Stuart Showalter is a child custody policy advisor to Indiana state policy makers as well as attorneys on child custody cases. For parents he offers child custody based life coaching to help them maintain control of their lives, increase their fitness as parents and manage their litigation so they can truly serve the best interest of their children. He provides this Law Blog as free opinion on various issues. Reader submissions of topics are welcomed. Send to Stuart@StuartShowalter.com
I asked each of the candidates six questions relating to what may be described as a candidate’s platform. These included the operation of the court, what they thought they could do to better serve the people appearing in court, their personal motivation to be a candidate, and what they could do to mitigate the impact of custody cases on children. Finally, I offered them an opportunity to submit an essay of any length to be reproduced here word-for-word. I did not ask for comment on specific cases or for prejudicial opinions -- that is, how he or she would rule on a potential matter before the court.
I contacted Lori Schein through Facebook to get an email address from her. She replied and I sent the questionnaire to that email address after having also sent it through her contact form on her campaign site. I had requested responses by the 16th, about one week later, but had not received a response by then. I sent a reminder to her email on the 18th.
As of 9:00am today I have not received a response to the questionnaire. If one is subsequently received I will update this posting promptly.
I had no plans to gather information about the candidates from their promotional materials or any other source for my purpose here. To do so now would compromise objectivity. Instead I encourage you to seek out information elsewhere and to check back here in a few days.
Thank you for your interest in the election. The 2018 primary election occurs on Tuesday 08 May.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
I asked each of the candidates six questions relating to what may be described as a candidates platform. These included the operation of the court, what they thought they could do to better serve the people appearing in court, their personal motivation to be a candidate, and what they could do to mitigate the impact of custody cases on children. Finally, I offered them an opportunity to submit an essay of any length to be reproduced here word-for-word. I did not ask for comment on specific cases or for prejudicial opinions -- that is, how he or she would rule on a potential matter.
I received the following response from candidate Todd Meyer;
“Thank you for your message and for your interest in the judicial race for Boone Circuit Court. I reviewed your proposed questions and consulted with the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications and regretfully must decline participation in this process. As you may know, as a candidate for judicial office I am required to follow the rules set forth in Indiana’s Code of Judicial Conduct. While I would like to respond to your questions I believe doing so may put me at risk of violating certain sections of the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rules 4.1 and 2.4 that are more specifically explained within the respective comments to those rules.”
First, I feel that I should disclose that Todd Meyer has an incident in his past relating to a rule violation while prosecutor. An extra-judicial statement [one made outside of the courtroom] about evidentiary matters in an upcoming trial were attributed to him in a newspaper article. The problem with discussing evidence outside of the courtroom is that it could reach potential jurors yet later be ruled inadmissable. This potentially deprives the defendant of due process. It is a rather serious offense.
A complaint was made to the Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court not by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, nor any other attorney but by the author here, yours truly -- Stuart Showalter. Meyer was susequently charged with misconduct. Thus, it is understandable that he would be reticent to provide comment to questions about judicial administration, especially to me.
I had no plans to gather information about the candidates from their promotional materials or any other source for my purpose here. To do so now would compromise objectivity. Instead I am providing the text of the two rules Mr Meyer cited and I will leave it to you to do your research or otherwise.
RULE 2.4: External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
Comment
[1] An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge's friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.
RULE 4.1: Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General
(A) Except as permitted by law,* or by Rules 4.1(B), 4.1(C), 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, a judge or a judicial candidate* shall not:
(1) act as a leader in or hold an office in a political organization;*
(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization;
(3) publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office;
(4) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution* to a political organization or a candidate for public office;
(5) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political organization or a candidate for public office;
(6) publicly identify himself or herself as a member or candidate of a political organization;
(7) seek, accept, or use endorsements from a political organization;
(8) personally solicit* or accept campaign contributions other than through a campaign committee authorized by Rule 4.4;
(9) use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the judge, the candidate, or others;
(10) use court staff, facilities, or other court resources in a campaign for judicial office or for any political purpose;
(11) knowingly,* or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading statement;
(12) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court; or
(13) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.
(B) A judge or judicial candidate shall take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake, on behalf of the judge or judicial candidate, any activities prohibited under paragraph (A).
(C) A judge in an office filled by partisan election, a judicial candidate seeking that office, and a judicial officer serving for a judge in office filled by partisan election may at any time:
(1) identify himself or herself as a member of a political party;
(2) voluntarily contribute to and attend meetings of political organizations; and
(3) attend dinners and other events sponsored by political organizations and may purchase a ticket for such an event and a ticket for a guest.
(D) A judge in an office filled by nonpartisan election other than a retention election, a judicial candidate seeking that office, and a judicial officer serving for a judge in an office filled by nonpartisan election may at any time attend dinners and other events sponsored by political organizations and may purchase a ticket for such an event and a ticket for a guest.
Thank you for your interest in the election. The 2018 primary election occurs on Tuesday 08 May.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
I asked each of the candidates six questions relating to what may be described as a candidate’s platform. These included the operation of the court, what they thought they could do to better serve the people appearing in court, their personal motivation to be a candidate, and what they could do to mitigate the impact of custody cases on children. Finally, I offered them an opportunity to submit an essay of any length to be reproduced here word-for-word. I did not ask for comment on specific cases or for prejudicial opinions -- that is, how he or she would rule on a potential matter before the court.
Tamie Morog says she wants to be the next Boone Circuit Court judge because she places families first. She feels that the incoming judge should have practical life experience as well as legal experience so as to foster just outcomes through applying the law to the facts. Additionally, she wants to implement her ideas to help decrease the illegal drug usage in our county.
Morog sees the high number of people coming into the courts without representation -- pro se litigants -- as the biggest problem facing the judiciary in Boone County and nationally. Nationally, in the majority of family law cases at least one party appears without representation. Morog states that the pro se litigants usually aren’t aware of “the ways to settle their cases out of court such as mediation, arbitration, Collaborative Law, etc. They take more time for the judiciary than their issues should take and do not provide the evidence that the Court needs to make the best decision for their family or their issue(s).”
Judges in the county courts have authority to set local rules to effectuate the efficient operation of their courts.
On the criminal side Morog would like to implement a drug court. She notes that although they “take more time at the beginning for the judge, drug courts have been found to be successful in various counties in Indiana” as well as in other jurisdictions.
On the civil side Morog would like to implement a local rule that orders that before the parties in a domestic relations case -- family law -- can litigate in Court they must spend some time in an Alternative Dispute Resolution [ADR] forum. I have proposed and will continue to push for mandatory ADR at the state level in all child custody cases. For those of us who have worked in the child custody arena we know, as Morog says, “Court is the last place a family law case should be decided. Preparing for and litigating a case causes more harm, including money, for the family than good. In mediation, Collaborative Law, arbitration and other ADR methods the parents can work together for the best interests of the children and the family as a whole.”
Additionally, Morog notes that judges can order parents in custody disputes into mediation, counseling for the children, appointment of Parenting Coordination and can avail themselves of other resources to mitigate conflict.
In conclusion, Tamie Morog in her own words -
I have practiced family law in courts in Boone County and around central Indiana for 17 years. Boone County Circuit Court hears divorce cases and is the only court in Boone County where juvenile delinquency, Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”), and paternity (children born out of wedlock) cases are filed. If we work on the problems facing the Families in our county, many other issues will be decreased and/or resolved.
I have also raised 3 successful daughters; have a business degree from Ball State University; concentrated in tax and corporate law in law school, where I graduated Cum Laude, and; my husband and I have owned several successful businesses. Therefore, I have the general knowledge to sit on the bench where business, contract and other cases of general jurisdiction may be litigated.
My knowledge and experience make me the ideal candidate for this position.
Thank you for your interest in the election. The 2018 primary election occurs on Tuesday 08 May.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Contested political races in Boone County, Indiana are somewhat unusual. When it comes to the courthouse office holders it is quite so. This year it is refreshing to see that we have three candidates vying to be the Republican nominee for the position of Boone Circuit Court Judge. As there are numerous candidates, it is more important for the electorate to be aware of the qualities one should possess to hold the office. Before addressing essential attributes to be a Circuit Court judge it is necessary for voters to know what the position entails which I have found that many prospective voters do not.
Van Gogh could upend your confidence in him as a painter if presented with a 5-gallon bucket of exterior latex, an air compressor and a spray gun. Likewise, the recent immigrant who has used those tools while efficiently and fabulously bring new life to a home by applying a fresh coat of paint may fail miserably when presented with a blank canvas and a palette of oils. Both of these “painters” who may be wholly capable in their own niche may not be the appropriate candidate as your “painter”. Such it is with being a Circuit Court “judge”.
The Indiana Code provides the case types of a Circuit Court judge:
IC 33-28-1-2 Jurisdiction
Sec. 2. (a) All circuit courts have:
(1) original and concurrent jurisdiction in all civil cases and in all criminal cases;
(2) de novo appellate jurisdiction of appeals from city and town courts; and
(3) in Marion County, de novo appellate jurisdiction of appeals from township small claims courts established under IC 33-34.
(b) The circuit court also has the appellate jurisdiction that may be conferred by law upon it.
In reviewing the qualities of a candidate for a judicial office there are particular attributes relevant to the office which may not be relevant to other positions or reflective of personal ethics otherwise. The Judicial Canons[fn1] provide structural ethical rules but there are characteristics which subsists these. The judicial office carries with it a particular immense responsibility that is paramount to all others and has been given considerable attention in the US Constitution as well as the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
From the US Constitution comes these protections for those accused of offenses. An accused is entitled to; not answer to a crime except upon presentment of indictment, protection against double jeopardy, protection against self-incrimination, due process[fn2], a jury trial, compel the attendance of favourable witnesses, the assistance of counsel[fn3] bail in an amount not deemed excessive[fn4] and the presumption of innocence[fn5].
All of these are designed to serve to protect the liberty of the falsely accused defendant[fn6]. Before reaching the judge there is a series of screens intended to protect the accused. The accuser is required to make a sworn accusation under penalty of perjury. This may be a private individual or a law enforcement agent. Then a charge may be issued unilaterally by a prosecutor or upon return of an indictment by a grand jury. It has been said, however, that even a novice prosecutor can get an indictment returned against a ham sandwich. The defendant has the right to a trial by jury which is to judge both the defendant and the law. There is also a continuing obligation to protect the falsely accused which extends from prior to the filing of a charge to the termination of the defendant’s trial.
A prosecutor who has an extremely high or 100% conviction rate should rightfully be viewed with suspicion. This is because the prosecutor is imbued with a quasi-judicial mandate. That is, he or she is to seek justice[fn7]. Thus, the prosecutor has just as great of an obligation to seek the acquittal of a defendant who is falsely accused as he does a conviction for the truly guilty. This concept is manifest in the rules which delineate a prosecutor’s obligation to unilaterally disclose discovered exculpatory evidence to the defendant, enthusiastically respond to discovery requests, and not debark from a course of investigation which may exonerate the defendant [fn8].
The judicial officer should always view a defendant with the presumption of innocence. I recall being in the chambers of a judge who had been on the bench for over 20 years. He terminated our conversation by saying, “I have to go do the arraignment of this kid who murdered . . .” and we departed. This arraignment was his first encounter with the accused. If he was asked at the time if he thought the accused was guilty he would have said he presumes him to be innocent and he will wait for the trial or something to that effect. Clearly, by what he said to me privately, he was not beholden to the presumption of innocence for all defendants. I would later write an appellate brief which would lead to a judgment of his being overturned and it further established case precedent [case law] for an accused’s right to court appointed counsel in certain situations.
A final protection for members of society accused of offenses that should be embraced by a judge is that the jury has the right to determine the law[fn9]. This right arises under the democratic republic concept that government is ordained by and emanates from the will of the people not that government rules the people. Thus under a strict application of the jury nullification concept any member of a jury should be able to declare, “I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge but I do not agree that the law as applied in this case is just or I do not support the existence of the law so I, therefore, find in favour of the defendant -- not guilty”. The citizenry -- as jurors -- would have the ultimate veto power over the legislature. However, the Indiana Supreme Court has neutered this constitutional protection[fn10]. A juror is under no obligation to explain the decision reached to anyone.
A judge who does not embody this concept or is resistant to a jury being informed of their right in this regard has relinquished neutrality -- a theoretical hallmark of the judiciary.
The position of Circuit Court judge also includes the assignment of certain civil cases. Adoption cases are one of these. This may involve cases where a parent has voluntarily placed the child for adoption of where the State has moved to terminate the rights of the parents and place the child for adoption. These are awesome responsibilities. The right to direct the upbringing of a child has been declared a “fundamental parental right”[fn11] commensurate with protections in the Bill of Rights. Severing parents from their children has a lifelong impact on those parents and, more significantly, the children. The person making that decision must exhibit a keen sense of human behaviour, must be able to empathize with the child and parents, and not be swayed by the weight of the status of the state.
