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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT