News and Tribune

Clark County

April 1, 2006

Probation funds still available

Judge’s stay maintains ‘status quo’ on use of probation funds

The special judge in a Clark County lawsuit over probation user fees has issued a stay, pending an appeal of her Feb. 22 ruling in favor of the county’s judges.

Judge Elaine Brown issued the stay on March 17, a day after the Clark County Council sent her a request to do so via overnight mail. The judge’s decision means that the council can continue to spend probation user fees budgeted in this year’s county spending plan pending the outcome of the council’s appeal of her February ruling prohibiting the council from exerting control over the funds.

“It kind of spells disaster, we think,” said Jeffersonville attorney David Lewis, who represents judges Cecile Blau, Daniel F. Donahue, Steven Fleece and Jerome F. Jacobi. “We didn’t even get the (council’s) motion until the 20th of March.”

“The only surprise is how quick (Brown) did it,” said Council President Jim Smith. “That was a surprise to everyone.”

On Feb. 22, Brown ruled that the council illegally exerted control over $1.8 million in probation user fees. The council spent about $800,000 in the fees in 2005 and has budgeted approximately $1 million in its 2006 spending plan.

Last month, the Department of Local Government Finance’s budget order for Clark County included $1.3 million of unappropriated money in the county’s general, or operating fund, which was considerably more than expected.

“What (Brown) didn’t know … is that there’s a $1.3 million excess in the 2006 budget,” Lewis said. “The courts are supposed to balance the harm (when a stay is granted). In most circumstances, there’s no harm done by preserving the status quo.”

“We’re concerned that we’re going to run out of money to run the probation departments,” said Blau, the judge in Clark Superior Court No. 2.

A fiscal analysis conducted by the Jeffersonville accounting firm McCauley Nicholas has estimated that all of the county’s probation user fees could be exhausted by mid-year.

“The biggest misconception is that we use the money for (non-court) purposes,” said Council Vice President Monty Snelling. “Whether (probation user money) is there or not, the county still has to support those courts so (the depleting of the probation user funds) is a moot point.”

Lewis said 90 percent of the county’s probation services are paid through the probation user fees. Part of Brown’s original ruling indicated that the fees cannot be used for court expenses other than probation-related expenses.

Following Brown’s February ruling, the council voted 5-2 to ask the Indiana Court of Appeals to review the case. Due to the potential statewide impact of the case’s outcome, either side might ask the Indiana Supreme Court to hear the case without first allowing the Court of Appeals review.

“We’re exploring our remedies and that certain is one of them,” Blau said.

Smith said he believes the appeal will take at least six to eight months to resolve.

“It may be pushed up to the front” due to the impact on all 92 counties and their courts, he said. “It could go for a longer time than that.”

Text Only | Photo Reprints

LOCAL MAGAZINES
LOCAL STATISTICS
READER COMMENTS ON STORIES
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Follow me on Twitter