Former Marion Superior court administrator takes UIndy post

Dave Stafford
July 31, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The former administrator of Marion Superior Courts has taken a key position directing the growth of the University of Indianapolis.

Andrea Newsom resigned as court administrator recently to accept the position of director of facility and space planning at the university that in June broke ground on the UIndy Health Pavilion, the first of several projects in a $50 million capital improvement campaign.

Newsom, who served about a year and a half as court administrator, previously served as corporate counsel for the city of Indianapolis. There, she represented the Department of Public Works as the university embarked on the reconstruction of Hanna Avenue, the main thoroughfare through the south side campus.

In her new capacity, Newsom said she will report to university president Robert Manuel and work with university and neighborhood stakeholders to help guide the five-year improvement campaign.

As court administrator, Newsom worked for 36 elected Marion Superior judges and administered nonjudicial functions of the court system staffed by more than 700 full-time employees. Her new job is a bit of departure from her legal career in public service that also included a stint as a deputy prosecutor.

“I consider it to be a pleasure and a privilege to work with the courts,” Newsom said. “I’m excited for the opportunities that lie ahead at the university.”

UIndy spokesman Scott Hall said the Health Pavilion is a $28 million, four-story, 160,000-square foot building that will rise at Hanna and State avenues. It will house the university’s health-related disciplines. Hall said the university has gained a national reputation in nursing and other fields of study and produces more physical therapists, occupational therapists and clinical psychologists than any school in the state.

Newsom also will direct renovation of other facilities under the $50 million plan, including Martin Hall, which currently houses the College of Health Sciences, Krannert Library and other facilities. Hall said the university also hopes to foster commercial development in cooperation with neighborhood groups.  

Marion Superior Executive Committee chairman Judge David Certo said the committee expects to move quickly to fill a position he said was critical to court operations. “It would be best for me and my family if it was today,” he quipped.

The application period closed July 26 and did not specify a salary. According to public records, Newsom’s salary was $83,076.

“We’re deeply grateful for Andrea’s public service,” Certo said.



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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?