Indiana Court Times 18.5

Issue 18.5 SEP/OCT 2009

The Honorable Judge John "Jan" D. Downer 73, died Monday, August 10,

2009. He was born in Frankfort Indiana. Jan attended Indiana University and received a Bachelor's Degree in Business and received his Juris Doctorate from Indiana University School of Law in Indianapolis. After practicing law for fourteen years, he was appointed by Governor Otis Bowen as a Marion County Municipal Court Judge. After serving 22 years, Judge Downer retired from the Marion County Superior Court in 2000. He served as a Senior Judge until 2004.

in memoriam

2 SEP/OCT 2009 courttimes

CONTENTS

In Memoriam: Judge John D. Downer .................. 2

Crossing Barriers: New Court Interpreters Sworn-In .... 3

Mortgage Foreclosure AttorneyTraining Update ................ 5

Cleaning Out Your Email Boxes ..... 6

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative in Indiana ....................... 7

Court Strategic Planning: Where do we go from here? .......... 8

SIDEBAR Hon. Sherry Biddinger Gregg ...... 10

Think B4 U Drive ........................ 11

BITS & ByTESIndiana's Court Technology Efforts Garner National Attention ........... 12

E-Filing & Administrative Rule 16 . 13

BRENDA'S BAILIWICK Social Media & the Employer ....... 14

New Court Payroll System: The Digital Paystub...................... 15

the capital city of Lima, Peru in South America, with its mild climate and population of

around eight million people, is 3600 miles from central Indiana. But Massiel Krall, originally from Lima, was recently certified as an Indiana court interpreter and her native language, Spanish, is more commonly being heard in courthouses across the Hoosier state. Census figures released for 2005-2007 indicated ap-proximately 434,000 people in Indiana spoke a language other than English in their homes. This number confirms the multi-cultural reality of mid-America. As Indiana’s demographics change, there will be increasing demand for certified court interpreters like Massiel Krall.

Krall and ten other bi-lingual Hoosiers each raised their hand on September 25th and were officially sworn-in as certi-fied Spanish court interpreters. Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert Rucker who administered the oath explained, “Today is as much a celebration for you as it is for the Indiana Supreme Court and the trial courts.” Indiana Public Defender Susan Carpenter also spoke at the ceremony and agreed with Justice Rucker. As a member of the Court In-terpreter Advisory Board she also served as an original member of the Race and Gender Fairness Commission. “When we discovered the extent of the growth of non-English speakers we were stunned. Without the support of the Indiana Su-preme Court this would not exist.”

The Interpreter Certification Program began in 2003 in response to Indiana’s growing non-English speaking population and the need for interpreter services for individuals who do not speak English as their native language. The Commission on Race and Gender Fairness recom-mended that the Supreme Court estab-lish a certified court interpreter program.

The Commission is charged with study-ing the status of race and gender fairness in Indiana's justice system and investigat-ing ways to improve race and gender fair-ness in the courts, legal system, and state and local government, as well as among legal service providers and public organi-zations. The Commission makes recom-

crossing barriersNewly sworn court interpreters ready to play their part in providing greater access to justice for non-English speakers

PICTURED ABOVE.

Front Row (left to right): Camille Wiggins, Michael Cadavid, Greta Payne, Marcela Gutierrez, William Klemme, Victor Krebs, Justice Robert D. Rucker.

Back Row (left to right): Massiel Krall, Gloria Lupo, Luz Adriana Deck, Vivian Kurzendoerfer, Raquel Gonzalez.

ON THE COVER.

Gloria Lupo and Greta Payne raise their hands amid their fellow interpreters as Justice Robert D. Rucker administers their oath.

courttimes SEP/OCT 2009 3

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

By Kathryn Dolan | PUBlIC InForMatIon oFFICEr, InDIana sUPrEME CoUrt | Photos By JUstIn hartEr

mendations to the Supreme Court on the adoption of policies and procedures promoting race and gender fairness. “Before we could address race and gender issues on a global scale we needed to ad-dress the language barriers,” said Justice Rucker as he explained the history of the interpreter program. The long-term hopes of the 25-member Race and Gender Fairness Commission began with a simple premise—the impor-tance of basic communica-tion could not be ignored.

The Supreme Court authorized Lilia Judson, Executive Director of the Division of State Court Administration, to join the National Center for State Courts’ Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification. The Division began work to implement an Indiana court interpreter testing system for Spanish and established the Court Interpreter Advisory Board to help guide the program.

The certification program has been expanded to include a number of languages, now with a total of 73 certified court interpreters. With standardized materials from the National Center for State Courts, the Supreme Court has certified interpreters in Spanish (71), Arabic (1) and in French (1), has tested in Polish and Russian, and has the capability to test in many other languages.

Michael Cadavid, who was born and raised in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood in Corona, Queens New York, NY, was one of the interpreters recognized. His parents emigrated from Colombia to the United States and spoke Spanish at home. For Cadavid, learning the legal terminology was the toughest part of the certification process. At the ceremony, Justice Rucker pointed out, “Certified interpreters are now being used all over the state and the certifi-

cation process is tough. It includes a written and an oral exam as well as ethics training. There is also a criminal back-ground check. A candidate is certified only after completion of all stages.”

Newly certified interpreter Greta Payne, who was born in Buenos Aires, Argen-tina pointed to that rigorous certifica-tion process as crucial, “Being bilingual

doesn't guarantee a good interpretation,” she explained. Payne provides interpret-ing services to state and federal courts in both Indiana and Kentucky. Other interpreters like Krall agree. She ex-plained, “The certified court interpret-ers are bound to comply with a code of ethics and professional responsibility for judiciary interpreters.”

The interpreters recognized at the cer-emony in the historic Supreme Court courtroom successfully completed all five phases of the certification process within the last two years. Ruth Rivera Morales, Chair of the Indiana State Bar Associa-tion Latino Affairs Committee, extended her congratulations to the interpreters and offered the following remarks, “You are bestowed one of the most awesome responsibilities and opportunities. On the basic level, communication is what we need to express our thoughts and feel-

ings. It is a tremendous responsibility to help someone who may be in one of the most difficult situations of their life.”

The responsibility entrusted to a certi-fied interpreter is not something Vivian Kurzendoerfer takes lightly. She was born and raised in Puerto Rico and spoke Spanish at home. Kurzendoerfer learned English at school and went on to

graduate from the Univer-sity of Notre Dame with a degree in Management Information Systems. She said: “Our values of justice in this country demand that even people who don’t speak English have the right to communicate and under-stand court proceedings.”

Certified court interpreters remove language barriers and ensure that individu-als in need have access to our court system. But the reality for many counties across the state is that there are also financial barriers. That is why the Supreme Court, through its Division of State Court Administra-tion, awards grant money to counties in need. In 2008, the Supreme Court

awarded nearly $240,000 in grant money to 40 county court systems to encourage trial courts to use the certified interpret-ers. Support for the program comes from beyond the bench and the bar. The Indiana General Assembly appropriates money for the program and other Su-preme Court foreign language initiatives.

Camille T. Wiggins, Division of State Court Administration attorney, super-vises the program. She told those at the ceremony, “It’s a terrible problem when language is a barrier in our courts and together we can bring down that bar-rier.” Justice Rucker congratulated those already doing their part, “We are grate-ful for your desire to seek professional excellence and your ability to help those who otherwise might not receive access to justice.”

For more information on the program, visit courts.in.gov/interpreter.


CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Justice Robert D. Rucker presents newly sworn interpreter Massiel Krall with her Indiana Supreme Court certification.

It is because of the committed partnerships among several state and local agen-

cies that over 1000 attorneys, media-tors, and judges are specially trained to work with foreclosure cases and help Hoosiers facing foreclosure. These training efforts have fulfilled the prom-ise Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard made in his 2009 State of the Judiciary address, when he stated “by summer Indiana will have trained more judges and pro bono lawyers and mediators to help people facing foreclosure than any other court system in America.” In order to meet that goal, the Mortgage Foreclosure Taskforce was created, with representatives from the Indiana Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration, Commission for Continuing Legal Education, Indi-ana Judicial Center, Indiana Attorney General’s Office, Indiana Pro Bono Commission, Indiana Legal Services, Indiana State Bar Association, and In-diana Housing and Community Devel-opment Authority. The Taskforce was developed to educate trial court judges and train and recruit volunteer lawyers to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

Efforts to educate judicial officers began in March when the Indiana Judicial Center offered a foreclosure training session at the Indiana Judicial Conference’s Spring Judicial College. Additional judicial training was coordi-nated in conjunction with the Indiana Judicial Conference district meetings in central and southern Indiana, and a subsequent training event in northern Indiana. Most recently, an educational session dedicated to foreclosure law was offered to judicial officers at the September Annual Meeting of the Judicial Conference of Indiana. These training events have provided judges information on the latest developments in Indiana’s foreclosure laws, as well as the opportunity to share their own

local policies and practices aimed to get both lenders and borrowers commu-nicating to determine whether foreclo-sure is avoidable.

Attorney foreclosure training efforts also commenced in March, when the Taskforce co-sponsored its first attorney training event in Indianapolis, hosted by the Indiana Housing and Commu-nity Development Authority. Next, with production assistance provided by the Indiana Continuing Legal Educa-tion Forum, the Taskforce developed the “Back Home in Indiana: Guiding Homeowners through Foreclosure” training curriculum, video, and materi-als, designed to be used in attorney training events offered across the state. Those training events began in June, and as of September 1, 2009, the Task-force has sponsored or co-sponsored over thirty attorney training events facilitated largely through partnerships with local pro bono commission dis-trict committees. By offering training events in several locations, with a stan-dardized curriculum, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Melissa S. May, chair of the Indiana Pro Bono Commission, believes the Taskforce has “been able to quickly and effectively develop a con-tingent of several hundred attorneys ca-pable of providing pro bono assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure.”

The General Assembly addressed the foreclosure crisis in Indiana by passing Senate Enrolled Act 492 (codified at IC 32-30-10.5 et.seq.). Among other things, this new law authorizes a fifty-dollar filing fee in mortgage foreclosure cases, provides borrowers the right to request a settlement conference prior to a final foreclosure judgment being entered, and requires creditors to direct borrowers facing foreclosure to fore-closure prevention assistance through the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network (IFPN).

The IFPN operates through the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority and connects homeowners facing foreclosure with trained foreclo-sure prevention counselors to determine if a foreclosure prevention workout plan is possible and what mortgage payment would be affordable for the homeowner. If an IFPN counselor believes a home-owner needs legal assistance, they have a legal referral process in place to connect homeowners with pro bono attorney resources in their community.

The Taskforce worked with Justin Corbett, foreclosure mediation training project manager with the Commission for Continuing Legal Education, to develop a mediator-specific foreclosure training component to compliment the attorney curriculum. The media-tor training component was offered in conjunction with five attorney train-ing events, and has currently trained fifty-two Indiana Registered Foreclosure Mediators. Judge Nancy Boyer of the Allen County Superior Court believes “conducting the settlement conference in the courthouse and appointing a me-diator to facilitate the conference have been essential elements to the success of the settlement conferences.”

To ensure that judges and attorneys receive up-to-date information on the new law and settlement conference requirements, the Taskforce included updated information in the attorney training materials and created a “ju-dicial resources” link on its webpage. The resources link contains informa-tion specific to the requirements of the new foreclosure law, copies of the pre-suit and complaint notices re-quired under the new law, answers to frequently asked questions, as well as sample orders and other helpful proce-dural tools for judges.

The changes to Indiana’s foreclosure law and procedure have been complex, and judges have had to develop new case management strategies to handle the volume of foreclosure cases, that numbered over 45,000 filed in 2008. Indiana attorneys and mediators must learn quickly, and constantly monitor the evolving foreclosure law landscape, in order to effectively represent their clients and facilitate strategies to pre-vent foreclosures.

For additional information please visit courts.IN.gov/home.

Mortgage Foreclosure Attorney Training

U P D A T E


By JEnnIFEr l. wEBEr | staFF attornEy, InDIana JUDICIal CEntEr

Courts have seen many cost and time saving benefits from email communications; but this new technology has not been without its challenges. In the summer of 2008, the Bartholomew County Director of Information Tech-nology (“IT”) brought two matters of concern to the local Public Records Commission (“PRC”): the size of employees’ email accounts and public records requests.

As the elected chairman of the PRC, I chaired a subcom-mittee that addressed these issues. The other members of the Commission include the County Commissioner, Auditor, Clerk, Recorder, Superintendent of Schools, and the Columbus City Clerk. IT was concerned because in that year Tippecanoe County had received a public records request for all emails from the accounts of 25 employees over a 21 month period relating to a potential detention center expansion. Such a request in Bartholomew County would cripple our IT department. The IT department does not have the resources to sort through two years of email to respond to this type of broad public records request.

Some of our county employees had email accounts with over two million kilobytes (KBs) of data. Much of this “data” consisted of photos and attachments which were passed from employee to employee. These emails were not work related (unless one finds sending funny pictures of animals dressed in costumes to be a job related morale booster). And, after Bartholomew County experienced a horrendous flood in June 2008, email account sizes jumped tremendously as employees shared photos of impacted sites. The size of email accounts increased exponentially, and this data was being backed up daily.

The IT department focused on solving two related prob-lems: 1) the wasted space being used by these emails on expensive backup disks, and 2) the potential burden on the IT department that would be caused by a public records request. The IT department was most concerned with an information request because they would need to either sort through all of the data in order to cull out just what was requested, or deliver the entire contents of an employee’s mailbox and allow the requesting entity to sort through it. The latter alternative was unacceptable.

We developed a policy to limit mailbox sizes and establish retention procedures. We first notified all department heads and office holders of the issues. Upon receipt of the proposal to limit mailbox sizes, employee angst and trepida-tion was widespread. We held an informational meeting with simple tips on how to reduce mailbox sizes. Most

employees were not aware of the need to delete their SENT items and then to EMPTY THE TRASH for the DELETED items. They learned that just clearing out the SENT and DELETED folders frees up a significant amount of space. IT developed a tutorial demonstrating these simple procedures and how to check one’s mailbox size.

We invited all department heads and office holders to meet with a PRC subcommittee to draft a policy. After receiv-ing comments, we sent the final draft for review to Jim Corridan, Director of the Indiana Commission on Public Records. Upon its return, our PRC voted its approval and the County Commissioners adopted it.

The new policy defines emails as either non-record (transi-tory) emails or public-record emails. Non-record emails include personal correspondence, holiday notices, meet-ing confirmations, etc. Public-record emails relate to the conduct of public business. If an email is to be retained under a department’s public records retention schedule, the sender of the email is responsible for its retention, which should be on hard copy or on a shared network drive.

The Policy also provides that the maximum size of a mail-box is 100,000 KBs of data (equivalent to 3,000 average text documents). IT will notify users upon reaching 90% of capacity, and that at maximum capacity they will not be able to receive or send additional emails. All DELETED emails will be purged automatically on a daily basis. Retained emails will be archived for three years. If there is a lawsuit or threat of a lawsuit, all emails will be saved until the suit is resolved.

Our adoption of this policy is timely. At the judicial confer-ence in September, we learned that the Delaware County local media submitted a Public Records Request in August 2009 seeking all electronic correspondence of all county employees for a one-day period. The stated purpose of this request is to look at a snapshot of county employees’ com-puter use to determine if employees are wasting taxpayers’ dollars by inappropriately spending time on the internet or passing jokes around via email.

Bartholomew County’s policy will not cure all misuses of email by employees, but it will provide a curb on it without the necessity of monitoring individual use.

A copy of the Bartholomew County Email Retention Policy is posted on the website of the Indiana Commission on Public Records at www.in.gov/icpr/files/emailpolicy-bartholomewcounty.pdf.

Cleaning Out Your Email Boxes[Editor’s Note: This article is provided as an example of best practices in the Information Technology (IT) area. Administrative Rule 9(G)(1)(h)

excludes from public access all personal notes and e-mail, and deliberative material, of judges, jurors, court staff, and judicial agencies, and infor-

mation recorded in personal data assistants (PDA’s) or organizers and personal calendars.]


By thE honoraBlE stEPhEn r. hEIMann | BartholoMEw CIrCUIt CoUrt

The Juvenile Detention Al-ternatives Initiative (JDAI) is a project of the Anne E. Casey Foun-dation, which began in 1992 its nation-wide effort to reduce the population of juveniles in detention. It is now having a significant impact in Indiana.

JDAI promotes changes to policies, practices, and programs to reduce reli-ance on secure confinement, improve public safety, reduce racial disparities and bias, save taxpayer dollars, and stimulate overall juvenile justice reforms. Since its inception in 1992, JDAI has repeat-edly demonstrated that jurisdictions can safely reduce reliance on secure deten-tion. There are now approximately 100 JDAI sites in 24 states and the District of Columbia.

The Marion County Juvenile Detention Center in Indianapolis is one of these sites.

Marion Superior Courts in 2006 invited the Anne E. Casey Foundation to bring JDAI to Indianapolis. This nationwide program designed to reduce juvenile detention and increase the use of alterna-tives to detention has been very effective in reducing the number of youths held in Marion County’s Juvenile Detention Center. The leadership of judges, proba-tion department officials, and others were essential to its successful implementation.

This initiative provides various resources to local jurisdictions attempting to reduce juvenile detention center popula-

tions. JDAI emphasizes the need to gath-er good data concerning the juveniles in detention and to make good decisions based on that information. The Anne E. Casey Foundation provides technical assistance, staff training, educational materials and the opportunity to travel to model sites for a discussion of shared experiences. Their staff also provides assistance to each local site in developing criteria to assess local detention practices. The assessment includes a review of col-laboration efforts with other community juvenile related entities, alternatives to detention, intake practices, case process-ing, the confinement environment, and reduction of racial disparities.

The goal of JDAI is to reduce the use of juvenile detention. In 2006, Marion County’s Juvenile Detention Center, with a rated bed capacity of 144, often held as many as 200 children each night. A 20-member JDAI Steering Committee was formed in June 2006 to collaborate on solutions to this overcrowding. The members of the Steering Committee were chosen from both inside and out-side Marion County. It included profes-sionals with juvenile justice expertise from Indiana University, Indiana Judicial Center, Indiana Criminal Justice Insti-tute, Indiana Department of Education, and Indiana Department of Correction. There were representatives of advocacy organizations including Mental Health Association of Indiana, Indiana Youth Services Association, and Church Federa-

tion of Greater Indianapolis. Local mem-bers also included representatives from the mayor’s office, city-county council, judges, probation officers, chief public defender, chief deputy prosecutor, and local law enforcement.

