ILNews

Governor backs court reforms

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Expect some talk of sweeping court reforms in the coming legislative session.

Gov. Mitch Daniels this morning announced plans to move forward with more than a dozen local government reform proposals first unveiled a year ago by a commission, co-chaired by former Gov. Joe Kernan and Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. That report can be viewed here.

Some of the proposals have already been enacted, and the governor today recommended most of those remaining be considered by the General Assembly in the coming year.

Three court-specific measures that would impact all Indiana counties are: shifting the funding for all trial courts, probation officers, and public defenders to the state; transferring local court clerk responsibilities to the local election board or a newly established county executive; and eliminating all of the township Small Claims courts in Marion County and transferring those courts' duties to the Marion Superior courts.

The funding shift recommendation has been modified slightly from what the commission originally proposed, a change that could impact the timing of any possible reforms.

"Once the state's fiscal circumstances improve, it would make sense for the state to assume the costs of the trial court system over a period of years, including probation officers and public defenders," the recommendation rationale states. "Indiana's courts could operate more efficiently and fairly, ensuring that all citizens have the same access to justice. A transition period would be necessary to allow time for currently serving judges to complete their terms in office."

With the chief justice standing behind him along with a line of commission members and state officials, the governor said these were 16 of the total 27 recommendations made in the Kernan-Shepard report, and taken all together could save taxpayers about $630 million if adopted by the legislature.

Because of the tough budget-setting season in store, Daniels expects the legislation will be introduced in various pieces, rather than one large package.

Among the other changes the governor is recommending:

• Establish a single-person elected county executive to replace the current three county commissioners.

• Each county would have a county council as its only legislative body.

• Responsibilities for administering the duties of the county recorder, treasurer, assessor, surveyor, and coroner would be transferred to the lone county executive. These positions no longer would be elected while county sheriff, clerk, and auditor still would be chosen by voters.

• Create a county-wide body to oversee all public-safety services.

• School districts with less than 1,000 students would have to combine their district central office operations with another district unless they already are part of a county-wide district. After such a consolidation, no high schools may be closed for at least five years.

• Conduct all non-partisan school elections during November in even years.

• Move all municipal elections to even-numbered years.

• Transfer the responsibilities of municipal health departments to the county health department.

• Reorganize library systems by county instead of by municipality.

• Prohibit employees of a local government unit from serving as elected officials on the same local government unit.

• Designate a state office to provide technical assistance to local government.

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT