Judicial mandates are a state-wide controversy brought home
Now a Carroll County problem
By Debbie Lowe

Tension has grown in the last two council meetings between Carroll Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Smith and the body of the county council over the county hiring policy. The issue also includes county auditor Beth Myers, who is bound by state board of accounts guidelines to follow county ordinances and resolutions.

The issue seemed at first to be whether Dee Dellenbach, hired by Smith as court bailiff, should be considered a part-time employee, a temporary employee, or a full-time employee. Smith did not advertise the position prior to interviewing and subsequently hiring Dellenbach.

However, the real issue seems to be about the council's authority, or lack thereof, to impose one of those conditions on court personnel the same as apply to all other county employees. Each category dictates a rate of pay and benefit level explained in the county personnel policy manual, contained in the budget and included in the county salary ordinance.

At the last council meeting, held Nov. 6, council members denied Smith's request to pay Dellenbach the same salary as Vick Lesh, the absent bailiff granted unpaid medical leave. Smith's additional request to pay medical benefits to Dellenbach was also denied.

According to Myers, Lesh's leave is unpaid because her vacation days, sick time and personal days have all been exhausted. Lesh continues to receive disability benefits from county-provided life and disability insurance, Myers added.

In response on Thursday, Nov. 9, Smith issued a mandate, or a court order, filed in Carroll Superior Court, which ordered the council to abide by his request for the funds.

Council members exercised their perceived authority and the judge exercised his perceived authority. And thus set the stage for a drama that is being played out across the state in at least three counties.

Smith's order reads: "IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1.The salary of Dee Dellenbach as bailiff of the Carroll Superior Court shall be $21,622 annually, as previously approved by the Carroll County Council in the Carroll County Salary Ordinance for 2006 and 2007 from the date of employment.

2.Dee Dellenbach shall be paid for the period from October 9, 2006 to October 22, 2006 and all subsequent pay periods the difference between the claim for wages filed and the salary paid immediately.

3.Dee Dellenbach shall receive all benefits of a full-time employee of Carroll County, including but not limited to health benefits, retirement, sick days, vacation days, holidays, or personal leave days from the date of her employment.

4.The Carroll County Council and the Auditor shall take all necessary steps to implement this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Carroll County Council and the Carroll County Auditor appear before the Carroll Superior Court on a date and at a time to be fixed by further order of the Court and show cause why the salary and benefits ordered above should not be paid."

According to President of the Association of Indiana Counties and Montgomery County Auditor Jeff Dossett, council has the option to accept the order or not. If it is not accepted, the matter will go to litigation before a special judge for a ruling. And if the council does not agree with that ruling, the matter will go to the Indiana Supreme Court, which is where Montgomery County Council members find themselves at present.

Dossett said in a Nov. 9 Comet interview, AIC would like for the matter to receive national attention for a permanent resolution. He said for a judge to order unplanned spending is a dangerous situation.

"A judge's mandate is a form of judicial tyranny," Dossett said. "I would love to see the issue go to the federal level (for resolution)."

AIC is working to support legislation that would remove the ability of a judge to demand the county pay for what the court believes to be necessary, not what council members determine to be necessary.

"If the council is no longer in control of the county finances, taxes will go up," Dossett declared.

Dossett suggested taxpayers contact their state representatives to work towards the goal of total council control over county money.

As it stands now, the only recourse for the Carroll County Council is to accept Smith's order or to engage in a legal battle, which will cost the county money. Either way, taxpayers will suffer the financial impact of the mandate according to Dossett. The county must pay for the judge's legal fees as well as their own for this to be resolved.

According to an article in the September/October issue of Indiana News 92, published by AIC titled, "Judicial mandates become financial burden for counties," Deputy Legislative Director Dax Denton said, "Judicial mandates are an often frustrating and undesirable occurrence when presented to the County Commissioners and County Council. It is something that can deplete county resources, cause reductions in employees, and place additional fiscal limits on county services. It is happening all across Indiana from Clark County, to Montgomery County and even in St. Joseph County. Worst of all, the county has very little recourse of action when mandated by a judge. These judicial

mandates have become a growing concern for counties across Indiana, costing them thousands of dollars in legal fees and compliance measures."

According to the article, AIC supports "appropriate and adequate funding of county courts." However, counties must have the ability to fund all other county services "at appropriate levels without having to increase taxes to continue paying for judicial functions."

Carroll County Council member Nancy Cripe, while being interviewed for a Comet story about the county's money woes, said, "I've been on the county council for four years and I've gotten more calls and contacts about the mandate than any other issue. When we denied Smith's request, I expected the mandate. The people I've talked to are very upset."

"I expected this," council president Rob Baker said in a Nov. 10 Comet interview. "I don't understand it, but I expected it."

Baker said the council will meet in executive session Nov. 17 to develop a plan of action.

"This is so new-as long as I've been on the council, we've never had a mandate," Baker said. "We may be forced to spend money now to avoid uncontrolled spending in the future," he concluded.