ILNews

Legislature's final days bring up merit selection, out-of-state placement issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Hoosier lawyers and judges were kept on the edge of their seats as the Indiana General Assembly navigated its final days of the session, reviving talk on two issues that have significant impact on the state's judiciary and legal system.

One measure would have overridden a governor's veto on adding a new appellate panel to the Indiana Court of Appeals and also replacing merit selection with nonpartisan elections in St. Joseph Superior Court. Another would have repealed a last-minute legislative change in 2009, which allowed the Department of Child Services to make final decisions on out-of-state placements rather than juvenile judges.

In the end, lawmakers didn't act, and the changes weren't adopted by the time they adjourned about 1 a.m. Saturday, March 13. 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.

Those monitoring the session described their disappointment in how the merit selection and placement issues evolved during the final days but pointed out they weren't necessarily surprised with what happened.

"I find it discouraging and more than a little cynical that this would surface at the end of the session when it could be hidden or lost in the shuffle of end-of-term business," South Bend attorney and former Indiana State Bar Association president Bill Jonas said, referencing the merit-selection change that Gov. Mitch Daniels had vetoed in 2009.

Both the House and Senate had passed HEA 1491, which targeted one of the two counties statewide that doesn't use elections to select trial court judges. But it died when the governor vetoed it with a strongly worded message supporting the current system that's been in place for more than three decades.

"It is a model to be emulated, not discarded. It is not broken; it requires no repair. It has produced outstanding jurists and contains sufficient measures of public accountability. I believe it neither necessary nor wise to re-politicize the courts of St. Joseph County," he wrote, adding that it would be difficult to justify the $2 million yearly cost for a new appellate panel.

"Moreover, if I were to sign a bill linking these two proposals, it could contribute to public cynicism by creating the appearance that my acquiescence was purchased with more appointments. Whatever the merits of expanding the Court of Appeals may be, they should be considered alone."

The House put the measure on the calendar during the final three days, and it stayed there until the final hours when lawmakers reached a session-ending deal involving unemployment insurance, jobs, and various financial issues.

Both members of the ISBA and St. Joseph County Bar Association echoed Jonas' thoughts that it was bad form to bring the issue back so late in the legislative session.

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 seeking comment about why HEA 1491 was resurrected. But hours before the session finished, Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, said he was disappointed but not surprised that it came back up for consideration. He didn't know how much support it might get in the House, or if Senate leadership would give it a chance if it came to their chamber. Regardless, Broden said he remains adamantly opposed to both the judicial selection change and the extra appellate panel, which would cost millions at a time when the state's battling budget woes and making cuts across the board.

"I remain opposed and strongly support the governor's veto, particularly with regard to the new court panel costs. That's even more significant almost 12 months later, when the fiscal picture of our state is worse than it was then," Broden said.

As that legislation faded, so did the hopes for Senate Bill 149 that would have repealed the DCS out-of-state placements statute change from last year. The idea was originally included in HB 1167 and representatives approved it, but the measure died after it failed to get a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Reps. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, and Winfield Moses, D-Fort Wayne, merged it 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.

On the Senate side, Broden had originally signed on as a sponsor to HB 1167 and said he was disappointed it didn't get support in the end. But he wasn't surprised because the 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, he and others said.

Three of the four final conference committee members - Rep. Dennis Avery, D-Evansville; Rep. Matt Bell, R-Avilla; 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 at Indiana Lawyer deadline.

Several lawmakers were also appointed from each chamber to serve as technical advisors, including Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, who had unsuccessfully tried to get the DCS placement language removed from the original legislation.

Avery co-sponsored the amended bill and said he worked on the conference committee during the final days to get it passed, but eventually let it die when it was clear the full SB 149 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 court judge.

Bell 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.

Despite the lack of success this session, Broden doesn't think the issue is dead and he hopes to bring it back in the future.

