Their proposal was the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, which set forth the following key elements: 1) creation of a judicial commission that would be responsible for soliciting and considering applications for any judicial vacancy and then nominating from that pool three highly qualified candidates for the Governor’s consideration; 2) Governor then would be charged with selecting one of the nominees to fill the vacancy; and 3) after a one or two-year “probationary” period, the public then would vote in a retention election whether the judge would be retained for a full term. Id. at 725.

Despite the Missouri legislature’s failure to put a nonpartisan judicial selection system on the ballot through the referendum process, there was such strong support for change in judicial selection that proponents of the Missouri Plan collected signatures throughout the state in order to get the Plan on the ballot by initiative petition. Id. at 723. Missouri voters adopted the Plan in November 1940 and successfully defended it afterwards at balloting, despite various legislative attempts to undermine the addition of the Missouri Plan to the state constitution. Id.

Currently, thirteen states² including Indiana employ “Missouri Plan” merit selection processes for choosing appellate judges. Nine other states employ merit selection systems with some variations³ (i.e. requiring senate confirmation of a governor’s selection). The Indiana Constitution was amended in 1970 to create the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission, but the amendment did not take effect until January 1, 1972. Indiana is the only state where the judicial nominating commission selects the chief justice.

LEFT. Merit selection of appellate-level judges in the United States. According to the American Judicature Society, twenty-four states use some form of the Missouri Plan (i.e., some include a third step involving senate confirmation) to select appellate judges: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming.

Indiana’s Merit Selection Process

Under the Indiana Constitution and applicable statutes, the Nominating Commission is charged with vetting applications and submitting a list of the three most qualified applicants to the Governor for each vacancy that occurs on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or Tax Court. Typically, the Nominating Commission accomplishes the task by publicly announcing the vacancy and soliciting applications for the position. After selecting applicants for further consideration, the Commission conducts background checks, publicly interviews the selected candidates (usually in two separate rounds), and deliberates in executive session about the candidates’ qualifications.

Once the Commission finishes deliberating, the members vote in a public session for the top three nominees and later (usually within a week to ten days) submits a report to the Governor with a summary of the three nominees’ qualifications. From the time the Governor receives the report, he or she then has sixty days to appoint an individual from that list to fill the vacancy.

If the Governor does not make a selection within sixty days, then, according to Indiana Code § 33-27-3-4 and Indiana Constitution, Article 7, Section 10, the Chief Justice of Indiana or acting Chief Justice is required to make a selection from the list of three nominees. Since the creation of the Nominating Commission, no Governor has forfeited his power to appoint a justice of the Indiana Supreme Court.

Related Article: Choosing a New Chief

2 Besides Indiana, the other states which choose judges by “Missouri Plan” merit selection are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming. See American Judicature Society Website, “Judicial Selection in the States—Methods of Judicial Selection” at www.judicialselection.us.

3 Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont require senate consent or confirmation of a governor’s selection after a recommendation from a nominating commission. In Connecticut and New Hampshire, the governor makes a judicial nomination after a recommendation from the nominating commission but either the legislature (Connecticut) or an executive council (New Hampshire) make the actual appointment. Id.

In the twenty-five years since that appointment, Randall T. Shepard has continued to make history and to garner national respect for Indiana’s judicial system. In addition to authoring hundreds of opinions (many touching on issues of importance to other states), Chief Justice Shepard guided Indiana’s judiciary by launching and encouraging new programs aimed at improving the system.

With his recent retirement from the bench, this has left many to wonder—what comes next? Who will be the next Chief Justice and how will he shape Indiana’s judicial future? Once again, the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission has taken on the spotlight, and the work that the Commission does and how it accomplishes those tasks have become topics of interest.

How will the next chief justice be selected?

Filling the vacancies created by Chief Justice Shepard’s departure (to the Court and to the office of chief justice) actually is a two-step process. First, the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission had to submit the names of three nominees to the Governor for him to appoint the next justice of the Indiana Supreme Court. See Ind. Const., Art. 7, Sect. 10. The next step is for the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission to meet to decide who, among the current justices of the Court (including the new justice), will become the chief justice. Once selected, the Chief Justice will serve a five-year term as the chief justice. See Ind. Const., Art. 7, Sect. 3.

Typically, the Nominating Commission’s procedure for selecting the chief justice starts with publicly interviewing all of the justices (regardless of whether the justice is seeking the office) to hear each one’s thoughts about what qualities are important for a chief justice to possess. After those interviews are completed, the Commission meets in an executive session to consider the qualifications of those justices who have indicated an interest in the office. The Commission then votes in a public session for the chief justice.

Indiana is the only state in which a judicial nominating commission selects the chief justice. See American Judicature Society Website, “Methods of Judicial Selection” at tinyurl.com/judicial-selection. In most states, the chief justice is selected by the members of the court, by popular election, or by gubernatorial appointment.

Members of the Judicial Nominating Commission concluding an interview with Mark S. Massa (left), who was later chosen as a finalist and appointed as the 107th Indiana Supreme Court Justice by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Who are the individuals responsible for making the chief justice selection?

The composition of the Nominating Commission is governed by Article 7, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution and I.C. § 33-27-2 et seq. The Commission consists of seven members: three attorney members, three non-lawyer members, and the Chief Justice or a Justice of the Supreme Court whom the Chief Justice may designate. Currently, Justice Brent Dickson is serving as the Chairman of the Commission.

An attorney and a non-attorney representative are chosen from each of the three geographic districts of the Court of Appeals. I.C. §§ 33-27-2-1; 33-27-2-2. Attorney members serve three-year staggered terms, after being elected by the attorneys in their respective districts. I.C. § 33-27-2-2. The Governor appoints the non-attorney members to serve three-year terms. I.C. § 33-27-2-1.

First District Representatives

Molly Kitchell grew up in Kokomo, and then she moved to New England before settling down in Boone County. She obtained a B.A. in Sociology from Purdue University and then obtained an M.S. in Occupational Therapy from the University of Indianapolis, graduating first in the class for both her undergraduate and graduate programs. After graduation, she worked as an occupational therapist, primarily in the area of neurological and psychological rehabilitation. She and her husband, Ryan, have four children, and for the past ten years her primary focus has been raising them. In her spare time, she serves on the Board of Directors for the Governor’s Interagency Coordinating Council for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities. Her term on the Commission expires 12/31/13.

James O. McDonald, Esq., grew up on a farm and continues to live on a working farm in western Vigo County. He was admitted to the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law when it was solely a night school. While going to law school, he worked in the office of Lieutenant Governor Richard Folz and then clerked for the Indiana Court of Appeals. Since 1972, he has practiced law in Terre Haute, concentrating on litigation of personal injury and business disputes for individuals and small businesses. His term expires 12/31/12.

Second District Representatives

Fred McCashland, a Marion County resident, is a retired educator from Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. He obtained his B.A. in American History and American Government from Iona College and received a M.A. in American Government and International Relations from the University of Notre Dame. During his thirty-four year career at Brebeuf, he taught American history and government, chaired the social studies department, and served as an academic counselor. Other positions he served while at Brebeuf included Director of Development, Dean of Students, assistant to the President, and then President for two years. His term on the Commission expires 12/31/12.

William E. Winingham, Jr., Esq., is a partner at Wilson Kehoe & Winingham in Indianapolis. After graduating from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, he worked as a deputy prosecutor in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office for three years, and then served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for three years in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana. For the last twenty-five years, he has been with the civil litigation firm of Wilson Kehoe Winingham, LLC, focusing on plaintiffs’ personal injury work. His term expires 12/31/13.

Third District Representatives

D. Jean Northenor, a Kosciusko County resident, is a retired executive from Lake City Bank. She began her eighteen-year career with the bank in the marketing department and ended it as the Executive Vice President in charge of marketing, human resources, maintenance, and construction. She served two years on the Lake City Bank’s Board of Directors before retiring in 2003. In the 1980s, she also spearheaded the Kosciusko Leadership Academy to encourage young people to cultivate their leadership skills and to get involved in public service. Her term with the Commission expires 12/31/14.

John D. Ulmer, Esq., is a former partner at Yoder Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham, LLP, in Goshen and presently serves as an attorney of counsel for the firm. He practices general trial work, focusing on personal injury and insurance defense litigation. He graduated with distinction from Indiana University Maurer School of Law and, while in law school, served on the Board of Editors for the Indiana Jaw Journal. He previously served as an Elkhart County deputy prosecutor and later, after leaving the office, was appointed to act as a special deputy prosecuting attorney on the Ford Pinto trial. He served in the Indiana House of Representatives from 1998 to 2008. His term on the Commission expires 12/31/14.

What factors does the Nominating Commission consider when evaluating a candidate?

Under Indiana Code § 33-27-3-2, the Commission is required to consider each candidate’s legal education, legal writings, reputation in the practice of law, physical ability to do the job, financial interests (for conflict-of-interest purposes), public service activities, and other pertinent information the Commission feels is important to select the most qualified candidates. As may be gleaned from the Commission’s questions during interviews, other factors also may be considered, in varying degrees of importance, such as an applicant’s trial or appellate advocacy background, administrative experience, pro bono commitment, ability to contribute to the diversity of the court, and other special professional talents.

When selecting a chief justice, other factors also may take on greater importance. For instance, given the number of speeches a chief justice delivers, a justice-candidate’s communication skills may be a significant factor. Likewise, factors such as the justice-candidate’s leadership skills, reputation for collegiality and consensus building, organizational management skills, vision, and ability to serve as a role model for the Court also may be influential considerations.

Just as 1987 proved to be a year of significance for Indiana, 2012 holds similar promises. As the Judicial Nominating Commission prepares for the business of selecting the next leader of our state’s judiciary, the hope is that the members will continue with Indiana’s historic and winning tradition. Having worked with this group for some time now, I am confident that they are up to the task. We are all in good hands and should be proud of what our State has to offer the national legal landscape.

Related Article: Indiana Merit Selection and the “Missouri Plan”

Vanderburgh County Superior Court, Judge Wayne S. Trockman is our judge featured in this issue. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Southern Indiana University and his law degree from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Judge Trockman was engaged in the private practice of law from 1985 through 1999 as a partner with Newman, Trockman, Lloyd, Flynn & Rheinlander in Evansville. He was Assistant Attorney for the City of Evansville from 1991 through 1998. Judge Trockman was appointed to the Vanderburgh Superior Court bench in December of 1998 by Governor Frank O’Bannon and was elected to a six-year term on the bench beginning 2001. He was re-elected for another six-year term beginning 2007.

Left to right: Josh, Jill, Judge Trockman and Ben. Judge Trockman describes the photo: "Our dog is Liberty. My youngest son is Josh (age 21). He is currently a junior at IU and plans to attend law school at IU. My wife’s name is Jill. My oldest son is Ben (age 23) who attends the University of Southern Indiana majoring in communications. The dog is an Australian Shepherd whose name is Liberty or Libby for short. We named her Liberty in 2001 when she was born after the 9/11 attack. The car is a 1967 Pontiac GTO H.O. It is 100 percent original. I purchased it in 1997. It had a tree growing through the driver’s side floor pan, but has been restored to the condition depicted in the photograph. I did all of the restoration except for the paint job. I am currently restoring a 78 Pontiac Trans Am."

Judge Trockman has been past President of the Evansville Bar Association; past President of Brooks American Inn of Court; past President of Vanderburgh County Election Board; Member Vanderburgh County Community Correction Advisory Board (1991-present); past President of Evansville Board of Park Commissioners; and, past Chairman of Vanderburgh County Law Library Foundation. Judge Trockman served as Chief Judge of Vanderburgh Superior Court from 2003 until 2008. He has also been involved in numerous community activities, including University of Southern Indiana Foundation since 1989, Pigeon Creek Greenbelt Committee since 1990, past Chairman of Mesker Park Zoo Foundation, Adath B’Nai Temple Executive Board (1991-95), (2001-present), member of the Board of Directors of Youth First, an organization committed to the needs of the youth in the community (2002-present), and member of the Board of Directors of United Caring Shelters, Inc. (over 25 years). He was also awarded the Willie Effie Thomas Human Relations Commission Award in 2001 for his lifetime commitment to human and civil rights. In 2003, Judge Trockman was awarded the Doran E. Perdue Evansville Bar Association Service Award for his community leadership and activities with the Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program (JLAP). In May, 2004, Judge Trockman was awarded the James Bethel Gresham Freedom Award by the Evansville Bar Association in recognition of his public service to the community and also received the Jefferson Award in 2004 from the American Institute for Public Service. In January 2011, Mayor Weinzapfel presented the Key to the City of Evansville to Judge Trockman for his community service and work in establishing the first certified Re-Entry Program in the State of Indiana.

Judge Trockman has involved himself in many extra-judicial activities since his appointment to the bench in 1998. He is Chairman of the Indiana Judicial Center Court Administered Alcohol and Drug Program Committee and serves as Chairman of the Problem Solving Courts Committee. He is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Indiana Judicial Center and remains active in the Evansville Bar Association where he serves on the Impaired Lawyers and Judges Committee.

Since 2006, Judge Trockman has served as Co-Chair of the Volunteer Lawyer Association of Southwest Indiana which provides pro-bono legal services to the poor in 13 counties served by the district. In 2009, Judge Trockman received The Randal T. Shepard Pro Bono Award “in recognition of extraordinary efforts toward making legal services available to persons who otherwise could not afford them.”

Judge Trockman's description of this photo: This photo was taken near Breckenridge, Colorado. As you can see, it is above tree line and so it would be about 9,000 feet or higher. That day we were traveling off-road from Breckenridge to Keystone. My son’s name is Ben. My sons and I have all competed in AMA sanctioned Enduro, Hair Scramble, and Motocross races. Unfortunately, Ben was injured in a race in 2006 and received a spinal cord injury. We have not ridden since.

Judge Trockman organized and implemented the first drug treatment court in Vanderburgh County and the first certified Treatment Court in the State of Indiana and he operates Indiana’s first Certified Re-Entry Court. He was named “Judge of the Year” for 2009 by the Indiana Correctional Association. Judge Trockman was named by the Governor and Supreme Court Chief Justice to serve on the “Justice Reinvestment Steering Committee” which worked closely with the PEW Charitable Trust in creating a proposal to the Indiana General Assembly on sentencing reform. It was designed to increase public safety, reduce recidivism and break the cycle of crime with these offenders by shifting drug and alcohol addicted individuals from the Department of Corrections to Community Based Treatment Programs.

On April 12, 2011, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals presented to Judge Trockman the NADCP Community Transition Award (NADCP’s highest honor) at the ten-year anniversary Drug Treatment Court graduation.

Judge Trockman was born in Evansville and has been married to his wife, Jill, for 25 years. Judge Trockman and his wife have two sons, ages 20 and 22.

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

What I like most are those opportunities to not only hold accountable, but help non-violent individuals who find themselves in the criminal justice system. I have found that the best way for me to do this is through the Drug Court, Forensic Diversion Program, and Re-Entry Court which I established in our County approximately 11 years ago. What I like least about being a trial court judge is the revolving door of crime and the domestic cases where parents lose their better judgment regarding their children’s best interests.

What was your major in college and why did you decide to study law?

My major in college was finance and the main reason I decided to study law was that I admired my father who practiced law in Evansville for over 40 years until his untimely death.

What would you do if you were not a judge?

I would return to the practice of law, which I enjoyed immensely.

Who are the people you most admire?

I admire individuals who are charitable with their time, talents and money, and who seek no recognition for what they do.

What are your hobbies or favorite leisure activities, and how did you first get involved?

I suppose that riding motorcycles has always been my favorite leisure activity. I competed in Enduro and Hare Scramble races when I was young and I enjoyed riding off-road with my children for many years. I’ve also traveled the country and through France (Normandy) by motorcycle. My other favorite hobby is restoring cars from the “glory days” of the 60’s and 70’s. I have restored two Pontiacs; one a ’67 GTO and the other a ’78 Trans Am. More than anything, I enjoy spending time with my wife and two boys who are both in college.

What are your favorite books, and have you read any recently, or are reading now, that you would recommend?

My favorite books are about U.S. history, especially World War II. I am currently reading an International Best Seller by Antony Beevor entitled D-Day.

Where did you grow up and how would you describe your childhood?

I grew up in Evansville, Indiana as one of a family of six. I am the second of four and all boys except for my sister who is the youngest. I had a wonderful childhood with a lot of good memories.

Do you have a favorite quote(s)?

My favorite quote is actually a portion of a short speech by Theodore Roosevelt which is titled “Man In The Arena” in which he speaks of those who spend themselves in a worthy cause. These “who strive valiantly, who at the best knows the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly . . .”

Where is your favorite vacation spot?

My favorite vacation spot is in Parkland near Boca Raton in southern Florida where my family goes on a regular basis to visit my sister.

Do you have a favorite meal, recipe, and restaurant?

My favorite restaurant is in Ridgway, Colorado named “True Grit.” Portions of the John Wayne movie for which it was named were filmed in front of the restaurant. I have ridden my motorcycle there a number of times.

During 2011, the Indiana Judicial Center and the Judicial Conference Probation Officer Advisory Committee revised the existing PSI report to incorporate additional information (see chart) including information from the Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS) for adults. (See prior articles on risk assessment in March/April 2011 and September/October 2011 issues of Indiana Court Times.) These risk assessment tools are used at key stages in the criminal justice process to assess the offender’s risk to reoffend and to determine the level of supervision and resources appropriate for addressing the particular risks. The risk assessment tools were automated in 2011 enabling courts and law enforcement unprecedented ways to share information. They are part of the Indiana Supreme Court’s secure website known as INcite (Indiana Court Information Technology Extranet) which thousands of people use to collect and exchange information with each other and with others who need and use court information.

On November 7, 2011, the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) staff of the Division of State Court Administration deployed the PSI application during a pilot phase to five Indiana probation departments in the following counties: Marion, Tippecanoe, Monroe, Dearborn, and Blackford. On January 3, 2012, the PSI application was launched statewide to over 930 probation officials. By the end of February, 2012 probation officers had completed 2,300 PSI reports in INcite. The Judicial Conference Board of Directors requires that all probation departments utilize the new INcite PSI application.

The defendant's overall risk assessment level and the level for each domain section is included in the PSI Report.

Probation officers across the state can view completed PSI reports and, when dealing with repeat offenders, officers have the ability to create a new PSI report using information stored within INcite from previous reports. The ability to collect, store and share information that is needed repeatedly becomes invaluable when compiling the legal history of an offender. Prior to the automated PSI application, probation officers were completing PSI reports independently and not sharing completed reports with other departments throughout the state.

After using the PSI application for the first time, Cathy Knight, a Probation Officer with the Miami County Probation Department, declared “Just did my first PSI on the new system…and I love it!”

In January 2012, a group of stakeholders joined efforts with the Division’s JTAC staff and began work on the next phase of this project—a standard, electronic version of the Abstract of Judgment. Information from the PSI report will be pulled into the Abstract of Judgment, creating a legible document, avoiding duplicate data entry, and ensuring the accuracy of the information. The trial court will be able to attach the Judgment of Conviction and the Sentencing Order to the Abstract. By statute, the PSI report, the Abstract of Judgment and the Sentencing Order must be submitted to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) whenever a convicted person is sentenced to a DOC facility. Using INcite, DOC staff will be able to retrieve the PSI report, Abstract and Sentencing Order directly from the INcite Application. This will result in cost savings, more efficient communication between courts and DOC, and fewer resources expended to track down missing paperwork. And, when the Abstract of Judgment application is used by all courts on a statewide basis, comprehensive conviction and sentencing information will be readily available to prosecutors, judges, legislators, policy makers and the general public.

On March 19, 2012, House Enrolled Act 1200 was signed into law by Governor Mitch Daniels. This law adds section 31 to Indiana Code 35-38-1 and states in part that “if a court imposes on a person convicted of a felony a sentence that involves a commitment to the department of correction, the court shall complete an abstract of judgment in an electronic format approved by the department of correction and the division of state court administration.” Using JTAC’s INcite Abstract of Judgment application, courts will be able to comply with the new law. JTAC will make this application available on or before July 1, 2012, the effective date of the new electronic reporting provisions.

Left to Right: Hon. Steven Nation; Lilia Judson; Dr. Rich Hogue; Hon. Mary Harper; and Hon. Steven David.

The first of its kind Summit on School-Justice Partnerships took place in New Your City on March 11-13, 2012. It was convened by former New York Chief Justice Judith S. Kaye and organized by the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children. Supreme Court Justice Steven David, Porter Circuit Court Judge Mary Harper, Hamilton Superior Court Judge Steven Nation, Dr. Rich Hogue, Assistant Superintendent for Learning with the Indiana Department of Education, and Lilia Judson, Executive Director of the Division of State Court Administration, made up Indiana’s team. The Summit brought together court and school leaders from 45 states and three territories, and offered 38 presentations and opportunities for state teams to plan for ways to keep children in school and out of the juvenile justice system.

The goal of the Summit was to promote team collaboration on cross-systems services that would prevent children’s involvement in the justice system in the first instance and—for children who do get involved—provide off ramps from successive, worsening encounters. The Summit showcased a growing body of research and evidence-based alternatives that indicate suspensions and expulsions are not effective in improving student behavior and are significantly associated with drop out and involvement in the juvenile and criminal justice system. The data presented indicates that kids disconnected from their familiar school environments (whether by suspension, expulsion, arrest, or dropping out) are at much greater risk of following a path to crime and prison. Effective school-justice partnership efforts can go a long way to help children stay in school and out of the path to incarceration. Indiana’s team discussed ways the Department of Education and juvenile courts could improve communications, improve ways to share information and initiate cross training.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels named Justice Massa to succeed Chief Justice Shepard who retired from the Court. Justice Massa served as a law clerk for Chief Justice Shepard from 1991-1993. Shepard congratulated his successor and said, “I know the Supreme Court Justices, Agency Directors and staff warmly welcome Mark Massa to the Court.”

Justice Massa pointed to Shepard’s valuable leadership as a reason his appointment to the Court is so meaningful. “What an incredible honor to be joining this Court. Under the Chief Justice’s guidance, it has become one of the leading state courts in the nation, and I’m humbled to be a part of it.”

In February, the Judicial Nominating Commission held two rounds of public interviews of the fifteen applicants for the position and voted to send Mr. (now Justice) Mark Massa, the Hon. Cale Bradford and Ms. Jane Seigel to the Governor as finalists. Governor Daniels selected Massa as Indiana’s 107th justice. The Commission will select the next Chief Justice from among the five justices on the Court.

See photos of Justice Massa’s private swearing-in on Flickr

The newly created position of Domestic Violence Resource Attorney will provide technical assistance to judicial officers and court staff, develop training and written materials for judicial officers, promote communication among courts on best practices, and provide assistance and support to local courts interested in developing domestic violence programs.

In addition to working with judges, the Domestic Violence Resource Attorney will also reach out to both governmental and non-governmental agencies to promote interagency collaboration to address responses to domestic violence. One of our top priorities over the past year has been our partnership with the Indiana Judicial Center and the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence to develop a six-hour training entitled How Family Violence Impacts You and Your Courts. The training debuted at the Spring Judicial Conference in April, and it will be repeated at three regional locations in October. The tentatively scheduled dates and locations are:

• Friday, October 12, at the Inn at DePauw (formerly Walden Inn), Greencastle, IN
• Friday, October 19, at Springmill Inn, Mitchell, IN
• Friday, October 26, at Swan Lake Resort, Plymouth, IN

For more information, please contact Domestic Violence Resource Attorney Loretta Oleksy at (317) 233.0784 or loretta.oleksy@courts.in.gov.

Judge Susan Orr Henderson, Fountain County Circuit Court, has been selected by the Greater Lafayette YWCA as a “Woman of Distinction” for 2012. She was recognized at an award ceremony held on March 6, 2012 for her selfless commitment to community service and her willingness to meaningfully participate when asked and by showing what community involvement and leadership can accomplish.

State Court Administration Director of Appellate Court Technology Selected to National Board

Bob Rath, Director of Appellate Court Technology for the Indiana Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration, has been selected to serve on the Board of the Court Information Technology Officers Consortium (CITOC), which is an arm of the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) and is affiliated with the National Center for State Courts. It is an organization comprised of court chief information officers from around the country to assist Judicial Branch leaders in resolving business and technology problems.

Charles M. Kidd Named Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission Deputy Executive Secretary

Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission Executive Director, G. Michael Witte appointed Charles M. Kidd as Deputy Executive Director. Mr. Kidd was a Staff Attorney at the Commission from April 1991 until his appointment as Deputy last November. He also served as an Indiana Deputy Attorney General. He received his undergraduate degree from Butler University and his law degree from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. He serves as Chair of the Indiana State Bar Association’s Lawyer Advertising Rules Review Committee. Kidd is also a Former Master member of the Sagamore American Inn of Court. He is the author of numerous continuing legal education works.

The Rider Judge. Judge Marilyn Moores with her horse, The Perfect Man.

This is the seventeenth of our Court Times articles that highlight up close and personal a member of the Indiana Judiciary. Marion County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, Judge Marilyn A. Moores is our judge featured in this issue. She received her undergraduate degree from Indiana University and her law degree from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Governor Mitch Daniels appointed her in March, 2005 to fill the unexpired term of Judge James W. Payne, who was appointed by the Governor to serve in his administration as Director of the Indiana Department of Child Services.

Prior to being appointed to the bench, Judge Moores was a partner in the Indianapolis law firm Cohen & Malad, LLP. She concentrated her private practice in the areas of federal litigation, family law, governmental litigation, civil rights and commercial matters. While in private practice, she was elected and served one term from 1995-1999 as an At-Large member of the Indianapolis City-County Council.

Judge Moores has proudly served her state and country as a member of the Indiana Army National Guard. She holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and serves in the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate. She recently returned from a one-year tour of duty in Afghanistan and has written an article about her experience in this issue of Court Times.

While attending law school, Judges Moores worked full time as a law clerk in the Office of the Corporation Counsel for the City of Indianapolis. She remained after her law school graduation and continued to work as an Assistant Corporation Counsel. It was there that she met her husband of twenty-one years, George Burge, a Sergeant for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

Judge Moores and her husband have two grown children, two grandchildren, six horses, and four dogs. They spend much of their free time riding, training, showing, and caring for their horses.

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

What I like most is being where the rubber meets the road—I am in a position to hear the evidence, see the witnesses and determine a result. What I like least is that no matter what I do, someone is unhappy.

What was your major in college and why did you decide to study law?

My majors in college were Spanish and Journalism. I applied to law school to appease my attorney father who was sure I would never earn a living with those majors. I greeted my acceptance to law school with a four letter expletive and I have loved every second of my law career. Apparently, Father knew best.

What would you do if you were not a judge?

If I were not a Judge—and were independently wealthy—I would breed, raise, ride and show American Saddlebred horses. If I was not a Judge and was not independently wealthy, I would again practice law. I loved the constant newness, the opportunity to advocate and the daily challenges of a law practice.

Who are the people you admire most?

First and foremost, I admire my father—he was a widower with four small children and a busy law practice and yet always had time for us and taught us the important lessons of life-integrity, tenacity, strength of character and love. I admire my former law partner, Irwin Levin, who taught me how to practice in a solvent way and who always was there for the underdog.

What are your hobbies or favorite leisure activities and how did you first get involved?

My favorite leisure activities are saddle-seat horseback riding and spending time with my grandsons, ages 6 and 9. I first got involved with horses after spending a year in chemotherapy, undergoing bilateral mastectomies and a hysterectomy and three breast reconstruction surgeries for breast cancer. I was so weak and needed to get my strength back. I decided it would be so much more fun to work out with horses than a bunch of sweaty folks at the gym. I have found it renews my soul as well as my body. What can I say about my grandsons? They are simply the two cutest boys in the world!

What are your favorite books, and have you read any recently, or are you reading now, that you would recommend?
I have very eclectic reading tastes. I read The Secret History of the World while I was in Afghanistan and loved it. More than anything, it captured my understanding and belief about why we are here and what it is all about. I have read the entire Janet Evanovich series on Stephanie Plum—not high literature, but the only books I can honestly say make me laugh out loud.

Where did you grow up and how would you describe your childhood?

I grew up here in Indianapolis and was always a tomboy who kept snakes, toads, frogs, and lizards. After my mother’s death when I was 9, my sister was 8 and my brothers were 6, my father was a widower for two years before marrying my mom, who had two children whom she had adopted during her first marriage. They were the same age as my sister, so we ended up with one 11-year-old, three 9-year-olds and two 8-year-olds—six kids within three years of each other. It was pandemonium all the time.

Do you have a favorite quote?

Yes, my own: “You gotta make your own fun. If the Army wanted you to have fun, they would have issued it to you.”

Where is your favorite vacation spot?

High in the Teton Mountains, having packed everything in on mules and ridden horses to a remote camp site. Until Afghanistan, I had never seen stars like that.

Do you have a favorite meal, recipe and restaurant?

My favorite meal is beef stroganoff and the recipe is my mother’s. I would have to say that my favorite restaurant is Yen Ching—the best Szechuan food in Indy!

Ah, what a joy it is to write about hiring a good employee, rather than disciplining an employee for poor performance. Time spent hiring the right employee is so much more pleasant than dealing with problems.

In my previous article, I discussed the selection process up to the point of the interview. Many interviews are conducted in the employer’s personal office and there is a “get to know you” exchange of information in which the employer tries to determine how comfortably the applicant will fit in with the organization. There are a large number of employees who can put on a false persona for an hour or two to give a favorable impression to the interviewer. There are some tools an employer may use to help overcome a false face.

A good place to hold an interview is in a conference room or other neutral room, rather than the interviewer’s personal office. The benefits of this are that the interviewer is not distracted by calls or other work, and the applicant does not have the opportunity to look around the office for clues as to how to relate favorably to the interviewer. Interviews should be conducted with at least one person asking questions and another person taking notes of the interview. Just as when some of us were litigators and we wanted to spend our time focusing on the witness’s answer, in an interview you also want to focus on the applicant’s answer and body language. Someone else should be taking notes so you are not distracted and can zero in on what is being presented.

The same basic list of questions should be posed to each applicant, although you will also use the interview to fill in any blanks in the résumé or to ask special questions you have about a particular applicant. The common list of questions should all seek behavioral information and the wording should be thought through in advance and designed to elicit key information about the person.

Instead of asking “how do you handle difficult subordinates?” you should ask the applicant to give an example of a difficulty that the applicant had with a subordinate and to explain how the applicant handled the difficulty. If the applicant’s response is merely theoretical or otherwise off-point, you should bluntly ask for a specific example. You also should avoid providing clues to the applicant on what you consider to be the best answer. Don’t ask: “how do you feel about working in a sometimes chaotic environment” or “how do you feel about working in a quiet office where you are by yourself most of the day?” Instead, ask the applicant: “Which employer provided you with the best work environment and why was it the best?”

Some experts feel that spending a long amount of time with an applicant allows us to see how the person holds up under scrutiny. If there isn’t time for that, you can still craft good questions to provide insight into the applicant’s real work behavior.

When an applicant becomes a likely choice, or one of the few remaining applicants, you should have the applicant(s) complete a formal application. The application should require the applicant to list and give contact information for every previous job and educational accomplishments.

The applicant should also sign a release authorizing your contact with prior places of employment and schools. You can provide a copy of the release if requested so that former employers and references will be more likely to give frank information. The application should also include a criminal history release and should end with an attestation clause in which the applicant verifies the truth of the information given in the application.

In a recent online poll of job seekers concerning their résumés, a majority said that they would lie in certain situations. Eighteen percent said they would “do whatever it takes” in falsifying a résumé if it would help to get a job. As an employer with a public trust, it is imperative to check all the information given by an applicant including education, job history, and references. Don’t accept excuses for any gaps or discrepancies between the résumé and the information independently obtained. If the applicant has an explanation for a discrepancy, then the applicant should provide proof to verify the explanation. A criminal history check is a basic for public employees; and, if the person will be handling funds, a credit report may also be needed.

Applicants should provide at least three people as references, and one of the references should be someone who has known the applicant for many years. Some employers put little stock in references since almost everyone can find people who will put in a good word for them. However, several times I have eliminated applicants because of a reference check.

First, the reference source should praise the applicant highly, not just give a “good” reference. Weak praise is a strong indicator that there are problems with the applicant. Second, you should have a list of open-ended questions to ferret out any weaknesses and follow-up to encourage conversation with the reference. Third, it is a perfect opportunity to verify with the reference any information given by the applicant on the résumé. For example, you may find an applicant’s claim of being responsible for a major innovation while working for a former employer was exaggerated; and the applicant actually played a minor role on a team that was responsible for that major innovation. Finally, you should make an effort to interview the applicant’s current supervisor if you have decided to make an offer. Tell the applicant you plan to do this.

When you offer a job, you should specify the salary, position and starting date in a letter to the applicant. You should include a paragraph clarifying that the letter does not constitute a contract of employment, such as:

Please be advised that nothing in this letter creates an employment contract, a property interest in the position, or otherwise alters your employment-at-will status.

Despite all these efforts and for a number of different reasons, sometimes an applicant just does not fit well. But if you have taken the time to follow this process, it is much more probable that you will hire an individual who is an asset to your office.

Finally, you should always be kind to those who do not get the job. It is important to acknowledge receipt of résumés, to inform persons when they are eliminated from consideration, and to include a kind or encouraging word in the rejection note.

As always, if you need examples or wish any assistance, I’m here to help.

If a judge needs assistance or advice regarding hiring, contact Brenda Rodeheffer at (317) 234-3936 or brenda.rodeheffer@courts.in.gov.