Judge Frank A. Orlando, a retired juvenile court judge from Florida, was assigned by the Foundation to advise Indianapolis on its new initiative. Sub-committees were formed to look into all aspects of the local juvenile justice system impacting juvenile detention: Case Processing, Detention Admissions, Spe-cial Detention Populations, Detention Alternatives, and Detention Utilization. The stakeholders represented agreed on policies that could be used to reduce reli-ance on juvenile detention.

The Steering Committee and the sub-committees met with one goal – to reduce the numbers of juveniles in detention without a negative effect on public safety. Gael Deppart, an attorney working for the juvenile court, provided staff assistance to the Steering Commit-tee and the subcommittees. The commit-tees looked into many areas which affect the number of juveniles in detention, in order to reduce their numbers. A major emphasis was the development and vali-dation of a risk assessment instrument for use by detention staff when a child was brought to the detention center in order to determine whether the juvenile needed to be admitted into the Center. An initial hearing court began hearing cases to again steer juveniles out of deten-tion who did not need to be there and/or reduce the time in the facility.

Data collection and analysis is a critical component of the JDAI initiative. The tracking and analysis of data is needed

JuvenileDetention

AlternativesInIt IatIve In IndIana

Grant monies are available through a Byrne Justice Assistance Grant

By JEFFrEy BErCovItz | DIrECtor, JUvEnIlE & FaMIly law, InDIana JUDICIal CEntEr

CONTINUED ON PAGE 13


“whErE Do wE go FroM hErE?” This is often a question every organiza-tion faces at one time or another, and the judiciary is no exception. The Indiana Judicial Conference Board of Directors met in June 2008 to discuss and identify several strategic planning goals. As a re-sult of that meeting, a Strategic Planning Committee was formed.

In order to know where to go tomorrow, you must start with where you are today. Part of the Strategic Planning Commit-tee’s work has been to look at the current structure of our court system. As a part of this examination, the committee has observed the complex structure of Indi-ana’s courts, especially to those outside the system. Professor Henry Glick, author of Courts, Politics and Justice, described Indiana’s system as one of the least efficient, confusing and archaic court systems. (See figure one.)

The committee discussed where the judi-ciary should strive to be in the future and the reasons to plan for a better court sys-tem. As a result of these discussions, the committee developed the following mis-sion statement: “To improve our system

of justice by assisting with the resolution of disputes under the rule of law while protecting individual rights and liberties in a fair, impartial, equally accessible, prompt, professional, and efficient man-ner.” Over the course of many meetings, this nine member committee developed a set of aspirations to guide the improve-ment of our court system.

The committee has provided periodic reports to the Board of Directors as well as to the whole judiciary during the 2008 Annual Meeting in September and the 2008 Winter Conference in December. The committee members convened fif-teen special district meetings in January 2009 to discuss these concepts with trial judges. The questions, suggestions, and comments from these presentations have assisted the committee in further devel-oping and refining this overall vision.

In October 2008, the Board of Directors approved the Strategic Planning Commit-tee’s continuing study of the following broad concepts: (1) education and profes-sionalism of the courts, (2) court struc-ture, (3) court funding, (4) consolidation of clerk’s functions within the court, and (5) uniform selection of trial court judges.

After completing the January 2008 district meetings, the Strategic Planning Com-mittee reported on the feedback received

during these meetings and again discussed these concepts with the Board of Direc-tors. At the February 2009 meeting, the Board voted to pursue the education initia-tives. The Judicial Education Committee reviewed the recommendations referred to them and developed viable implemen-tation plans. The Board directed the Strategic Planning Committee to continue to formulate recommendations to form new districts. The Board also asked the Strategic Planning Committee to continue to review and study the concepts related to clerk functions, court structure, court fund-ing, and judicial selection.

Most recently, at the Annual Meeting of the Judicial Conference in September and on the recommendation of the Stra-tegic Planning Committee, the Board of Directors adopted a vision to improve Indiana’s justice system entitled “A New Way Forward: The Strategic Planning Committee’s White Paper.” This 27 page document can be found online at: courts.in.gov/center/planning/forward.pdf.

The Strategic Planning Committee will continue to make recommendations focused on improving the professional-ism, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Indiana Judiciary with help from all our partners including judges, clerks, lawmak-ers, bar associations, local governmental officials, and interested citizens. If you would like to know more about the work of the Strategic Planning Committee, please contact one of its members:

Terry C. Shewmaker Elkhart Circuit Court, Co-Chair

Mark D. Stoner Marion Superior Court, Co-Chair

John G. Baker Chief Judge, Indiana Court of Appeals

J. Terrence Cody Floyd Circuit Court

Thomas J. Felts Allen Circuit Court

Frances C. Gull Allen Superior Court

Peggy L. Quint Lohorn Montgomery Superior Court #2

Marianne L. Vorhees Delaware Circuit Court

Mary G. Willis Henry Circuit Court

COURT STRATEGIC PLANNING

Where do we go from here?


By MIChEllE C. gooDMan | staFF attornEy, InDIana JUDICIal CEntEr

PHOTO. Gunnar Pippel.

SmALL CLAImS LJCCOURT Of Locally Funded

mARION COUNTy(9 courts) 9 judges

CSP CaSe TyPeS:Small claims (up to $6,000), mis-•cellaneous civil.

CITy COURT LJC(46 courts) Locally Funded

46 judges

Jury trials.

CSP CaSe TyPeS:Tort, contract ($0-$500 to $3,000), •small claims (up to $3,000).Misdemeanor.•Traffic/otherviolations.•

TOwN COURT LJC(28 courts) Locally Funded

28 judges

Jury trials.

CSP CaSe TyPeS:Misdemeanor.•Traffic/otherviolations.•

COURT Of APPEALS IAC15 judges A

CaSe TyPeS:Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, non capital criminal, administrative •agency, juvenile, original proceeding, interlocutory decision cases.Discretionary jurisdiction in interlocutory decision cases.•

FIgUrE 1. InDIana CoUrt strUCtUrE as oF CalEnDar yEar 2009(SouRCE: INDIANA JuDICIAL CENTER)

SUPREmE COURT COLR5 justices sit en banc

CaSe TyPeS:Mandatory jurisdiction in civil, capital criminal, disciplinary, original proceeding cases.•Discretionary jurisdiction in civil, noncapital criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding cases.•

TAx COURT IAC1 judge A

CaSe TyPeS:administrative agency appeal.•

mARION COUNTySUPeRIOR COURT

* EffECTIVE JANUARy 1, 1996, ALL mUNICIPAL COURTS BECAmE SUPERIOR COURTS. EffECTIVE JANUARy 1, 2009, ALL COUNTy COURTS BECAmE SUPERIOR COURTS, BUT THE STATUTE AUTHORIzING THE CREATION Of THEm STILL ExISTS.

CoLR Court of Last ResortIAC Intermediate Appellate CourtGJC General Jurisdiction CourtLJC Limited Jurisdiction CourtA Appeal from Admin. Agency Route of Appeal

APELLATE LEVEL TRIAL LEVEL

lEgEnD

SUPERIOR COURT GJC(211 divisions)* A 211 judges

Jury trials except small claims, pro-bate/estate,mentalhealth,domesticrelations, and juvenile

CaSe TyPeS:Tort, contract, real property, small •claims (up to $6,000), mental health,probate/estate,civilap-peals, miscellaneous civil.Domestic relations.•Felony, misdemeanor, criminal ap-•peals,preliminaryhearings.Juvenile.•Trafficinfractions.•

PROBATE COURT GJC (St.Joseph)1 judge

Jury trials

CaSe TyPeS:Probate/estate,miscellaneous•civil.adoption.•Miscellaneous criminal.•Juvenile.•

CIRCUIT COURT GJC (105 circuits) A103 judges

Jury trials except small claims

CaSe TyPeS:Tort, contract, real property, small •claims (up to $6,000), mental health,probate/estate,civilap-peals, miscellaneous civil.Domestic relations.•Felony, misdemeanor, criminal ap-•peals,preliminaryhearings.Juvenile.•Trafficinfractions.•

This is The fifTh of our CourT

Times arTiCles ThaT highlighT up

Close and personal a member

of The indiana JudiCiary. Knox

CirCuiT CourT Judge sherry bid-

dinger gregg is our Judge fea-

Tured in This issue. Judge gregg

was firsT eleCTed as CirCuiT

CourT Judge in 1998, and re-

eleCTed in 2004. she graduaTed

from The universiTy of evans-

ville, magna Cum laude, and re-

Ceived her doCTor of Jurispru-

denCe from indiana universiTy

sChool of law aT indianapo-

lis. she is a member of The su-

preme CourT JudiCial TeChnol-

ogy and auTomaTion CommiTTee

and The JudiCial ConferenCe

JudiCial eduCaTion CommiTTee.

What do you like most, and least, about being a trial court judge?

What I like the most about being a trial court judge is the intellectual and ad-ministrative challenge, and the fact that I have an opportunity to handle something different every day, including the oppor-tunity to help people resolve their own differences. What I like the least is when my role prevents me from providing as-sistance to self-represented litigants.

What Was your major at the university of evansville and Why did you decide to study laW?

I received a degree in Legal Adminis-tration, which was a combination of Business and Pre-Law courses. I studied in this area because I knew I wanted to study law from the time I was a child. A family friend was a lawyer, whom I looked up to very much, and we had frequent conversations about the practice of law throughout the years.

What Would you do if you Were not a judge and What do you like to do When you are not on the bench?

What else is there? I would farm and raise cattle and horses – AND - I would return to the practice of law. However, having been on the bench for nearly 12 years now, I can’t imagine a more fulfilling day at work anywhere. When I am not on the bench, I relieve stress by spending time with my family, and by rid-ing my Harley Davidson motorcycle and my horses.

Who are the people you most admire?

I admire a “type” of people: those who believe in God, who have values, who work hard, and who believe in a job well done.

Hon. Sherry Biddinger Gregg

Judge Gregg relieves stress by riding her Harley on the rural roads of Knox County.


sidebar

By JaMEs F. MagUIrE

staFF attornEy, statE CoUrt aDMInIstratIon

THINK

WhenSteubenCircuitCourtJudgeAllenN.WheatdecidedtoaddmovieproducingtohisResume’hegatheredacastfromthecom-munityandenlistedtheBallStateUniversityCommunicationsDepartmenttoprovidethefilm–makingexpertise.Thefinalworkproductisthemovie “think B4 U Drive.”

Itisnotamovieabouttheevilsofalco-holoradocumentaryonhighwaysafety.Instead,ThinkB4UDrivewasproducedtoteachHoosierhighschoolstudentsaboutthat“other”branchofgovernment–thejudiciary.

Thefinishedproductionoffersnon-stopaction,beginningwiththesceneatthePub,astopbyaSteubenCountyDeputySheriff,aroadsidefieldsobrietytest,anarrestandtriptothejail,aData-Mastertest,bookingprocess,andajurytrialthatincludesdelibera-tions.

AccordingtoJudgeWheat,“WhenIwasinhighschool,mostoftheattentioningovernmentclasseswasfocusedontheExecutiveandLegislativebranches.TheJudicialbranchwasignored.think B4 U Driveoffersstudentsanidealintroductiontothecourtsystemandstudentsdonothavetositthroughextensivelecturesorlearnaboutthecourtsthehardwaybyexperiencinganarrestandpro-bation,orworse.”Themovie,andwrittenmaterialsJudgeWheatpreparedtoaccompanyit,havealreadybeendistributedtomorethan40Indianahighschools.

JudgeWheat,forhiseffortsincompletingthisprojectandinsatis-fyingotherrequirements,wasrecognizedattheFallJudicialCon-ferencewithhavingcompletedtheIndianaJudicialCollegeMastersProgram.Heextendedhisgratitudetoallofthecastmembers,whoseparticipantsincludedschoolprincipals,bankers,businessowners,theMayorofAngola,aCountyCouncilman,aCountyCom-missioner,aretiredschoolsuperintendent,ahighschoolsenior,DeputySheriffs,DeputyProsecutors,localmembersoftheBar,andtheentirestaffoftheSteubenCircuitCourt.HealsorecognizedthepricelesscontributionprovidedbytheBallStateUniversitystudentsandtheirprofessorwhobroughtsomuchenergy,enthusi-asm,andexpertisetotheproject.

think B4 U Drive–comingsoontoahighschoolnearyou.

When did you first start rid-ing motorcycles and hoW Would you describe the ex-perience of riding a motor-cycle?

I actually didn’t start riding “street” motorcycles until a few years ago, but I have already logged over 13,000 miles! I rode around the farm with my boys on dirt bikes and ATV’s, but when I began riding on the road, I started out right by taking a motorcycle rider safety course and practiced, practiced, practiced. The more you ride, the more comfortable you get. It’s a great way to enjoy freedom, relieve stress, see the countryside, meet people from every walk of life, and spend time contemplating life. If I ride my bike to and from work, I arrive in the morn-ing refreshed and I arrive back at home in the evening calm and ready to enjoy my family.

Where did you groW up and hoW Would you describe your childhood?

I grew up in the country outside of Wash-ington, Indiana. I had a simple, wonder-ful childhood with two loving, hard-work-ing parents and two sisters. We enjoyed country life, animals, family, and our parents made sure we had a good, solid religious and educational background.

do you have a favorite quote(s)?

Yes. “You have brains in your head, you have feet in your shoes, you can steer yourself in any direction you choose. You’re on your own and you know what you know. You’re the guy (gal) who’ll decide where to go”. – Dr. Seuss.

Where is your favorite vaca-tion spot?

My very favorite vacation spot is right here at Home.

What is your favorite meal/recipe/restaurant?

Meal: anything with chocolate. Recipe: anything with chocolate. Restaurant: any place that serves chocolate.

THINK B4 U DRIVE


JTAC Received the Peter K. O’Rourke Special Achievement Award from the Governors Highway Safety Association. Left to Right: Megan LaMade (ICJI Traffic Safety Research Associate), Jeanette Bennett (ICJI Law Enforcement Liaison), Sebastian Smelko (Policy Director for Gov. Mitch Daniels), Mary DePrez (JTAC), Ryan Klitsch (ICJI Division Director Traffic Safety), and Phil Oliver (ICJI Law Enforcement Liaison)

Two AwArds for E-TickETs

The Indiana Supreme Court has been honored with two national awards for its electronic Citation and Warning System (eCWS), also known as e-Ticket, which was created in 2007 by State Court Administration’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC). The sys-tem allows law enforcement officers to use a hand held device to scan a bar code on a driver’s license and vehicle registration to quickly create a traffic citation or warning. The record of those citations and warn-ings is then transmitted electronically to a single state depository of such records --

and directly into Odyssey for those courts that are using it. More than 1,500,000 electronic citations and warning have been issued using the JTAC system.

The most important feature of eCWS is officer and motorist safety. State troop-ers report that it took 15 minutes to hand-write a ticket using the old ticket books but that it can take less than five minutes to issue an electronic ticket. Exposure to roadside tragedy has been dramatically reduced.

The Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals presented its Best Practices Award at the 35th Inter-national Forum on Traffic Records & Highway Safety Information Systems in Arizona in July, and the Governors High-way Safety Association (GHSA) presented the Peter K. O’Rourke Special Achieve-ment Award at the its national highway safety meeting in Savannah, Georgia on August 31st.

Mary DePrez, State Court Administra-tion’s Counsel for Trial Court technology and Director of JTAC, said that both orga-nizations were particularly impressed with

the way in which eCWS is integrated with other trial court technology. For example, when a state trooper in Marion County issues an electronic citation (rather than writing a paper ticket), the digital record created is electronically transmitted to Odyssey and the case is filed (without any manual data entry by court or clerk personnel). The recipient of the citation can go online and pay the ticket (without having to write a check). Odyssey receives and records the payment (without any manual data entry by court or clerk per-sonnel). Odyssey then prepares and sends

electronically to the BMV State Form SR-16 after updating is made through a batch process in the application. The BMV computer system receives the SR 16 electronically and records the data in the motorist's file (without any manual data entry by BMV personnel).

The Indiana State Police and more than 135 other law enforcement agencies across Indiana are using eCWS. The software and training are provided to law enforcement agencies at JTAC’s cost. The Indiana Supreme Court works in partnership with the Indiana State Police, Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) and law enforcement officials including the Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police, the Indiana Sheriffs’ Association, and local departments across the state. Over a million warnings and tickets have already been created using e-Ticket. More infor-mation can be found online at courts.IN.gov/jtac/programs/ecws.html.

a natIonal ForUM

In September, Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr. attended the 2009 Court Technology Conference in Denver, Colorado hosted by the National Center for State Courts. Justice Sullivan was invited to be a panel-ist during a plenary discussion about the challenges faced by organizations like state judiciaries when implementing large scale technology projects. He praised In-diana Governor Mitch Daniels’s admin-istration’s strong support for improved court technology in a speech to a plenary session at the Conference.

“I am of the view that there is no State in this country where there is closer and more constructive collaboration on tech-nology between the judicial and executive branches of government than we have in Indiana,” Justice Sullivan said in his speech. “Indiana courts exchange court information electronically with agencies throughout the Daniels Administration in a way that increases public safety and saves taxpayers money.”

In addition to projects like eCWS with the BMV, Justice Sullivan said that In-diana courts also exchange court infor-mation electronically with the Indiana State Police, Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS), Indiana Depart-ment of Revenue, and the Indiana State Department of Health as agencies in the Daniels Administration. The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, the Indiana Office of Technology, the State Board of Accounts, and the Indiana Department of Homeland Security, all agencies within

InDIana’s CoUrt tEChnology EFForts

garnEr natIonal attEntIon


staFF rEPort

biTs & bYTes

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 7the Daniels Administration, have also strongly supported the work of JTAC in improving court technology.

Justice Sullivan singled out for particular recognition the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, the Chairman of its Board of Trustees, John R. von Arx, and its execu-tive director, Dr. T. Neil Moore. “The Criminal Justice Institute, through its leadership and funding, has been instru-mental in fostering many of the collab-orative projects that Indiana courts have successfully undertaken with executive branch agencies. It has been a central force in our success.”

Justice Sullivan also expressed apprecia-tion to the State Legislature. “Without the Indiana General Assembly’s support of JTAC and its projects, we could not have made the progress we have,” he said.

