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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT