Courts, DCS, Criminal Code Evaluation committees meet this week

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Commission on Courts holds its first meeting of the legislative interim Wednesday, and a common theme is the need for more judges.

Hamilton, Hendricks and Owen counties will ask legislators to grant them either a new magistrate or judge. Hamilton Superior Court seeks one magistrate and Hendricks Circuit and Superior courts seek to jointly appoint two new magistrates. Owen Circuit Court wants to add a new judge as part of the unified Circuit Court, with two judges beginning Jan. 1, 2015, according to the meeting agenda.

The commission will also hold a preliminary discussion on the administrative adjudication system in Indiana. The meeting begins at 1 p.m. in Room 431 of the Statehouse.

The Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee will meet at 1 p.m. Wednesday in the House Chambers. According to the agenda, the committee will receive and review status reports from the DCS ombudsman and will hear public testimony regarding the agency’s child abuse and neglect hotline. The agenda also says “other business” will be discussed.

The Criminal Code Evaluation Commission meets for the first time at 10:30 a.m. Thursday in Room 431. According to the meeting agenda, Randy Koester, of the Indiana Department of Correction, will give a presentation concerning the inmate population of the DOC. G. Roger Jarjoura and Thomas D. Stucky, of Data Analysis Work Group, will give a presentation concerning low-level felony incarceration.

The commission also plans on discussing its goals for the interim.

The meetings will be webcast. Visit and select the video stream for the appropriate room from the drop down list to watch the webcast.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?