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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT