President Jerrel: I'd like to call the Vanderburgh County Commissioners' meeting to order and welcome all of you. At this time I would like to introduce to you those people that are before you. On my far right, Tony Greubel is the Superintendent of County Buildings; next to him is Joe Harrison, Jr., County Attorney; Commissioner Pat Tuley; on my far left, Charlene Timmons is our Recording Secretary; Suzanne Crouch, County Auditor; Commissioner Richard Mourdock; and my name is Bettye Lou Jerrel. I would like to ask you to join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
 

Approval of minutes

President Jerrel: Thank you very much. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. 

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 28th.

Commissioner Tuley: I will second.

President Jerrel: And I'll say so ordered.
 

President Jerrel: Most of you in the room are here for the presentation of the Public Defender Commission so we put that on the top of the list in deference to your not having to sit through the rest of that agenda. At this time I would like to introduce to you Tom Carusillo. He is the attorney with the Public Defender Commission and he has probably done some 51 of these programs, so he is prepared to answer any questions, but first he'll make a presentation to you and I would like for you to welcome Tom. Thank you very much.

Tom Carusillo: Thank you, Mrs. Jerrel. I would like to thank you and your fellow Commissioners for inviting me here this evening and giving me the opportunity to discuss with you and the public here in Vanderburgh County the Public Defense Fund. I work as an attorney for the Indiana Supreme Court. In that capacity I am with the court's division of State Court Administration and am assigned as the Staff Attorney for the Indiana Public Defender Commission. I have held that office since February of 1998. What I would like to do this afternoon is kind of give you an overview of the Fund, how you go about participating in the fund and what it might mean to Vanderburgh County. The Public Defense Fund was created in 1989. At that time the Fund provided for reimbursement only in death penalty cases and at that time the reimbursement was 50 percent of indigent defense services in a death penalty case. In 1993 the Legislature amended that statute and provided for 25 percent reimbursement in all non death penalty cases so long as the counties who were requesting those reimbursements complied with the standards of the Indiana Public Defender Commission. There are two primary standards which affect most counties in becoming involved with the program and these deal with case loads and compensations for public defenders and I will talk more about those later. In terms of the history of the Public Defense Fund it was last amended in 1997. At that time the Legislature increased the reimbursement from 25 percent to 40 percent in non death penalty cases. Although at that time they did remove misdemeanors from the coverage of the statute. In order to become eligible for reimbursement under the non capital 40 percent reimbursement, a county must comply with the Public Defense Fund statute and the Commission standards. That is not exactly accurate. In writing the statute the Legislature exempted the five largest counties in the state which would include Vanderburgh County from the specifics of the statute although under the Commission's standards for any county to participate, and that would include Vanderburgh County, they have to substantially comply with the requirements of the statute, so for practical purposes the Public Defense Fund statute provides the guidelines for setting up the program here in Vanderburgh County. The first step in establishing compliance and becoming eligible for reimbursement is the passing of an ordinance by the County Commissioners creating a local public defender board. Under the statute the local public defender board would consist of three members. One appointed by the County Commissioners and two members from different political parties appointed by the judges who hear the criminal and juvenile cases in the county. I have available with me today a sample ordinance. If anyone is interested I can give that to you at the end which basically lays out the type of proceedings necessary by the County Commissioners to create the local public defender board. Once the local public defender board is created their task then is to prepare a comprehensive plan that describes how indigent defense services will be delivered in the county and I have sample plans available with me if anyone is interested in looking at the various samples of how the program can work. The statute provides that in order to comply the county must include in its comprehensive plan at least one of three different methods of delivering indigent defense services. These methods are to establish a public defender office, to have a system of contracts with attorneys providing for public defense or having an assigned counsel system which would have the attorneys appointed on a case-by-case basis. The statute and the Commission's standards however are flexible and they allow hybrid systems to be created. I have one county that has a system of contracts and assigned counsels. One for each different court. So the program is designed to be flexible to meet the particular needs of a given county. The plan that is put into place is determined locally by the local board. It is not something that is prescribed by the state in terms of the specifics. The Public Defender Commission is not interested in being involved in the day-to-day running of the public defender's office. The local officials, your County Commissioners, your County Council, your judges and public defenders, they know what will work best for Vanderburgh County. So we have this local board that will be established and you will have the local input in deciding how the particular plan will be put together for your county. The two main issues that I spoke about earlier deal with caseloads and compensation. The Commission has standards governing the maximum caseloads for attorneys and also standards and guidelines for the minimum compensation for public defenders. With regard to the caseloads, the Commission standards basically deal with the number of appointments, new appointments, that an attorney can receive during a 12 month period. The actual caseload that an attorney might have will vary depending on how rapidly they are able to dispose of their cases, so we look at the number of appointments that an attorney receives in a 12 month period. The Commission also has two different standards for determining those caseload situations. These deal with the support staffing that is provided to the attorneys. By support staffing we are talking about investigators, paralegals and secretarial help. If the county chooses to provide no secretaries, no paralegals, no investigators, the Commission determines that to be an inadequately support staffed office and has a series of caseload figures for the attorneys working under that system. If the county chooses, and it is entirely voluntary, to have an adequately support staffed office which would, based on the number of attorneys and you would have a certain number of paralegals, investigators and secretaries available and a slightly higher number of caseload numbers would be available for the attorneys working under that system. Essentially, however, the standard is really nothing new if you think about it. All the attorneys who are working the public defender system right now are bound by an ethical obligation to maintain their caseloads and workloads at a level that will allow them to adequately handle the cases that are assigned to them. So the standards really do not provide anything more than a number for measuring. It does not change the ethical obligations that an attorney has, so it is entirely possible because of the complexity of a case that an attorney might have that he may be below the maximum caseload standard but still ethically be required not to take on new cases because of the complexity of what he is handling. Generally speaking, in determining the caseloads the Commission has a weighting system for the different levels. A, B and C felonies are weighted at one level. Class D felonies are weighted at another level. Probation violations are weighted at yet another level as well as juvenile delinquency matters. Generally speaking, not taking into account the various weighting that can occur, an attorney who is working full-time can be assigned during the course of a 12 month period no more than 120 felony cases. Again, because of the complexity of the cases assigned it may have to be lower than that in order to maintain their ethical obligation under the Professional Rules of Conduct. In terms of understanding the caseload numbers it is also important to understand how the cases are counted. If you have a defendant that has cases in more than one category, for example a defendant charged with a Class A felony, a Class D felony and maybe say a misdemeanor, that would be counted by the Commission as one Class A felony and will only be counted as one case for determining the number of assignments to that attorney. If you have a defendant who has more than one case in the various courts, if those cases are joined and consolidated for resolution by an attorney, then we will count those as one case for purposes of counting the attorney's caseload. Also, we always look at what the highest charged case...or highest charged count was regardless of plea bargaining. So for example, the Commission, as I mentioned earlier, is not able at this time to reimburse for misdemeanors. If you have an individual who is charged with a Class D felony who later pleads down to a Class A misdemeanor we still will count that as a Class D felony for purposes of the Commission standards and allow reimbursement for that case. So the caseloads are a matter that is important to the Commission in order to insure that the attorneys are able to adequately handle the cases that are provided to them. We are attempting to establish by these standards a system where we are able to maintain and improve the quality of services provided to the indigent defendants. The other area that I had spoke about earlier was minimum compensation. The Commission has standards that provide minimum compensation for public defenders. The Commission standards specifically provide that the public defender shall be paid substantially comparable to similar, and the key word is similar, positions in the prosecuting attorney's office. What we have found in our trips across the state, and I have been to about 50 different counties...or rather 30 different counties 50 different times because I've had to go back to some counties on several occasions, that there often are not similar positions between the prosecuting attorney's office and the public defender's office, so it is not always possible to say that this public defender relates to this prosecutor and therefore their salaries must be the same. Therefore, the Commission has a guideline that it has established requiring that a full-time public defender be paid not less than $40,100 per year. In addition to the reimbursement of salary, the Commission guidelines also provide for the payment of reasonable office expenses if you're under a contract system. If the county would choose to use attorneys on a case-by-case assignment system the minimum hourly rate required by the Commission is $60 per hour. From the county's point of view paying $60 per hour is equivalent after reimbursement to paying $36 per hour so in most counties that results in a savings. My survey across the state shows that most public defenders who are on an hourly basis are being paid somewhere between $40 and $60 an hour. If you pay the $60 an hour under the Commission standards you'll end up below the $40 an hour figure that most counties are paying. In terms of what this is all about, I touched on that briefly. The goal of these standards is to make sure that there is adequate representation provided to indigent defendants, to allow counties to maintain the systems that they do have and to help provide funds for the improvement of those systems. I think I can be fairly safe in saying that we all have a stake in the criminal justice system and I think I also can be fairly safe in saying that everyone in this room would not want someone who is innocent of a crime to be wrongfully charged and convicted. There is something about the fundamental fairness that rests in the country. We don't want to convict innocent people. By the same token, we want the rights of victims to be protected and we also want those who are guilty of crimes to be punished. Deserved punishment, however, should not depend upon the wealth of the defendant therefore public defenders are an important part of the criminal justice system as it is their job not only to see to it that innocent people are not convicted, but it is also their job to see that guilty people who are indigent are fairly punished for the crimes that they have committed. Our system of criminal justice as an adversarial system and as such it has a system of checks and balances that have to exist. For the system to function well all the components of the system have to function efficiently. The police, the prosecutor, the judges and the public defenders and other defense attorneys have to function efficiently in order for the system to work and this program is designed to help counties who are now bearing all the cost of indigent defense services by providing them with some funds so that they can relieve themselves of some of that burden, allow the system to be maintained and in essence be able to grow through the funds that are made available from the state. Currently there are 20 counties that are eligible to receive reimbursement under the 40 percent reimbursement. That is up from ten counties in February of 1998 when I started with the Public Defender Commission. For anyone who is interested I have a summary of the expenses and reimbursements to those counties. I also have included in there the expenses that I was able to gather for Vanderburgh County so that you can compare the information between other counties. In terms of size, the most comparable county to Vanderburgh County would be Madison County. They have been involved in the program for just under a year. Their reimbursements for the last fiscal year ran at just over $400,000. We anticipate that we will have three new counties joining the program on September 1st. Hancock County, Martin County and Vigo County have indicated they will be submitting comprehensive plans for review by the Commission at that time. I have also talked with the local board in Knox County and they anticipate that they may have something for the Commission to review before the end of this year and I anticipate that it is entirely likely that by the end of next year we may be over 30 counties participating in this program. To give you some idea of what the program meant this year in the non death penalty cases for the fiscal year that just ended June 30th, 17 counties received reimbursements totaling in excess of $2.1 million from the state. We also paid out reimbursements in death penalty cases. Those went to 11 counties covering 27 death penalty cases and they received over $520,000 in reimbursements from the state. As a side note between 1991 and 1997 Vanderburgh County received over $90,000 from the state in reimbursements for capital cases that occurred here. As I say, I've done this presentation throughout the state. I've talked to judges, public defenders, County Commissioners, County Councilors and there is a diverse attitude across the state about the program and its pros and cons. Generally speaking I think that you'll find that it is a program that can be beneficial to you. One thing that I have found in talking to a number of judges is that they're very much in favor of the program simply from the point of view they don't want to be involved in hiring public defenders. They see that as having an appearance of impropriety for the judge to be involved in the hiring process so this program provides an opportunity for the judges to step back from that obligation that they may have now and are able to put a buffer between them and the hiring process. In terms of what the program may mean to Vanderburgh County, well, it kind of depends. Getting good data that everyone can agree on is sometimes difficult. I have been fortunate to get some information from the judges in terms of estimates of caseloads. The County Auditor and Commissioners have provided me some information on budgets and I have used some data that I have gathered from throughout the state in order to do some analysis of general statewide trends and apply those to the county. What I have basically found is that the county spends for its public defenders including salaries, benefits, miscellaneous expenses, but excluding the attorneys that are designated and I understand there are three of them designated for misdemeanor cases, excluding those numbers, that the county spends roughly $675,000 a year on public defender expenses and salaries. If the county were to choose a contract system in a context of an inadequately support staffed office or system rather which by the way is used by a majority of the small counties do operate on a contract system, you would have to have according to the Commission's guidelines just over 12 full-time equivalent attorneys in order to hand the caseload. That caseload number is based on an estimate that I have put together. The actual number may vary. Twelve full-time equivalents does not mean that you have to have 12 full-time attorneys. It means you have to have the equivalent of 12 full-time attorneys. You may have 24 half-time attorneys. You may have it divided by thirds, the three quarters, however you choose to divide it just so long as the equivalency comes up to about 12 and a quarter. In looking at the salaries for the attorneys currently working the public defender office and comparing that to the Commission's standards the county currently has the equivalent of eight full-time public defenders on its staff. So in order to meet the Commission's requirement of about 12 and a quarter under a contract system I estimate that the county would probably have to spend an additional $200,000 a year in salary and benefits to fill the standards required by the Commission. However, by making that additional spending, though your gross spending goes up your net spending goes down after reimbursement. Based on those numbers the projected reduction in spending would be over $150,000 a year that the county would save over what it is spending now. So instead of having $675,000 out of pocket you be down at $525,000 out of pocket under these projections. Now another option available to the county would be to set up a public defender office. Again, an inadequately staffed office would require the same number of attorneys, however if you chose to set up a public defender office the Commission would require the appointment of a chief public defender. The chief public defender would be responsible for a half time caseload and also half time administrative duties in the office. The chief public defender would be paid a salary which would be comparable to the elected prosecutor which the Commission has determined to be not less than 90 percent of the salary obtained by the elected prosecutor. Again, that would result in an increase in the gross spending that the county would have. The gross spending under that scenario would be about $275,000 more than you're spending now. However, after you receive your reimbursements from the state your gross...or your net spending rather would be decreased by over $100,000 a year, so the county again would save money above and beyond what it is currently spending. I also did an analysis based on a public defender office with adequate support staff. With adequate support staffing you would have to add the equivalent of two full-time secretaries, two full-time investigators and two and a quarter full-time paralegals in order to meet the Commission's standards for an adequately support staffed office. That would then because of the adequate support staffing only necessitate nine full-time equivalent attorney positions in order to cover the caseload in the felony courts. The caseloads are increased for the attorneys because they have support staffing then to assist them in handling their cases. Your gross spending again would go up this time by about $300,000 but you still will have a net savings to the county under that system of almost $90,000 a year. Just to get some idea of the importance of and the benefit to the county of the reimbursement program I then did a brief analysis looking at a hypothetical situation where for some reason in addition to setting up a fully staffed or rather adequately staffed public defender office with a full-time public defender serving as the chief we also for some reason spent an additional $150,000 a year above and beyond that. I just threw the number in there. The reason I threw that in there is because even with that additional spending the county would still be spending less after reimbursement than they are spending now. So the program does provide a great deal of benefit to the county not only fiscally but also in terms of providing a system for its public defenders where they have manageable caseloads and adequate compensation for the work that they do. Even if the county would not save money by participating in the program I would still recommend it to you. The reason for that is Vermillion County. For those of you that are not familiar Vermillion County is currently involved in the Orville Lynn Majors case. That is the nurse who is accused with killing seven of his patients. Those counts were filed as non death penalty cases so they're not eligible for death penalty reimbursement. However, Vermillion County is participating in this program so they will receive 40 percent reimbursement for every penny they spend on indigent defense services in that case. The last number I read in the newspaper was that they were estimating on spending at least $600,000 on the defense of that case. So basically that one case is going to take almost the entire budget of Vanderburgh County for one year. They're going to get $240,000 of that back if they in fact spend that amount. There are not many counties that could stand a hit of $600,000. I doubt that Vanderburgh County could either. This program at least provides a little bit of insurance by complying with the standards and controlling the caseloads and compensation of attorneys the county can at least know that the state will be there to help in case there is a catastrophic type of defense case required here in the county. In terms of any other reference that I can give you as to the benefit of this program I guess my best reference would be a former Vanderburgh County judge. Chief Justice Randall Shepard in his State of the Judiciary Address to the Legislature this past February noted this program is one of the key accomplishments that has occurred in the last year. He noted the importance of this program to providing adequate defense throughout the state and indicated that he supports this program and the benefits that it can provide. The program is one that is growing throughout the state. As I indicated I anticipate that it will continue to grow with up to 30 counties participating by the end of next year. The key thing from your point of view is what do you folks want to do because the decisions will be made by the people here in Vanderburgh County. Your County Commissioners, your County Council, your judges and your public defenders will decide if the program works for you and how it will work for you. All we will do is review to make sure that you're within the general guidelines that are established and then the program runs from there. Basically, the Public Defender Commission meets on a quarterly basis. Some counties submit claims quarterly. Some every six months. I have some counties that only submit once a year. Once we get the reimbursement request from the county it is processed. Usually I tell counties that the turnaround time for reimbursement is between four to six weeks after the Commission's meeting. At the last Commission meeting I am happy to say we had reimbursement checks out in two weeks. It just depends on whether or not I can find everyone who has to sign off, but if I can catch them all we can get it accomplished fairly quickly. The funds that come back to the county come back to your general fund. I hope that they use them for public defense purposes but they are not required to. However, if they want to continue to receive reimbursements they are going to have to continue to meet the funding requirements in terms of caseloads and the attorneys that might require and their compensation. I think that this is a program that can be beneficial to the county, but you are the only ones that can make that determination. At this time what I would like to do is I could talk probably for another hour about the program, but I probably wouldn't answer all your questions, so if there are questions I would like to entertain those at this time so we can get some direct input.

President Jerrel: May I just before we start the questioning, because we are a body and this is a public meeting we do need to have your name and I would ask that you just come up to the microphone so that we can get you on tape. Okay. 

David Kiely: David Kiely, magistrate in Circuit Court. If I heard you correctly, you based and you gave figures on how much we would be saving and you based that upon eight full-time attorneys...full-time public defenders currently in Vanderburgh County?

Tom Carusillo: The full-time equivalent of eight.

David Kiely: And that would be at 120 caseload maximum, is that correct?

Tom Carusillo: The caseload maximum would be based on...I don't know what the actual caseload is. I have an estimate from one judge of 120 and another judge of 100 so we were using that for general ballpark, right.

David Kiely: And when you have your 120 maximum caseload is that based on 120 D felonies?

Tom Carusillo: No, that is based on 120 total felonies, A, B, C and D felonies.

David Kiely: And the breakdown of the total A's as opposed to B's does not matter on that?

Tom Carusillo: The Commission has a set of standards that provide a specific breakdown for D felonies. They also have a category for all felonies. You can potentially get a larger caseload if the breakdown of A, B, C and D fall in a particular pattern. However, for the purpose of analysis I used the all category as the most conservative method of analyzing the number of cases that would be distributed.

David Kiely: Okay, so a 120 would be the maximum that an attorney would have?

Tom Carusillo: The number of assignments in a given year, that's correct.

David Kiely: In Circuit Court last year we had five full-time public defenders who averaged over 126 cases.

Tom Carusillo: As I indicated to you my calculations of full-time equivalency was based upon compliance with Commission standards. According to the salary information I had none of the attorneys were being paid at a level that would match a full-time equivalent under the Commission's standards.

David Kiely: Full-time based on salary or caseload?

Tom Carusillo: Caseload...salary, excuse me. Every public defender that salary I was given was being paid under $40,000 a year.

David Kiely: Exactly. Now on their caseload they are over the standard.

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

David Kiely: So we would have to have additional public defenders in order to receive funds from the state at 40 percent?

Tom Carusillo: That's correct.

David Kiely: Okay, and if I am correct Superior Court also has five public defenders at this time and their caseload if not at 120 or approximately 115. That's not including juvenile. That's ten public defenders there. If you use our excess, what they're below, that's ten public defenders that we have now and you've based your figures on eight, is that correct?

Tom Carusillo: Full-time equivalency is what I am talking about not the number of public defenders.

David Kiely: Okay, but we have ten now that are over that full-time equivalent.

Tom Carusillo: I understand that.

David Kiely: We also have special public defenders who aren't figured in.

Tom Carusillo: Special public defenders, in doing the calculations there was a figure in the budget for pauper expenses which I assume included additional attorneys in order to cover the caseload conflicts or other situations.

David Kiely: We also have in our figures we did not include revocation where attorneys were appointed and I assume they're figured in the caseload study?

Tom Carusillo: Well, unfortunately Vanderburgh County does not report their indigent appointments to the State Court Administrator's Office so as a result the numbers that I am basing it on are the estimates given to me by the judges here and statewide averages that I have been able to gather throughout the state. If I had better numbers from Vanderburgh County I would be able to give you a more precise figure, but unfortunately I don't have them.

David Kiely: What I am getting at is if you look at our caseload in Circuit Court where we have the numbers if you do want to figure it on the 120 I mean we're looking at approximately 13.4 attorneys.

Tom Carusillo: If those are all indigent appointments that you're making. The other thing that...revocations are not counted as a felony.

David Kiely: Yeah, I'm not counting revocations. I'm talking about felony appointments in our court is near 800.

Tom Carusillo: We would have to make sure we are counting them correctly. Multiple offenses...multiple counts are only counted once. Other than that, again, if I had the numbers from the court, and I do not have them from Circuit Court either, none of the Vanderburgh courts reported their indigent appointments to the State Court Administrator's Office. If I had those you would have a better figure as to the number of attorneys it would take. However, regardless of the number you would be in a position where you can receive reimbursement for the additional staff and as I indicated even increasing your spending by over $400,000 and still save the county money over what it is spending now.

David Kiely: Provided you keep the top figure flowing.

Tom Carusillo: You would be able to keep your figure depending upon the number of cases that are filed and your use of case assignments, that is correct.

David Kiely: Let me ask you this, and you may not know this, what are you suggesting that the public defenders be paid on a 120 caseload?

Tom Carusillo: Public defenders should be paid--

David Kiely: As a yearly salary.

Tom Carusillo: The minimum salary required by the Public Defender Commission for a full-time attorney is $40,100 a year.

David Kiely: Is that what is suggested? Is that what you're recommending?

Tom Carusillo: That's the minimum.

David Kiely: The minimum.

Tom Carusillo: If you pay lower than that they will not qualify as a full-time attorney.

David Kiely: That's all the questions that I have.

Commissioner Mourdock: If I may follow-up to Mr. Kiely's question there just so that I understand the rate of pay for the public defenders is in fact the rate typically based on some sliding scale based on the number of cases that they are handling? I'm hearing 125 is the maximum, but I'm also hearing the payment number is a minimum.

Tom Carusillo: Correct. That is left to the county to decide. The county will have some feel for how many cases their public defenders are going to handle and will determine what they feel is an appropriate number to compensate those attorneys. The only Commission standard is it can't go below this number for a full-time position.

Commissioner Mourdock: So conceivably...for the sake of argument, conceivably a public defender could have ten cases and receive $40,000 a year?

Tom Carusillo: Conceivably, if you were to set up a program that permitted that, but most counties the way they set up their program is to divide the cases amongst the available public defenders. I have a county right now that did not do a good job of keeping track of what cases were being assigned to what attorneys and as a result one attorney was over the caseload number and one was over...rather one under and one over. They had to redistribute in order to equalize that. In terms of the compensation level in order to make the program work the public defenders are going to have to be in a situation where they are carrying a caseload commensurate with the salary that they're receiving, so if you have someone who is being paid a full-time salary but only handling ten cases, unless they are extremely complex cases, that means you're going to have somebody else in the system who is carrying cases or additional attorneys that you're going to have to hire to make up for those additional cases that he is not carrying. 

Allan Loosemore: Sir, my name is Allan Loosemore. I'm a public defender in Superior Court. When you use the term full-time are you talking about a full-time employee or can you have a private practice and do 120 cases and be a full-time public defender?

Tom Carusillo: When the Commission talks about full-time we mean full-time, so if you are a full-time handling 120 caseload you should have no private practice.

Allan Loosemore: You have no private practice and you handle 120 so that makes you full-time, so you have no...you're not allowed to have a private practice, is that correct?

Tom Carusillo: That's correct.

Allan Loosemore: And you're recommending that they pay $40,100 a year for full-time attorneys with no side practice?

Tom Carusillo: No, I am saying that is the minimum that is acceptable to the Commission.

Allan Loosemore: But $40,100 is the minimum acceptable to the Commission. What year...what is the average number of years of experience do you get for $40,100 a year?

Tom Carusillo: You're probably looking at a fresh law student or someone with very limited experience.

Allan Loosemore: I think I am probably the youngest other than Tom Montgomery. I've got 15 years experience. Everybody on our staff has more experience than I do. I've got the least number of years excluding Tom Montgomery and I've got 17 years of experience. What are you going to have to pay somebody with 17 years of experience and over 200 jury trials?

Tom Carusillo: That's something that you would negotiate with the county to make a determination of what they're willing to pay. The Commission does not get involved in that.

Commissioner Mourdock: If I may let me try to ask that question a different way because I think that's a key point. You're saying the minimum...I don't mean to short-circuit your question, Mr. Loosemore, you're free to come back here. How do most counties go about setting the rate? I understand that is again the Commission minimum, but how do most counties go about setting the number that they use based on the years of experience that the attorneys bring into this?

Tom Carusillo: Most counties...that is an internal decision based in the local community. The Public Defender Commission does not get involved in those questions at all.

Commissioner Mourdock: But what is your observation, how has it been done?

Tom Carusillo: In most...well, quite frankly, in most counties the public defenders are paid less than they are paid in Vanderburgh County. I have some counties that have people that have as much experience as the gentleman here who are getting paid in the neighborhood of $30,000 a year but they are not considered full-time.

Commissioner Mourdock: Then how can they be paid less than the minimum?

Tom Carusillo: They are not considered full-time.

Commissioner Mourdock: Ah.

Tom Carusillo: That may be one thing that needs to be made clear. You can make less than $40,000 a year, but you will not be considered full-time, you cannot carry what we consider a full-time caseload and you can still have a private practice to have other income. It's a question of whether or not you want to be full-time or not.

Commissioner Mourdock: And that is what you previously termed the contract basis?

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

Allan Loosemore: I just have one other question. Assuming that you're a part-time public defender and you're carrying as I read your charts a maximum of 60 felonies.

Tom Carusillo: It depends again on the nature of the felonies.

Allan Loosemore: Say it's all D felonies. Let's assume all D felonies. Every one I get is a D felony, just assuming that, that's not true, but we're just assuming that. Let's just assume it's going to be 60, is that right?

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

Allan Loosemore: Now a D felony if I go to an initial hearing and I spend an hour at the initial hearing and then I go to a pretrial conference with the prosecutor and the judge and I spend another hour and then I go see my client in jail and I spend another hour and then I just run a regular case right through the court system, the guy is guilty and he is going to plead guilty and he is going to accept the prosecutor's first offer out of the box and I've got six hours in the case.

Tom Carusillo: Okay.

Allan Loosemore: So I bill the county on a contract basis $60 an hour, is that correct?

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

Allan Loosemore: So 360 time $60 by my math is $21,600.

Tom Carusillo: Okay.

Allan Loosemore: Okay, is that correct?

Tom Carusillo: That's correct.

Allan Loosemore: Your guidelines would say they would have to pay me for the part-time contract. Sounds like a pretty good deal.

President Jerrel: Yes, sir.

Maurice O'Connor: I'm Maurice O'Connor. I'm a judge in Superior Court. Our Superior Court is a unique creature. It's a unified court with a number of divisions which the judges rotate through. Our first question is would the standards which are set up in the handout apply to all the divisions in Superior Court if the county accepted this plan?

Tom Carusillo: Yes, if the county created a comprehensive plan it would have to be for all the divisions of the court.

Maurice O'Connor: Now, we have Misdemeanor Division, which handles misdemeanor, traffic and infractions. I think we talked to the defendants...the public defenders the other day and I think you all estimated about 900 cases a piece last year in `98, is that right, Ron?

(Inaudible answer from the audience.)

Maurice O'Connor: So that's 900 cases and there is 1,800 cases a year. We only had two public defenders last year. We just now got a third one for there so their caseload is going to drop to 600 cases a year. Now if I look at Table 1 on the handout it says if they are under that category, it said on Table 1, and they're handling misdemeanors only they can handle 150 cases per lawyer.

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

Maurice O'Connor: Okay, that means we would need nine additional public defenders in--

Tom Carusillo: No, actually it doesn't. Since misdemeanors are not reimbursable under the statute we allow the creation of a hybrid system in which you can have separate contracts with the misdemeanor attorneys that would be outside the public defender reimbursement program thereby allowing you to have a contract with those attorneys to handle just the misdemeanors. Clark County, I believe, is doing that right now.

Maurice O'Connor: So your estimate of cost savings is based only upon felony cases?

Tom Carusillo: That's correct.

Maurice O'Connor: It does not consider, for example, juvenile? We would need another four in juvenile.

Tom Carusillo: Well, juvenile delinquency was included in the calculations that I did. Juvenile delinquency is eligible for reimbursement. The CHINS cases and juvenile status matters are not eligible for reimbursement.

Maurice O'Connor: What about the petitions to revoke, petitions to modify and the petitions for post conviction relief? Are those reimbursable?

Tom Carusillo: Those fall under the other category that was contained in the Commission standards.

Maurice O'Connor: Well, in felony cases right now under our estimates I believe that our current public defenders are carrying...they are all part-time and carrying 120 cases. About an average of 120 cases per public defender, so that means we would need five new public defenders, correct? Because they can only handle 60 non capital murders and all felonies.

Tom Carusillo: If...it depends on what level they are being compensated at. If they are being compensated and the county chooses to treat them as half-time public defenders you are correct. If because of their level of compensation the county chooses to treat them as say 75 percent of a full-time position then they could carry a caseload higher than 60.

Maurice O'Connor: So these standards are flexible?

Tom Carusillo: Yes, they are.

Maurice O'Connor: Alright, in addition, and this is just an estimate and it's my estimate so it is suspect, I guess, I would say there are 70 percent of the cases have the petition to revoke, the petition to modify or post conviction relief. It's probably even higher. It's probably 80 to 90 percent of the cases. So that means we would probably need three additional public defenders just to handle those and you're saying that is a reimbursable?

Tom Carusillo: Those are reimbursable. If your estimate is accurate then you need the additional staff and based on what I have heard from the public defenders you probably need the additional staff in order to be able to handle that many cases.

Maurice O'Connor: I don't want to put you on the defensive, but in reading this matter I note that there is continuous expression about concern for the adequacy of the representation of indigent defendants.

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

Maurice O'Connor: And that is well and good. My question is how can we have adequate representation in felonies, but not in juvenile delinquency and not in--

Tom Carusillo: Juvenile delinquency is covered under the standards and you would have the attorneys meeting the caseloads there. In misdemeanors you would not and that is simply a matter of the Legislature chose to exclude misdemeanors from the reimbursement program. I don't agree with that decision, but the Commission has no jurisdiction over how you handle your misdemeanor cases. If you chose to handle them on a separate basis then that is up to the county, still within the attorney's ethical obligation and the court's discretion regarding the appointment of counsel as to how those are handled. Now some counties they do have their attorneys handle misdemeanor cases along with their felonies and we do take those into account in counting their caseloads but they are able to manage those in order to not exceed the caseload limits.

Maurice O'Connor: Do you think Vanderburgh is getting a bargain with its public defenders?

Tom Carusillo: I think that from what I've heard they have a very good staff of public defenders who probably are worked very hard.

Maurice O'Connor: We have one of the fastest case disposals in the state.

Tom Carusillo: That's good.

Maurice O'Connor: I'm going to leave you with that.

Tom Carusillo: Thank you.

President Jerrel: No other question?

David Kiely: One other question. It's concerning the--

President Jerrel: David, do you mind, please?

David Kiely: It's concerning the election of the three member panel, is that correct?

Tom Carusillo: Yes.

David Kiely: And I understand that one of them has to be a Democrat and one of them has to be a Republican. You understand our judges are not partisan raced?

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

David Kiely: So you're trying to...and then the other one I assume would be appointed by the Commissioners?

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

David Kiely: Which would be the majority party more than likely, with all due respect. It seems to me you're wanting to bring politics into our judicial system which I really don't think we need.

Tom Carusillo: Well, the situation hasn't been addressed specifically by the Commission. Since you are exempt from the statute you only have to substantially comply in order to meet the Commission's standards. Generally, everyone is required to have one from each party. Whether or not they would permit the judges just to nominate two people I don't know because again that statutory requirement doesn't apply to Vanderburgh.

Phil Hoy: I'm Phil Hoy. I'm County Councilman. To respond to the remark that was just made about politics I have written at least three letters of recommendation for people seeking judgeships here and in all three letters they asked me to mention their political party. In that case I wouldn't want to do a survey of how many Democrats...and I am Democrat now.

Commissioner Tuley: Now?

Phil Hoy: I was a Republican. Everybody in the room knows that and I am suspect because I am probably an independent, you understand, but on every letter they said it's important that the party be noted because after all the Governor is a Democrat, so I really think that is a fallacious argument. That's a statement instead of a question. My question is we have a very conservative Legislature. It's hard for me to believe that they passed this without giving consideration to the fact that low income people are not as well represented as they should be and I am wondering what your response is to that.

Tom Carusillo: One of the driving forces behind the passing of the legislation was that there were problems in certain counties with public defender systems. They were concerned that indigent people were not receiving adequate representation. There was also a concern that the expenses for providing representation were growing year by year and it was being entirely borne by the counties. The statutes that are being enforced here are state statutes and therefore it only seems proper that the state ought to bear part of that burden. The state currently pays, I think, in excess of $13 million a year for the prosecutor and his chief deputies salary. They pay in excess of $30 million a year for the judges that operate the courts so it only seemed fair that they also provide something to the other part of the judicial system that deals with criminal cases by providing some help to the counties in dealing with the indigent defense costs. The Legislature is very conservative. When this statute was brought before the Legislature to increase the reimbursement from 25 to 40 percent they were advised that the cost for having all 92 counties participating in the program would be somewhere between $8 and $10 million dollars so this is not a program that has just been brought up and no one has planned ahead as to what is going to happen. The Legislature was advised that as the number of counties participating increased we would be back asking for additional funding in order to cover those counties. The Commission's funding is non reverting which means if we do not spend our funds in a given year it does not go back to the General Fund, it remains with the Public Defender Commission for use in other years. As a matter of fact, we currently have approximately $2.7 million in the Commission's account from funds that were not spent in previous years. We will be receiving, or did receive on July 1st, our appropriation for this next fiscal year which is $2.4 million so we have over $4 million for this current fiscal year. We spent roughly $2.7 last year and with the increase in counties over the next year I anticipate we'll come close to spending about $3.5 million this next fiscal year, so the funding is there. I think that the Legislature has recognized the need to make sure that the indigents do receive adequate compensation. In most counties it requires very little in terms of change. Most counties have good public defenders, public defenders who work hard, but they're public defenders with a little bit of help can do their job even better because they wouldn't have to deal with the large number of caseloads that often public defenders have to contend with.

Phil Hoy: I have another question. You've listed for us several counties here. They do not include some of the counties with the larger populations such as Allen, Lake, Marion and St. Joe. Are those four counties also considering this or have they joined this program?

Tom Carusillo: I'm trying to see what we have here.

President Jerrel: That may be an old one.

Tom Carusillo: No, that's--

Phil Hoy: Clark, Floyd, Madison, Marion, Montgomery.

Tom Carusillo: That was an analysis where I just picked some counties at random. Marion County is involved with the program and has been involved in the program since its inception. They currently are working on complying with all the standards. They were allowed to phase in their compliance over a period of time. All their courts excluding their D felony and misdemeanor courts are currently in compliance. Lake County does have a public defender board in place. I spoke to them about two months ago about their comprehensive plan and they are in the process of drafting their comprehensive plan. Allen County I have spoken to the officials there. They have not expressed an interest at this time in participating. I have spoke with officials in St. Joe County who have not responded with any interest in participating.

Phil Hoy: Terre Haute would be--

Tom Carusillo: Vigo County is one of the counties that is supposed to submit a plan for the September 1st meeting of the Commission and I am fairly confident that they will since I am writing it for them and should have it done this week!

Phil Hoy: One more. How about Elkhart County because their population is somewhat similar to ours?

Tom Carusillo: Elkhart County is where I am originally from and though I have talked to the judges there and to the chief public defender at this time they have not taken any steps towards participating in the program.

David Shaw: I'm David Shaw, and I'm a Superior Court public defender. Under the standards for indigent defense services adopted by the Commission it says that the caseload limitations were recommendations and the way you described them they are requirements. As a practical matter are they requirements?

Tom Carusillo: If you have a 121 felonies you're not going to lose your reimbursement. If you have 122 felonies you're not going to lose your reimbursement. It's a general number. We try to keep within a couple of percentage points of that though however. Generally, the counties that report quarterly I provide them with a chart that is on a computer disk that will automatically...they fill in the numbers of the different cases that the attorney has and it will calculate the caseload for that quarter. If an attorney has a situation where for a particular quarter where it looks like if he maintained that for the course of the year he would go over they are alerted to that so they can make adjustments to their case assignments. So if they are reporting quarterly we try to keep track of that so it is not a sudden thing at the end of the year where we discover, oops, we've got too many cases.

David Shaw: Well, my question is if Vanderburgh County were to adopt a standard that instead of 120 cases a full-time public defender, we don't have any full-time public defenders, but if we had one it could handle 180. Would the Commission say that's not proper?

Tom Carusillo: (Inaudible.)

David Shaw: If the local commission in Vanderburgh County--

Tom Carusillo: No, you would not. Those standards are basically the maximum caseload standards. Variance from them is permitted, but not that type of variance.

David Shaw: Okay, that was my question. You also said that for a full-time employee, public defender, the minimums would be $40,500. Would fringe benefits come on top of that or is that included in the $40,000 figure?

Tom Carusillo: Fringe benefits would be on top of that. That's a salary figure only.

David Shaw: Now in Vanderburgh County by local rule discovery or normal discovery is the prosecutor's order to make a copy of the police file and provide that to the defense attorney. Is that common in other counties?

Tom Carusillo: In other counties I am not sure how they proceed. In most counties that I do know about there is some sort of agreement from the prosecutor to the public defender on exchanging the files. I know that when I was a public defender in Elkhart County that was generally...I would just send my secretary over to the prosecutor's office and she would bring the file back, copy it and return it to the prosecutor.

David Shaw: Thank you.

Phil Hoy: I have another question.

President Jerrel: Uh-huh.

Phil Hoy: Regarding the salary, the salary does not include fringe benefits. The attorney also then would not be responsible for support staff, office supplies, rent and things like that, is that correct?

Tom Carusillo: Right.

Phil Hoy: So--

Tom Carusillo: Either...if you want to be in an adequately staffed situation those would be matters that would be supplied by the county. If you chose to be inadequately support staffed then they're just not provided. The Commission standards do provide however that an attorney can be reimbursed for reasonable office expenses. Now in a lot of counties the attorneys do not make that request. In some counties they do and you will reimburse them if the county pays them for their reasonable office expenses. Marion County does have an office, but they also pay rent and we reimburse them for the rent that they pay.

Phil Hoy: So the minimum is actually the money that person would walk out with a paycheck minus their taxes?

Tom Carusillo: Correct. Assuming that they did ask to be reimbursed for their expenses. I might add in terms of reimbursement we're not talking just about salary. We're talking about salaries, depositions, transcripts, investigators and any other costs that are associated with the defense of a case are reimbursable by the Commission, so it's just simply not a matter of looking at the salary numbers. It includes...fringe benefits are reimbursable. PERF is reimbursable. Anything that the county has to pay to provide the indigent defense service would be eligible for reimbursement.

President Jerrel: I have a question that just came from that discussion. Maybe one of the judges can answer this. Do you reimburse your public defenders for their secretarial and other expenses they may have in connection with the court that come from their own office? Okay, Doug, do you know?

Unidentified: We get $100 a month.

President Jerrel: You get $100 a month?

Unidentified: A flat $100 a month to cover maintenance of the office, secretaries, supplies, phone calls, everything.

President Jerrel: Okay, do you do anything in Superior...I mean in Circuit Court?

David Kiely: I'm not privy to that information.

President Jerrel: Is there a Circuit Court public defender here? Do you receive anything besides your salary for office expenses or anything?

Unidentified: No.

Unidentified: There are some situations where you can request that.

President Jerrel: Uh-huh.

Unidentified: (Inaudible) some situations where they allow it.

President Jerrel: Allow it, uh-huh.

Unidentified: (Inaudible) they allow you your expenses.

President Jerrel: So the court provides you with all the secretarial help you need and investigators?

(Several responded no.)

Unidentified: I'm talking about copies and perhaps postage.

President Jerrel: Okay, alright. Yes.

Curt Wortman: My name is Curt Wortman, County Councilman. I was wondering is there any provisions made for space in the Civic Center or the courts for this staff and all?

President Jerrel: Again, and I am repeating what Tom has described, there are all sorts of combinations of these plans that he has described to you and some are the actual office space for which rent would be reimbursed or there are hybrid forms of providing services or paying for services under a contract basis. There is a variety of ways and I think I want to say this and I hope that those of you in the room that it affects will understand that I am genuinely sincere about this. The issue of public defense has been on the calendar for a long time. It's a discussion item that has been going on for six years and I've tried to provide information to the chief judge in Superior and the Circuit Court judge when I would get agendas and different information and we have had people down here before. We've never had a public setting like this and I want to thank all of you for coming because I think this is what good government is about is to discuss these things in a public setting with the individuals that do make the decisions. I sense what is not being said that some public defenders think there is an ulterior motive from the Commission because we're having this meeting and that is not true. We don't have a desire to pick public defenders. That's not our role. Our role is to look at the feasibility of the process to see that we maintain a good judicial system and fund it properly and this is an opportunity that has been on the books for a long time to receive reimbursement. We don't have to be reimbursed. We don't have to do any of that. Tonight we could just say thank you very much, glad you could come down and we just won't think about it any more. Or we could ask our counsel to prepare an ordinance for public hearing which is another way of opening this up to the public. At the end of that process if we choose to pass the ordinance it could then go to the courts for their appointment. If you choose not to participate and not to appoint two people there would be no Public Defender Commission. It would be totally up to the judges. The Commissioners could opt to do the ordinance and you could say, no, we don't care to do anything else and that would be the end of it, but it would be your option to make that decision. If we're looking at it maybe the Commissioner and the Council look at things a little bit different, maybe we don't. I've learned a lot with the Public Defender Commission. It has been very interesting to study plans from all over the state and the reason this meeting was called is because there has been, you know, a critical mass occurs and the critical mass is that the larger counties are now coming onboard and I look at all the reimbursements that they're getting and we're not getting any. I think it's time that we take a look at this just from the practical side of it for our public defenders and for our courts and for our budget. Please, anybody else? Do we have any questions? Yes, sir.

Jeff Tornatta: For the record my name is Jeff Tornatta and I'm a Superior Court judge. I know from my discussions with everyone involved in the criminal justice system here locally that the feeling is the expenses, if you take the state and county together will certainly go up and we do acknowledge that. I suspect that they will also go up for the county. The judges that have spoken tonight and the public defenders clearly now our public defenders have too many cases for a public defender. I suspect...I don't suspect, I think it's for certain that they are eating a lot of administrative expenses. Money is important. Everyone here is a taxpayer, but obviously and I think you touched on this the most important thing is how do we get the best defense for the lowest cost not only for the county but the state. What has your experience been in the other 20 counties, have the county's cost gone down? The other thing that concerns me this affects...this is an extremely complicated issue and I know Mr. Levco is here tonight and I would suspect that if you suddenly have a lot more public defenders and they each have fewer cases and they have more time to go through the cases perhaps his expenses are going to go through the roof also. Have you studied that in other counties?

Tom Carusillo: In terms of the experience of other counties the information that I have shows that over the years their gross expenses do continue to rise, but that their net expenses do go down because of the reimbursements. Some counties are able to add attorneys to their staffs as a result. I get Floyd and Clark mixed up. One of those two counties recently added some public defenders because of their caseload situation, but they were able to do it basically at no cost to them. In terms of what it means to the rest of the system, yes there is a possibility that there could be an increase in the amount of work that it will require for the prosecutor's office, but I have every confidence that the prosecutor's office will be here in front of the Commission and Council if that should occur telling them what they need and why they need it. But it's a situation where if we look at it right now the playing field is really unbalanced. The prosecutor's office has a situation where their chief...their elected prosecutor and chief are paid for by the state. They have a force of police officers to do investigations for them. The have the State Police lab to do work for them. None of that is available to the public defenders. That is something that they have to either get from the courts or beg the courts for in order to maintain their representation. It is a situation that we find that throughout the state that roughly between 75 and 80 percent of the A, B and C felonies result in the appointment of a public defender. So those cases that are the most serious are being handled by the public defenders, so it's a case where they need to be able to handle a system on a level playing field with the prosecutor. This is one way of doing that by having the state accept some of the responsibility for the cost of defending the cases.

President Jerrel: That brings a question to mind. How do the judges determine a person is eligible for pauper expenses? In other words, is there an investigation that is done about the...an actual investigation of the bank accounts and whatever you have or is this just a verbal interview? I need a judge. How do you determine?

Unidentified: Affidavits are signed by people stating this is what I make and I don't have anything, I don't own any property. I don't have a job. I'm on Social Security disability and based upon that we do it. I don't know of anybody that does an investigation.

President Jerrel: Do you check any of it out?

Unidentified: Now whether or not that is true or not because that's another person.

President Jerrel: What about Superior Court, do you have a form that you fill out?

Jeff Tornatta: No, it's done on the record in open court.

President Jerrel: Okay, but then no...you don't check to see if they've got a $10,000 CD hidden away?

Jeff Tornatta: (Inaudible comments made away from mike.)

Commissioner Mourdock: But the definition of who is indigent based on either one of those two methods if we go down this road does that change?

Tom Carusillo: No.

Commissioner Mourdock: That's still the same right?

President Jerrel: Uh-huh. I was just curious as to how the process takes place. Is that true in Circuit Court too?

Doug Knight: There is an inquiry done on the record.

President Jerrel: But no investigation?

(Inaudible comments made from audience.)

President Jerrel: I know you are, but you're juvenile.

Unidentified: Anyway, in juvenile we have a form they fill out and they put down their income and their expenses and they sign it under oath and we notarize it. I think the form was developed by (inaudible). They don't check that because you don't have time to do it.

Phil Hoy: My question is how would the county determine the eligibility? Do they have...do they do more checking?

Tom Carusillo: Some counties do it exactly the way you do. They have an affidavit that is filled out by the individual and signed. There is no checking done. I do know from past experience in Elkhart County that they did have a pretrial release officer whose whole job was to interview individuals and then verify the information that they provided to them, but that seems to be more the exception than the rule.

Roger Madden: Roger Madden, Fathers United. I've got a BS in law enforcement, four years as an officer in the Air Force Security Police. My last 18 years as a non custodial father I found that prevention is the most profitable method you're going to have of preventing any crime. Now if anybody remembers who Lewis W. Sullivan was, he was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. He wrote an article back in `90 and gave a speech. It says 70 percent of juvenile delinquents in long-term correctional facilities did not live with their fathers growing up. Also, five times...children are five times more likely to be poor and twice as likely to drop out of school when they are raised in a home without a father. He also says that almost every vexing social problem, crime, poverty, drug abuse and even declining productively is related to family dissolution. He goes on to say that one would thing the government would do everything in its power to promote family stability and that divorce is an even more efficient generator of poverty than socialism. And his closing says it will require a total reorientation of the current governmental policy and societal attitudes and embracing the obvious solutions will take considerably much more courage than it is to ignore them. That's a copy of his. There is an article in the paper about the grandpa. The only problem is with the 77 percent denied visitation rate most of the kids don't get to see their grandpas so he doesn't get to influence them a whole lot about the rights and wrongs in life. Here is from a 1989 child support handbook. It says, the child has a right and a chance to develop a relationship with a father and develop a sense of identity and connection with the other half of his or her family. Again, with a 77 percent denied visitation rate that doesn't happen. In 1993, United Way of Southwestern Indiana, the community needs assessment. Of the first 21 issues 11 of them have to do with fathers not being in the home, again, due to denied visitation. Breakdown of the family, drug/alcohol, violence in society, alcohol/drug abuse, child abuse, lack of parenting skills, etc., etc. So if you can...70 percent of the juvenile delinquents are in jail and grew up without a father and you can have a 90 percent enforced joint custody rate through you judges and by the prosecuting attorney enforcing Indiana laws on joint custody when fathers are being denied their visitation rights. Then if you can reduce the 70 by 90 percent that takes you down to a seven percent juvenile delinquency rate. Double it. A 14 percent. That's still a helluva lot better than 70 percent. I know it is going to cut into job security, but some of the shows I've seen on TV had said that between robbery, murders and rape...I mean, one in six women is raped in her lifetime. Now would you women rather allow visitation or would you rather take a chance on getting raped? That's 400,000 a year.

President Jerrel: Does this connect to the--

Roger Madden: Yeah, it's all got to do with--

President Jerrel: How do you feel about the--

Roger Madden: If you prevent juvenile delinquency by not destroying the family in the first place you can save a lot of money there and you can also get a whole lot of money back through additional child support. People, like I said, lack of productivity. Somebody is making $10,000 or $15,000 and they're on welfare versus somebody that has a good reason to work and they make $20 or $40,000 there is about five million fathers in this country being denied access to their kids. You take $4,000 a head then that's a lot of money coming in.

President Jerrel: This particular though discussion really deals with just the public defender issue.

Roger Madden: Yeah, you need less public defenders if you've got less juvenile delinquents because juvenile delinquents turn into career criminals.

President Jerrel: Right.

Roger Madden: Just plain and simple.

President Jerrel: Thank you very much.

Roger Madden: Does that sound legit?

Tom Carusillo: Yeah.

President Jerrel: Alright, anybody else that wishes to...yes, sir.

Doug Knight: Doug Knight, a judge in Vanderburgh Superior Court. A few cases, if you could outline how the budget process works? How is it funded? Who is responsible for submitting the budget and whose department or entity does the budget come under?

Tom Carusillo: The budget process would depend on the plan that the county chose to adopt. If you're working in a public defender office system then your chief public defender would be responsible for preparing the budget and submitting it to the Council. If you are working under a contract system you would have a situation where the local board in consultation with the judges would prepare a budget and submit it to the Council. It's really a situation that like the rest of the program is flexible and can be determined by the county how it wants to make the budget process work.

Doug Knight: And in the instances where under the standards the public defender can signal to someone or somehow that he or she cannot accept additional cases or continue representation in previously assigned cases and needs some relief who decides to grant that relief?

Tom Carusillo: The determination again depends upon in part the type of system that you choose to develop, but ultimately the situation is one where the public defender, be it the chief public defender in an office situation or the public defender under a contract situation, who ethically feels that he is not able to handle additional cases would then take that matter before the judge and have a hearing to determine if it was appropriate for relief or not.

Doug Knight: On the indigent eligibility process determinations it sounded to me as if in reading the standards some rather detailed investigation was warranted in terms of net worth, cash flow, equity in homes, cars, tools and such as that. Do you have an opinion about where it would be more fitting to make that determination, in open court, probation department, compliance officer? How would you address that?

Tom Carusillo: In terms of the indigent determination it depends...I keep saying this, it depends on the county. In some counties open court is the place to do it. In some counties it's with an affidavit that the attorney helps the defendant prepare. In some counties it is through an independent officer who does the determination. You folks have to determine what will work best in Vanderburgh County. I can't really tell you that this will work for you because the system is one that you folks have to work with as a system that you become accustomed to in terms of how it works. In terms of what it will mean in terms of the detail it probably would be no more detailed than you already have in terms of perhaps an affidavit signed by the individual outlining the types of assets that they have available for hiring. Whether or not you choose to investigate that further would be a local determination that you would have to make.

Doug Knight: How are case assignments made under a system that complies with the standard that is not on a case by case assignment basis to an attorney, but salary, if you will, or P.D. office? Does the assignment go to the public defender's office or does it go to individual public defenders?

Tom Carusillo: In some counties they make the appointment to the office. In some counties they make the appointment to a public defender who is assigned to a particular court pursuant to his contract. In some counties the judges rotate from a list as to who they assign to cases. Again, it is something that the judges here in consultation with the public defenders would have to determine how they wanted that program to work in your county.

Doug Knight: Given the fact that there is some obvious...obviously some kind of requirement that we track the number of cases assigned and what the caseload is and when we're nearing the retirement point, if you will, and the record keeping that is involved, the supervision, doesn't this plan anticipate there would be at least one full-time public defender who would more or less be the chief?

Tom Carusillo: Not necessarily. The larger counties typically do have someone who is responsible for doing that. Marion County does have a chief public defender with a staff member whose job is to keep track of the records. In Madison County they have their court administrator keep the records of the appointments and provide that to the Public Defender Commission. In Fulton County one of the public defenders is given an additional stipend to their salary to provide them the incentive to serve as the administrator to keep track of the records. In some of the smaller counties it is done by the County Auditor because there is just not that much that they have to deal with. In a county of this size you would probably have a situation where either a chief public defender or a court administrator or someone on the staff would accept the responsibility for their compensation to include the preparation of the necessary documents.

Doug Knight: In reading the standards it appears that a non indigent accused could apply somewhere for additional funds to supplement his or her defense even though he or she has retained private counsel out of their own pocket. To whom would that application be made and then could that entity be sued for wrongful denial of the application?

Tom Carusillo: The provision of indigent funds to a person who has private counsel is something that is available under the current Indiana law. If you are an indigent individual even if you have private counsel you can go before the court and request the court to make a determination of indigence. In most cases what that results in is the court having the paid attorney withdraw and appointing a public defender. You then start from square one with an attorney who knows nothing about the case and has to start all over. The Commission standard which is in effect provides that rather than starting all over from square one we simply provide that if the individual goes before the court and is able to establish despite the fact that they have hired an attorney that they are indigent for purposes of hiring say an investigator or other investigative tools that they might need then the court has the discretion of determining that they should be eligible for receiving funds just as a court would do now without the plan in place.

Doug Knight: One last question, could you give us more detail, Tom, in terms of whether or not it is contemplated under the standards that it is going to match the prosecuting attorney's budget to some degree? That's the last question I have and thank you for being here tonight.

Tom Carusillo: There is no requirement that the public defender budget match the prosecuting attorney's budget. The only requirement, as I mentioned earlier on, was that in terms of compensation the public defenders are to be compensated comparably to similar positions in the prosecutor's office. That assumes that similar positions exist. As I indicated earlier, in my travels throughout the state we find it very difficult to find similar positions due to the differences in experience, difference in duties that exist and that is why the Commission mostly relies upon this general guideline of a minimum salary of $40,100 per year. If you did have a situation however where you had prosecutor...deputy prosecutor A who was comparable in terms of experience and duties to public defender B, then that's a situation where it would expect that the salary compensation would be similar. There is no reason if they are doing essentially the same jobs in the same court that they shouldn't be paid the same. Again, as I said, finding those similar situations are few and far between.

President Jerrel: At this time do the Commissioners have any questions?

Commissioner Tuley: Just to make sure I understand this, Tom, what you said earlier. Basically, probably, we may have a county public defender, but then all other public defenders could be basically part-time? Everything comes down to full-time equivalence based on the total workload?

Tom Carusillo: It you choose...you could have no part...excuse me. You could have no full-time public defenders actually.

Commissioner Tuley: They're all part-time.

Tom Carusillo: But if you do set up an office you would have then one full-time and the rest could be part-time of various natures. Either 75 percent of the time, 50 or one-third or whatever.

Commissioner Tuley: Okay. The other question, and this is as much for everybody sitting here as it is just you, but it sounded...what I gathered a little bit ago was that you tried to give some estimates based on figures and stuff that you were able to glean.

Tom Carusillo: There are no guarantees.

Commissioner Tuley: Right, I understand that and I can appreciate that. But it sounded like the judges had maybe a little more factual information than you had. How do we get those numbers matched up?

Tom Carusillo: If...probably...well, I'm not sure. It depends on how the records are kept. If they are on a computer it might be easy to pull that information off the computer, but again it depends on how it was kept on the computer. It might require manually going through and keeping track of what appointments were made and getting a count that way in order to get an accurate number for the number of cases. The estimates that I've heard are somewhere in the ballpark. I think that if I remember correctly...I may not have that with me. In doing my estimates though I didn't have information from the courts regarding probation revocations and the like so I based those on estimates on statewide numbers. Your numbers obviously could be higher or lower. Probably because of the size of the county they could be higher, but even if they are higher you are still looking at a situation where you can spend a substantial amount of additional money and still have the county save funds over the long haul. It's something that I think that the courts, Council, and Commission would be interested in sitting down and getting those precise numbers so a more accurate examination and analysis can be made.

Commissioner Tuley: I guess that's what I am trying to get at. If we're going to pursue this or least look into this further than we need that exchange of information so we can get a better feel for what the true savings may be.

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

Commissioner Tuley: And then one other question. Everything is customized. It sounds like everything, you know, what works in your county, but is there a typical makeup of this three body board? I mean, an example like Marion County. What...who--

Tom Carusillo: Marion County is not typical.

Commissioner Tuley: Okay.

Tom Carusillo: Marion County has more than three members on their board.

Commissioner Tuley: Okay, Marion is a bad example then. Vermillion or Vigo or any of them that have it.

Tom Carusillo: It varies. Some have attorneys that sit on the board. Some of them have lay individuals that sit on the board. I was up in Fulton County that just one of the directors of one of the civic organizations was on the board.

Commissioner Tuley: Okay.

Tom Carusillo: It really is a cross section of the community in a lot of the counties. When I tell the local board members when they are concerned about how do we do this I basically tell them you're not doing it alone. You're doing it with Council, you're doing it with the Commissioners, you're doing it with the judges, you're doing it with the public defenders. This isn't a total shot in the dark where you have to invent the wheel. You've got some idea by using these resources of what is going to work and just utilize those resources and you'll find something that eventually everyone is going to have to agree to. If the system that is developed isn't acceptable to everyone who works in the system it is going to fail.

Commissioner Tuley: Okay, thanks.

Commissioner Mourdock: I have several questions, Tom, and bear with me for a second. I want to go through these in the order as I go through my notes. It may seem I'm jumping around a little. Okay, now it will sound logical on tape if she didn't get the first part. You commented about the three types of systems that is out there. The public defender's office, contracts with attorneys and assigned counsels, that as a separate system. I understand that is devised or at least proposed locally. It is the Commission itself that approves it?

Tom Carusillo: The comprehensive plan that your county prepares comes to Indianapolis for approval by the Commission. If you have a plan that utilizes one of those three methods or a combination of those three methods it is going to be approved by the Commission.

Commissioner Mourdock: And define the Commission.

Tom Carusillo: Pardon me?

Commissioner Mourdock: Define the Commission, who are we speaking of?

Tom Carusillo: The Public Defender Commission in Indianapolis.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, and who is that?

Tom Carusillo: Alright, the Public Defender Commission in Indianapolis consists of 11 members. The chairman of the Commission is Dean Lefstein of the law school in Indianapolis. The other members are Susan Carpenter, she is the State Public Defender. Judge Daniel Donahue, of the Clark Circuit Court, is a member. Les Duvall, a former legislator from Indiana...Marion County rather, is a member. Representative Ralph Foley, from Martinsville. Monica Foster, who is a private practice criminal defense attorney in Indianapolis. Mrs. Jerrel is on the Commission. Representative Robert Kuzman, from Crown Point, is on the Commission. Senator Timothy Lanane, from Anderson, Indiana, is on the Commission and Rebecca McClure, the Assistant Executive Director of the Prosecuting Attorney's Council, is a Commission member.

Commissioner Mourdock: So if we came up with some hybrid format that is the group that would have to be sold, if you will?

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. The second question, and again these are just in the order as you spoke of them, the 125 cases you said on any 12 months is that something that is reviewed? You mentioned one time I think quarterly, is that a rolling type number?

Tom Carusillo: It's a rolling number. As I said, I provide the counties that are participating in the program with a disk that has a table on it that will calculate on a quarterly basis or however they choose to report the caseload number for the county on a quarterly basis and also provide a yearly number so that we know where we're at on each twelve month cycle.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, this question may seem rather cynical, but forgive me here. You said at one point, and I think I have these orders right, that a D felony may be based a rate up here and an A is something less than that, but if there was a compromise or a plea that went from a D to an A the original rate held?

Tom Carusillo: In terms of counting cases what I was talking about there--

Commissioner Mourdock: Maybe I can short circuit the question. You were just simply counting the case then not talking about any reimbursement type?

Tom Carusillo: Well, it relates to reimbursement. The Commission does not reimburse for misdemeanors so the question is someone is charged with a Class D felony, that's a reimbursable offense, but he enters into a plea bargain where he pleads guilty to a Class A misdemeanor. That's a non reimbursable offense. How do we count that? We count it as a D felony and it is reimbursed, so regardless of what he pleads to if it is a felony at the start it is going to remain a felony.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, we need to change the tape.

Tom Carusillo: Okay.

Tape change

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, now the cynical part of the question, do you have public defenders...aren't they being put in a position to argue a case down simply for the higher rate?

Tom Carusillo: We have public defenders who always want to argue down to the lower charge for their clients, so regardless it really makes no difference to the public defender. Once it is charged as a D felony it is reimbursable. It's in his interest to have it plead as a misdemeanor to benefit his client.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, alright. You made the comment, I quote:

Tom Carusillo: My comment was based on kind of a survey of judges I've talked to. It may not apply here. Go ahead and ask.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, well it was made on behalf of judges everywhere I just wanted to make sure that they have their chance.

Tom Carusillo: I didn't mean to say that if I meant judges everywhere.

Commissioner Mourdock: Judges care to comment? I guess one has left.

David Kiely: I'm not a judge, but I would like to address.

Commissioner Mourdock: Sure, David, go ahead.

David Kiely: Our Circuit Court--

Commissioner Mourdock: You need to go to the mike, please.

David Kiely: Our Circuit Court public defenders average 15 years of experience and it's nice to have an attorney that has that experience in front of me addressing me as opposed to the attorney that is going to receive $41,000 a year, straight out of law school although I think by the Commission standards some of them would have to have three years experience on the A and B felonies.

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

David Kiely: Correct. To be quite frank I think you're going to have...we're going to have problems finding attorneys that will take a full-time position for $41,000 plus perks.

Commissioner Mourdock: That's the minimum.

President Jerrel: Let me ask you, are you assuming that we would not keep your public defenders, that you wouldn't?

David Kiely: I'm not assuming anything. I don't know what you're planning on doing.

President Jerrel: No, you have the two appointments.

David Kiely: What I am afraid of--

President Jerrel: You have the two appointments. Why would you assume--

David Kiely: I'm not even addressing the appointments. What I am addressing...what I am afraid of is that our court is going to lose the experience and the attorneys that we have.

President Jerrel: Why?

David Kiely: Because they are excellent attorneys.

President Jerrel: No, why would we lose them?

David Kiely: They're the best attorneys in this state of Indiana.

President Jerrel: Why would we lose them?

David Kiely: As public defenders.

President Jerrel: Why?

David Kiely: Because if you bring them on as full-time attorneys--

President Jerrel: No.

Commissioner Tuley: We're not going to.

President Jerrel: No.

David Kiely: Well, we don't know what you're going to do.

President Jerrel: Why you're going to be part of the decision making, that's what this is about.

David Kiely: Well, I don't think we brought this up, I think we're happy. I shouldn't say that, but I know that I am happy with the public defender system and I'm not a judge, I'm a magistrate in Circuit Court and I know our public defenders are professional, they are excellent attorneys and we're not going to get better attorneys to represent the indigent people in Circuit Court.

President Jerrel: See I was correct earlier when I said I suspected the feeling was that we didn't want to keep our public defenders and nothing could be further from the truth. You're projecting something that wouldn't even be on the screen.

David Kiely: I don't know what has been on the screen, but I know one of the proposals is a possible full-time attorneys and I know that you're not going to be able to keep the attorneys that we have unless you're talking $60 or $70,000 a year.

President Jerrel: Well, that would be why...David, that would be why the two people appointed by the courts and the one here would want to decide that would not be something they would want to do. They would want to develop a hybrid perhaps.

David Kiely: Which I think would be great as long as we can keep our public defenders.

President Jerrel: Well, we--

Commissioner Tuley: All we want to do is get reimbursed for some of the costs.

President Jerrel: We're not--

Commissioner Tuley: That's all I'm after.

David Kiely: That's great. I think...personally I think the part-time public defender plan could work because you could keep our public defenders.

President Jerrel: That's exactly correct. Okay, anybody else?

Tom Carusillo: Mrs. Jerrel--

President Jerrel: Excuse me.

Tom Carusillo: --I'm not aware of any county that has joined the program that has lost their public defenders as a result of participation. Usually they tailor their plan in order to provide that those people that are already in the program are able to stay in the program.

Commissioner Tuley: To stay.

President Jerrel: To stay.

Commissioner Mourdock: Maybe what you just said fits my next question. Have any counties revoked the system once they have put it in place?

Tom Carusillo: No.

Commissioner Mourdock: Um, this is...oh, you've already answered that one. Okay, Mr. Shaw's question answered that one. Oh, Judge Tornatta, I thought, raised a interesting point on the gross cost versus net cost when he raised the issue that if in fact we had additional public defenders however we were doing it presuming we're getting more bang for the buck here, doesn't it logically follow that the prosecutor's costs are going to consistently track that? It seems to me that the prosecuting costs will eat up much of what would otherwise be the savings.

Tom Carusillo: Not necessarily. It depends on how the cases are being handled now. It depends on how the cases are handled after the system goes into effect. If you have additional jury trials as a result, then, yes there will probably be an increase in the number of prosecutors that you would need to handle that.

Commissioner Mourdock: Do you know in counties that have enacted this have you seen an increase in jury trials? 

Tom Carusillo: I'm not aware of any counties that have reported increases in jury trials. I am not aware of any counties that have reported problems with their prosecutor not being able to obtain the funding that they need. No county has complained to me that, hey, this is costing us too much because our prosecutor needs additional funds. Whether or not that happens I don't know. It is a concern that other counties have had, but I haven't heard any reports that would indicate that has presented a real problem in the counties that are using the program.

Commissioner Tuley: I've got one final question.

Commissioner Mourdock: That was my last one.

Commissioner Tuley: I'm sorry. Tom, I know you've got a long list of counties that are participating, but could you kind of glance down there and by sight basically point out maybe some counties or are all the counties that you know using part-time public defenders just like we're doing now? 

Tom Carusillo: Basically, the smaller counties are on an hourly basis with their attorneys, the very small counties. There are some counties that do have full-time public defenders. Marion County has full-time public defenders although all their public defenders are not full-time. I believe that Clark County has some full-time public defenders or has at least one full-time public defender. Other than that most are on a part-time basis. 

Commissioner Tuley: Thanks.

President Jerrel: Anybody else?

Roger Madden: Just a quick question. Where is the money coming from? Is this part of the $30 billion dollar crime bill or state generated or what?

Tom Carusillo: The money that is appropriated by the Legislature comes from fines and costs that are collected in criminal cases. Additionally to that occasionally the Legislature has made additional appropriations which come from the General Fund. This year they have not made that additional, so it is all coming from fines and costs. 

Stan Levco: Can I make a comment?

President Jerrel: Sure, do you mind coming up?

Stan Levco: Actually, it's more than a comment. It's a speech.

Commissioner Tuley: Get the timer out!

Commissioner Mourdock: I would like to make a motion!

Stan Levco: I have a few things I would like to say. Is this the appropriate time or not? 

President Jerrel: Well, we'll enter your speech in the record, but I think--

Stan Levco: I think I can speak shorter than some of the questions were, okay?

President Jerrel: Sure.

Tom Carusillo: Probably shorter than some of the answers.

Stan Levco: I knew this was coming and as I was considering my remarks against it because I have been following this for the state for a few years now. I was trying to think of one succinct thing to say and what came to me and kept coming back to me is if it ain't broke don't fix it. I don't think we have a problem with public defense here in Vanderburgh County. I didn't research this specifically, but since I have been prosecutor I don't think we've had a single case reversed on incompetent counsel when it is a public defender. I can remember a case that was reversed on incompetent counsel when it was a private attorney, but I can't think of any with public defenders. I think this problem is the standards which I would call strings attached to this 40 percent. There are a number of them. A few of them eluded to, I won't speak long although I have them written out here. The standard for choosing an indigent is a little bit different under this. Also, the appointment of the experts, I think, makes it a little bit different. But I think what it essentially is this, I think right now we have a pretty good balance in Vanderburgh County between the prosecutors and public defenders. I think we should have a level playing field and I think we do have a level playing field now, but if you reduce their caseload by 50 percent and increase the public defender staff by 50 percent obviously the attorneys are going to have a whole lot more time to file I would say unnecessary motions. I think right now we have a very good discovery process now, but I think pretty soon with this we'll be getting depositioned to death and things like that. I think it will result in a burden to an already overburdened court system. If you want to know what happens when defense attorneys have unlimited resources just think of O.J. Simpson. I don't think in Vanderburgh County if this happens every case is going to be an O.J. Simpson case, but I do think they'll be...cases will take longer and there will be more unnecessary hearings as a result of it. I'm extremely skeptical of whether this is going to cost the county less in the long run. You know, I don't have all your figures. My opinion though is it ultimately will cost more just for the public defenders. You said you didn't know the difference between Floyd and Clark County, which had what, but I know I have talked to the prosecutor in Clark County who is just very strongly against this and he has told me that his...that the public defender budget tripled since the time he has been prosecutor which would be less than eight years. Because of that his budget has also gone up dramatically. I don't think by that much. As Judge Tornatta said, you know, I don't know whether I'll be successful but if your public defender's staff increases, doubles, or increases by 50 percent I think it's a pretty good chance I am going to come in here very soon after that and say you need to increase my staff by 50 percent. Whether you will or not is going to be up to the Council, I guess, but I would think in fairness...unless it is grossly unfair now if you increase their staff by a large amount it seems that you have to increase my staff by a large amount. The only reason to do this would be if you feel it is grossly unfair now and I don't see that in Vanderburgh County. You may have that in other counties, but I don't see that here.

Commissioner Mourdock: Stan, may I ask you a question?

Stan Levco: Yeah, sure.

Commissioner Mourdock: Just an opinion, and that's all I can ask for. At one point Tom was talking about the situation up in Vermillion County with the very expensive case up there. I made the note that in a sense we would be buying a catastrophic insurance policy here. How do you respond to that?

Stan Levco: Well, that's one of the few cases that has happened in, you know, how many years? You can't say with absolute certainty it would never happen in Vanderburgh County. We had the Donald Ray Wallace case. When you had a judge in control of the purse strings and he said to the defender at that time, of course it would be a lot more money now, he said you take this case I'm going to pay you, and I don't remember the exact amount, but it was $20 or $30,000 which was a lot of money at that time. That public defender decided to use only the money he needed. If he had unlimited resources, if you know...take the John Stephenson case. If you know all you've got to do is ask and you can get hired your own private photographer, your own private secretary and all that you're going to ask for one.

Commissioner Mourdock: And that was under this, the Stephenson situation?

Stan Levco: That's a little bit different. That would be under the...but it's the same kind of thing where the state was reimbursing 50 percent on a death penalty. I guess what I would say to that Vermillion thing first of all I would assume they had a public defender system in place, right? 

Tom Carusillo: Correct.

Stan Levco: So that a judge couldn't say to the person he appointed I am appointing you, but unless there is something just extraordinary your fee in this case is going to be $100,000. I suspect you would get a competent defense attorneys to take even the most complicated cases for less than $600,000. I mean, I guess that is theoretically a possibility, but even in that you're going to be reimbursed...you're not going to be reimbursed the whole thing. 

Tom Carusillo: If I might just comment briefly on the Vermillion case, the $600,000 I don't know what that includes. I assume that is more than just the attorney's fees and includes the experts. The Vermillion case is interesting because the prosecutor in that case, as I understand it, has spent over $1.6 million in preparation for that case and the defense has been allocated $600,000 to prepare that case. So in terms of a level playing field you have to wonder whether or not that is a level playing field. In terms of what it will mean to this county, that's something that you folks will decide. If it isn't broke don't fix it. I don't know if it's broke. I'm not saying that it is broke, but it may be that you can make it run better and save the county some money in the process of doing it so it is something that you all will study and make a determination on. I am available to help your county sort through the process. I will be available to help draft an ordinance, help draft comprehensive plans, to work through the questions you might have, but the ultimate decision will be yours and I hope that after your determination that you choose to join the other counties that are beginning to come onboard with this program. 

Commissioner Mourdock: I've learned a bunch here this evening and they can still write volumes about what I don't know about all the issues that are involved here. From purely the financial point of view, and Bettye Lou I need to compliment you here. I've said it before. I don't think anyone looks after the county's dollars, nickels and pennies more than you do and I know that is part of the motivation of looking at this. I think we just under good conscious have to move forward with this process to see where it leads. However, in saying that I also want to say my mind is still somewhat open to the latter parts of the discussion that just took place here. I really do...Judge Tornatta said it, Stan Levco said it a minute ago, I want to get a better handle before we make a final decision as to what the real cost might be beyond what we see as savings, but I would still at this point to start the process make a motion that we go ahead and begin the ordinance process to see if in fact this thing should be enacted. 

Commissioner Tuley: I think you're right in terms that, you know, there is a whole lot that we don't know. Again, just as you indicated there at the end we got a different perspective, but I also have to agree that if you don't look into it we don't know what the possibilities are good or bad and we can always make a determination later that this is something that we don't want to do. Just by drafting an ordinance doesn't mean we have to do it because we are going to sit down and have all the parties involved that we've talked about and either come to an agreement that this is what the county wants and this is in the best interest of the county or it is not and it dies, so I'll second your motion.

President Jerrel: I'll say so ordered and look to see you all back here let's say that we would have an ordinance ready by the end of this month or the first part of August and then we'll open all this up for discussion and planning.

Commissioner Mourdock: One question that goes with that it occurs to me I skipped over, the courts...we would appoint one member to the three member body, correct, the Commission would? Who is it that is in the court, is it Superior Court appoints one?

President Jerrel: And Circuit Court.

Commissioner Mourdock: And Circuit appoints one?

Tom Carusillo: The judges collectively have two appointments, so they would sit down and collectively determine.

Commissioner Mourdock: The judges meaning all the judges within that court?

Tom Carusillo: Within the--

Commissioner Tuley: Vanderburgh County.

President Jerrel: All of them.

Commissioner Mourdock: Right, within the two courts. Okay, alright. Thank you. Obviously they have the final say in this since it's two to one.

Commissioner Tuley: Kind of like being in the minority.

Commissioner Mourdock: Been there. 

President Jerrel: We'll send a letter to the courts and just advise you when the next session will be, but sometime the latter part of this month or early August. 

Unidentified: Are you going to form a committee on this?

President Jerrel: No, it's--

Unidentified: It's public?

President Jerrel: Oh, it will all be public. Everything we do will be in the public sector. We've got three people here. You heard from Councilmen Hoy and Wortman, but we also have Betty Knight-Smith who is a Councilman and they are very important in this decision making.

Commissioner Mourdock: Russ Lloyd is here, too.

President Jerrel: Right. I'm sorry, Russ. He is back in the back, excuse me. Okay, if there is no further public defender we've got a long agenda that we'll move to. Tom.

Tom Carusillo: Thank you very much.

President Jerrel: Thank you very much. We appreciate your attendance.
 

President Jerrel: We're going to proceed with our regular agenda. The next item on the agenda is the opening of bids for the First Avenue Bridge and also the Virginia Street extension.

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move the opening of bids first for VC99-06-02, which is the Virginia Street extension.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: I'll say so ordered.
 

Tony Greubel: The First Avenue Bridge is VC99-07-01.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I'll move the opening of that bid also.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.
 

President Jerrel: The next item on the agenda is the Ameritech Enhanced 911 service agreement and Dick White is with us. In your packet you have...I don't know whether you have the copy. Tony, did you make copies of the Ameritech contract?

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. At least I have it.

Commissioner Tuley: Yeah.

President Jerrel: Okay. Before you make a motion I have a question. Would you want to come to the microphone? 

Dick White: Yes, I'm Dick White with Ameritech. 

President Jerrel: This is for the new 911 system. We have Patti Wazny who is the director of the program. We have one question that is different than is in the contract which we want to ask you. I think I'll ask the Auditor to repeat that, but it deals with the request for an audit. Remember we talked about that when you were here?

Dick White: Yes. 

Suzanne Crouch: Dick, I received a call from a woman from Ameritech Indianapolis about a week ago. She was, I guess, an operator or a claims person or something and she had a gentleman on the line who refused to pay his 911 surcharge and her comment was I have let this go by a number of times, but I don't think I should do that. I think you should have to pay. I requested of the County Attorney, how does that process work? He indicated that our ordinance that Vanderburgh County has stipulates that Ameritech collects on those surcharges that people refuse to pay and we know of several that are refusing to pay, but your contract, old contract, stipulated that Vanderburgh County does that, so I just wondered if Joe had a chance to look at the new contract and if it stipulates in there who is to collect on those?

Joe Harrison, Jr.: It didn't say anything about it.

Dick White: No, actually, and I don't have a copy of the state statute, but in the state statute it is very clear in there that, I believe, it is once a year you can request an audit of the number of people that refused to pay the 911. We can provide that information to you and I believe it is on an individual telephone number basis of those individuals who we have submitted the 911 charges on their bill and they have refused to pay them and then it is up to the county to then determine whether or not they want to take any kind of legal action. We are basically precluded from law of being involved in any of that, but we can provide you that on an annual basis. I believe it is in January of every year you can request, let me know what happened in the last 12 months, how many people did not pay their 911 surcharge.

Suzanne Crouch: So we would have to wait until next January? We can't get what currently...those people who currently are not paying?

Dick White: If you have not requested an audit of that kind I will take your request today as an official request to go back and ask that we put that together. Unless for some reason we can't by law do that except once a year I would be more than happy to run that for you. 

President Jerrel: Well, consider this an official request by this body to give us an audit of the past 12 months.

Dick White: Okay, I can do that.

Commissioner Mourdock: Just to make it official I move that we do make that request.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: Okay, so ordered. Do you have any other questions regarding this? Our attorney has approved the contract as it was received. This is a...will result in a little over $1.5 million that will extend this contract for eight years for the enhanced 911 system. Is there a motion to approve?

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the Ameritech Enhanced 911 service agreement as submitted. 

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered. And will you follow through on the other for us?

Dick White: Yes, absolutely. 

President Jerrel: Okay. Thank you very much.

Dick White: Thank you.
 

President Jerrel: The next item on the agenda is the County Auditor, permission to advertise for vacation of easement. 

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move the advertisement of the vacation of easement on behalf of First Federal Savings and Loan for a property at 2200 West Franklin Street and with the suggested hearing date of July 26th.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.
 

President Jerrel: The final reading tonight is for 1301 Mortensen Lane, vacation of that easement.

Commissioner Mourdock: And I'll move on final hearing the vacation of the easement at 1301 as requested.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

Commissioner Mourdock: I think we need--

Commissioner Tuley: Oh, we do need a roll call.

President Jerrel: Yeah, roll call vote. I'll ask for Commissioner Tuley?

Commissioner Tuley: Yes.

President Jerrel: Commissioner Mourdock?

Commissioner Mourdock: Yes.

President Jerrel: And I vote yes.
 

President Jerrel: Is there any group or individual that wishes to speak to this body?

Dennis Conwell: My name is Dennis Conwell and I'm with Emge/Citizens, the Commercial Department here in Evansville. Last week I came into the Board office, the Commissioners' Office, and talked to Tony here and asked him at that time what would be the procedure to be put on the agenda and he informed me that I needed to fax a letter to Bettye Lou Jerrel and request to be put on there. I did fax that. Unfortunately our age of electronics apparently didn't get through to you, but I did have confirmation on the other end which probably doesn't mean anything either. I did bring in the letter tonight because I was under the impression that I was on the agenda and I also invited the people from Owensboro to be here also. In that letter I informed the Commissioners that I had talked with Mr. Joe Harrison about the situation here. We have a piece of property and I'm not sure how far to go with this, but I have a piece of property that this group has purchased or has a purchase agreement. Anyway, he has a purchase agreement with Koester Contracting to purchase this property. This came up last year to be rezoned to a C-4 and in the middle of that there were some issues with Stahl Road about the use of that in Warrick County to access this property. At that time because of it not being stated what that C-4 usage would be Warrick County got very skeptical about the use of that road for heavy equipment and everything so they had said that they were concerned about that, so under that blanket Koester decided to withdraw the rezoning. That then places on that rezoning then possibly a one year moratorium being requested to have that withdrawn. Although I have talked with Joe and he said he's not sure that's really what it states. As far as he is concerned with a new petitioner we could go in and actually refile our new zoning. The Area Plan Commission doesn't read it that way. They said they thought it went along with the property so what we felt that maybe we should do is bring it back to the Commissioners and take whatever action is necessary to withdraw or take that moratorium of a year off of that so that we can go back in for a rezoning application. We're kind of pressed into a time frame here in the fact that you don't have another meeting until after the deadline for the rezoning which is the 19th. You meet that night and the rezoning deadline is at 4:00 or 4:30 at that time, so that's why we were rushing to come to the Council...or to the Commissioners to get some kind of decision on this. I would tell you we're not going for a C-4 zoning. We're going for an R-4 which would be just for apartments and for assisted living. Of course, assisted living can be done even on agricultural zoning. So we're really just edging it up not very far here. Now I did meet tonight with Warrick County to talk to them about the road. I went in there in a fact finding posture asking them to tell me who I should work with and what they wanted us to do, so they gave me instruction tonight. They were very open to work with this new group that has made an offer and had it accepted on this piece of property so I would come to you this evening asking you if you wanted to ask questions or at least get guidance from you and hopefully to get this moratorium of a year set aside so they could reapply for a rezoning by the 19th of this month.

Commissioner Mourdock: Before there are any questions asked I want to just officially abstain from all these discussions since I work for the Koester organization and it's a great time for a restroom break.

(Commissioner Mourdock left the room.)

Dennis Conwell: If you would have any questions of the developers they are here. That's the reason I asked them to come in was in case you did have any questions.

Commissioner Tuley: My question is of Joe. What...

Joe Harrison, Jr.: They are seeking a waiver of the one year requirement that would prohibit petitioning of that property for a rezoning and that's what they're seeking this evening.

Commissioner Tuley: No, I understand that. I know what they want.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: Yes.

Commissioner Tuley: Do we have a legal right to do that? That's the question.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: Yes, yes.

Commissioner Tuley: Okay.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: And the thing is apparently Area Plan has been taking the position that that restriction runs with the property as opposed to the petitioner. This is a different petitioner, obviously, from Koester, but be that as it may that is what Area Plan wants to see done and that is what he is requesting. I think that would be prudent. It may not be completely necessary, but if you're willing to go along with that request which he is just covering all bases in order to file for rezoning because apparently the Area Plan Commission will not consider such--

Commissioner Tuley: Without our approval?

Joe Harrison, Jr.: Yes.

Dennis Conwell: I would add that a couple of the issues also were the sewer. The easements have been purchased. The actual sewer will actually be provided by Vanderburgh County so there is additional monies. I think if we're ever going to get this piece of property rezoned it's going to have to be in that lower rezoning level. I think that now is the time. They seem to be very receptive to sit down and work with the developers because I think when I talked with Gentry over there, Gary Gentry, your economic developer, they are looking at this corridor back out to Epworth Road is really probably getting hot now and they're going to have to do something with the road anyway, so I think they're looking at well maybe we can get a little money here, a little money here and a little money here and get this road up to where we should, so I think they are really very open to it and I would like to see it happen.

Commissioner Tuley: Yeah, I have met with some other...maybe it was the owner or someone else representing the developers on this and saw the plans for this project and support it. I'm willing to go on record and grant your wish if, you know.

President Jerrel: Is that a motion?

Commissioner Tuley: I'll put that in the form of a motion.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: One thing before you vote. The proper wording as far as Mr. Mourdock is concerned--

President Jerrel: He has recused him.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: I would take the position that he has recused himself.

President Jerrel: Yes.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: As opposed to abstaining on this issue since he did remove himself from the room.

Commissioner Tuley: Okay, having said that I would move that we grant the request to waive the one year waiting period and allow them to go forward with their request for the rezoning.

President Jerrel: And I'll second that and say so ordered.

Dennis Conwell: Would that be notified then to the Area Plan Commission?

President Jerrel: Yes, we'll take your letter and it will be part of our minutes and they can check with the Recording Secretary. She'll have those minutes available at the end of the week.

Dennis Conwell: And I thank the Commissioners, thank you.

President Jerrel: You're welcome. You all learned a lot about public defense!

(Commissioner Mourdock returned.)
 

President Jerrel: Okay, the County Engineer.

Commissioner Mourdock: Any other of these folks here to talk to us?

President Jerrel: No.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

John Stoll: First I've got a recommendation to award contract number VC99-06-03, the frontage road phase two to Gohmann Asphalt for the amount of $210,000. They were the low bidder on the project.

Commissioner Tuley: So moved.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

Commissioner Tuley: Messed you up, didn't I?

Commissioner Mourdock: Before we leave that quick subject though, as of this moment that road is still unnamed, the frontage road?

John Stoll: Correct.

Commissioner Mourdock: Would you do some research for us, John, and check and see if we have anything named Wagner Road. I would think it might be appropriate given SIGECO's cooperation out there and their former chairman, Mr. Wagner, passed away recently and maybe we ought to name that Norm Wagner Road or something.

John Stoll: I'll check with APC and see if they've got it included on their list.

President Jerrel: Okay.

John Stoll: Next I would like to request to--

Joe Harrison, Jr.: Did you guys vote on that?

President Jerrel: Yes.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, we made the motion.

John Stoll: I would like to go before Council and request an appropriation of $300,000 to Road & Street Contractual. This would be to cover additional asphalt and concrete repair contracts.

Commissioner Tuley: While he is signing, I'll so move.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

John Stoll: Next I've got a Notice to Bidders for contract number VC99-07-02. This is the repair and resurfacing of various roads. The roads we're planning on paving with this would be Cherry, Maple, Fairfield, Maxwell, Oak Grove, Whetstone, Heinlein and the widening of the curves out on Old 57 in conjunction with Warrick County development up in Elberfeld.

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

John Stoll: Next I've got two copies of an agreement with Bernardin Lochmueller & Associates for the design of Burkhardt Road between Interchange Road south and Lynch Road. This is for an amount not to exceed $277,971. This agreement does exclude geotechnical work, right-of-way work and construction inspection. We know we will have to have a supplemental to address the geotechnical work and I spoke with Tom Bernardin of Bernardin Lochmueller today and he estimated that would probably be in the neighborhood of $10,000. It wasn't included in this agreement because they weren't able to get a price from any soil consultants as of yet, but as soon as we do get that there will be a supplemental needed on this project.

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the agreement.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

John Stoll: They did submit a schedule with that and a cost estimate with that as well and based on their schedule they anticipate a bid letting in July of 2000.

Commissioner Mourdock: That sounds funny.

President Jerrel: Huh?

Commissioner Mourdock: That sounds funny.

President Jerrel: I know it does.

Commissioner Tuley: It does.

John Stoll: Next I've got a letter from Bernardin Lochmueller in regard to the Lynch Road interchange project. Parcel four, the Durchholz Family Trust, we need to get some additional appraisal work done because a small portion of that property was rezoned commercial last December. In conjunction with that there is an additional fee for $1,200 for new appraisal work and an additional fee of $540 for review of appraisal work and I would recommend that this be approved so we can proceed with making the offers and possibly go into condemnation.

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

John Stoll: Next I've got a set of street plans that are for the extension of Kotter Avenue north of Old Boonville Highway. This will be an extension of Kotter north of its current dead-end. The intent of this is to serve a basketball...indoor basketball facility that is being built up there. The right-of-way was dedicated as part of a parcelization rather than as a part of a subdivision, but I had Joe look at it and he felt the documents were proper in the way that they dedicated the right-of-way. So in conjunction with that plus the review of the plans showed everything was okay I would recommend that the street plan be approved.

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

John Stoll: Sign anywhere on that paper copy. They didn't submit a mylar.

President Jerrel: Just any place?

John Stoll: Yeah. Next I've got another set of street plans. This is for Graceland Subdivision which was a replat of a few lots in Whispering Hills Subdivision. What the developer is proposing to do is to extend the road to the back line of the existing lots which is shown on there as Lot 46. He is going to have that as a concrete street and then as you go over across the crest of the hill he is proposing to extend it as a rock road privately maintained from that point on, so adjacent to the existing houses which there is an existing house on this lot here. This is a vacant lot. This is all of the currently recorded portion of Whispering Hills. He is going to run a concrete street to there, so he is going to eventually request that we maintain that portion and then he is going to have a private rock road from there on. It's not the way I would have done it--

Commissioner Tuley: As long as he is going to maintain it. 

John Stoll: --but I have gone over this with Joe and the current regulations do allow for rock roads, so there is nothing that really specifically prohibits that particular layout. Since the concrete portion does extend over the top of the crest of the hill at least we won't have rock getting pushed down onto our concrete road, so in that respect it is okay.

Commissioner Tuley: Why in the world would he not go ahead and--

John Stoll: Money.

Commissioner Mourdock: That's usually the answer. 

President Jerrel: That's a good answer.

Commissioner Tuley: Silly question. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. I'll move approval of the street plan for...

John Stoll: Graceland.

Commissioner Mourdock: Graceland Subdivision.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

Commissioner Tuley: I don't think I'll be around, but there will be some people in here later wanting us to take care of that road.

Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, yeah.

John Stoll: I agree.

Commissioner Tuley: We're not doing it.

John Stoll: We'll have them record some maintenance provisions that state (inaudible) rock road and somewhere along the lines--

Commissioner Tuley: Somebody sitting in these seats will be addressing it.

Commissioner Mourdock: They'll want a Barrett Law to pave that for four lots. 

John Stoll: The developer of that subdivision has also requested a sidewalk waiver. That was on that letter that I just submitted. There are no other sidewalks out in that area and all the lots are large, so a sidewalk waiver would be appropriate. It is recommended that it be approved.

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the sidewalk waiver for Graceland Sub.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

John Stoll: Next I've got a request for acceptance of Rusher Creek Drive in Elpers Industrial Subdivision. This is an extension of the current portion of Rusher Creek Drive which extends west off Highway 41 past McDonald's and Arby's. The street has been constructed in accordance with plans and it's recommended that it be accepted.

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

John Stoll: The final item I've got is an encroachment request from Mr. and Mrs. Gary Williams who live in Williams Ridge Subdivision. It's the corner of Schutte Road and Broadway Avenue. They have a discharge line from their septic tank that in order for that septic discharge line to access a sanitary sewer they put a privately maintained line within county right-of-way. This letter says that they agree to maintain that line and that the county will not be held responsible for any damage to that line. The intent of this is we will record this and cross reference it to that property so that way in the future everybody will hopefully know that the county is not responsible for this line in any way, shape or form. 

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

John Stoll: That's all I have.

President Jerrel: Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Tuley: I'll have to see you in the morning. I didn't get a chance..I just dropped those plans back off to the people today. They weren't there to look at them. 

John Stoll: Okay.
 

President Jerrel: There are reports from all of the rest of the department heads that we need to accept.

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the Solid...of the Soil & Water Conservation District, the Ozone Office, the Burdette Park and County Garage.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: And I'll say so ordered. 
 

President Jerrel: One question is to grant authority to the County Garage to lease a vehicle to pull the paver based upon their best judgement or whoever is going to look at this.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, you showed me the thing earlier they had gotten. Is that the only quote they have received?

President Jerrel: They've gotten two. There were two quotes there. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, okay.

President Jerrel: But I don't think that...maybe you could give them a call and talk to them. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. I don't have any problem with them leasing it. I just want to make sure they get the best rate possible and get a piece of equipment that is suited for the job.

Commissioner Tuley: I agree.

President Jerrel: Okay, so is there a motion to do it?

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move the leasing of a piece of equipment to be determined by the County Garage.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.
 

President Jerrel: Under the consent items we've got employment changes, travel requests, County Auditor's financial and County Treasurer. 

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the consent items as filed.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

Commissioner Mourdock: And we need to get a County Attorney report here.

President Jerrel: I know it, I'm going to go back up to that. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. 

President Jerrel: And Superintendent of County Attorney, too.
 

President Jerrel: County Attorney. 

Joe Harrison, Jr.: The bids.

President Jerrel: The bids.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: The first group of bids was from the Virginia Street Project, that's 99-06-02. There were five bids submitted. They are as follows:
 

I would ask that you take these under advisement and review them for their responsiveness.

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: The next group of bids relates to the First Avenue Bridge No. 611, embankment repair project. That's VC99-07-01. 
 

I would ask that you take these bids under advisement and review them for their responsiveness.

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: The last item I have has to do with the billboard ordinance that was passed by the Area Plan Commission back in April. A public hearing has been scheduled for next Monday, July 19th, concerning any possible amendments to the billboard ordinance that was passed by the Area Plan Commission and, again, a public hearing is set for 5:30 next Monday with respect to the billboard issue. The last day for the County Commissioners to act at all whether it be...to act with respect to amendments is the next day, the 20th, so the Commissioners can do nothing which would in effect have the ordinance that was originally passed by the Area Plan Commission by the county go into effect in the county or it can propose amendments and if there are amendments that are proposed those amendments would go back to the Area Plan Commission for action like what the City Council did. They had a number of amendments in that particular ordinance for the city and then went to Area Plan and Area Plan Commission, I believe, acted last Wednesday, I think, on those issues.

Commissioner Mourdock: As a practical matter from the enforcement side if we do something different from the city is there any reason to feel that's going to be difficult to enforce? If it causes any particular amount of problems?

Commissioner Tuley: That's the way it is now, it's different.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: Yeah, I mean--

Commissioner Tuley: The way it was before they made the amendments and they were already different.

Commissioner Mourdock: You're right. 

Joe Harrison, Jr.: I believe that's all I have. There is one issue I will at least advise you on. The Miller Truck situation I am still waiting to hear back from counsel for Miller Truck concerning warranties that the county may expect to receive pursuant to the truck proposal that they have submitted. We have yet to respond to that proposal, but mainly because we want to hear what kind of warranties the county would be receiving, so after we receive that information I'll discuss it with you. The other issue that I wanted to bring up was the lawsuit regarding Gregory Court out there. The county has still not taken steps to improve the road. It may be that the parties that were sued may be doing that on their own subject to the approval by the County Engineer and I will advise you on the status of that. I think the County Engineer has been trying to get in contact with them, but that case is in the courts and if we can't get something worked out we'll let a judge decide what is going to happen. That's all I've got.
 

President Jerrel: Okay, Superintendent of County Buildings.

Tony Greubel: Yeah, I received a request for appropriation. I think Area Plan is asking for permission to go before Council to ask for $20,000 into their legal services line item. 

Commissioner Tuley: That's understandable!

President Jerrel: That's understandable!

Commissioner Tuley: Yeah.

Commissioner Mourdock: I wonder why. I'll move approval of that Council Call.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

Tony Greubel: That's all I have.

President Jerrel: We took care of the frontage road under the item.
 

President Jerrel: Under new business I would just like to because everybody is gone now, but it's pretty important, this new system that we just agreed to with Ameritech also results in us having the capacity for many, many more telephone lines coming into the facility. We're adding trunk lines and we are not financing this. That has been done in the past where we would finance whatever our shortfall was. We have right at $1 million in our 911 collections and we're using that and I would like to go before Council and transfer the balance that we need which is about a half million out of our Fulton Street Bridge CCD account which we didn't need because the bids came in under the amount, so by using that money and not financing it we're saving ourselves $200,000 in finance costs. I mean, this all went through very quickly but we're going to have not only a Y2K compliant system, but we're going to have a system with a lot more capacity, so could I have permission to go?

Commissioner Mourdock: Right, I'll move approval of the Council Call as requested.

Commissioner Tuley: How could you not second saving $200,000? I'll second.

President Jerrel: Thank you very much. So ordered. Okay, any other business to come before this body?

Commissioner Tuley: A couple just real quick points.

President Jerrel: Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Commissioner Tuley: Next week I won't be here. I'm sorry, it is a fishing trip, but it has been planned for some time so I am leaving town Sunday and I won't be back till Tuesday. What I might ask though is I will submit any proposed changes maybe to the ordinance we talked about in reference to the billboards. If you would just take it under consideration and just enter those into the record.

President Jerrel: Sure, right.

Commissioner Tuley: I appreciate it. Also, I think you may have another appointment to this Southwest Regional Strategy Committee. I submitted a name to Tony that I would like to have added to who you guys are going to talk to.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, do them both at once.

Commissioner Tuley: Do them at once, if you don't mind. That's all I have got.

President Jerrel: We'll do it. 

Commissioner Tuley: Thank you.

Commissioner Mourdock: Um, schedule items. I hate to say this one, but next whenever it is, the 22nd I think, is the Community Correction Advisory Board meeting. Is that right, Joe? The 22nd? Okay.

President Jerrel: I think Curt--

Commissioner Mourdock: I think it is and I'm on that board and my parents are moving and they have asked me to help them move and it's hard for me to say no to that. 

Commissioner Tuley: Can't imagine. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Will you be in town, either of you, that could sit on that?

Commissioner Tuley: On the 22nd?

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah.

Commissioner Tuley: Yeah, I'll be here.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, if moving date changes I will certainly let you know.

President Jerrel: Okay.

Commissioner Tuley: Yeah, I'll just be gone from Sunday to Tuesday, so I'll be back in town Tuesday. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Commissioner Tuley: Do you want me to sit in on it? Do you want me to actually sit in on the meeting then?

Commissioner Mourdock: If you would, yeah.

Commissioner Tuley: Okay, well we both...I wanted to make sure you want me to just do it.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, that is fine with me.

President Jerrel: Yeah, I'm going to go and sit in the audience. I didn't--

Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, okay.

President Jerrel: I was planning on going anyway, so--

Commissioner Tuley: It's the 22nd, I'm sorry, at what time?

Commissioner Mourdock: Um--

Commissioner Tuley: At 5:30?

Commissioner Mourdock: Three thirty, I think. 

Commissioner Tuley: Oh, 3:30?

Commissioner Mourdock: Tony, would you check it please?

Commissioner Tuley: Just call me or e-mail me, Tony. Let me get the exact time. 

Tony Greubel: Okay.

Commissioner Tuley: Yeah, I'll be glad to.

Commissioner Mourdock: And if my schedule changes I will let you know.

Commissioner Tuley: Oh, that's okay. Don't worry, I'll take care of it if you're not here. 

Joe Harrison, Jr.: I had one more...I'm sorry, I had one more item when you mentioned Community Corrections. I have had some discussions with the Sheriff regarding his interest in taking over control of the Community Corrections program and he has indicated a willingness to undertake that task. I hope to have a contract for consideration by the County Commissioners on August 2nd, which will be a Monday, and also by the County Council on, I guess, the 4th. In connection with that I would also have an ordinance for consideration by the Commissioners on the 26th of July and the 2nd of August amending and repealing the language which now has jurisdiction in the hands of the Circuit Court and change that to jurisdiction by the County Sheriff and then that agreement with the Sheriff would then be signed following that action on the 2nd. The County Council would then consider the agreement on the 4th. If all that goes as planned, sometimes plans change, the Sheriff could then assume control of the Community Corrections program on the 5th of August. But, again, that is subject to change. I would ask for approval to advertise for a hearing regarding the...I would prefer to have a public hearing on the second reading which would be August 2nd of that particular ordinance. We could have a first reading just to introduce it, but a public hearing for the second reading. That would give us enough time, is that correct, Charlene? Advertising-wise? Yes. 

President Jerrel: Is there a motion to that effect?

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered. The other, did you want to...the ordinance for the public defender.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: Oh, as far as the public defender is concerned why don't we get permission to advertise as well although the dates would either be the 2nd or the 9th as far as a hearing on that. If that's okay. Maybe I can tell you next week which of those dates that it would be. It might be better that we have a public hearing on the 9th on that one. 

Commissioner Tuley: Oh, yeah.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: If that is permissible.

Commissioner Mourdock: So you want us to go ahead and advertise it for the 9th?

Joe Harrison, Jr.: Yes.

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered. You better not leave the room any more! John, take a look and see where you think the signatures...I think they are on the third page. Is there any other business that needs to come before this body? 

Commissioner Mourdock: Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.

Those in attendance:

Bettye Lou Jerrel Richard E. Mourdock Patrick Tuley

Joe Harrison, Jr. Suzanne M. Crouch Charlene Timmons

Tony Greubel Tom Carusillo David Kiely

Allan Loosemore Maurice O'Connor Phil Hoy

David Shaw Curt Wortman Jeff Tornatta

Doug Knight Roger Madden Stan Levco

Dick White Dennis Conwell John Stoll

Others unidentified Members of the media
 

Vanderburgh County
Board of Commissioners

Bettye Lou Jerrel, President

Richard E. Mourdock, Vice President

Patrick Tuley, Member

Recorded and transcribed by Charlene Timmons.