ILNews

Indiana Legal Services weathers budget cuts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Legal Services has opted not to renew the contracts for three of its employees. The cutback is due to a significant decrease in funding, according to Norman Metzger, ILS executive director.

“I want to emphasize here that what we’re doing is going to stabilize the organization, there won’t be a lot of pain connected to what we’re doing … right now we feel like we’ve taken all the necessary steps we need to take, but there are some uncertainties out there and we may need to take further action,” Metzger said.

The three positions to be eliminated – effective June 30, July 4, and July 7 – are in the Indianapolis service office and the administration office.

Earlier this year, Legal Services Corp. cut $237,000 in funding to ILS. Along with other reductions in funding, ILS is about $300,000 short of the budget approved by the board of directors in March.
 

Norm Metzger mug Metzger

The ILS board authorized the creation of a retrenchment committee to come up with ways to cut spending and make recommendations to the board. Bill Enslen, of Enslen Enslen & Matthews, in Hammond, was appointed as chair of the committee, reprising the role he served during a 2003 retrenchment. That year, ILS trimmed $1 million from its budget.

On June 10, the ILS board voted to adopt some of the committee’s recommendations, and it tabled others.

“The committee agreed that if you can freeze a vacant a position without hindering the delivery of legal services, then we should at least do it on an interim basis,” Metzger said.

“We’ve had a paralegal leave in our South Bend office and for the moment at least, that position is frozen.”

An attorney who left the Bloomington office to accept another job, however, will be replaced by a part-time contract attorney who understands how to work on tax-related matters.

The retrenchment committee asked ILS offices around the state to look for areas where money could be saved. Already on a tight budget, there is little room for savings, although there has been discussion of eliminating cleaning services.

“Should we terminate janitorial services and ask staff to clean the offices?” Metzger asked. He said he thought that it might be an unreasonable request, because ILS pay isn’t ideal anyway. “We pay peanuts to start with,” he said.

Metzger said he asked staff around the state to volunteer to switch from full-time to part-time status. A paralegal in the Evansville office will be part-time as of Aug. 1, an attorney in the New Albany office will go part-time later this year, and some people may move to part-time on Jan. 1, 2012.

Tabled for now but still under consideration are proposals that would reduce the mileage reimbursement rate to less than the federal level, authorize furlough days statewide, and strike the employer contribution to 401K plans.

Metzger said he would not be in favor of furlough days.

“At some point you have to pull back, look at your organization and say, you just can’t keep asking employees to make sacrifices when it almost certainly is better to lay off some people – let them go out and find maybe even better jobs – and let’s preserve the core mission of the organization,” he said.

Despite overall reductions in funding, ILS has seen some additional revenue this year. Several of its Area Agency on Aging grants increased, for a total of $4,000. Two cy pres awards – one from Indiana and one from a firm in Chicago – have amounted to about $8,380 in funds for ILS, and ILS has received $12,500 in attorney fees.

The ILS board meets four times annually – twice in-person and twice via conference call. In an emotionally charged meeting on June 10, board members discussed the possibility of cancelling the December in-person board meeting and training and instead meeting by conference call, Metzger said.

“How do you govern if you can’t see one another? But the reality is that between the board training and board meeting, $17,000 is involved, and one of the board members said, ‘If we don’t do this, we’re gonna have to eliminate jobs.’”

Enslen said that the ILS board members are a dedicated group – of the 51 members, an average of 40 attend the meetings. And some of the members, he said, would qualify for ILS services, due to their income levels.

“It’s not just a lawyer-run organization, and I can honestly tell you that our organization would not be as good as it is if we didn’t have those client-citizen members,” Enslen said.

He said that after the June 10 board meeting, many members – some who are client-eligible – offered to make donations so that ILS could hold its December meeting and training. “I think we’re going to be able to put it together, hopefully,” Enslen said.

ILS still doesn’t know what will happen in July, Enslen added, when Indiana’s Division of State Court Administration is expected to announce how the Civil Legal Aid Fund will be distributed. For the time being, Metzger said that the ILS board and retrenchment committee will wait to see how the cost-cutting steps they’ve taken pan out, and whether more budget cuts are on the horizon next year.

“You’d have to be living under a rock if you think 2012 is not going to be worse than this year,” Metzger said.•

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT