« Ind. Courts - More on: "A judge has ordered a defendant to 'return to the South Bend Tribune and admit that he lied' to a reporter." | Main | Ind. Courts - Elkhart Superior Court judge won't seek reelection »
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Courts - "Judicial mandate not popular device"
Who knew?
"Judicial mandate not popular device" is the headline to an editorial today in the Goshen News:
Mention a judicial mandate to a county council member and it is guaranteed to cause an increase in blood pressure.For more on the Supreme Court's decision in the Montgomery Conty mandate case, start with this ILB entry from Sept. 28th.A judicial mandate ordering pay hikes for court employees in Montgomery County was recently upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court, which again confirms the legality of the action.
But that doesn’t make it any more palatable for other county officials. Just because a judge can issue a mandate doesn’t mean he should do it.
Consider the Montgomery County case. The judges said they were losing staff to higher-paying jobs, but county officials said they couldn’t afford the raises. The County Council had cut $1.2 million from the budget.
Yet the judicial power of the state reaches from the Supreme Court at the state level all the way to the courts of general jurisdiction at the local level. So even though staffers who work for the courts are considered county employees, their pay can’t be controlled by the county council. * * *
A judicial mandate is a device that should be used sparingly, if at all. If a need is compelling, judges should be able to draw on their background of advocacy to persuade county officials to go along with the request.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 2, 2007 07:46 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts