« Ind. Gov't. - Following up on "Lights Out at the Penitentiary: Strapped States are Shutting Prisons" | Main | Ind. Law - Indianapolis attorney Ed Delaney reportedly brutally attacked, perhaps by another attorney »

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Ind. Courts - "St. Joseph County officials are saying little about Nemeth case"

Erin Blasko has this report today in the South Bend Tribune. (For background, see this ILB entry from Oct. 29th.) Some quotes:

County officials are saying very little about an order issued earlier this week in a legal battle between the county and Probate Judge Peter Nemeth.

The order, handed down Wednesday, rules against the county and requires it to release more than $300,000 to Nemeth to pay raises and make physical improvements at the Juvenile Justice Center. It also requires county commissioners to pay Nemeth's legal fees, totaling more than $18,000.

Officials did not comment on the order Wednesday because some had not yet seen it, and others were unavailable. A Tribune reporter then supplied the order to commissioners and to Deputy Auditor Cindy Bodle on Thursday. [The ILB has not obtained a copy.] * * *

The order stems from a judicial mandate issued by Nemeth earlier this year directing the County Council and commissioners to appropriate $60,208 to him to provide raises to eight JJC employees and $295,950.98 to renovate the JJC facility.

State judicial rules allow judges to issue judicial mandates requiring the release of funds if it is believed those funds are necessary to administer justice.

The appropriations were approved by the council and commissioners in late 2008, but commissioners never signed the requisition forms. Kovach refused, and Mark Dobson and Steve Ross were preparing to leave office.

The money for renovations was to come from an unspent JJC personnel fund and the raises from juvenile probation user fees.

As a result of the commissioners' inaction, money in the unspent personnel fund reverted to the general fund to balance the 2009 budget.

In ruling against the county, William Satterlee, a Valparaiso attorney appointed special judge in the case, argued the mandated expenditures would not financially burden the county because the $295,950.98 that reverted back to the county became unappropriated revenue in the 2009 budget.

He also said the county failed to prove the expenditures were unnecessary and/or extravagant.

Asked Wednesday about the order, Nemeth said it proved he was on the side of justice in the case.

"Well, I'm certainly pleased the rule of law prevailed," Nemeth said. "I think the rule of law was on our side from the beginning."

Nemeth said it was unfortunate the county chose to oppose the mandate, calling the decision a "waste of taxpayer money."

If the county accepts Satterlee's order, it will take effect within 30 days, according to Jim Masters, Nemeth's attorney.

[County attorney Jim] Groves, however, has indicated the county has no such intention, and that it plans to allow the case to proceed to the state Supreme Court for review.

If the Supreme Court upholds Satterlee's ruling, the county would likely cover expenditures mandated in the order, Bodle said, by first looking to tap unspent JJC funds.

If the JJC has no unspent funds, or if Nemeth balks at their use, the county would then be forced to either make cuts in other departments, Bodle said, or tap its Rainy Day and County Economic Development Income Tax, or CEDIT, funds.

The latter, she said, would threaten the sustainability of those funds, which represent a sort of financial safety net for the county. * * *

For his part, Nemeth said he hoped he would not have to get into another "legal scrabble" with the county concerning the execution of the order.

The ILB believes: (1) this was the first mandate action pursued under the revised Supreme Court rule re mandates; and (2) the possibility of another mandate has been raised at this year's St. Joe budget meetings.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 31, 2009 10:01 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts