ILNews

Editorial: Ted Boehm not headed toward retirement

Editorial Indiana Lawyer
October 27, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

This was one retirement ceremony we were not looking forward to attending, fearing that the gentleman stepping away from the bench would slip away from public life and live quietly with his family, indulging his interests outside the law, while working as a mediator at Van Winkle Baten Rimstidt and senior judging for the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Family time and sports also may be on the agenda, but we were thrilled when former justice Ted Boehm said during his retirement ceremony at the end of last month: “I do not intend to vanish from the public arena” and then proceeded to explain just exactly what he wanted to give a little of his newfound time and attention to.

“Too often preservation of individual privilege or defense of party power is elevated over the greater public good in the actions and sometimes even in the stated positions of officials or office seekers. We can no longer afford tolerating remnants of the spoils system as the necessary cost of our government,” he said.

We couldn’t agree more.

He listed some of the problems we face in our current economic state: public safety, education, infrastructure, public transportation, libraries and parks. “Yet we are unable to implement programs that can provide better service at less cost. Many others have noted the often contentious mode of debate on issues of critical importance to our city, state and nation. This is more than distasteful. It is costing us money and degrading the quality of services we can and should expect from government at all levels and in all three branches.”

That was music to our ears.

Then he mentioned the analysis of county and township government, which sometimes seems to have been etched into granite instead of mere concrete, and the findings of the 2007 Kernan-Shepard report. He pointed out the deplorable inefficiencies of our local governments, and then got to the whopper as far as we were concerned.

“A second example comes from the judicial branch, where in some parts of the state we have systems of judicial selection that work well, but in Marion County, for example, we have a scheme that purports to place the selection in the hands of the voters, but in practical effect leaves it under the control of a few party officials. There are several pernicious results, not the least of which is the judges become a vehicle for raising funds for political parties. Despite widespread derision, even ridicule of this system, few in government have the will to challenge it.”

We suspect we just celebrated the retirement of someone who has the will to not only challenge it, but to change it. He may need a hammer or a wrench to do it, but if anyone can bring about this kind of change, we’re certain he can.

Indianapolis is a success as an amateur sports hub owing at least in part to Boehm’s efforts as the first president and chief executive officer of the Indiana Sports Corporation. His list of accomplishments is extensive and impressive; he is not someone to trifle with.

We suspect that when he decides it’s time to start dismantling the system by which we “elect” judges in Marion County, that his honor will not need a hammer or a wrench, but should he decide he needs such implements, we’d be happy to hand them to him.•

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT