Letter: Indiana should be on Central time, not Eastern

To the editor:

As signs of spring are arriving and morning sunlight greets us once more, on Sunday, Hoosiers living in Indiana’s 80 Eastern time counties were plunged back into dark mornings. Not so for Central time Hoosiers, where sunlight will arrive an hour earlier, at 7 a.m.

The adoption of Eastern Daylight Time in 2006 brought a major shift in Eastern’s sunlight schedule, the negative effects of which continue to be recognized.

Senate CR11, calling for an examination of these effects by a special legislative study group, was overwhelmingly approved in committee by a 5-1 vote with eight senators adding their names as co-authors. Two days later, SCR11 was killed in a closed-door meeting of the Republican Caucus that caused SCR11 to be withdrawal from further consideration.

What facts caused the caucus to panic? Who is threatened and why?

Could it be that the benefits of Eastern time to business are actually myths? Or that public concern would force a time zone debate when Hoosiers learn that our teens have the second-highest suicide attempt rate in the United States and that 55,000 students are chronic absentees each year, most due to truancy? Or that millions of dollars being wasted on school delays could be cut in half? Or that July 4 fireworks could return to 9 p.m. and Hoosier children could again grow up seeing stars and lightning bugs?

Central time is Indiana’s right time. It’s a no-brainer!

Susannah H. Dillon, president, Central Time Coalition, Carmel

Send letters to newsroom@bcdemocrat.com by noon Thursday before the date of intended publication (noon Wednesday on holiday weeks). Letters are the opinions of the writer. Letters must be signed by the author and include the writer’s town of residence and a contact number in case of questions. Only one letter every two weeks, per writer, to allow for diversity of voices in the opinions section. Please be considerate of sharing space with other letter-writers and keep your comments concise and to the point. Avoid name-calling, accusations of criminal activity and second- and third-hand statements of “fact.”