ILNews

IBA: The Bar Leader Series Journey: Facing the Community's Challenges Head On

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
morrissey Morrissey

As members of the Indianapolis bar and aspiring leaders, it is incumbent upon our group, the Bar Leader Series Class X, to work to understand important challenges facing our community and to contribute to the public discourse. For some of us, we will be further charged with addressing these challenges head on throughout the course of our career.

To that end, we took the opportunity to hear about these various challenges “straight from the horse’s mouth” at the November session of the Bar Leader Series. This session gave us the chance to delve into significant challenges in the community, with the discussion highlighted by speakers who personally spoke to the spectrum of issues and opportunities facing Indianapolis and the State of Indiana.

First, our group hosted Marilyn Schultz, a former state legislator and budget director for the State of Indiana. Ms. Schultz has been involved in Indiana politics for some time, getting her start with a campaign for state Senate in 1972. She shared with us the various challenges she faced as a woman in leadership at that time, including a mention of an instance of litigation involving a well-known downtown club located on the circle. Ms. Schultz disagreed with that club’s membership requirements and would not accept being “shown the door” simply because she was a woman. Frankly, listening to her experiences facing discrimination reminded me of how far we have come, but also it caused me to reflect on some of the groups, including women, who still are pushing towards truly equal treatment. Again, this illustrates how BLS offers unique experiences to interact with trailblazers from throughout our society.

It was particularly interesting to hear the sundry ways politics have shifted since that time. Ms. Schultz made it clear that the collegial atmosphere of state politics has largely vanished and politicians work less in the “gray areas” of compromise than during her time. She suggested that the oversaturation of media attention has altered the landscape of state and local politics, focusing less on understanding the commonalities of the parties and more on the divide. Reflecting on this, I found it difficult to remember a time before the 24 hours news cycle and the “us” versus “them” posture of many news outlets. This discussion provided useful context for me in considering how our elected leaders deal with issues facing our Indianapolis community in the Internet age.

We next discussed the very tragic and very real problem of human trafficking with Abby Kuzma of the Indiana Attorney General’s Office. I think I can speak for the group when I say this was an eye-opening lecture about a challenge that goes largely unnoticed in many circles within our community. In fact, because of the Super Bowl and other large-scale sporting events, our community is particularly susceptible to an influx of human trafficking victims. These numbers are exacerbated because Indianapolis is a transportation crossroads. It is difficult to imagine the prevalence of such appalling crimes taking place in the shadows of our city.

We then moved on to the prospective issues concerning light rail and transportation infrastructure in Indianapolis with Ronald Gifford of the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership, while Dale Chu of the Indiana Department of Education shared details on the reforms to our State’s education system that are currently being considered and implemented. Both of these issues touch on two fundamental challenges Indianapolis faces: how to educate and train people so we can develop a qualified workforce to attract economic growth and stability; and, once we develop economic growth, how to ensure Indianapolis and the surrounding communities have an efficient and reliable transportation infrastructure to support and promote further that growth.

Such a discussion boils down the challenges facing our community to their essence. Indianapolis has experienced remarkable positive change in the last few decades. Just ask anyone living or working downtown fifteen years ago. It was these speakers and many like them that have spurred these changes and confronted our challenges. It was our privilege to share this time with each of them and learn more about the challenges and opportunities facing Indianapolis today.•

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. 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.

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

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT