Budget-busting judges

August 29, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins, who attended the Aug. 28 Commission on Courts meeting:

Financial woes between courts and county officials can be found statewide, even nationally, in these tough economic times. Chances are it’s going to get worse.

That’s why a former Montgomery County official spoke to the Commission on Courts this week about judicial mandates. He was a county councilor when the judges there issued a mandate hiking the salaries of court employees; the case was ultimately decided by the Indiana Supreme Court. In the case In Re: Order for Mandate of Funds, Montgomery County Council. V. Hon. Thomas K. Milligan, et al., justices struck middle ground by encouraging a compromise between the county judges and officials.

Before the commission Thursday, Republican Sen. Phil Boots - who was in county government during the Montgomery mandate - noted how state lawmakers haven’t written a law or given sole power to county councils and that judges are crossing the separation of powers line by issuing mandates on money out of their control.

“If this continues…. judges could be budget-busters by mandating unreasonable amounts of money,” he said, noting that property tax changes stemming from recently adopted law will add extra burden to county coffers and likely result in more mandates.

Other county officials said they were skeptical about how special judges and ultimately appellate judges can fairly decide these mandate issues involving fellow judges. They also mentioned how attorneys are often reluctant to take on these mandating judges for of fear of retaliation when they later have to appear before those jurists. One Hendricks County official said it seems like counties are playing with a stacked deck.

Boots’ suggestion: either lawmakers should take away judges’ mandate powers, or courts should become state-governed so the Indiana Attorney General’s Office can represent any jurists in mandate actions that go to court. Recent legislation to make that happen has failed.

Chief Justice Randall Shepard weighed in, pointing out that Indiana courts have the thought that T.R. 60.5 “is printed on paper, not carved in stone.” It’s meant to create an environment where courts and counties can talk out and work through their issues. But the chief justice also supports a move to change the state’s court structure, such as having the state take over courts. That’s a topic that could be gaining more steam in coming months and might be brought up during the next legislative session.

In the meantime, the Indiana Judges Association and Indiana Association of Cities and Towns have been talking the past year about revising the mandate rule. A six-person committee has met once and hopes to meet again soon. Seems like there’s support from many angles, but the home rule and county control has not fully surfaced yet and will likely make the debate lively.

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
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you? http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/state-takes-legal-action-to-seize-135k-from-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake

  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: https://web0.memphis.edu/law/currentstudents/mentalhealthjournal/1-2-203-Bird.pdf 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?