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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT