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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT