In a lengthy post on “Local Government Reform,” Paul Musgrave explores problems and challenges facing local Indiana government. It concludes:

If Indiana’s government institutions permitted it, a thoroughgoing reform of local government would be in order. The division of local government functions into ninety-two counties is neither necessary nor desirable. Officials whose duties are largely administrative should not be elected, and in many cases their offices could be abolished and replaced by central or regional agencies at lower cost and tremendously greater productivity. But this will not happen, not because of Indiana’s inherent conservatism, but because of the interplay of groups with vested interests in the current system and the barriers to thoroughgoing reform inherent in the 1851 constitution and the division of political power between the executive and legislative branch.

Wednesday’s Editor & Publisher carries a surprising story by Joe Strupp titled, “Swapping Scoops: Every Night the ‘NY Times’ and ‘Wash Post’ Exchange Front Pages for the Following Day.” The article claims that more than 10 years ago the two major newspapers began a formal sharing in which each would send the other their next day’s front pages. The sharing allegedly began as a courtesy between Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and former Times Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld. The sharing between the famous competitors raises an interesting legal question that no one has appeared to ask yet – is this agreement a violation of antitrust laws?

It should be noted that The Newspaper Preservation Act (Title 15, Chapter 43 of the U.S. Code) permits certain Joint Operating Agreements between competiting newspapers when one of the parties is a “failing newspaper.” But that is clearly not the case here and therefore the exception does not apply.

WTWO of Terre Haute reports, “Terre Haute City Hall Won’t Become a Federal Building.” WTHI, also of Terre Haute, offers the following in a report titled, “Terre Haute Federal Court.”

The verdict is in on the federal court for Terre Haute. The announcement came Tuesday afternoon that the district court will be shut down at the federal building in Terre Haute. While the decision came as no great surprise, it will impact the community in some little known ways.

The federal court building in Terre Haute has stood the test of time, but it will soon say goodbye to a long time tenant. After months of review the United States District Court said Tuesday it’s shutting down the court in Terre Haute. The court had become part time in recent years.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has released six new opinions online today:

• In Re: N.W.
• Herschel Allen Barnett, II v. State of Indiana
• Darryl Jones v. State of Indiana
• Ricky Westray, et al v. Delores Wright, et al
• Duane E. Baber v. State of Indiana
• David Paul Clark v. State of Indiana

Meanwhile the 7th CIrcuit Court of Appeals released its opinion in Ssali, Fred v. Gonzales, Alberto R..

The Louisville Courier-Journal reports, “Indiana court suspends Washington prosecutor” and The Indianapolis Star has an article headlined, “Washington County prosecutor suspended.”

Washington County Prosecutor Cynthia L. Winkler was suspended from practicing law for 120 days over a dispute that began when a chief deputy prosecutor tore a page of notes from a defense attorney’s pad during a court hearing.

According to the charges filed with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, Winkler and Chief Deputy Blaine Goode admitted Goode had taken the page of notes during a February 2003 trial without the defense attorney’s knowledge, purportedly to secure a writing sample from the defendant. Goode got a 60-day suspension.

Indiana Barrister posted the opinion in the case yesterday in In the Matter of Cynthia L. Winkler and In the Matter of Blaine Goode.

The Indianapolis Star carries an op-ed today by Andrea Neal titled, “Schools must squeeze in one day for Constitution.” Ms. Neal is referencing the federal holiday established last year to recognize the ratification of the United States Constitution. The law establishing the holiday was created in 2004 with the passage of an amendment by Senator Robert Byrd to the Omnibus Spending Bill of 2004. The act mandates that all publicly-funded educational institutions provide educational programming commemorating the September 17, 1787 signing of the Constitutionon. This Congressional initiative is authorized by Section 111 of Division J of Pub. L. 108-447, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,” Dec. 8, 2004; 118 Stat. 2809, 3344-45 (Section 111). Section 111 requires that Constitution Day be held on September 17. However, when September 17 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, as it does this year, Constitution Day shall be held during the preceding or following week.

Indiana University – Purdue Univiersity in Indianapolis will commemorate the holiday with debates on the gay marriage amendment to Indiana”s constitution and a debate on restricting the rights and freedoms of individuals to assure homeland security. Click here for more information on IUPUI’s programming. Sen. Byrd explains the holiday from his perspective here.

Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti announced Tuesday he has filed 34 charges of negligent homicide against the husband and wife co-owners of a nursing home in St. Bernard Parish near New Orleans where 34 people drowned in flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina. Foti said St. Rita’s Nursing Home had an evacuation plan that was not implemented even though local officials had set aside buses to pick up the residents, and that the proprietors “didn’t follow the standard of care of what a reasonable person would follow.” Twenty patients were eventually evacuated from the facility by being floated out on mattresses across half a mile of floodwater; several died during transfer or afterwards. Salvador A. Mangano and Mable Mangano, who were being sought by the AG’s office last week, turned themselves in to authorities in Baton Rouge prior to announcement of the charges. AP has more. From New Orleans, the Times-Picayune has local coverage.

The Indiana Supreme Court released two new opinions today. In Tommy R. Pruitt v. State of Indiana Justice Boehm delivered the opinion of the Court:

Tommy Pruitt was charged with the murder of Deputy Daniel Starnes of the Morgan County Sheriff’s Department. The prosecutor sought the death penalty based on the fact that the victim was a law enforcement officer killed in the course of his duties. Pruitt sought to have the death penalty charge dismissed on the ground that he is mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for the death penalty. The trial court denied the motion, and a jury subsequently convicted Pruitt and recommended death. The trial court imposed that sentence. We conclude that the trial court’s finding that Pruitt is not mentally retarded is supported by the evidence. We also hold that, with one exception, the Indiana statutory provisions governing determination of mental retardation are consistent with the Eighth Amendment as explained in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). We affirm Pruitt’s conviction and sentence.

The second opinion in In the Matter of Cynthia L. Winkler and In the Matter of Blaine Goode was delivered per curiam. Marcia Oddi has more on that decision. Meanwhile the Indiana Court of Appeals released opinions in cases:

• Frank Scott, et al v. Dept. of Waterworks of Indianapolis
• In. Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Lincoln Utilities, Inc., and Indiana Water Service, Inc.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has posted two new opinions online today:

• Trustmark v. Gen’l and Cologne (civil)
• Lozano, David v. Frank, Matthew (prisoner appeal)

Judge Ann Claire Williams begins the Trustmark decision with this:

Surely, if there is any moral to this story, it is to “get it in writing.” It is astounding in this day and age to find it necessary to repeat this admonition, but no less so than to find a sophisticated party willing to leverage an agreement involving multiple years and millions of dollars solely on the enforceability of a simple handshake. Yet that is precisely what has happened in this case.

An FDA advisory panel has recommended approval of the diabetes drug Pargluva, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb, a company with a significant presence in southern Indiana. On Thursday, another advisory panel with some of the same members voted to recommend another diabetes treatment, Exubera, developed by Pfizer with Sanofi-Aventis and Nektar Therapeutics. The panel in Silver Spring, MD, decided that Pargluva’s benefits outweighed its potentially serious heart risks, even though no cardiologist was present for the vote, according to the N.Y. Times. One of the panelists who is a cardiologist skipped the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest; he conducted research on PPAR-agonists, the class of drugs being debated. The article says that “the absence of the only heart doctor on the Pargluva advisory panel is but one illustration of how conflicts of interest can affect the deliberations of F.D.A. panels, in which outside committees help the agency decide whether to approve new drugs.”

But an analysis by the Center for Science in the Public Interest says both panels raised conflict-of-interest issues. According to Director Merrill Goozner, “the public’s faith in the integrity of the process is undermined when one-third of an advisory committee’s membership has significant financial ties to the company seeking the product’s approval.” The center reports that three of the Exubera committee’s nine members had previously consulted or spoken for Pfizer or Nektar Therapeutics. One member, acting as chairman, holds stock in Pfizer and voted against Exubera. Another panel member participated but did not vote as a result of his industry ties.

Congress is currently addressing the issue of potential conflicts of interest by drug reviewers. The House has adopted legislation (HR 2744) that would bar scientists with drug industry ties from participating in FDA panels. However, Dr. Plutzky, the absent cardiologist panelists of the advisory committee, argues that the appearance of conflicts of interest is a complex issue due to the fact that the scientists most knowledgeable about drugs being reviewed are often those who have received research grants from drug companies: “Ultimately, the FDA needs to have a source of valid and rigorous information.”