Debate over historic Brown County courthouse continues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At one of the state’s most-visited tourist crossroads stands a courthouse at a crossroads of its own.

Nestled in the rugged, rolling hills of southern Indiana, the rustic Brown County courthouse in Nashville feels more at home in the 19th century than the 21st, and plenty of folks say that suits them fine. But officials worry.

They say the building doesn’t comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is no security to speak of, and space for jurors, lawyers and clients isn’t sufficient. And the clerk’s office doesn’t even have enough space for files.

brown-courthouse-rendering-2-15col.jpg An architect’s rendering of the Brown County courthouse in Nashville shows the original structure – roughly the front third – with a proposed $6.5 million expansion that residents overwhelmingly rejected last year. Community discussions now are weighing various alternatives. (Photo submitted)

“We’re not addressing those things,” Brown County Commissioner John Kennard said. “We have a horrendous lack of room. It’s an 1870s building. … We’ve got people that are working in an old vault.”

Last September, about 200 people signed a petition for the county to borrow nearly $6.5 million to expand the historic two-story brick structure and address a laundry list of needs. Taxpayers and registered voters revolted, gathering nearly eight times as many signatures in opposition, snuffing the project for at least a year.

“We got killed,” Kennard said. “A lot of issues in Brown County get emotionally charged.”

That was the case with the courthouse initiative. He believes many people felt shut out of a process that began with a courthouse energy audit and evolved into an out-of-town architect’s detailed proposal for a renovation and expansion to address needs identified by courthouse users.

Local leaders got the message after the remonstrance. Since September, groups have held numerous public community conversations to talk about those needs and possible solutions, leaving all options on the table. Kennard wishes those kinds of discussions had taken place earlier.

“It is a fascinating matrix of issues – tradition, location, obviously, and how to preserve the traditional and meet the modern-day needs,” said William C. Lloyd, a Bloomington attorney who lives in Brown County.

Lloyd serves as volunteer counsel for the Brown County Community Foundation which, with the local League of Women Voters, has sponsored numerous meetings inviting public participation to talk about and study various options for the courthouse and how to meet needs.

Foundation CEO Larry Pejeau took the helm shortly after the courthouse expansion was shot down by voters, but he’s lived in Nashville since the 1970s.

“It’s a pretty interesting county,” he said. “We have some old families here that had businesses in Nashville for some time and feel the quaintness of Nashville is important and say, ‘Leave it the way it is.’”

Architectural renderings of a two-story addition to the old courthouse struck some nerves, even though pains had been taken to maintain the historic structure and ensure new construction reflected its style.

“It was very polarized a year ago,” Pejeau said. “People are at least talking now.”

Pejeau said there are voices advocating for construction of a new courthouse near the sheriff’s department on State Road 46 east of State Road 135, away from the commercial center of Nashville, or retrofitting an inn that is for sale. Those options would allow for repurposing the existing courthouse, which is the center of a historic square that also includes a log jail and the Brown County Historical Society’s Pioneer Village.

Others would have none of that. They favor slight modifications to the current courthouse to comply with the ADA and bolstering security while finding needed space elsewhere. “Some people just say, ‘No, the courthouse has been good for 100 years, do what you need to do and keep it here in town,’” Pejeau explained.

Subgroups have formed to explore various options, and they’ve reported back with their findings from time to time. That’s given people an opportunity to more closely gain perspective about what the needs are and help determine the best way forward.

Brown Circuit Judge Judith Stewart is happy to be part of the discussions but, perhaps judiciously, she’s not taking sides. “I think it’s going to be up to the public, the commissioners and the council,” she said.

Various plans have pros and cons, Stewart said, “and I have no position on those. … I’m just trying to explain where I think some of the needs are.”

Stewart said the courthouse does need better security – not just for the public but also a secured entrance for people in custody whom deputies transport to and from jail. The jury room is too small, and facilities are such that sometimes she and jurors come into contact outside the courtroom.

“It’s tough for folks who don’t work in the environment every day to see,” she said.

Kennard has asked residents to see for themselves what the needs are, but few are willing. But it’s only a matter of time, he said, before the county’s hand may be forced. “All it would take is somebody to walk in there and file (an ADA) complaint, and you’re going to have to address it.

“We need to decide what we’re going to do, and where we’re going to do it,” he said, but he’s not optimistic about a consensus developing in spite of efforts to draw the community together. “We continue to stir the pot. I’d say it’s going to be a long time before there’s a decision.”

But Pejeau is optimistic. He expects meetings regarding the courthouse will continue to take place. “I think what people like,” he said, “is this is just a really good process.

“Nobody doubts there are ADA issues and security issues that need addressed,” he said. “People are very aware of that. … I think we’re slowly coming to some consensus as to what’s best for the community.”

Pejeau credits Kennard and other local leaders for engaging in the community discussions in a county with a unique set of circumstances. Being a bucolic tourist destination isn’t always easy.

“Brown County has a brand, and we have an infrastructure you can’t build. It’s a beautiful place to live, and that’s why people want to live here,” he said.

But that also presents some challenges. With just 15,000 residents, the population is among the state’s oldest and, at the same time, healthiest, Pejeau said. An influx of retirees attracted by the desirable environment has raised the cost of property and in some cases priced out younger families.

The vast Brown County State Park and state forest land also puts about half of all property in the county off the tax rolls, leaving fewer landowners to cover the bills for government services.

Pejeau noted there is no industry of any significant size in the county and no big-box stores, either of which normally would pay a greater share of taxes. At the same time, that’s part of the lure – “a blessing,” Pejeau said of the local mind-set.

And just as residents last year came together with a resounding “No” to a proposal they didn’t agree with, Pejeau said the response to that also says something about the county.

“For the most part, it’s been a very healthy conversation in the community, I think.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues