The Vigo County Council and the judges of Vigo Superior Courts are in a fight over the pay of judicial employees.
And those six judges Monday issued an “order for mandate of funds.” That court order sets higher pay for court employees and tells the County Council to implement that pay retroactive to Jan. 1.
Additionally, it orders the county auditor to pay the amounts named.
Finally, it tells the County Council and the auditor to appear in Vigo Superior Court and show why the increased compensation should not be paid. A date remains to be set for such a hearing.
The order is signed by judges Charles Johnson (Vigo Superior Court Division 1); Lakshmi Reddy (Division 2), Sarah K. Mullican (Division 3/Circuit Court), Christopher A. Newton (Division 4), Matthew Sheehan (Division 5) and Michael J. Lewis (Division 6).
Michael Wright, attorney for the County Council, late Monday afternoon said he had yet to see the order and would need to read it and talk it over with his client before commenting.
Todd Thacker, president of the council, said the body was in receipt of the order and would discuss it with legal counsel, and he preferred to not comment until that was done.
Earlier Monday afternoon, the judges of Vigo Superior Courts emailed a news release announcing the order, which is public record in case 84D02-2410-CB-7301.
The judges characterized their mandate as the “next step in the legal process to resolve a dispute with the County Council related to Court salaries.” They said this discussion has been going on since 2016. They also said the courts’ authority to establish salaries is set forth in Indiana Code, specifically 33-33-84-13 and 33-33-84-14. Wrote the judges, “We are eager to have this matter resolved and want to acknowledge our many partners in county government who are working hard for the people we all serve.”
The judges, citing respect for the process, said they were referring media questions to Krieg DeVault LLP, which is a large commercial law firm with offices in Indianapolis, Chicago and other cities. The Krieg DeVault lawyers involved were not available for comment by telephone late Monday afternoon.
In their order and in exhibits attached to it, the judges say their judicial branch employees are underpaid relative to employees in other counties with lower volumes of work. The consequence, the judges wrote, is that Vigo courts are being put in a competitive disadvantage in the market for qualified employees and at risk of losing employees.
If the situation is unchanged, they say, efficient and orderly administration of justice cannot be maintained and will be harmed.
The judges attached to their order several documents in support of their position, including a six-page, Sept. 25 letter to the County Council re-stating the timeline of the dispute and the key points of their position. The letter also effectively puts the council on notice that a mandate would follow if nothing were to change.
Among other points in that letter, the judges remind council members that a similar 1978-79 dispute between the council and the judges resulted in a mandate from the court, and that mandate was upheld on appeal.
“We see virtually no difference in circumstances between then and now in the Vigo County Courts, and the statutory authority in setting Court employee salaries has not changed,” the judges wrote.
In their letter, the judges say they unanimously agree “that a mandate under these set of circumstances is reasonable and will be successful. And to be clear, if there is litigation over the Court’s salary adjustment, the County Council is responsible for all legal fees for both the County and the Court, including mediations costs. These costs will far exceed the difference in the salary adjustment.”
Per the exhibits, the compensation involved appears to be for positions in the superior and circuit courts and juvenile justice center — county employee grades of six to 15 — and not that of the judges themselves.
In Indiana, a county council makes the decisions regarding a county’s fiscal affairs.
© 2024 Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.