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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT