Indiana Court Times 18.1

Issue 18.1 JAN/FEB 2009

Judges have attended continuing education seminars and conferences for many years. Recently the Supreme

Court decided that court employees should also be given the opportunity to further their education and training by attending their own informational events. One hundred thirteen (113) mem-bers of court and clerk staff from sixty six (66) counties across the state gathered in Indianapolis in November for a jury administration conference. It was the first live educational offering for the new judicial branch personnel education ini-tiative. Conferees called it an overwhelm-ing success. Those in attendance com-pleted evaluation forms and gave the day high marks. One person said, “I honestly came in to this thinking I already knew all there was to know in this area, but was quickly informed of easier and better ways to handle jury administration.” Others responded: “exceeded my expecta-tions,” “very informative,” “wonderful job of answering my unasked questions,” and “a wealth of information provided!”

The conference provided those attending with both national and state perspec-tives on the jury administration process. Thomas Munsterman, a national leader in jury reform, spoke on the objectives of jury management and on future trends in the area.

Hamilton County Superior Court Judge William Hughes and Allen County Supe-rior Court (Criminal) Judge Frances Gull gave informative presentations on jury rules and applicable statutes while dis-cussing their practical application at the local level. They used life situations and scenarios to highlight important issues while encouraging conferees to partici-pate in discussion of current problems. During a working lunch, those attend-ing shared experiences and developed resource contacts.

Michelle Goodman, Indiana Judicial Center (IJC) Staff Attorney assisting the Judicial Conference Jury Committee, answered questions generated by the audience. Jill Russell, State Court Ad-ministration, offered an optional session on the jury management system provided through Supreme Court administrative offices.

The Judicial Center is very happy to send conference material to any request-ing court and have IJC staff available to travel to individual counties for addi-tional training.

If you have suggestions for future staff educational offerings, please forward them to Barbara Arnold Harcourt, Senior Judge and Judicial Staff Attorney at the Indiana Judicial Center, (317) 234-5996 [email protected].

By Judge Barbara Arnold Harcourt,Senior Judge & Judicial Staff Attorney,

Indiana Judicial Center

Conference Held: Well Attended and Informative

J U R YADMINISTRATION

2 JAN/FEB 2009 courttimes

CONTENTSJury Administration Conference ..... 2

Celebrating Lincoln ....................... 3

Indiana Commission on Courts 2008 Annual Report ...................... 4

Putting a Foot in the Revolving Door: Reducing Recidivism in Blackford County ......................................... 6

2009 State of the Judiciary:A Court System for Tough Times .... 8

Two Among Many:New Faces Joining the Ranks of Indiana Trial Judges .................... 10

2008 General Election Results ..... 12

Two New Members of the Indiana Public Defender Commission ....... 13

Clarifi cation on Public Defender Expenditures ............................... 13

SIDEBARJane Spencer Craney .................. 14

BITS & BYTESGetting the Show on the Road:JTAC's Speedy Project to Help DCS Comply with HEA 1001 ............... 16

BRENDA'S BAILIWICKBeing a Judge in the Back Offi ce . 18

SPOTLIGHTSupreme Court CommitteeThanks Attorney Member for a Job Well Done and Welcomes New Member ............................. 19

T he Indiana Supreme Court partnered with the

Indiana State Bar Association to host a statewide

birthday bash for Abraham Lincoln. The 200th anniversary of

Lincoln’s birth was February 12, 2009. Chief Justice Randall

T. Shepard invited attorneys to join him in honoring America’s

16th President by visiting classrooms around the state.

It is estimated that 30,000 Indiana school children learned

about Lincoln through the volunteer program “Why Lincoln Was

A Lawyer.” The project was created by Courts in the Class-

room, the educational outreach program of the Indiana Su-

preme Court. It is specifically designed for attorneys to teach

school children about Lincoln and the law. Attorney talking

points and teacher lesson plans are available online at

courts.IN.gov/citc/lessons/lincoln

Each participating classroom received a book about Abraham

Lincoln, courtesy of the Indiana State Bar Association.

Chief Justice Shepard visited Crispus Attucks Medical Magnet

High School, an Indianapolis Public School. “This volunteer

opportunity is a wonderful way to help students learn about

citizenship and the law. It is a chance to relate the story of an

Indiana child who eventually became one of our nation’s great-

est leaders. I am confident others who join in the celebration

will be glad they participated.”

In the 2009 State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice Shepard

spoke about the lessons learned from Lincoln’s life as a lawyer.

The Chief Justice also spoke about Lincoln’s Indiana roots and

the pride associated with having Lincoln as a native son. He

received rousing applause when he reminded the General As-

sembly what former Governor Otis Bowen used to say about

Lincoln and his association with Illinois. “Indiana made Lincoln

and Lincoln made Illinois!” The complete comments of Chief

Justice Shepard on the Lincoln program can be found in the

final paragraphs of his address in the section entitled "An An-

niversary That Prompts Hope."

The Lincoln program is about more than honoring an Indiana

native or fulfilling a curriculum requirement. The project speaks

to the heart of what it means to be a citizen and what it

means to play a role in our democracy. There are many Lincoln

quotes worth remembering and many great speeches worth

reciting—for school children across the state, February 12th was

a day to examine why Lincoln’s life is worth emulating.

PHOTO. Alexander Gardner, original negative, Feb. 5, 1865; Library of Congress.

COVER PHOTO. Alexander Gardner, glass transparency, Feb. 5, 1865; Library of Congress.courttimes JAN/FEB 2009 3

IT RECOMMENDED that all former holders of a judicial office who have served at least four consecutive years as a judge or jus-tice should be allowed to serve as private judges and that private judges should be allowed to hear domestic relations cases.

IT RECOMMENDED that a person should be allowed to partic-ipate in a court established Alcohol and Drug Service Program if the person is arrested for a misdemeanor or felony or referred to the program by another court, a probation department, the Department of Correction, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Division of Mental Health and Addiction, a prosecuting attor-ney’s office, or pretrial services.

IT RECOMMENDED that the Automated Record Keeping fee should be increased from $7 to $10 after June 30, 2009, and before July 1, 2013, and decreased to $7 after June 30, 2013.

IT FOUND that no county court will exist in Indiana as of Janu-ary 1, 2009 and therefore recommended that the repeal of the law concerning the establishment and operation of county courts.

IT RECOMMENDED establishing the Sixth District of the Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana as of January 1, 2010, with the entire State constituting the Sixth District.

IT RECOMMENDED that the four judges of the Lake Supe-rior Court County Division should be nominated by the Lake County Superior Court Judicial Nominating Commission and appointed by the Governor and be subject to the question of retention or rejection by the Lake County electorate every six years.

IT RECOMMENDED that the judge of the Allen Circuit Court should be allowed to appoint a second full-time magistrate and to remove the judge’s authority to appoint a hearing officer who has the powers of a magistrate and whose salary is paid by the county.

IT MADE the following findings of fact and recommendation concerning merit selection of judges of the St. Joseph Superior Court:

The merit selection system for St. Joseph Superior Court • judges has attracted outstanding lawyers to seek and assume judicial careers and has provided those men and women with the ability to rule in a fair and impartial manner with-out fear of partisan retaliation for their decisions.

The merit selection system holds these judges accountable • to the people of their community for their professional and personal behavior

The Indiana General Assembly created the Commission on Courts to review, conduct research, and hold public hear-

ings on all requests for new courts or changes in jurisdiction of existing courts, and to review, report on, and make

recommendations concerning any other matters relating to court administration that it deems appropriate. The

Commission is required to submit a report to the General Assembly before November 1 of each year.

Its thirteen members include the Chief Justice, four members from the Indiana House of Representatives, four mem-

bers from the Indiana Senate, two appointees of the Senate President Pro Tempore one who is a sitting judge and

one who is a county commissioner, and two appointees of the Speaker of the House, one being a member of the

county council and one being a circuit court clerk. This past year for the Commission, Martinsville Senator Richard

Bray served as Chairperson and Hammond Representative Linda Lawson was Vice-Chairperson. The Commission

met four times during the interim between sessions to study court related issues. At its last meeting of the year on

October 24 it made a number of findings of fact and recommendations.

The full text of the Commission’s report may be found on the General Assembly’s website at

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/reports/CRTSBB1.pdf.

2008 ANNUAL REPORTINDIANA COMMISSION ON COURTS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


In calling on the General Assembly to provide for the merit • selection of judges, Governor Roger Branigan in 1964 said that the State should “offer to the judges…the promise of reasonable tenure if they perform well, and which will insure them, to the fullest extent possible, freedom from political pressures.” The current system for selecting and retaining St. Joseph Superior Court judges achieves the objectives set out by Governor Branigan in 1964.

Therefore, the Commission recommends that the current • system of merit selection of judges of the St. Joseph County Superior Court should not be changed.

Rep. Ryan Dvorak, South Bend, submitted the following minority statement to the Commission concerning this recommendation:

“I respectfully submit a differing opinion from that of the majority. While there may be meritorious aspects to a system of appointed judges, the comparative mer-its of such a system are not at issue. Under debate was whether there is any rational reason for St. Joseph County to be subject to distinctly different laws than the rest of the state---potentially in violation of the constitutional prohibition against special legislation. I contend the Commission heard no testimony validating this dispa-rate treatment. Therefore, I will continue to work with the General Assembly to give the citizens of St. Joseph County the opportunity to make their own decision as to how their local judicial system is structured.”

IT RECOMMENDED that the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) and the Indiana State Bar Association should continue to discuss how to deal with issues concerning noncode provisions of the Indiana Code and, if necessary, the LSA should make recommendations to the General Assembly concerning the use of noncode provisions.

IT RECOMMENDED that the General Assembly should defer action concerning Trial Rule 60.5 that allows courts to mandate the expenditure of funds by local governments while the Su-preme Court continues to respond to this through the adoption of rules.

IT COMMENDED the Division of State Court Administration on the creation of the retention election website for Indiana's appellate jurists.

By James Walker,Director of Trial Court Management,

State Court Administration

courttimes JAN/FEB 2009 5

PHOTO. Juergen Priewe.

We are too familiar with the scene: a person is arrested, brought to court,

found guilty and sentenced to jail or pris-on; after serving a sentence for the crime, that person is released back into society and is once again arrested, brought to court, and sentenced back to jail or prison. We have a name for this process: recidivism, and correction officials in Blackford County knew something had to be done.

They set out to shut this revolving door through a program called Thinking for a Change. For purposes of their study they defined recidivism as “an individual who, within a three year period, commits additional criminal acts similar in nature to the originating offense within Black-ford County and the contiguous coun-ties of Jay, Grant, Wells and Delaware.” They sampled 100 random cases in order to establish a baseline of recidivism in Blackford County. The baseline was compared to the statistics of 55 individu-als who were ordered to participate in the Thinking for a Change Program. An ad-ditional 55 individuals were chosen who were not required to participate in the program. The results of this study were quite dramatic.

They found that prior to the implemen-tation of the program and based on the study of the 100 randomly sampled individuals, within a period of just 1 year, 21.5% of those individuals had commit-ted a new criminal offense of a like kind to their original offense, and 32.25% had done so within 3 years. After the implementation of the Thinking for a Change Program, the recidivism rate dropped within the 1 year period from 21.5% to just 5.45%, and for those com-mitting a similar crime within 3 years it had dropped from 32.25% to just 9.1%. Overall, the recidivism rate for the 1 and 3 year samples had been reduced by almost 75%, a remarkable achievement. Blackford Superior Court Judge John W. Forcum said: “This not only reflects

PUTTING A FOOT IN THE

REVOLVING DOOR


PHO

TO. C

hristopher Dodge.

on the effectiveness of the programs in general but also on the hard work and professionalism of the Community Cor-rections and Probation staff. You can have the best programs available but if you don’t have the personnel to support them, they will not be effective.”

The Blackford County Probation Depart-ment and the Blackford County Commu-nity Corrections Department began col-laborating on case management of adult offenders in 2003. Together they wanted to learn more about the root problems

of repeat offenders and identify methods that might reduce the long standing and sometimes too acceptable rates of recidi-vism. They discovered that while each of their departments separately dealt with Court-referred adult clients, often their agendas and results in similar areas were conflicting and deficient.

These two departments began the process of combining their strategies and work-ing in a cohesive system of rehabilitation. They began with two simple assumptions: 1) every client/offender is unique, and 2) the traditional and classic methods of relating risk to recidivism may be neither productive nor cost effective. They col-

lectively began a slow and deliberate pro-cess of identifying individualized needs and placing those people in the best avail-able programs. With guidance from the Indiana Department of Correction, and utilizing experts with knowledge in the field, both departments began exploring Evidence Based Programs and the meth-ods used to identify the needs and risks associated with recidivism. Evidence Based Programs are those supported by sound scientific documentation as to their effectiveness and proven success.

Aaron Henderson, Chief Probation Offi-cer, and Deb Perry, Director of Commu-nity Corrections for Blackford County, worked together to change the face of local corrections programs. They shared a belief that for too long the local jails and the Indiana Department of Correc-tion have simply been revolving doors of justice with the shared expectation that offenders will return. They decided that if this door was to be shut then changes had to be made at the grassroots level.

Both Henderson and Perry began by encouraging every supervising officer to deal with each client as an individual and not as a statistic. Too often the tendency

was to think of and classify these clients in terms of their risks rather than as peo-ple. It is much easier to classify people according to their risk of future behavior rather than to find solutions to their individualized, and sometimes complicat-ed, problems. The officials in Blackford County implemented the Thinking for a Change Program and adapted their poli-cies and procedures to focus attention on the individual needs of their clients.

They utilized the Level of Service Inven-tory–Revised (LSI-R), which is an accept-able method of identifying client risk and behavior and the specific areas that need to be addressed. A treatment program could be utilized to address one or more of the underlying social deficiencies that are present in a majority of adult of-fenders. Through the early stages of the program implementation, it became obvi-ous that each client/offender was looking differently at his/her own life and situ-ation. The probation and community corrections officers were also looking dif-ferently at the clients. The pieces of the recidivism puzzle were starting to come together in East Central Indiana.

The study is ongoing but these initial re-sults are proof to Blackford County that the program does work and additional programs and opportunities for adult of-fenders should continue to be developed. Indiana correctional professionals have generally been slow to embrace evidence based programs, but they are very enthu-siastic about the results of this program.

Editor’s Note: Contributors to this article were Aaron M. Henderson and Deb Perry who have also written a more detailed report entitled: Reducing Recidivism/Blackford County Efforts to Reduce Recidivism, dated 10/14/2008. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy may contact Aaron Henderson at Blackford County Courts, 110 W. Washington Street, Hartford City, IN 47348, or by email at [email protected]. If you would like more information about best practices in probation supervision, review the Indiana Probation Best Practices Guide at courts.IN.gov/center/pubs/best-practices or contact the Indiana Judicial Center.

courtcourttimes times JAN/FEB 2009JAN/FEB 2009 77

"YOU CAN HAVE THE BEST

PROGRAMS AVAILABLE BUT

IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE

PERSONNEL TO SUPPORT THEM,

THEY WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE.”

There was a time when people in the judiciary viewed their task in terms

of the rulings—guilty/not guilty, sus-tained or overruled. Judges listened to the evidence and considered the law, and then ruled. A courtroom was a place of relative detachment.

But what courts do is intimately connect-ed to society. When the inevitable dis-putes of life arise, people rely on courts to resolve disputes quickly and cheaply, providing confidence that laws are enforced, on some reason-able timetable, at some reasonable expense. Just as trust in the mechanics of finance empowers the economy, effective and reliable courts are a key part of what keeps America going. Indiana’s courts are doing our part to contribute toward the recovery.

The Pressure on Families

A bad economy puts pressures on families—many times in ways that affect children. This development emphasizes how important it was for the General As-

sembly to reorganize Indiana’s effort to protect children. The decision to transfer the cost of caring for these children from the counties to the state was partly a mat-ter of property tax relief, but it also gave Indiana the chance to create a safety net for children that is better staffed, better coordinated, and more purposeful than ever. The executive and judicial branches have acted with remarkable cooperation and urgency to make ready for this op-

portunity, training hundreds of court and Department of Child Services (DCS) staff. House Bill 1001 was the single largest

financial commitment to the needs of troubled children in state history. We are determined it will make a difference in their lives.

Wrapped inside this initiative is a story about efficient government. Among the new features is the electronic exchange of case information between juvenile probation officers, the courts, and DCS caseworkers. Our trial court technol-ogy staff, led by Mary DePrez, quickly constructed the computer technology to make this happen, in-house, with-

out General Fund money. This effort saved time and money, but it will also get services and placement for troubled children more quickly and effectively. And it will allow Indiana to maximize the amount of federal reimbursement for providing services to children instead of failing to collect millions of dollars in federal reimbursements.

With abuse and neglect rising, it is more urgent than ever that we provide threat-ened children with a guardian ad litem or a court appointed special advocate who speak up for children. They are often the only point of stability in a child’s world. The General Assembly recently enacted Governor Daniels’ proposal that all abused and neglected children have an advocate. Indiana does this by recruiting community volunteers, and thousands have volunteered. You gave us the money to recruit and train an even larger corps of volunteers. Last year new volunteers signed up at record levels—up 50% in one year, thanks in part to a cadre from the Indiana Retired Teachers Association.

Some of the family stress that creates more cases of abuse manifests itself as do-mestic violence. We have created an elec-tronic system in 72 counties that notifies law enforcement as soon as a domestic violence protective order is issued. It is a line of defense which we have financed with federal funds that is literally saving lives. Building better protection against domestic violence is not something you postpone in hard times; it’s something you race to accomplish.

You can certainly see hard times in a criminal court. The defendants run the gamut from hardened felons to people who commit a misdemeanor. Most fall in between and most serve their time on probation or in community corrections. We have to be as smart as possible at matching sanctions to fit the offense and the offender. We are trying to do this in multiple ways.

We have strengthened local correctional programs. We created new drug courts last year bringing the total to 29. In-dependent research show they produce a lower re-offense rate, and produce a better employment rate for offenders, all

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard delivered his 22nd address to a joint session of

the Indiana General Assembly on January 14, 2009. He delivered his fi rst State

of the Judiciary in 1988. What follows is an excerpted version. The full version is

available on the Indiana Courts website at courts.IN.gov/supreme/state_jud.html.

ACourt

SystemFOR

Tough Times


of theSTATE

JUDICIARY

at lower expense than more traditional penalties. We began two new drug and alcohol programs, and three new re-entry courts for returning offenders. We are at work on a new risk assessment system that will help us sort out the errant sheep from the truly dangerous.

The Foreclosure Crisis

Indiana’s courts and lawyers have created a system—now emulated elsewhere—to support attorneys who are willing to volunteer to help needy citizens with civil legal problems. In addition to these pro bono lawyers, Indiana has over a thousand certified mediators who help people resolve disputes on their own and avoid the time and cost of trial.

We believe these lawyers and mediators and judges can help with the growing challenge of mortgage foreclosure, which has risen 50% in five years in Indiana. Law and policy on these subjects is made by lawmakers, but courts must be adroit in handling individual cases.

Sorting out when loan modification may be feasible and whether there’s a

way that people may manage to stay in their homes and doing that as promptly as possible, takes knowledge, skill, and commitment.

Indiana’s effort on the foreclosure prob-lem is being led by Lieutenant Governor Skillman. She and the Indiana Housing and Community Development Author-ity have created the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network. The judicial branch is joining this campaign. I promise you this: by summer Indiana will have trained more judges and pro bono lawyers and mediators to help people facing fore-closure than any other court system in America.

Internal Cost-Savings

I want you to know we will manage our own work in ways that contribute to balancing the budget. Like the executive branch and the legislature, we froze our judicial pay and our staff’s. But, we are engaged in helping the state’s finances in other ways.

Our year-old new electronic traffic citation system is in place. Gone are handwritten traffic tickets; the offender’s license and registration are scanned instead, and a legible ticket printed. Gone too is the time needed to enter and re-enter the information generated by Indiana’s 600 law enforcement agencies. The State Police and 57 other agencies are now using this system, saving time and money wherever we deploy it.

Second, we have achieved universal use of our system to enable Indiana’s courts to send information about traffic cases to the BMV electronically, saving thousands of dollars in paper and data re-entry. And, this achievement will protect some $34 million in federal highway funds.

Third, on the revenue side, how much the State can collect in delinquent tax—and how quickly the collections come in—depends in part on how promptly the Department of Revenue can process tax warrants through the trial courts. We worked with the Department of Revenue to construct computer technology that sends tax warrant information electroni-cally to county clerks—for free.


"I promise you

this: by summer

Indiana will have

trained more

judges and pro

bono lawyers and

mediators to help

people facing

foreclosure

than any other

court system in

America."

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

For more information

about the Supreme Court's

program to train lawyers to

handle mortgage cases, visit

courts.IN.gov/home

PHO

TO. L

inds

ey B

orsc

hel.

Planning for Tomorrow

Moments like the present, when great leaps forward are not in the cards, are a good occasion to map out the future. The Judicial Conference of Indiana, which consists of judges elected by their peers, has spent the last months planning for the future of our courts. A Board committee led by Judge Terry Shewmaker of Elkhart and Judge Mark Stoner of Indianapolis has issued a working docu-ment, now under discussion, that focuses on upgrading judicial and staff educa-tion, on building collaboration among judges in counties and between counties, on accelerating state support for trial court operation, and on sorting out the multiple selection systems by which Indi-ana chooses judges. We believe the end product will be a blueprint for an even stronger court system.

An Anniversary that

Prompts Hope

Governor Daniels quoted Abraham Lin-coln recently. The judiciary will also ob-serve the two hundredth anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth. He was many things and perhaps was Indiana’s greatest contribution to American history.

He was also a first-rate lawyer and an energetic public citizen. And so, on Lincoln’s birthday, February 12th, with the help of teachers, the State Bar, local bars, and others, hundreds of judges and lawyers will go to Indiana’s classrooms to talk with students about Lincoln the President, Lincoln the lawyer, Lincoln the citizen, and about the kind of en-gaged citizens we want those students to become.

In the midst of so much gloom, this will be a message that conveys hope about the future of our nation and our state.

Kathleen Tighe Coriden is taking her place in the judiciary with other newly elected judges from

across the state. Like others, she is start-ing 2009 with a new set of responsibili-ties and great enthusiasm. She is set-tling into a routine as the Bartholomew Superior Court Judge. But unlike others, Coriden is accustomed to being called “Judge”, the black robe in nothing new, and presiding over a courtroom has a familiar feel—she’s been here before.

In 1999, Governor Frank O’Bannon appointed Coriden to the Bartholomew Superior Court 2 seat when Judge Nor-man D. Curry retired. For three years she served as the judge, presiding over both civil and criminal matters. She be-lieved that she was doing a good job for her county and hoped to continue in the role. She ran for election in 2002 and was deeply disappointed at the outcome. Voters made the decision to elect a differ-ent person to the position. Her brief ju-dicial career came to a halt and Coriden took it personally. When she left the bench she vowed never to run again.

Prior to her appointment Coriden had served as a deputy prosecutor. Instead of returning to that office, she took on a new challenge. She opened a law practice with her husband and son. She jokes that people asked her how she could manage being around family all the time. In reality, Coriden says they didn’t see each other that often. “We each had our own niche. My husband handled the workers’ compensation cases, my son was the city attorney, and I handled all of


Editor’s Note: The election

in November 2008 was

unprecedented in Indiana

for the number of new

trial court judges assuming

duties on the bench. This

article focuses attention on

just two of the new jurists

in our state.

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

PHOTO. Lindsey Borschel.

the family law cases. We had a breakfast meeting once a week with our office manager so we could stay connected.”

Coriden also became involved in the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program for Bartholomew and three surrounding counties. She served on the “Advocates for Children” Board of Directors—including as its President. Devoting her time to the group that ad-vocates for abused and neglected children in state care gave her a new focus.

Over time, the wounds of the defeat began to heal. “I stopped taking it so personally. Our practice was succeeding and I was staying involved in the commu-nity.” When election time came around again, Coriden realized she wanted to run. Instead of reliving the feelings associated with her previous defeat, she concentrated on how much she loved being a judge. “Every day is different and you are confronted with a new legal issue. The experience is mind expanding, so you have to stay fresh.”

In 2008 she defeated the incumbent judge who had previously unseated her. Ten years after being appointed to the bench, Coriden became once again a Judge in Bartholomew County Supe-rior Court after winning in the general election. As she returns to the bench, Judge Coriden brings new experiences as a seasoned practicing attorney. She is clearly more attuned to the challenges of lawyers than she was the first time she held office. She expects to draw from her time in private practice and from her

involvement in CASA. Taking the bench in 2009 has a familiar feel with a fresh perspective.

The exact opposite holds true forMaria Granger. The former deputy pros-ecutor is taking the bench in the newly created Floyd Superior Court Three—even the courtroom is brand new. Judge Granger explained, “The staff is settling in as equipment is being installed.”

Judge Granger’s fourteen year legal career includes both private practice and time in the prosecutor’s office. Being called “Judge” still takes her by surprise. “The robe carries so much respect. You want to represent that dignity in the court-room. I appreciate this opportunity”

The opportunity comes with its chal-lenges. Floyd Superior Court Three was created in part to balance the county caseload. Judge Granger is very pleased that her court will handle 100% of the protective order cases. She worked with domestic violence issues as a prosecutor and believes her previous experience will allow her to serve families in crisis better. “The family is the root of the commu-nity. We need to deal with these issues.”

There is an upside to the struggles and problems that come from taking on a brand new court. Granger explained, “There is a real opportunity to move forward in an efficient manner. That is not as easily done when taking over an established courtroom.” Granger and her staff are very excited to be the first court in Floyd County to use the

new statewide case management system, Odyssey. “Of course there is a learning curve, but the Supreme Court staff has been here helping us and we are moving towards streamlining our efforts. We are very proud to be a pilot group trained on the new system.”

All newly elected judges receive help and support from the Indiana Judicial Center and the Division of State Court Administration, including an extensive orientation program. Many also have guidance from long-time judges who have offered their expertise. As Maria Grang-er, Kathleen Tighe Coriden, and dozens of other newly elected judges step into their new roles, they arrive at the bench with unique perspectives that help shape their decision making process. Each one will work hard to make a difference and eventually leave an indelible and unique mark on the Indiana judicial system and in his/her community.

By Kathryn Dolan,Public Information Offi cer, State Court Administration


NEW FACES JOINING THE RANKS OF INDIANA TRIAL JUDGES

22AMONG AMONG MANYMANY

New trial court judges participated in several

days of educational sessions in January.

See page 12 for a complete

listing of new judges.

PHO

TO. I

ndia

na J

udic

ial C

ente

r.

Editor’s note: This past election was unprecedented in the number of judges elected to the bench. We extend many thanks to the Indiana Judicial Center for compiling this list. It does not include the names of judges who retired mid-term such as Judge Daniel Donahue in Clark Circuit Court or Judge Michael Cook in Marshall Circuit Court, or who left the bench prior to the May primary election such as Judge Wayne Lennington in Delaware Circuit Court #5.

COURT NEW JUDGE FORMER JUDGE

ADAMS SUPERIOR PATRICK R. MILLER JAMES HEIMANN, RETIRED

BARTHOLOMEW

SUPERIOR

KATHLEEN TIGHE

CORIDEN

RODERICK MCGILLIVRAY,

DEFEATED (GENERAL)

CLARK CIRCUIT DANIEL MOORE ABE NAVARRO, DEFEATED

(GENERAL)

CLARK SUPERIOR 2 JERRY JACOBI CECILE BLAU, RETIRED

CLARK SUPERIOR 3 JOSEPH WEBER 1 STEVEN FLEECE, RETIRED

CLINTON SUPERIOR JUSTIN HUNTER KATHY SMITH, RETIRED

DEARBORN SUPERIOR

1

JONATHAN N. CLEARY G. MICHAEL WITTE, DEFEATED

(PRIMARY)

DECATUR SUPERIOR MATTHEW D. BAILEY MICHAEL WILKE, RETIRED

DELAWARE CIRCUIT 3 LINDA “RALU” WOLF 2 ROBERT BARNET, RETIRED

DELAWARE CIRCUIT 5 THOMAS A. CANNON JR. CHRIS TEAGLE, DEFEATED

(GENERAL)

