ILNews

Commission on Courts ponders money issues

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Money matters took up the most time for an interim legislative committee this morning, as members considered issues delving into the balance between fiscal responsibility and judicial efficiency.

During a three-hour hearing that will likely be its final one of the year, the Commission on Courts considered several topics that included the implementation of a statewide case management system, requests for new judicial officers, and whether the Department of Child Services should have been given more authority by a special session budget provision over juvenile out-of-state placements.

Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, served as acting chair in the absence of Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond. After a morning of testimony and discussion, members decided to recommend the following: that the Automated Record Keeping Fee be increased by $3, as recommended by the commission last year but not adopted by the General Assembly; that legislation be authored to repeal a 2009 special session budget provision giving the DCS more control in deciding whether juveniles should be placed outside of Indiana; that judicial officers be converted in Allen and Marion county courts; and that a new family court be established in Bartholomew County.

Taking up an issue it had approved in 2008, the commission heard testimony from Justice Frank Sullivan about increasing the Automated Record Keeping Fee from $7 to $10, in order to pay for the Supreme Court's Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) effort to implement a statewide case management system called Odyssey. The implementation, which was rolled out in trial courts beginning in late 2007, has been put in place in 13 counties and has drawn concerns from some lawmakers and officials at the local level. Commission members approved an identical hike last year, but despite legislative approval it didn't get passed into law and changes in a special session budget resulted in an estimated $700,000 decrease in funding for the project. Members voted 9-1 in favor of the recommendation, with Johnson County Clerk Jill Jackson opposing it.

The commission voted 9-0 in favor of converting an Allen Circuit hearing officer to a magistrate role, which would shift some of the federally paid salary to the state level. Allen Circuit Judge Tom Felts abstained from the vote, and the voting members stipulated that the approval be subject to available funding. Judges from the Marion Superior Court requested that all of its commissioners be converted to magistrates, and that the switch be paid for using a $35 fee already charged in traffic citation cases and paid to the state. Commission members voted unanimously in favor of it. The commission voted unanimously in favor of Bartholomew Circuit Judge Stephen Heimann's request for an additional Superior Court judge for a new family court, which would take on the duties of a current commissioner hearing Title IV D cases and partially paid for by the federal government.

Taking up an issue it had discussed during its first October meeting, the commission voted for lawmakers to repeal a provision enacted during its special session budget, H.E.A. 1001, which gave the DCS additional say instead of juvenile judges about out-of-state placements. Eight members voted in favor of the repeal, Rep. Kathy Richardson, R-Noblesville, voted against it, and Michael Kruk abstained.

Commission members voted unanimously on an issue raised by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who requested that Indiana's magistrates be able to serve as senior judges. That isn't currently done, but the chief justice and the Indiana Judges Association are proposing it as a way to help keep up with growing trial court caseloads, specifically because the number of filings hit 2 million for the first time ever last year.

The commission also decided to recommend legislation establishing a generic problem-solving court structure for the state, which would involve various types of courts and give oversight to the Indiana Judicial Conference in setting standards and operational procedures. Commission members also took written testimony but didn't vote on the issue of statute of limitation for asbestos-related litigation. Commission chair Larson has the final decision on whether another hearing will be held Oct. 27, according to Bray, and that decision hasn't yet been made.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT