Budget-busting judges

August 29, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins, who attended the Aug. 28 Commission on Courts meeting:

Financial woes between courts and county officials can be found statewide, even nationally, in these tough economic times. Chances are it’s going to get worse.

That’s why a former Montgomery County official spoke to the Commission on Courts this week about judicial mandates. He was a county councilor when the judges there issued a mandate hiking the salaries of court employees; the case was ultimately decided by the Indiana Supreme Court. In the case In Re: Order for Mandate of Funds, Montgomery County Council. V. Hon. Thomas K. Milligan, et al., justices struck middle ground by encouraging a compromise between the county judges and officials.

Before the commission Thursday, Republican Sen. Phil Boots - who was in county government during the Montgomery mandate - noted how state lawmakers haven’t written a law or given sole power to county councils and that judges are crossing the separation of powers line by issuing mandates on money out of their control.

“If this continues…. judges could be budget-busters by mandating unreasonable amounts of money,” he said, noting that property tax changes stemming from recently adopted law will add extra burden to county coffers and likely result in more mandates.

Other county officials said they were skeptical about how special judges and ultimately appellate judges can fairly decide these mandate issues involving fellow judges. They also mentioned how attorneys are often reluctant to take on these mandating judges for of fear of retaliation when they later have to appear before those jurists. One Hendricks County official said it seems like counties are playing with a stacked deck.

Boots’ suggestion: either lawmakers should take away judges’ mandate powers, or courts should become state-governed so the Indiana Attorney General’s Office can represent any jurists in mandate actions that go to court. Recent legislation to make that happen has failed.

Chief Justice Randall Shepard weighed in, pointing out that Indiana courts have the thought that T.R. 60.5 “is printed on paper, not carved in stone.” It’s meant to create an environment where courts and counties can talk out and work through their issues. But the chief justice also supports a move to change the state’s court structure, such as having the state take over courts. That’s a topic that could be gaining more steam in coming months and might be brought up during the next legislative session.

In the meantime, the Indiana Judges Association and Indiana Association of Cities and Towns have been talking the past year about revising the mandate rule. A six-person committee has met once and hopes to meet again soon. Seems like there’s support from many angles, but the home rule and county control has not fully surfaced yet and will likely make the debate lively.
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
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT