ILNews

Judge: Library did not comply with public notice requirements

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court Tuesday upheld the decision by the state to reject appropriations and levies associated with the Speedway Public Library’s 2011 budget because proper public notice regarding the budget wasn’t given.

The library published notice twice in July 2010 that it would conduct a public hearing on Aug. 4, 2010, regarding the budget and tax rates and it would adopt its budget at a meeting Aug. 17. No members of the public attended either meeting. The library submitted its budget to the Speedway Town Council, which at a regularly scheduled meeting Sept. 13, approved and adopted the budget and tax levies.

But the Department of Local Government Finance refused to approve the 2011 budget because no notice complying with I.C. 6-1.1-17-3 had been provided to the public regarding the Sept. 13 adoption meeting. The DLGF instead reinstituted the appropriations and levies associated with the library’s 2010 budget.

Senior Judge Thomas Fisher affirmed in The Speedway Public Library v. Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, 49T10-1103-TA-22. Fisher rejected the library’s claims that the town council did not adopt the budget at the Sept. 13 meeting but merely reviewed it. He also disagreed with the library’s argument that it didn’t have to give notice of the meeting because it had already complied with and satisfied the notice requirements.

When the town council received the library’s proposed budget and tax rates, it was required to conduct a hearing thereon, Fisher wrote. Notice of that hearing was statutorily required.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT