ILNews

Legislature's end suspenseful for legal community

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As the Indiana General Assembly got down to its final hours in a short-session, significant changes for the Hoosier legal community were on the table to possibly increase the number of appellate judges, change how one county chooses its trial judges, and impact how juveniles can be placed outside the state.

In the end, lawmakers didn't act and the changes weren't adopted by the time they adjourned just before 1 a.m. Saturday. But how that process played out in the final days and hours is even more telling than the measures themselves and reflect what might happen in the future if the topics come up again.

Three days before the session ended, lawmakers resurrected House Enrolled Act 1491 that would not only have scrapped merit selection in favor of nonpartisan elections in St. Joseph Superior Courts, but also add a new panel to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The governor vetoed it last year with a strongly worded message supporting the current system that's been in place for more than three decades, and criticizing the merging of the two issues, which he believed should be considered separately.

In the final hours before the session ended, lawmakers still hadn't acted on it and weren't sure what the prospects were for possible consideration. The legislation's author, Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawka, was outside the state during the final week of the session and neither he nor House Speaker Rep. Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, returned messages from Indiana Lawyer about why HEA 1491 was resurrected. But it didn't get attention and was taken off the agenda at about 8 p.m. Friday, lost in the shuffle as lawmakers negotiated a session-ending deal involving unemployment insurance, jobs, and various financial issues.

As HEA 1491 faded, so did the prospects for Senate Bill 149 that would have repealed the Department of Child Services out-of-state placements statute change from last year - a revision that surprised and outraged juvenile judges and lawmakers for the most part because it came at the last-minute during special session conference committee talks. House Bill 1167 initially dealt with that issue and representatives approved it 93-4, but the measure died after failing to get a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The repeal was merged into SB 149 that included multiple DCS-related law changes, but some lawmakers opposed that move and it went to conference committee during the legislature's final week.

Attorney-lawmaker Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, had originally signed on as a sponsor to HB 1167. He was disappointed it didn't get support in the end, but said he wasn't surprised because DCS had considered it a high priority to defeat the measure. Some last-minute negotiations were happening to keep it included, but those fell through and lawmakers had to eliminate the placement issue in order to get the broader SB 149 approved.

Three of the four final conference committee members - Rep. Dennis Avery, D-Evansville; Rep. Matt Bell, R-Avilla; and Sen. Connie Lawson, R-Danville - said the opposition was too strong to get the placement law changed. The fourth committee member, Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, couldn't be reached by Indiana Lawyer deadline.

Avery co-sponsored the amended SB 149 and said he worked on the conference committee for eight days to get it passed, but eventually let it die when it was clear the full bill wouldn't pass if the placements provision was included. Word was that the judiciary's chair Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, refused to hold a hearing and later opposed the amendment because it appeared to circumvent the committee process, Avery said. He also heard that the Senate leadership was supporting the administration and felt the placement revision was an attempt to embarrass the DCS and Director James Payne, a former juvenile judge.

Bell, one of the representatives who'd opposed the idea on the House floor, said he believes that juveniles shouldn't be sent outside Indiana because current service providers offer adequate and quality facilities that aren't fully used. He also noted that other measures in the legislation had been removed by the conference committee, including a provision that would have required DCS to adopt rules setting reimbursement rates for adoptive parents and service providers. This issue is currently the focus of an Indiana-based lawsuit in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Bell said some worried a law change now could impact that pending litigation.

Despite the lack of success relating to out-of-state placements this session, Broden on the Senate side doesn't think the issue is dead and he hope to bring it back in the future.

"As long as juvenile judges, who handle these placements first hand, have concerns, lawmakers will be knocking at the door on this issue," Broden said. "I think this will be an ongoing dispute we have to address."

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT