ILNews

Court commission OKs new judicial officer requests

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Commission on Courts held its final meeting on Thursday, voting in support of new judicial officers for a handful of Indiana counties and agreeing to send those recommendations on to state lawmakers for consideration.

Members of the interim legislative study committee discussed the state judiciary’s strategic plan on court reform that is gradually being implemented through court rule and legislative action, including new laws that were passed during the most recent Indiana General Assembly session allowing for jurisdictional consolidation and unification in local court systems. They also discussed probation officer salaries, but didn’t take any action on those items.

The committee voted in favor of new judicial officer requests that have come before the panel in years past: converting the county-paid Allen Circuit hearing officer to a state-paid magistrate, and a new magistrate in Bartholomew, Hamilton, and Johnson counties. All of those requests had been approved by the commission a year ago, but failed during the 2010-2011 legislative session because of money concerns.

The committee also supported two new magistrates for Hendricks Superior Court and adding a new judge in Owen County, though for the latter that new judge wouldn’t start until 2015 in order to avoid financial impact on the upcoming budget cycle.

Members also heard and discussed a request from Marion Circuit Court to convert one of the existing four paternity commissioners that are paid by the county to a state-paid magistrate. Commissioner Mark Renner presented the idea on behalf of Circuit Judge Lou Rosenberg, who reported that weighted caseload data shows the court is the busiest in the state and the conversion is needed so that one of the existing judicial officers can take on a supervisory role.

Renner said that the Marion Superior courts as well as other Circuit Courts statewide have the ability to appoint magistrates, but Marion Circuit does not. The conversion is also needed in order to address the perception issues that he said currently exists, with four equal commissioner positions.

This would essentially involve making one of those four commissioners a magistrate, so that they are paid by the state instead of the county. Renner said current commissioners earn $112,000 from the county and the estimated cost of a new magistrate would be $130,000 – meaning the state would be responsible for the difference of about $17,000.

The committee voted in support of the request, with only Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago, objecting. Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, said he saw the need for the new magistrate, while Randolph said he didn’t see what benefit the state would receive from paying for that magistrate – especially since the Circuit judge already has the ability to put one of the existing commissioners in charge without any change from the Legislature.

“You get the perception, and we get the debt,” he told Renner during the meeting.

The commission voted to approve the final report that will be sent to the General Assembly, subject to its completion by the committee’s staff attorney and subsequent review by members.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT