IBA Bar Leader Series Class X: Public Safety in the Spotlight

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Kevin Morrissey, Lewis & Kappes

Regrettably, we see all too often in the news the various threats to the safety of our citizens in Indianapolis and throughout the country. These struggles are universal and impact all of us as a society in different ways.

In March, the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Bar Leader Series X met to focus on the many public safety challenges our community faces, as well as areas of opportunity to expand public safety measures. As aspiring leaders, the message for our group was that each of us must step up to our responsibility as members of the bar and the Indianapolis community to help rectify ongoing safety and health issues as well as prevent future harm to fellow Hoosiers.

Before discussing public safety issues, former Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson addressed the class during the lunch hour. Mayor Peterson shared his views on leadership, specifically how individuals become leaders within organizations and communities. Interestingly, Mayor Peterson observed not necessarily the “most capable” among leaders were selected, but, instead, leaders often “self-selected” by being willing to take the “slings and arrows” that come with the role of a leader. I understood this to mean that courage is an indispensable characteristic of leadership. Leaders must have the fortitude to make unpopular decisions for the benefit of their organization or community. Mayor Peterson noted that “sometimes when you are trying to do something impossible, you just have to get started.”

Our group was then privileged to hear the story of the development of Lucas Oil Stadium and how Indianapolis negotiated a long-term relationship with the Indianapolis Colts. It was fascinating to hear the “inside baseball” version of events that led to creation of one of the NFL’s most modern stadiums and a revitalized convention center. Mayor Peterson stressed that in any negotiation, one must understand and appeal to the motivations of the other side. The key is to just “stay talking.” The process of meeting the goals of both the city and the Colts was clearly not always smooth sailing. It was intriguing to hear about some of the calculated risks the city took during negotiations. Moreover, this discussion emphasized to me that one cannot overlook the importance of personal relationships and trust in any negotiation, regardless of the dollar amount involved.

Next up were Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry and Marion County Public Safety Director Troy Riggs, who discussed with our group the various proactive efforts their offices are currently implementing to confront public safety issues in Marion County. Mr. Riggs was recently named Public Safety Director, having been on the job only a matter of months, though it is clear that he has hit the ground running, establishing 30 “efficiency teams” to delve into a number of issues facing the Department of Public Safety. Mr. Riggs spoke regarding the Violent Crime Review Team which will develop a strategy to reduce violent crime rates in Marion County. Unfortunately, he reported that based on intelligence information the county is anticipating a tough summer in terms of violent crime. Additionally, Mr. Riggs noted that several of the efficiency teams will be drilling down on how the government can best utilize tax dollars to provide services to the public, making it clear that he believes the government should be as efficient as possible with its dollars.

Prosecutor Curry provided a detailed survey of his office and described several of the initiatives he has put into motion to combat serious challenges facing the County. Primarily, he stressed that he is focused on “restoring trust and faith in the office.” Prosecutor Curry shared a number of achievements in his office in recent years and indicated that increased emphasis will be placed on sharing information about those successes with the public. Of note, Mr. Curry mentioned recent success in updating and improving the system by which his office collects and manages child support obligations.

Finally, we heard from Dr. George Parker, Director of the Psychiatric Unit at IU Health. Dr. Parker shared with us that 15 percent of individuals in the Indiana Department of Corrections suffer from some form of mental illness, yet, people with mental illness are at a much higher risk of being the victim of violent crime as opposed to perpetrating a violent crime. Dr. Parker discussed the competency evaluations he regularly performs for the Marion County Courts. Interestingly, Dr. Parker discussed the Tony Kiritsis case and the fact that, as a result of this trial, the Indiana Legislature switched the burden of proof for insanity-pleading defendants from the prosecution to the defense. Not being raised in Indianapolis, this account of the Kiritsis case and its aftermath made Dr. Parker’s lecture a particularly compelling one.

Overall, this session of BLS X was once again a success. In light of the Boston Marathon tragedy, public safety was on all of our minds. The speakers’ advice hit near and dear to our hearts as we looked forward to Indianapolis serving as the international hub in the upcoming months for large events like the Mini Marathon, the Indianapolis 500 and the Indiana Black Expo.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?