"As long as juvenile judges, who handle these placements firsthand, 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Good luck, but as I have documented in three Hail Mary's to the SCOTUS, two applications (2007 & 2013),a civil rights suit and my own kicked-to-the-curb prayer for mandamus. all supported in detailed affidavits with full legal briefing (never considered), the ISC knows that the BLE operates "above the law" (i.e. unconstitutionally) and does not give a damn. In fact, that is how it was designed to control the lawyers. IU Law Prof. Patrick Baude blew the whistle while he was Ind Bar Examiner President back in 1993, even he was shut down. It is a masonic system that blackballs those whom the elite disdain. Here is the basic thrust:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing When I asked why I was initially denied, the court's foremost jester wrote back that the ten examiners all voted, and I did not gain the needed votes for approval (whatever that is, probably ten) and thus I was not in .. nothing written, no explanation, just go away or appeal ... and if you appeal and disagree with their system .. proof positive you lack character and fitness. It is both arbitrary and capricious by its very design. The Hoosier legal elites are monarchical minded, and rejected me for life for ostensibly failing to sufficiently respect man's law (due to my stated regard for God's law -- which they questioned me on, after remanding me for a psych eval for holding such Higher Law beliefs) while breaking their own rules, breaking federal statutory law, and violating federal and state constitutions and ancient due process standards .. all well documented as they "processed me" over many years.... yes years ... they have few standards that they will not bulldoze to get to the end desired. And the ISC knows this, and they keep it in play. So sad, And the fed courts refuse to do anything, and so the blackballing show goes on ... it is the Indy way. My final experience here: https://www.scribd.com/document/299040062/Brown-ind-Bar-memo-Pet-cert I will open my files to anyone interested in seeing justice dawn over Indy. My cases are an open book, just ask.

  2. Looks like 2017 will be another notable year for these cases. I have a Grandson involved in a CHINS case that should never have been. He and the whole family are being held hostage by CPS and the 'current mood' of the CPS caseworker. If the parents disagree with a decision, they are penalized. I, along with other were posting on Jasper County Online News, but all were quickly warned to remove posts. I totally understand that some children need these services, but in this case, it was mistakes, covered by coorcement of father to sign papers, lies and cover-ups. The most astonishing thing was within 2 weeks of this child being placed with CPS, a private adoption agency was asking questions regarding child's family in the area. I believe a photo that was taken by CPS manager at the very onset during the CHINS co-ocerment and the intent was to make money. I have even been warned not to post or speak to anyone regarding this case. Parents have completed all requirements, met foster parents, get visitation 2 days a week, and still the next court date is all the way out till May 1, which gives them(CPS) plenty of to time make further demands (which I expect) No trust of these 'seasoned' case managers, as I have already learned too much about their dirty little tricks. If they discover that I have posted here, I expect they will not be happy and penalized parents again. Still a Hostage.

  3. They say it was a court error, however they fail to mention A.R. was on the run from the law and was hiding. Thus why she didn't receive anything from her public defender. Step mom is filing again for adoption of the two boys she has raised. A.R. is a criminal with a serious heroin addiction. She filed this appeal MORE than 30 days after the final decision was made from prison. Report all the facts not just some.

  4. Hysteria? Really Ben? Tell the young lady reported on in the link below that worrying about the sexualizing of our children is mere hysteria. Such thinking is common in the Royal Order of Jesters and other running sex vacays in Thailand or Brazil ... like Indy's Jared Fogle. Those tempted to call such concerns mere histronics need to think on this: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-12-year-old-girl-live-streamed-her-suicide-it-took-two-weeks-for-facebook-to-take-the-video-down/ar-AAlT8ka?li=AA4ZnC&ocid=spartanntp

  5. This is happening so much. Even in 2016.2017. I hope the father sue for civil rights violation. I hope he sue as more are doing and even without a lawyer as pro-se, he got a good one here. God bless him.

ADVERTISEMENT