Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Staff Salaries Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vigo County Council approves settlement resolving judges' mandate on court staff pay
Summary
After mediation, the Vigo County Council voted to approve a settlement agreement and release resolving a mandate action filed by county judges over pay for 33 court employees; the agreement will be followed by appropriation and an anticipated salary ordinance, pending state accounting guidance.
The Vigo County Council approved a settlement agreement and release at a meeting called to order at 4:06 p.m., resolving a mandate action filed by county judges that sought higher pay for court employees.
County Council Attorney Michael Wright said the agreement is the product of extended negotiations and mediation and that it responds to a mandate action filed in October 2024 under Indiana Trial Rule 60.5. "We are here tonight, in response to a, mandate action that was filed back in October of 20 24," Wright said, adding the parties mediated the dispute in February 2025 with former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Stephen David serving as mediator.
The agreement covers 33 court employees and, Wright said, gives judges more control over staff salaries while preserving the council's authority over the county's total compensation budget. He told council members the agreement avoids costly, protracted litigation: he cited other counties' litigation bills and said a contested hearing could cost the county "several hundred thousand dollars" and take about a year and a half. Wright also relayed that he contacted the Indiana State Board of Accounts and the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) to confirm how payments made under a court order would be treated for audit and accounting purposes.
William Barkimer, counsel for the judges, described the settlement as the result of years of negotiation and called it "a reasonable compromise," saying the judges view the requested salaries as comparable to similarly busy counties and necessary for court operations.
Councilwoman Brenda Wilson moved to approve the settlement agreement and release as presented; Councilman Brad Anderson seconded the motion. A roll-call vote recorded votes of "aye" by Councilwoman Nancy Alsop, Councilwoman Brenda Wilson, Council President David Thompson and Councilman Brad Anderson. The chair declared the motion passed. The council directed staff to prepare an appropriation and a salary ordinance to implement the agreement, pending final confirmation from the DLGF and any required advertising or publication for ordinance adoption.
Background provided in the meeting traces the dispute to earlier studies (a Baker Tilly analysis was cited) and correspondence dating back to 2016. Wright compared the Vigo County case to an ongoing Jackson County mandate action that involved multiple filings and, he said, sizable legal bills; he noted Jackson County had provided roughly 22% raises to court staff during its budget cycles. Wright estimated mediator fees and related expenses in Vigo County would be "just a little bit north of $50,000," based on discussions with the judges' counsel.
Council discussion acknowledged that some current council members were not part of prior budget decisions and that the settlement may prompt broader future conversations about county employee compensation. The council agreed to move forward with the appropriation and ordinance process and discussed timing, with the next regular meeting and potential advertising requirements cited as milestones.
The settlement resolves the mandate action through negotiated terms rather than a contested hearing; the agreement and any subsequent appropriation or ordinance will be implemented after the council's procedural steps and the DLGF confirmation noted in the meeting.
