SB 14 would require the attorney general to represent judges in mandate actions and prevent the state from paying for a private attorney used by a judge in a mandate action. Maybe I’m just projecting, but this bill seems to reflect some annoyance at the practice of judges issuing mandates requiring the expenditure of public funds, then going out and retaining really high priced legal talent (usually out of Indianapolis) and requiring the public to foot that bill as well.
By way of disclaimer, my irritation with the mandate process comes out of my role in representing county government. In Indiana, the judiciary is an odd hybrid between a state and local office. (And, I had a minor role in one mandate action.) The judge is a state official and not accountable to the local officials. However, his or her court facilities and staff are generally supplied by the county. When the judge feels like his or her facilities or staff is inadequate or inadequately compensated, he or she can mandate the expenditure of more funds. Other departments of county government can’t do this. They just have to deal with the budgets set by the commissioners and the council. That said, most judges use their mandate powers responsibly or not at all. Still, there is a disparity that doesn’t seem entirely appropriate when it comes to allocation of county funds.
Leave a Reply