to make quick trade deals because we need clarity and certainty from a business perspective,' said one senior Senate GOP aide. 'Obviously, the president has rightfully lofty goals about economic growth, and that's not going to happen if we have prolonged uncertainty in the marketplace,' the aide added, noting that numerous companies have not only hit the pause button on growth opportunities, but also are losing money and being forced to divert business overseas because of the uncertainty surrounding the Trump tariff agenda. The source also noted there's confusion as to who the point person in the Trump administration is on tariffs. 'It's not only that they're stretched thin, but there's also confusion on who's the lead here,' the aide said, noting that at various points, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have taken the wheel. 'I just don't think any of that's helpful either.' Members want to see more trade deals as soon as possible to provide more certainty for businesses. 'There's definitely a lot of uncertainty,' Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( said. 'Everybody, and I know the administration's working toward this, would like to see … more numerous solid wins.' 'There's just a lot of anxiety in terms of deployment of capital because people are uncertain, and I think some good, solid wins as we move into July are going to allay that,' she continued. 'I think in the beginning that helped. They had a couple of wins and then it's gone a little silent.' The tariffs have fallen in attention as markets rebounded and the focus on Capitol Hill turned to Trump's legislative agenda. The Senate this week will try to move his budget reconciliation package, which would extend and expand the 2017 tax cuts. It hopes to complete work on the bill by July 4, though that deadline is in danger of slipping. The tax bill is also meant to provide certainty to business, so many senators see the two issues as going hand-in-hand. 'This is all about certainty, and we have a lot of uncertainty with [the bill], plus this. It's just compounding [problems for businesses] right now,' the Senate aide said. Bessent stayed at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Canada after Trump left early Monday night. While the Treasury Department didn't announce any concrete progress from Bessent at the G7 on trade, Bessent suggested to lawmakers earlier this month that the July 8 deadline could have some wiggle room for certain countries. 'It is highly likely that for those countries that are negotiating — or trading blocs, in the case of the EU — who are negotiating in good faith, we will roll the date forward to continue the good-faith negotiation,' Bessent said. 'If someone is not negotiating, then we will not.'