In his speech, Justice Sullivan listed the following examples in addition to the BMV project as “evidence of the strong working relationship between the judicial and executive branches of Indiana state government”:

Every domestic violence court notifies ��local law enforcement, the State Po-lice, and the FBI electronically upon the issuance of a Protection Order;

Juvenile probation officers notify ��DCS electronically of delinquency cases for which DCS will be financing services for the youth involved;

The Revenue Department uses ��software developed by JTAC to notify county clerks of outstanding tax war-rants; and

Clerks notify the State Health Depart-��ment electronically when marriage licenses are issued.”

Justice Sullivan said that each of these in-dividual projects is part of a much more ambitious initiative on the part of the Indiana Supreme Court to equip all In-diana courts with a uniform 21st century case management system called Odyssey that will connect electronically all courts with each other and with law enforce-ment, state agencies, and others that need and use court information. Instal-lation of Odyssey is a multi-year project that is approximately 20% complete.

For additional information on JTAC please visit the Indiana Courts website at courts.in.gov/jtac.

to show the changes that are and are not working. Data collection was greatly im-proved as part of the JDAI program pro-viding profiles of the youth in detention including the impact of court policies on detention. New offenses, probation vio-lations, failure to appear rates, dispropor-tionate minority confinement rates, and the impact of various new polices on the juveniles being held in detention could also be reviewed. The improved data collection was critical to getting a view of each point in the juvenile system where a juvenile could be detained and whether alternatives to detention could be used.

One of the activities of the JDAI program included the opportunity for trips by key local decision makers to visit model JDAI sites around the country. One such visit was to Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon) where a reception center is used as an alternative to detention for screening and assessment of status offenders. Local

law enforcement officers bring youth to this center rather than to detention, where the juvenile receive appropriate services. This was the impetus for the first juvenile reception center in Indianapolis located at 4144 North Keystone Avenue, which permits delinquents to access appropriate social services rather than spending time in the juvenile detention center.

The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute has a State Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice which has recommended the expansion of JDAI to other counties on a statewide basis. Grant monies are available through a Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). See this website for more details:

www.in.gov/cji/2425.htm

Ashley J. Barnett, Youth Division Direc-tor, Indiana Criminal Justice Institute at 317/233-3340 is the contact person for this grant opportunity. This grant opportunity could permit Indiana to follow other states in the statewide expansion of JDAI.

For more information on the JDAI program visit: www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative.aspx

Courts have the authority to adopt a plan under Administrative Rule 16 to allow parties to utilize electronic filing of plead-ings, motions and other papers. Since January 1, 2006, courts could begin the process of establishing electronic filing or electronic service pilot projects by submitting a written request for approval of a plan with the Division of State Court Administration. An appendix to Administrative Rule 16, adopted by the Supreme Court effective January 1, 2007, describes the elements required in a plan.

The Supreme Court has recently adopted amendments to Administrative Rule 16, effective January 1, 2010, clarifying that all e-filing projects are subject to the requirements of the rule. Judges in Lake County and Marion County have

recently submitted requests for approval of e-filing in certain types of cases within their courts. State Court Administration is actively reviewing both requests but has not given a final recommendation of approval.

The Supreme Court did approve a plan for electronic filing submitted by the St. Joseph County Probate Court several years prior to the adoption of Adminis-trative Rule 16, and is the only instance of Supreme Court approval of an e-filing plan.

Questions about Administrative Rule 16 should be directed to Jim Maguire, Staff Attorney, [email protected] or Jim Walker, Director of Trial Court Man-agement, [email protected].

E-Filing and Administrative Rule 16


By JaMEs r. walKEr | DIrECtor oF trIal CoUrt ManagEMEnt, statE CoUrt aDMInIstratIon

What is social media and why should a judge care about it as an employer? The term “social media” refers to the online technologies and practices that people use to share opin-ions, insights, experiences, and perspec-tives. Much of the time it is purely social, but it can also be used to establish busi-ness connections, make sales, and share community concerns. Social media takes many different forms, including text, im-ages, audio, and video. The sites typically use technologies such as blogs, message boards, podcasts, wikis, and vlogs to allow users to interact. A few prominent examples of social media applications are Google and Wikipedia (reference); MySpace, LinkedIn, and Facebook (social networking); YouTube (video sharing); and Flickr (photo sharing).

Social media is changing faster than any one can keep pace. Yet, it is such a vital source of information today that an employer is at risk if he or she chooses to ignore the phenomenon. Employers need to be aware of the opportunities offered by social media in order to do the best job of selecting and supervising employees. According to CareerBuilder, twenty-two percent of employers used social networking sites to screen potential employees in 2008 and this percentage had jumped to forty-five percent by June 2009. Because all judges have an ethical duty under Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.12 to require staff to act in a manner consis-tent with the judge’s obligations under the Code, judges will want to be in the group of forward-thinking employers who use social media to their advantage.

The first and most practical use of social media for employers is in vetting a job ap-plicant. Add internet searches to your due diligence in checking the backgrounds of job applicants. The primary sites to search are Google and major social network sites (e.g., MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn). YouTube and Twitter are other possible sources of information for applicants. When doing background checks, keep a

record of your visits to the various so-cial media sites. Note the date that you checked each site and what you did, or did not, find there. If you did find relevant information, print or save the screenshot for placement in the applicant’s file. You may find that either the applicant has not enrolled in a social network site or has set the site up with a privacy screen so that only confirmed friends may see the site. There is always some information to be gained, and hopefully it is a positive verification of the information already acquired.

When using Google, simply type in the name of the applicant, and if the appli-cant has a common name, type in any ad-ditional information that might narrow the search. As with all things Googled, it is helpful to use variety in your search terms when vetting an applicant. For example, on an applicant with a very common name, typing in the applicant’s name along with names of schools at-tended may provide information about Twitter status. You may discover an applicant’s Facebook account by typing in the applicant’s hometown. Google is a particularly rich source for information on active attorneys.

Anyone may do a search on MySpace for free at myspace.com. If the applicant has a profile but made it a private one, you will not be able to see it. Facebook and Twitter are also free, but you have to set up an account with each one to use them. When you go to facebook.com, the centerpiece of the page is the sign up for an account, and twitter.com also has a prominent “Sign up now” link. Be sure when you sign up that you make your site private. You may ignore requests to be “friends” unless you want to start using the site personally. If anyone mentions that you were sent a link to be that per-son’s friend, you can explain that you set it up to check on an applicant but that you do not use it.

The primary reason for a social network search is that it may reveal relevant information about the applicant. For ex-ample, a court would not want to hire an applicant who uses outrageous language and posts binge-drinking images on a site open to the public. Although there is a limited danger that you might discover irrelevant information, it is your respon-

Social Media and the eMployer


breNda's baiLiWiCK

new Court Payroll system: thE DIgItal PaystUBThe times are changing. It used to be that employees knew they had been paid because they received a check. Next came the paper paystub that confirmed a direct electronic deposit. Now direct deposits will be confirmed online.

The Auditor of the State is no longer producing paper paystubs to confirm direct deposits. Instead, paystub information is now available online in PeopleSoft. In September, instruc-tions were mailed to judicial officers and prosecutors explaining the method for checking your paystub online.

To get to you paystub follow these steps:

Go online to 1. www.in.gov/spd.

From the Online Services on 2. the right hand side of the page click the PeopleSoft Human Resources,

Login to PeopleSoft. (You can 3. bookmark the login page to avoid the steps above) You should have received a notice with your User ID, and unless you have set a dif-ferent password, your password is the first letter of your first name, the last four digits of your social security number and the first let-ter of your last name.

Once logged in, from the menu 4. on the left hand side of the page click on “Self Service”.

From the “Self Service” page, un-5. der “Payroll and Compensation” click on “Pay Inquiry”.

You are at your paystub.6.

For any questions, please call Trial Court Services at 317/232-2542.

sibility to disregard all such information (race, gender, nationality, disabilities, religion and political party affiliation and opinions). You may be open to a discrimination claim if you do not hire the applicant; however, if you disregard the information and hire the person, any claim would be eliminated. If there are both relevant and irrelevant discoveries, simply download the relevant, disqualify-ing information and keep that with your record on which applicant you selected.

For current employees, social networking can be a problem. It can become social “not-working.” A potential issue is an employee posting inappropriate mate-rial about the court and parties to cases before the court. Courts should have a written policy for employees clearly stating prohibited posted information on their personal postings on any type of internet site. This is a policy that typi-cally will be in addition to or an amenda-tory of existing internet and email use policies.

Employees also need to be given guide-lines as to what information should be shared, or not shared, with you from social sites. For example, employees should not share any information with you about pending cases. However, you do want to know if your bailiff is report-ing that he is drop down drunk every Saturday at the bar on the downtown square. Additionally all judges who have a social site should consider carefully before giving employees or local attorneys access to that site. You might discover more about them than you want to know and vice-versa.

Social media also has a role when employment must be terminated. For involuntary terminations, the employee’s access to the employee’s office computer should be under control before or at the

time that the termination occurs. Once you give notice to the employee that he/she no longer works for you, the em-ployee must have no means to access the court internet or email system. Even for voluntary departures, it is recommended that the employee’s access to the system be deleted sooner, rather than later. It is advisable to review the past email and internet use of a terminated employee to determine if there has been a possible violation of the internet and email poli-cies, or an abuse of time. Such violations may mitigate or negate damages in any future lawsuit.

This information may also give you insight into how much your current employees are using the internet and how well you are managing your employ-ees’ time. In addition, the review may provide you with information that you need on current work issues, such as inquiries from the State Court Adminis-tration about forms that have never been completed. The best news is if the search reveals nothing new to you. However, if the search is revelatory, the value may be priceless. Employees have up to two years to file a cause of action against you on various grounds. Finding out about the employee’s actual use or abuse of your policies can provide an excellent defense against litigation that you don’t even know exists. Waiting until litigation is filed is too late as the hard drive will probably have been cleaned or destroyed by that time. Make it part of your regular process for an employment termination to do this review of the computer use.

If you need assistance with drafting or reviewing a policy, or have any other concerns related to social networking, call your friendly legal advisor on employ-ment law using the contact information below. �


Trialcourtscanseekadviceonemploymentlaw

issuesbycontactingBrendaRodehefferdirectlyat

317/[email protected].

By BrEnDa roDEhEFFEr

DIrECtor oF EMPloyMEnt law, statE CoUrt aDMInIstratIon


& SAVE A TREESTAY INFORMED

If you wouldlike to help save a tree and still stayinformed, you may receivethe Indiana Court Times viaemail, or you can access our website: courts.IN.gov/admin (click on “Publications”).

To have your name removed from our hardcopy mailing list, contact Andrea Rusk at [email protected].

PLEASE CIRCULATE TO CO-WORKERSThis newsletter reports on important administrative matters. Please keep for future reference. Issues are also available online at:

courts.IN.gov/admin/court-times

EDITORIAL BOARD

Lilia G. Judson, Publisher Executive Director, State Court Admin.

David J. Remondini, Managing Editor Chief Deputy Executive Director, State Court Admin.

James F. Maguire, Editor Staff Attorney, State Court Admin.

Lindsey Borschel, Publication Designer Web Coordinator, State Court Admin./JTAC

Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204

MISSION

Our goal is to foster communications, respond to concerns, and contribute to the spirit and pride that encompasses the work of all members of the judiciary around the state. We welcome your comments, suggestions and news. If you have an article, advertisements, announcement, or particular issue you would like to see in our publication, please contact us by mail or email at [email protected].

CONTRIBUTORS

Hon. Stephen R. Heimann Bartholomew Circuit Court

Jeffrey Bercovitz Director of Juvenile & Family Law, Indiana Judicial Center

James R. Walker Director of Trial Court Management State Court Administration

Brenda Rodeheffer Director of Employment Law, State Court Administration

Michelle C. Goodman Staff Attorney, Indiana Judicial Center

Jennifer L. Weber Staff Attorney, Indiana Judicial Center

James F. Maguire Staff Attorney, State Court Administration

Kathryn Dolan Public Information Officer, Indiana Supreme Court

get the word out...

If your court, probation office, clerk's office, or

related program office has job openings, send them our way. We'll post your ads at courts.IN.gov/jobs.

Send a job title, description, application deadline, and

application requirements to Andrea Rusk at

[email protected].

Documents

Indiana Court Times 18.5