ILNews

Morris: Shepard's legacy is transparent government

Greg Morris
February 29, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

morris-commentaryI know a lot has been written recently about retiring Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard. The press coverage has been a glowing review of his service to Indiana residents. In fact, over the years, I’ve never heard a disparaging word about Randall Shepard. And I say — deservedly so. It has been my honor to know him.

So, I was pleased when the Hoosier State Press Association recently honored Shepard with a Frank O’Bannon Sunshine Award for his support of open government. I can’t think of a more deserving recipient.

With many state legislators observing, Judy O’Bannon, the late governor’s wife, presented the award symbolizing transparency in government to Shepard during a luncheon at the HSPA Annual Meetings and Government Conference at the Indianapolis Marriott Downtown on Feb. 16.

Shepard’s efforts to help Hoosiers understand how the court system works were lauded by O’Bannon, an owner of The Corydon Democrat newspaper, which nominated the jurist for the honor. The O’Bannon Sunshine Award, first awarded in 2005, honors an individual, group or organization demonstrating outstanding effort to protect and enhance open government in Indiana.

“Some people think the press only reports the bad news — the one bad apple in a barrel of good public officials and employees,” said HSPA executive director and general counsel Stephen Key. “The Frank O’Bannon Sunshine Award honors that golden apple — those public servants or citizens who understand that our government should be transparent to the people it serves.”

The Corydon Democrat’s nomination, submitted by Publisher Jon O’Bannon, included the following testimonial:

“Chief Justice Randy Shepard has articulated the belief that newspapers and the judiciary have a symbiotic relationship. The judiciary needs the coverage of its operations and decisions to help strengthen its role as one of the three equal branches of government, each serving as a counterweight to the other two branches. The judiciary is dependent upon the opinion of the courts by the people to give it the strength to fulfill its role, and the press is a key factor in giving the public information to form its opinion of the court system. Meanwhile, the press is reliant upon the judiciary to protect its newsgathering ability through First Amendment-related decisions. If the court doesn’t support the freedom of press, newspapers’ ability to serve as a government watchdog could be severely curtailed.

“With that view, the chief justice has taken steps to make the workings of the judiciary more transparent. Under his watch:

“n Media cameras are allowed in the appellate courts, and arguments are webcast across the Internet.

“n The Supreme Court has approved one pilot project allowing cameras in trial courtrooms and is considering a new project (approved since this nomination).

“n The Supreme Court updated its Administrative Rule 9 to take into account issues raised by a digital environment.

“n The Supreme Court issued an order reducing the incidence of trial court judges agreeing to draw a veil of secrecy around specific cases.”

Before closing, I want to take the opportunity to tout some of the chief justice’s work on a topic near and dear to me — civic engagement. Shepard has been very active in this area. The Indiana Supreme Court runs Courts in the Classroom to help educators, students, historians and interested citizens learn more about the history and operation of Indiana’s judicial branch.

Also, Shepard has been involved with the Indiana Civic Health Index project, which examines behaviors and attitudes of Hoosiers regarding civic life and explores resources and impediments that affect how citizens of Indiana participate in civic life. As an example, the information obtained in this report can help us design and implement strategies to improve voter turnout.

Shepard’s impending retirement is certainly a great loss to the court and comes on the heels of Justice Ted Boehm’s retirement in late 2010. The combined knowledge, experience and talent of these two remarkable men cannot be overstated. One bit of good news is that Boehm vowed not to disappear in retirement, and that has been the case. We can only hope and believe the same will be true of Chief Justice Randall Shepard.

Best of luck, chief justice, and congratulations on receiving the Frank O’Bannon Sunshine Award. Thanks for your outstanding service, and thank you for your efforts in protecting and enhancing open government in Indiana.•
__________

Greg Morris is publisher of Indianapolis Business Journal, sister publication to Indiana Lawyer. To comment on this column, send email to gmorris@ibj.com.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT