<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Gavel to Gavel &#187; Indiana</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gaveltogavel.us/site/tag/indiana/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gaveltogavel.us/site</link>
	<description>A review of state legislation affecting the courts.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:32:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Judicial Retirement Plans/Pensions: Midwestern States</title>
		<link>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/04/13/judicial-retirement-planspensions-midwestern-states/</link>
		<comments>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/04/13/judicial-retirement-planspensions-midwestern-states/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:22:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Raftery</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Salary & Budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nebraksa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indiana HB 1205 AMENDMENT TO BILL: Establishes the Indiana public retirement system to administer and manage the Judges&#8217; Retirement Fund and nine other retirement funds. Creates an 11-member board of trustees for the system. Provides that each retirement fund continues as a separate fund managed by the board. Amendment approved by Senate 2/23/10. House rejected [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2010&amp;request=getBill&amp;docno=1205">Indiana HB 1205</a> AMENDMENT TO BILL: Establishes the Indiana public retirement system to administer and manage the Judges&#8217; Retirement Fund and nine other retirement funds. Creates an 11-member board of trustees for the system. Provides that each retirement fund continues as a separate fund managed by the board. Amendment approved by Senate 2/23/10. House rejected amendment.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2010&amp;request=getBill&amp;docno=298">Indiana SB 298</a> Establishes the Indiana public retirement system to administer and manage the Judges&#8217; Retirement Fund and nine other retirement funds. Creates an 11-member board of trustees for the system. Provides that each retirement fund continues as a separate fund managed by the board. Approved by full Senate 2/2/10.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2010&amp;request=getBill&amp;docno=397">Indiana SB 397</a> Establishes the Indiana public retirement system to administer and manage the Judges&#8217; Retirement Fund and nine other retirement funds. Creates an 11-member board of trustees for the system. Provides that each retirement fund continues as a separate fund managed by the board. Approved by Senate Committee on Pensions and Labor 1/28/10.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2010&amp;request=getBill&amp;docno=98">Indiana SB 98</a> Eliminates references to the Treasurer of State&#8217;s duties concerning the Judges&#8217; Retirement System and other named retirement funds. Approved by full Senate 1/19/10.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28kvbeasytrzsxgaap4i1mjc55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&amp;objectName=2009-HB-4073">Michigan HB 4073</a> Creates an irrevocable trust for each of the State&#8217;s five retirement systems, including the judges retirement act of 1992,  pursuant to Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC 115. Approved by full House 3/4/09. Approved by Senate Appropriations Committee 12/19/09.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28kvbeasytrzsxgaap4i1mjc55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&amp;objectName=2009-HB-4078">Michigan HB 4078</a> Amends the Judges Retirement Act to specify that, as of July 1, 2009, the Department of Management and Budget would be responsible for authorizing and administering the group retiree health insurance plan (hospitalization and medical coverage) and dental and vision plan.  (Currently this is a function of the Civil Service Commission, which has recently become an autonomous entity within DMB since the abolition of the Department of Civil Service in 2007.)  Approved by full House 3/4/090. In Senate Appropriations Committee.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28kvbeasytrzsxgaap4i1mjc55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&amp;objectName=2009-SB-0132">Michigan SB 132</a> Amends law related to the health insurance premium payments under the Judges Retirement Act:  For participants with four years of service, the State is required to pay 50% of the cost of health insurance coverage by eliminating health care coverage for retired judges and elected officials specified in the bill who are elected after November 1, 2010. Specifies this elimination would not have an impact on currently elected or appointed officials, but would be prospective by affecting those elected or appointed after November 1, 2010. Approved by full Senate 2/24/10.</p>
<p><a href="http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=6350">Nebraska LB 403</a> Prohibits participation in the Judges Retirement System unless the employees is a U.S. citizen of qualified alien lawfully present in the U.S. Signed into law by Governor 4/8/09.</p>
<p><a href="http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=6583">Nebraska LB 414</a> Provides that from  July 1, 2009, until July 1, 2014, a judge shall contribute an additional one percent of his or her monthly compensation to the judges retirement fund. Increases fund fee from $5 to $6 during same period. Signed into law by Governor 5/19/09.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/04/13/judicial-retirement-planspensions-midwestern-states/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No more non-attorney judges?</title>
		<link>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/02/18/no-more-non-attorney-judges/</link>
		<comments>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/02/18/no-more-non-attorney-judges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Raftery</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Qualification & Terms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=208</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While no longer as popular as in the past, many states continue to retain non-attorney judges. Trial judges in at least 27 states, most in probate, justice of the peace, or other similar limited jurisdiction courts, are not required to be attorneys. Several states, however, are trying to eliminate this practice.
Georgia&#8217;s HB 478 requires municipal [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While no longer as popular as in the past, many states continue to retain non-attorney judges. Trial judges <a href="http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/sco04.pdf">in at least 27 states</a>, most in probate, justice of the peace, or other similar limited jurisdiction courts, are not required to be attorneys. Several states, however, are trying to eliminate this practice.</p>
<p>Georgia&#8217;s <a href="http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/sum/hb478.htm">HB 478</a> requires municipal court judges be attorneys unless already serving as municipal court judge. It was approved by the House Committee on Governmental Affairs on February 4.</p>
<p>Indiana&#8217;s <a href="http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2010&amp;request=getBill&amp;docno=122">SB 122</a> would require City and Town judges be attorneys as well.</p>
<p>Maryland <a href="http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/hb0417.htm">HB 417</a> would require Orphan&#8217;s Court judges, in the city of Baltimore only, be attorneys. Prior versions (such as <a href="http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/billfile/hb0387.htm">HB 387</a> and <a href="http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/billfile/sb0293.htm">SB 293</a> of 2008) would have required most if not all of the state&#8217;s Orphan&#8217;s Court judges be attorneys. The Senate version made it through that chamber in 2008 (42-4), while the House version failed to achieve the three-fifths majority needed (failed 84-50, with 85 votes needed).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/02/18/no-more-non-attorney-judges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
