« Ind. Gov't. - "Duke Energy's Assistant General Counsel, State President Fired Over Hiring Flap" | Main | Ind. Decisions - One tax court decision posted today »

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Ind. Courts - "Judge Nemeth requests an apology: Nemeth says commissioners implied he wasn't following the law"

Erin Blasko reports today in the South Bend Tribune in a story that begins:

Probate Judge Peter J. Nemeth has demanded that Bob Kovach and Dave Thomas apologize for statements the two made during a recent commissioners meeting.

In separate letters dated Nov. 22, Nemeth challenges the two commissioners to “set the record straight. Show me the law that is being ‘broken' by the passing of this ordinance.

“If you cannot do this, I believe you owe me a public apology.”

During a meeting Nov. 16, the two Democrats voted to veto an ordinance appropriating $225,000 in juvenile probation fees to convert the former CASA space at the Juvenile Justice Center into a fifth courtroom.

In doing so, both cited a recent mandate case involving the county and Nemeth, in which the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that juvenile probation fees may only be used to supplement probation services or probation officer salaries and not “to replace other funding or probation services.”

“By casting this vote, I intend to follow the law,” Kovach said at the time, to which Thomas added, “To vote for this ordinance would set a poor example to the citizens of St. Joseph County that it's OK to break some laws.”

“In effect, you are implying that I am not following the law,” Nemeth says in the two letters. “In reading the Supreme Court opinion regarding our recent mandate action, there is no such statement that juvenile probation user fees cannot be used to expand courtrooms.”

He adds: “Your above cited statement is not supported by the record or any other evidence. To put it bluntly, you are either ignorant of the law or deliberately misstating what the law is.”

Nemeth also notes that even though the court ruled he did not provide sufficient evidence during the mandate trial “to show that a new courtroom is reasonably necessary to the court's operation,” “the evidence has changed since that trial was held.”

For background, start with this ILB entry from Nov. 17th.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 30, 2010 12:03 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts