Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Court Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Muncie City Court judge outlines 'bare bones' budget, cites interpreter and evaluation costs
Summary
Judge Donek told the finance committee the municipal court budget is minimal and flagged rising costs for psychological evaluations and interpreters; she said public defender reimbursement from the state is limited to circuit and superior courts and would require a statutory change to include city courts.
Judge Donek, Muncie City Court judge, told the Muncie City Council finance committee that her office submitted a "bare bones" 2026 proposed budget and highlighted two high-cost items: psychological evaluations and interpreter services.
The judge told the committee the court’s software maintenance, copier charges and interpreter costs remain significant line items and that the court’s proposed salaries follow guidance from the controller’s office. "I put in in the salary parts the amount that the controller's office told me to put in," Judge Donek said. She added staff salary increases reflected a 4% figure communicated by the controller.
The judge explained psych-evaluation costs can run "anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 per case," depending on the level of evaluation required when competency or insanity defenses are raised. She said those evaluations are among the court’s most expensive variables and that the court sometimes must rely on outside providers.
Interpreter needs also drive costs. Judge Donek said most interpreter work involves Spanish speakers and that Andrea Johnson from the victim's advocate office frequently interprets for the court. "She translates the court documents into Spanish," the judge said, and added that Johnson is not a state-licensed court interpreter and therefore charges less than sponsored court interpreters.
On the public defender, Judge Donek said the state allows reimbursement only for circuit and superior courts, not for city and town courts. "The only thing that needs to happen to allow me to apply for that reimbursement is for that statute to change to include city and town courts as well," she said. She warned, however, that even if the statute changed the city should "do the math" before pursuing reimbursement because a single public defender with a heavy caseload might exceed reimbursement caps.
Committee members questioned line-item changes and asked the judge to provide supporting materials. Council members also asked for clarification about which payroll items have been paid at rates higher than the salary ordinance adopted by the council. The committee asked staff to provide the salary ordinance and the related meeting minutes where it was adopted.
The judge repeatedly described the request as limited to operational needs. "This, as far as I'm concerned, is a bare bones budget," she said. She said she will ask the council during the year if the court needs additional resources for items beyond daily operations.
The finance committee did not take any votes on the budget; the session was a working information meeting and the committee chair said no decisions would be made at the session.
