« Ind. Decisions - "Appeals court upholds dealer's sentence" | Main | Ind. Courts - More on: Leo Burns' ballot battle for Cass County Circuit Court Judge continues »

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Ind. Courts - Even more on "Montgomery County judges issue mandate for staff raises" [Updated]

See this July 19th, 2006 ILB entry for background on this judicial mandate case out of Montgomery County.

Today the AP reports:

CRAWFORDSVILLE, Ind. - Montgomery County must raise the pay of nine court employees to make their salaries competitive with court workers in other Indiana counties, a special judge ruled.

Officials say the county can't afford to pay the raises, which Special Judge Julian L. Ridlen said would add about $81,000 to the county's 2006 budget.

Ridlen, the Cass circuit judge, also ordered Montgomery County to pay $128,000 in court costs and attorney fees. The case will go to the Indiana Supreme Court in 30 days unless Montgomery County officials waive the judicial review.

"If the Supreme Court rules for the mandate we will have to borrow the money. It's going to put us in a world of hurt," said Terry Hockersmith, the county council president. He said the financially strapped county had to borrow money to begin the year and already had to cut $1.2 million from its budget.

Riplen's order, issued Monday, upheld an August 2005 mandate issued by Montgomery County's three judges that required the county to increase pay for each court's reporter, administrative assistant and secretary/balliff.

Riplen also found county Auditor Jeff Dossett in contempt, saying he had refused to pay the mandated raises from the Judges Bond Administration Fund for the last four months of 2005.

The Judges Bond Administration Fund, which uses court-generated fees as it source, has enough money to pay for the raises without affecting other county employees, Riplen wrote, but no money has been deposited in the fund since August 2005.

Riplen said the money, amounting to $15,000, apparently had been placed in the General Fund and ordered Dossett to account for it.

Melissa Franklin reports for the Crawfordsville Journal-Review:
"I am absolutely shocked," said Montgomery County Council President Terry Hockersmith. "I can't believe that Ridlen agreed with everything the judges said. I am extremely disappointed that he didn't look at all the facts in this case. We have already had to cut $1.2 million from the budget. Obviously he just really doesn't care what happens to this county."

Taylor said the County Council has 30 days to decide whether or not to have the case reviewed by the Indiana State Supreme Court.

"Unless expressly waived by the Council in writing within thirty days after the entering of the judge's ruling, it will be automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court promptly on expiration of such 30 day period," Montgomery County Attorney Dan Taylor said referring to Trial Law Rule 60.5 Procedure. * * *

On August 16, 2005, Montgomery County Judges Thomas Milligan of Circuit Court, Judge David Ault of Superior Court, and Judge Peggy Lohorn of Superior Court II, issued a mandate order requiring the Montgomery County Council to increase the salaries for the Montgomery County Court personnel. The judges issued an amended order for mandate of funds on August 22, 2005. The Council refused to increase the salaries of the Court staff, and thus refused to comply with mandate orders, Ridlen's ruling said.

A bench trial was held on July 17 and 18 with Judge Ridlen. The parties were then able to submit their final arguments to Ridlen for review.

"The Judges have, for many years, requested that the Council significantly increase the salaries of their employees so that those salaries are competitive with salaries paid to court staff in other Indiana counties," Judge Ridlen stated in his findings. "The Council, however, has not addressed the necessity of being competitive with respect to court staff salaries in comparable or in neighboring counties. Most of the budget years reflect only a nominal increase in staff salaries to equal the percentage salary increases paid to other County employees, and generally reflecting a cost of living type of adjustment. In some years, the Council has actually provided court staff with no salary increases." * * *

The judges submitted claims for payment of the new salaries from the Bond Administration Fee Fund to Montgomery County Auditor Jeff Dossett. However, Dossett, without counsel, refused to comply with the amended mandate order which required him to pay salary increases to the Montgomery County Court staff from the Judges' Bond Administration Fund during the last four months of 2005.

Judge Ridlen's findings stated, aside from whether the matter was developed to include Dossett in the mandate proceeding, it is clear that Dossett has misdirected at least $15,000 in fees from the Bond Administration Fund to the County General Fund since August, 2005. Ridlen ordered in his findings that Dossett should immediately make an accounting of all misdirected funds and transfer the same to the Bond Administration Fund.

Ridlen's ruling said Dossett willfully refused to comply with the amended mandate order and, unlike the Council, failed to appeal that order or otherwise appear or participate in this proceeding to seek or show cause why he did not comply with the order. Ridlen therefore finds that Dossett is in contempt of court for his willful failure to comply with the judges' amended mandate order, and Dossett is to immediately make an accounting of all misdirected funds and transfer the same to the Bail Bond Administration Fund.

"I don't think he broke any laws," Milligan said referring to Dossett.

"It seems to be a poor court ruling," Dossett said. Dossett explained that the judges' mandate is not an order unless it survives a court challenge. Dossett had only asked the Auditor's Association for legal advice before the trial through the law firm of Barnes & Thornberg. He said to get any more advice would be costly, and he doesn't feel free to ask for any until he talked with the Council. "I thought that Dan Taylor was my representation at the trial," Dossett said. "Dan Taylor represents the county, and I am part of the county."

The ILB is attempting to obtain a copy of the opinion.

[Update] Thanks to the Crawfordsville Journal-Review, the mandate ruling is now avaiable from their site, at the very bottom of this morning's story. It is a very large (0ver 2 MG) scanned documents.

For more on judicial mandates, see my article, "Separation of Powers in the County Courthouse," 49 Res Gestae 2 (Sept. 2005), pp. 17-19, available here.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 21, 2006 07:12 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts