Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Appeals Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney asks council to extend corrections-appeal window from 10 to 30 days to match state practice
Summary
An attorney for the county asked the Lake County Council to change the county ordinance so correctional-officer disciplinary appeals use a 30-day filing window rather than the current 10 days, citing practical difficulties assembling large records and asking the council to also consider bond amounts and contract/collective-bargaining impacts
A county attorney and outside counsel asked the Lake County Council to amend the county ordinance that governs disciplinary appeals by correctional officers, changing the deadline to file an appeal from 10 days to 30 days to align with the timing used in Indiana statutes for police-officer appeals.
Matt Sullivan, identified in the meeting as an attorney, told the council that the 10-day window in the county ordinance makes it difficult to assemble the record for an appeal because the record can run to thousands of pages. Sullivan said changing the timeframe to 30 days would give the county and appellant enough time to assemble the record and reduce the risk of legal error when appeals reach court.
Sullivan argued the change is procedural, not substantive, and told the council, "That's the only change. 10 to 30. That's all we want." He said the ordinance currently uses calendar days (weekends count) and that standard practice extends a filing date falling on a holiday or weekend to the next business day. Sullivan also raised related issues about bond amounts for appellants, telling the council that in some cases the cost of transcripts and court reporting has exceeded $11,000 while bond orders have ranged widely; he said he has sought higher bonds in some cases and that judicial rulings have varied.
Commissioners and council members raised two concerns. First, members asked whether changing the ordinance would interfere with collective-bargaining agreements; one councilor warned that any change affecting terms and conditions of employment could trigger bargaining-union review under the county’s labor agreements. County staff said the ordinance is county law and that the department’s rules and the internal 600-page policy manual are distinct, but several commissioners asked county legal counsel to confirm whether the change would require bargaining-unit notice or negotiation.
Second, elected officials asked staff to clarify whether the ordinance language uses calendar days or working days and whether the amendment should specify business days and holiday extensions. Staff said they had discussed the matter with county counsel and with attorneys who advise Sheriff Martinez and that they would return with language that addresses both the filing window and any bond-related provisions the council wishes to consider.
No formal vote was recorded during the discussion. County leaders said they would consult affected bargaining units and return to the council with draft ordinance language and any recommended bond provisions.
The item also included discussion about fiscal exposure: officials noted that when the county is ordered to produce lengthy transcripts and records, the county bears expense until the court allocates costs. Several participants asked the attorney to provide specific ordinance language and to coordinate with the sheriff’s office and union representatives before the council acts.