ELKHART SUPERIOR 5 CHARLES C. WICKS JAMES RIECKHOFF, RETIRED

FLOYD SUPERIOR 3 MARIA GRANGER 3 N/A

FRANKLIN CIRCUIT 2 CLAY M. KELLERMAN 4 N/A

FULTON CIRCUIT ARTHUR CHRISTOPHER

LEE

DOUGLAS MORTON, RETIRED

GRANT SUPERIOR 3 WARREN HAAS NATALIE CONN, DEFEATED

(PRIMARY)

GREENE SUPERIOR DENA BENHAM MARTIN DAVID HOLT, RETIRED

HAMILTON CIRCUIT PAUL FELIX 5 JUDITH PROFFITT, RETIRED

JAY SUPERIOR MAX C. LUDY, JR. JOEL ROBERTS, RETIRED

JEFFERSON SUPERIOR ALISON T. FRAZIER FRED HOYING, RETIRED

JENNINGS SUPERIOR GARY L. SMITH JAMES FUNKE, DEFEATED

(GENERAL)

JOHNSON SUPERIOR 3 LANCE HAMNER KIM VANVALER, RETIRED

LAPORTE SUPERIOR 2 RICHARD STALBRINK STEVE KING, RETIRED

COURT NEW JUDGE FORMER JUDGE

LAPORTE SUPERIOR 3 JENNIFER L. (EVANS)

KOETHE

PAUL BALDONI, RETIRED

MADISON SUPERIOR 2 G. GEORGE PANCOL JACK BRICKMAN, RETIRED

MARION CIRCUIT LOUIS ROSENBERG 6 THEODORE SOSIN

MARION SUPERIOR THEODORE SOSIN 7 CHARLES DEITER, DECEASED

TIMOTHY OAKES PATRICIA GIFFORD, RETIRED

MARC T. ROTHENBERG JOHN HAMMEL, NOT SLATED IN

PRIMARY

JAMES B. OSBORN GARY MILLER, NOT SLATED IN

PRIMARY

KIMBERLY BROWN KEN JOHNSON, NOT SLATED IN

PRIMARY

KURT EISGRUBER N/A

MIAMI SUPERIOR 1 DAVID GRUND DANIEL BANINA, DEFEATED

(PRIMARY)

MIAMI SUPERIOR 2 DANIEL BANINA 8 NEW COURT

MONROE CIRCUIT VALERI HAUGHTON DAVID WELCH, RETIRED

MONROE CIRCUIT ELIZABETH ANN CURE CHRISTINE TALLEY HASEMAN,

DEFEATED (GENERAL)

PUTNAM SUPERIOR CHARLES D. BRIDGES ROBERT LOWE, RETIRED

SPENCER CIRCUIT JON A DARTT WAYNE ROELL, RETIRED

SULLIVAN SUPERIOR ROBERT E. SPRINGER THOMAS JOHNSON, RETIRED

SWITZERLAND CIRCUIT W. GREGORY COY 9 N/A

TIPPECANOE

SUPERIOR 1

RANDY WILLIAMS DON JOHNSON, RETIRED

VANDERBURGH

SUPERIOR

DAVID KIELY SCOTT BOWERS, RETIRED

VIGO SUPERIOR 5 MICHAEL R. RADER BARBARA BRUGNAUX, DEFEATED

(PRIMARY)

FOOTNOTES1 PREVIOUSLY JUDGE OF THE CLARKSVILLE TOWN COURT

2 PREVIOUSLY JUDGE OF THE MUNCIE CITY COURT

3 NEW COURT EFFECTIVE 1-1-09

4 NEW COURT EFFECTIVE 1-1-09

5 PREVIOUSLY JUDGE OF THE CARMEL CITY COURT

6 PREVIOUSLY MAGISTRATE IN MARION SUPERIOR COURT (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

7 NUMBER OF MARION SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES IN-CREASES FROM 35 TO 36 EFFECTIVE 1-1-09

8 APPOINTED BY GOVERNOR DANIELS

9 NEW COURT EFFECTIVE 1-1-09. THE COMBINED JEFFER-SON/SWITZERLAND CIRCUIT COURTS SPLIT INTO 2 COURTS EFFECTIVE 1/1/09; TED TODD REMAINS JUDGE OF THE JEF-FERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

2008GENERAL ELECTION RESULTSJudges Leaving Bench & Newly Elected


CLARIFICATION ON PUBLIC DEFENDER EXPENDITURESThe Nov/Dec 2008 edition of the Indiana Court Times, in the "High-lights from the 2007 Indiana Judi-cial Service Report (JSR)" reported $15,896,397 as the total amount spent by counties on criminal indi-gent defense for 2007. This figure is an error, and the total amount spent should have been reported as $25,320,081. Even this latter figure, however, does not fully represent the total spent on criminal indigent de-fense services in Indiana. This is due to under-reporting of expenditures by some counties using independent public defender agencies and addi-tional amounts spent by the state of Indiana through its Public Defender Fund. Adding these under-reported county expenses of $30,010,568 and the $15,000,000 paid from the state general fund, the total expenditure on criminal indigent defense services in Indiana was over $70,000,000 in 2007.

If anyone has a question on this or any other subject relating to the Public Defender program in Indiana, please contact Deborah Nealat 317-232-2542 or by email at [email protected].

By Deborah A. Neal,Staff Attorney,

Public Defender Commission,State Court Administration

The Speaker of the House of Rep-resentatives, B. Patrick Bauer, appointed two new members to

the Indiana Public Defender Commis-sion in November 2008: Representative Vernon Smith and Representative Greg Steuerwald. Representative Vernon G. Smith was appointed to replace Phil Hoy, a former representative from Evansville who chose not to run for reelection. Representative Smith represents House District 14, which includes his hometown of Gary and portions of Lake Station and Hobart Township. In addition to being appointed a member of the Public Defender Commission, Representative Smith also serves on the House Edu-cation and the Courts and Criminal Code Committees. He has served on the Criminal Justice Institute Board of Trustees.

Representative Greg Steuerwald, House District 40 in Hendricks County, was appointed to replace Amos Thomas, a representative from Brazil who was not reelected. Representative Steuerwald also serves on the House Committees on Government and Regulatory Reform and Courts and Criminal Code. Steuerwald is an attorney with Steuerwald, Zielinski & Witham, and resides in Danville, Indiana.

The Indiana legislature created a Public Defense Fund, which is administered by the Division of State Court Administra-tion, to reimburse counties for the costs associated with indigent legal defense in capital and non-capital cases and to im-

prove delivery of legal services by requir-ing compliance with the Indiana Public Defender Commission Standards. State law authorizes counties to receive reim-bursements of 50% of expenditures for indigent defense services in capital cases and up to 40% in non-capital cases. The United States and Indiana Constitutions mandate these services.

All 92 Indiana counties are eligible for reimbursement of indigent defense costs in capital cases if they comply with stan-dards in Criminal Rule 24 established by the Supreme Court. The Commission gives priority to requests for reimburse-ment of defense expenses in death penalty cases. From 1990 to 2008, the Public Defense Fund disbursed in excess of $9 million to Indiana counties to assist with their defense costs in capital cases.

Currently, 50 Indiana counties qualify for reimbursement from the Public De-fense Fund for non-capital public defense expenses. These counties comprise over 65% of Indiana's population. The Indi-ana Public Defender Commission meets four times during each fiscal year to audit and approve claims by the counties. For FY07-08, the Indiana legislature provided $14.5 million to reimburse counties for indigent defense services in capital and non-capital cases. The Commission was able to distribute $14,341,796 to coun-ties. The appropriation for FY08-09 is $15.25 million and the Commission has distributed $11.5 million to date.

TWO NEW INDIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER COMMISSION MEMBERS

S P E A K E R B A U E R N A M E S


WE ARE STARTING A NEW FEATURE IN COURT TIMES CALLED “SIDEBAR” THAT WILL HIGHLIGHT UP

CLOSE AND PERSONAL A MEMBER OF THE INDIANA JUDICIARY. MORGAN SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

JANE SPENCER CRANEY IS OUR FIRST INTERVIEW. SHE WAS FIRST ELECTED AS JUDGE IN NOVEMBER

1990 AND IN THIS MOST RECENT ELECTION SHE WAS ELECTED TO HER FOURTH TERM ON THE BENCH.

PRIOR TO BECOMING A JUDGE SHE SERVED TWO TERMS AS MORGAN COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.

WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST, AND LEAST, ABOUT BEING A TRIAL COURT JUDGE?

I enjoy being a trial judge because I am a "people person" and so far the most rewarding part of being a judge has been helping people overcome addiction problems. When someone comes to you later and says you helped them to start a clean and sober life, it's a pretty awesome feeling. My least favorite duty is ordering evictions, especially during the holidays and in the recent economy.

WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO STUDY LAW?

My first conscious career choice (5th grade) was to be the first female astronaut only to discover (7th grade) that I had lit-tle scientific aptitude. My natural talents seemed to be in writing, public speaking and debate, and I loved to watch old Perry Mason reruns after school, so I decided on law as a career.

WHAT WAS YOUR MAJOR AT HA-NOVER COLLEGE?

My major at Hanover was Political Sci-ence with a "minor" in Theatre. Hanover didn't have "minors" but I was a few credits short of a double major. My sister used to tell people I was going to be a dramatic politician.

Jane Spencer Craney


SIDEBAR

PHOTO. Keith Rhoades. Courtesy of the Reporter-Times of Martinsville.

Judge Craney and her dance partner, Craig Caudill of Greenwood, cut a rug at a local Dancing with the Stars competition.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE NOT A JUDGE?

If I were not a Judge, I would probably be a political science/history teacher/profes-sor or professional community volunteer. My family felt strongly that you give back to your community so I would volunteer more time to Habitat for Humanity and Rotary.

WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO DO WHEN YOU ARE NOT ON THE BENCH?

When I am not on the bench I am usu-ally dancing because I am totally addicted to ballroom dancing now. I also enjoy gardening, traveling, entertaining and reading. Many of my fellow Judges refer to me as the Hospitality Queen of the Indiana judiciary because I have catered several of the Hospitality Rooms at our conferences and the CCJ/COSCA con-ference a few years ago.

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE YOU MOST ADMIRE (BESIDES THE CHIEF JUSTICE)?

I admire many people, including the Chief Justice, but Mother Teresa and Abraham Lincoln would probably top the list.

WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE BOOKS AND HAVE YOU READ ANY RECENTLY OR READING NOW THAT YOU REALLY LIKE?

I love to read so picking a "favorite" would be difficult. I just finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird and will now start on John Grisham's The Appeal. Legal novels and historical biographies, such as David McCullough's John Adams, are my favorite types of books.

WHERE DID YOU GROW UP AND HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR CHILDHOOD?

I grew up in North Manchester, Indiana (Wabash County), my Mother's home-town. My childhood was wonderful—growing up in a small college town has many advantages including a very good

school system and cultural events. Both of my parents were aficionados of musi-cal theatre/theatre so we attended many performances at Manchester College and the Wagon Wheel Playhouse, a summer stock theatre company in Warsaw, Indi-ana. We also traveled a great deal during my youth.

WHEN AND HOW DID YOU DEVEL-OP YOUR INTEREST IN TRAVEL?

My Father was a big believer in the educa-tional value of travel based on something a visiting professor from Germany said to him. (It's an interesting story that I love to tell.) That, coupled with the fact that he was from Vermont, gave me the opportunity to travel a great deal in the US, Canada, Mexico and Europe before I even graduated from high school. I was an exchange student to the Netherlands for Youth for Understanding between my Junior and Senior year in high school and have returned several times to visit my Dutch family and still have contact with them. I also studied in France and Switzerland during college. My husband and I have hosted Rotary exchange students from Holland and France. We also make sure other exchange students to Martinsville get to see a bit of the US when we take them on our travels. My husband is an airline pilot for American Airlines so I still get to travel when I can.

DO YOU HAVE A FAVORITE QUOTE?

My two favorite quotes are from the Brit-ish orator, philosopher and politician, Edmund Burke, about responsibility, and an English barrister, Sir Edward Hall, about the similarities between the theatre and courtroom advocacy.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Edmund Burke

“My profession and that of an actor are somewhat alike, except that I have no scenes to help me, and no words are written for me to say. There is no curtain. But out of a vivid, living dream of someone else’s life, I create an atmosphere and that …that is advocacy.”

Sir Edward Marshall Hall

WHEN AND WHY DID YOU TAKE UP DANCING?

My husband and I started lessons at Arthur Murray 3 years ago. We were so bad at dancing at our first son's wed-ding that we HAD to get better for the second son's wedding! I just graduated from Bronze Four (there are 4 levels) into Silver One (which also has 4 levels.)

WHAT IS ON YOUR LIFE LIST AND HOW MANY ITEMS DO YOU HAVE LEFT TO CHECK OFF?

As far as a Life List, I am still adding to it, but it definitely includes traveling around the world and to each continent. The Dancing with the Stars Preshow was on the list for the last 3 years. Check!

WHERE IS YOUR FAVORITE VACA-TION SPOT?

My favorite vacation spot is my family's cabin in the woods near Cadillac, Michi-gan.

WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE MEAL/RECIPE/RESTAURANT?

There was a hotel in my Mother's fam-ily for over a hundred years so I actually grew up in the kitchen. I have too many favorite foods and restaurants to choose just one. Chocolate would probably be involved! My favorite recipe would prob-ably be my Hot Crab Dip.

By James F. Maguire,Staff Attorney,



In 2008, the Indiana General Assembly passed, and Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law, HEA 1001, a bill designed to provide prop-erty tax relief that also made sweeping changes to how payments are processed for juvenile services throughout the state. There have been several articles in the Indiana Court Times reporting on the effects of this bill on Indiana’s courts and probation departments. But there is another, behind-the-scenes story about how the agencies involved have managed to comply with the law, how separate branches of govern-ment collaborated, and the crucial role JTAC has played in the effort.

THE PROBLEM. House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1001 was as an effort to re-lieve the property tax burden on Indiana homeowners, but for Indiana’s courts and the Department of Child Services (DCS), it was a directive to make major changes in the processing of payments for juvenile services and placements.

Under the old system, a county’s prop-erty tax included a family and children’s fee to pay for the juvenile services that were not reimbursed under federal law. Title IV-E, under the Social Security Act, establishes Federal-State programs for foster care, adoption assistance, and independent living. Probation officers collected and delivered information —on paper forms—about the children being served to local DCS caseworkers for data entry into the Indiana Child Welfare

Information System (ICWIS). Regional coordinators at DCS approved or denied services that counties paid for from local funds and processed any eligible Title IV-E reimbursements. Counties often waited months for the reimbursement of those funds. And, because the paper process was so burdensome, Title IV-E eligible children might pass through the system without their cases ever being processed for reimbursement from the Federal government. This meant lost revenue for the counties.

Under HEA 1001, probation officers would still collect information about each child, and DCS would still process the Title IV-E reimbursements. But un-der the new plan, DCS has an additional responsibility of processing the payments to the service providers. These payments are now made from the state general fund, since the law eliminates the local

family and children’s levy on property taxes. DCS needed a way for probation officers to be able to enter the children’s information directly into ICWIS in order to avoid hiring additional case workers or contracting with a private company to handle this extra burden.

That is where the road got a little bumpy. Under ICWIS, a federally-provided program, only state employees had direct access, and local probation officers were not eligible. The challenge for DCS was to find a way for probation officers to interface with ICWIS without directly accessing it.

THE SOLUTION. In April, a month after HEA 1001 was signed, repre-sentatives from DCS met with staff from the Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration Judicial Technol-ogy and Automation Committee (JTAC)

GETTING THE SHOW ONTHE ROADJTAC’S SPEEDY PROJECT TO HELP DCS COMPLY WITH HEA 1001


BITS & BYTES

section to discuss language changes on court forms and orders to comply with federal reimbursement rules. At the time, they discussed the possible use of the Supreme Court’s Odyssey trial court case management system as an interface to ICWIS. However, because Odyssey was not going to be available statewide by January 1, it wouldn’t serve the immedi-ate needs of the probation officers or DCS caseworkers.

The leadership at DCS explored several options over the following months look-ing for an ideal solution. In late summer, James Payne, DCS Director and former Marion County Juvenile Court Judge, met with Jane Seigel, Executive Director of the Indiana Judicial Center. They discussed HEA 1001 and the challenges for DCS. Jane Seigel told Director Payne about INcite, JTAC’s secure data sharing portal that was being used by judges and

court staff. It already interfaced with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Indiana State Police, and other executive branch agencies. So at Jane’s suggestion, Direc-tor Payne decided to get in touch with JTAC.

It was about this time that Mary DePrez, JTAC’s Director, was driving to Alabama with her family for a vacation. There they were, trucking along a southbound highway, when her phone rang. And it was an urgent call, because in less than five months, HEA 1001 would become effective. Mary assured Director Payne that JTAC could make this project a priority. In order to succeed, JTAC and DCS had to begin the planning process immediately.

By September, the project to develop an interface between INcite and ICWIS kicked into high gear. JTAC assigned Mark Harvey, a new employee and former probation officer, to manage the project, and Eric Burris, a JTAC contrac-tor, to make sure the solution would work in the field. JTAC software devel-oper Dylan Vester had recently created an entirely new framework for INcite. It took advantage of the latest technologies and made development of web applica-tions like the one planned for DCS much faster than earlier INcite projects. And Jason Butera, a Deputy MIS Director at JTAC, developed the software application to interface with ICWIS using the new framework. Just as JTAC had to build a new application, DCS had to scramble their own technology staff to update ICWIS and make the interface possible.

The January 1 deadline was met with a diligent, inter-branch team effort.

In four months, JTAC was able to design, develop, test, revise, retest, and deploy a critical web application utilizing precious and limited resources. The application exchanges data with an existing system, requires that data to be kept secure over an Internet connection, and is relied on by hundreds of users across the state.

LIFE AFTER INCITE. Now that HEA 1001 is in effect, and JTAC has launched this interface with ICWIS, processing juvenile services bills and Title IV-E eligibility is much more streamlined.

Since the initial launch of the new soft-ware, nearly 300 users have gained access to the system and more than 200 cases have been entered. In the ten counties that use the Quest juvenile case man-agement system, probation officers are using its new functionality to accomplish essentially the same tasks, but any county has the option to use INcite at no cost.

The benefits of this new INcite applica-tion may be difficult to quantify right away, but they commingle with the ben-efits of HEA 1001. One way to explain the relationship is with this analogy: In response to the people, the state legis-lature and the governor gave a directive that we all meet at a particular destina-tion. HEA 1001 is the road, and the new INcite application is one of the vehicles that will help take us there.

HEA 1001 provides property tax relief by shifting the burden of payment for juve-nile services from the county to the state. But because of the newly created elec-tronic method of reporting information, Title IV-E reimbursements to the coun-ties will arrive quicker than under the old system. Probation officers will also save time through better organization of the information they gather. They could potentially use the newly found time to discover unidentified Title IV-E eligible children, which means less overall cost to the state.

Chief Justice Shepard said in his 2009 State of the Judiciary:

The internal design of this system saved time and money, but more to the point it will permit services and place-ment for threatened or troubled chil-dren more quickly and more effectively. And it will allow Indiana to maximize the amount of federal reimbursement for providing services to children. Indi-ana has over time left tens of millions of dollars on the sidewalk. No more!

By Lindsey Borschel,Web Coordinator, JTAC,



PHOTO. Galina Barskaya.

A judge makes decisions within the confines of the law, trusting his/her

instincts, and almost always in solitude. It requires good intellect and a strong and caring heart to administer justice. When we think of judges, we picture a wise and courageous leader, clad in a robe, making decisions while sitting on the bench. Yet, even a fair, just and wise judge will be poorly serving the commu-nity and justice if the court’s back office is not properly managed.

The disciplinary cases against judges over the last several years include a significant number of the cases involving the admin-istrative functions of the court. Judicial misconduct was alleged in cases concern-ing judicial impropriety involving rela-tionship with staff members, while other cases involve misconduct resulting from poor office management. A judge will not be able to discern truth and render a proper decision if a pleading is never con-sidered because it is buried in a folder.

The National Center for State Courts offers an on-line course conducted by Daniel H. Straub, Ph.D., concerning court staff management for first-time supervisors. If a Judge is interested in taking this course, he/she should go to the Supreme Court website at courts.IN.gov/center and click on “Su-preme Court Scholarship Program Appli-cation for Judges” on the right hand side of the screen. The course emphasizes that all jobs are important, including fil-ing papers for the court. The court must properly manage the office paper flow in order to review pleadings, hear argu-ments, and issue an order.

Each judge should ask some questions in reviewing the court’s office management. A few that should be answered are:

Do all employees know their importance

to the goal of dispensing justice?

Do all employees understand that they

are the face of the court to the public?

Do all employees embrace the phi-

losophy that they are there to serve the attorneys, parties, and witnesses coming before the court?

Do all employees realize that their job

often includes assisting individuals who are under great personal stress?

Do all employees know what you want

to hear, need to hear, and cannot hear? And for matters that you cannot hear, do all employees know how to handle the communication so the problem is actu-ally addressed?

Do all employees know to inform you

if anyone is making repeated calls on a motion and the docket shows that a rul-ing has not been made?

Do all employees know what to do if a

motion is presented and the fi le-folder for that case cannot be found?

Have you ever asked for a fi le and your

staff was not able to retrieve it immedi-ately for you? If so, why?

What procedure is there to make sure

that no fi le remains buried in a basket for months?

In addition, having positive answers to the following questions will help insure a fully operational court:

How does your staff determine who may

have direct access to you?

Do all employees know who to approach

if there is a problem or concern?

Are there any folders, fi les or boxes of

loose papers anywhere in the court of-fi ces? Why?

What is your method for assuring that

there are timely rulings on motions and processing of cases? Do all your employ-ees know that they have a role in insur-ing that justice is not delayed?

Are you demanding the highest stan-

dards of performance from each mem-ber of your court staff , or letting poor performance slide because you don’t want to deal with it?

Are the best employees given the most

work, while the poorest performing em-ployees are rewarded with fewer tasks?

Are you addressing employee absentee-

ism issues when they occur and are you handling these issues consistently?

It is remarkable and gratifying that we have qualified, caring individuals will-ing and able to perform the noble tasks of a judge. Managing the office and employees of the court may seem petty compared to sitting behind the bench and determining legal issues. However, it is an illusion that office management is petty. While each judge has been trained through law school and law practice to do the job in the courtroom, law school curriculum rarely, if ever, includes office management training. Few attorneys in their practice have had to spend much time in managing staff. Yet when an attorney becomes a judge, office man-agement becomes an important part of the duties. If you need assistance, I am available to assist you and there are also resources through the Indiana Judicial Center and the National Center for State Courts. Call on us.

BEING A JUDGE IN THE BACK OFFICE


BRENDA'S BAILIWICK

Trial courts can seek advice on employment law issues

by contacting Brenda Rodeheffer directly at (317) 234-

3936 or [email protected].

By Brenda Rodeheff er

Employment Law Services,


The Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure expressed its great appreciation to Mary Nold

Larimore whose term on the Committee ended after nearly ten years of service. Larimore, an Indianapolis attorney and partner with the firm of Ice Miller, was appointed to the Committee in January 1999. Chief Justice Shepard is grateful for her service and said, “Mary has dedicated many long hours to this Com-mittee. It is obvious that she is committed to serving our legal system and her fellow attorneys by making sure Indiana has clear and understandable rules. She left her mark of stellar professionalism by her work in shaping numerous rules ranging from a new set of Appellate and Jury Rules to Rules of Evidence regarding electronic discovery.”

The Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Pro-cedure was created by the Court to conduct a continuous study of the Indiana Rules of Procedure and other rules as directed by the Court. The Committee is charged with reporting to the Court recommendations and proposed amendments to promote simplicity in procedure, just determination of litigation, and elimination of unjustified expense and delay. Larimore called her work on the Committee “a true labor of love,” saying her service proved to be one of the greatest honors of her career. “It gave me the opportunity to interact with some of the finest law-yers in the State of Indiana and listen and learn from their many different perspectives. I am proud of the fact that we brought

the bench and bar together on many different initiatives, from the attorney surrogate rule to the adoption of e-discovery rules. The insight I have gained from the opportunity to work with the Court has been invaluable and I am grateful that they entrusted me with this role.”

The Supreme Court named Maggie L. Smith as Larimore’s replacement. Smith’s term begins January 1, 2009 and expires June 30, 2014. She serves as counsel to Frost Brown Todd, for-merly Locke Reynolds. She is married to Kevin Smith, Supreme Court Administrator and Clerk of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court. They have two children and live in the Indianapolis area.

SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE THANKS ATTORNEY

MEMBER FOR AJOB WELL DONE

AND WELCOMES NEW MEMBER

DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE G. MICHAEL WITTE (now Senior Judge) was the 2008 recipient of the Indi-ana University Asian Alumni Association’s Distinguished Asian Pacific American Alumni Award. He received the Franklin N. Flaschner Award, given to the outstanding judge in the nation who presides in a court of limited jurisdiction, from the Ameri-can Bar Association National Conference of Specialized Court Judges. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation appointed him in 2007 to the Congressional task force on Commercial Driver’s Licensing. Judge Witte was recently appointed Judicial Out-reach Liaison for National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-tion Region 5 which covers six Midwestern states.

LAKE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE THOMAS STEFANIAK, JR., was named Judge of the Year for 2008 by the Indiana Cor-rectional Association.

COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE JAMES S. KIRSCH was awarded the Paul H. Buchanan Jr. Award of Excellence by the Indianapolis Bar Association/Indianapolis Bar Foundation at a recognition luncheon held on November 20, 2008.

MARION SUPERIOR JUDGE ROBERT ALTICE became presid-ing judge of the court system for a two-year term. Judges Gerald Zore, Ted Sosin and Tanya Walton Pratt are also serving on the executive committee.

ROBERT RATH, an attorney with an MBA degree, is the new Director of Appellate Court Technology for State Court Admin-istration and will be leading the Supreme Court’s IT Depart-ment. Bob has over twenty years of IT leadership experience, working on major programs for Thomson Inc. and Sara Lee, in Indianapolis and Mexico. He may be contacted in the STAD offices by phone at 317- 234-6529 and by e-mail at [email protected].

This is a new feature in the Indiana Court Times that spotlights people who work in the Indiana Court system. We are reaching out to our

readers to provide us with material to use in this continuing column. Please send information to [email protected].

PHOTO. Lindsey Borschel.


SPOTLIGHT

Justice Brent Dickson presented attorney Mary Nold Larimore with an award for ten years of services to the Rules Committee.

& SAVE A TREESTAY INFORMED

If you wouldlike to help save a tree and still stayinformed, you may receivethe Indiana Court Times viaemail, or you can access ourwebsite: courts.IN.gov/admin (click on “Publications”).

To have your name removed from our hardcopy mailing list, contact Deborah Guthrie-Jones [email protected].


PLEASE CIRCULATE TO CO-WORKERSThis newsletter reports on important administrative matters. Please keep for future reference. Issues are also available online at:

courts.IN.gov/admin/court-times

EDITORIAL BOARD

Lilia G. Judson, PublisherExecutive Director, State Court Admin.

David J. Remondini, Managing EditorChief Deputy Executive Director, State Court Admin.

James F. Maguire, EditorStaff Attorney, State Court Admin.

Lindsey Borschel, Publication DesignerWeb Coordinator, State Court Admin./JTAC

Deborah Guthrie-Jones,Distribution CoordinatorAdministrative Assistant, State Court Admin.

Indiana Supreme CourtDivision of State Court Administration30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500Indianapolis, IN 46204

MISSION

Our goal is to foster communications, respond to concerns, and contribute to the spirit and pride that encompasses the work of all members of the judiciary around the state. We welcome your comments, suggestions and news. If you have an article, advertisements, announcement, or particular issue you would like to see in our publication, please contact us by mail or email at [email protected].

CONTRIBUTORS

Hon. Randall T. ShepardChief Justice, Indiana Supreme Court

Hon. Barbara Arnold HarcourtSenior Judge, Indiana Judicial Center

Aaron M. HendersonChief Probation Offi cer, Blackford County

Deb PerryDirector of Community Corrections, Blackford County

James WalkerDirector of Trial Court ManagementState Court Administration

James F. MaguireStaff Attorney, State Court Administration

Deborah A. NealStaff Attorney,Indiana Public Defender CommissionState Court Administration

Brenda RodehefferEmployment Law Services,State Court Administration

Kathryn DolanPublic Information Offi cer,State Court Administration

Lindsey BorschelWeb Coordinator, JTAC

KEEP UP-TO-DATEwith legislation before the Indiana General Assembly

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE BLOGAccess the blog at

courts.IN.gov/center

Documents

Indiana Court Times 18.1