Lawmakers rejected a southern Indiana county's request this week for a new judge to run a family court, even though it
proposes paying for it locally rather than with state money. But in declining to attach the magistrate-turned-judge idea to
another bill, a House committee said it wants to keep talking about the issue that could be a policy-altering move in how
Indiana pays for its trial court judges.
The House Judiciary Committee approved HB 1154, which would allow Marion County to convert its 24 appointed commissioners
to magistrates that hold the same responsibilities but would be able to consider a wider range of issues within each court.
The county proposes paying the $2.3 million for those magistrates with a $35 fee tacked on to traffic infractions, which has
been collected since 2004 and is by law turned over to the state general fund. The fee initially went into place to pay for
jail overcrowding costs, but that issue has been largely resolved and the fee isn't used for that anymore. Now, the state's
largest county wants to use that money to save the state from having to pay for the county magistrates or pay for adding new
judicial officers.
By doing this, the county expects it would also be able to save enough money to use for the local funding of guardian ad
litem costs, which became necessary after the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on this issue last year.
Committee members voted 11-0 in support of the idea, but not before voicing hesitation about a proposal by Rep. Eric Koch,
R-Bedford, to amend the legislation so that Bartholomew Superior Court could also convert a commissioner position into a new
Superior judgeship starting in July 2011.
This would allow the county to convert a current commissioner, who hears only child support non-payment cases, to a judge
that could hear all family-related case types. Bartholomew Circuit Judge Stephen Heimann proposed using the same kind of funding
mechanism as Marion County is proposing in its commissioner-to-magistrate conversion - using a fee of at least $20 on traffic
infractions that would go to the state general fund. If anything fell short of the estimated $150,000 needed, the county would
be responsible for making up the difference. An estimated $189,000 per year could be raised from the fee, and be applied not
only to the judge's salary but also benefits, Judge Heimann said.
Even without this having a state fiscal impact, Rep. Trent Van Haaften, D-Mount Vernon, questioned why the proposed amendment
didn't call for a commissioner-to-magistrate change as Marion County's proposal did, but rather a commissioner-to-judge.
In response, Judge Heimann said it was specifically because the county needed a new family court and needed a judge's
authority to hear all of those issues that might come before it.
This new judge request arose during the interim Commission on Courts meeting last fall. Judge Heimann requested a third judge
and the interim committee approved the idea as long as state funding is available. After that, discussion began about how
the new judgeship could be paid for and possibly be merged into other legislation.
Rep. Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis, said she couldn't support that idea being attached to her HB 1154 at this time without
knowing more. She noted her concern about modifying the system of how state judges are funded in this case. Several other
lawmakers also expressed concerns, some more broadly about how it could be applied to other counties.
"This is a whole policy change," said committee chair Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond. "We're talking about
changing how we do things all together in funding state judges."
Representatives said this funding mechanism could open the door to other counties who might want to explore more creative
ways to pay for new judicial officers rather than simply relying on the traditional state funding process. Lawson asked that
it not be included in this legislation but that discussions continue on the concept more broadly.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.