Similarly, there are family law cases involving child custody where one parent initiates suit against another to gain a government mandate dictating the time allocation of each parent apportioned to the child as well as who legal responsibilities will be conferred upon. These can be contentious proceedings. My expertise and practice has been focused on the high conflict parents and mitigating that conflict. While the State is not moving to restrict or terminate a parents’ access to the child in these cases the decision a judge makes can still have just as profound of an impact. Possibly more because these cases may involve parents who passionately care about the well-being of their child [but are selfish] rather than abusive or neglectful parents. These custodial decisions must be made with a full understanding of the impact upon the lives of the people involved. It is not a perfunctory or mechanical task.
In deciding upon who to select as my choice for judge there are few documentary or statistical exhibits which will hold much sway. Although have been a member of the lawyer cartel is a statutory requirement trial experience is of little importance. Rather, I seek someone who shows the character traits that he or she intends to serve the interest of the people, that personal preferences or biases are checked at the door, that court appearances can be stressful and upsetting moments for people and they should be handled accordingly, that judgments are not formulated until conclusion of submission of evidence, and that no amount of time is wasted if it is in furtherance of reaching a just conclusion. Finally though is that the candidate must embrace the concept that he or she is there upon the will of the people and serves at the mercy of the people.
On 09 April I sent a questionnaire to each of the three candidates comprised of six questions and an essay section where I will publish, word-for-word, whatever they have to say about themselves. I requested that responses be returned no later than the 16th of April. I will soon publish the results of each individually and simultaneously.
Notes
1] http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/jud_conduct/
2] US Constitution Amendment V
3] US Constitution Amendment VI
4] US Constitution Amendment VIII
5] In a fraud scheme involving the Indiana National Bank the Court stated, “The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
6] It is held that "[g]uilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and by evidence confined to that which long experience in the common law tradition, to some extent embodied in the Constitution, has crystalized into rules of evidence consistent with that standard. These rules are historically grounded rights of our system, developed to safeguard men from dubious and unjust convictions, with resulting forfeitures of life, liberty and property." Brinegar v. United States, supra, at 338 U. S. 174.
The burden of proof in criminal trials is based upon “a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free." In re WINSHIP, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970)
7] In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, 473 U. S. 87 (1963), this Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment."
8] AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Fourth Edition of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS
for the PROSECUTION FUNCTION Standard 3-5.4(a) After charges are filed if not before, the prosecutor should diligently seek to identify all information in the possession of the prosecution or its agents that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the offense charged, impeach the government’s witnesses or evidence, or reduce the likely punishment of the accused if convicted. ibid (e) A prosecutor should timely respond to legally proper discovery requests, and make a diligent effort to comply with legally proper disclosure obligations, unless otherwise authorized by a court. ibid (g) A prosecutor should not avoid pursuit of information or evidence because the prosecutor believes it will damage the prosecution's case or aid the accused.
9] “In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.” Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution
10] In a 3-2 decision the Indiana Supreme Court found - Although there may be some value in instructing Indiana jurors that they have a right to "refuse to enforce the law's harshness when justice so requires," the source of that right cannot be found in Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution. This Court's latest pronouncement on the subject is correct: "[I]t is improper for a court to instruct a jury that they have a right to disregard the law. Notwithstanding Article 1, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution, a jury has no more right to ignore the law than it has to ignore the facts in a case." Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928, 946 (Ind.1994)
Holden v. State, 788 NE 2d 1253 - Ind: Supreme Court 2003
Here is Justice Dickson, who joined Rucker in dissenting and whose dissent was joined by Rucker:
First, I disagree with the majority’s understanding of Holden v. State, 788 N.E.2d1253, 1253-54 (Ind.2003). Although not part of the majority’s actual holding but only reflected in its preliminary commentary, today’s opinion expresses a view that Holden stands for the proposition that Indiana juries do not have the power to acquit despite overwhelming evidence in criminal cases. To the contrary, I believe that this Court unanimously acknowledged in Holden that our state’s early jurisprudence held that, in the exercise of its law-determining function under Article 1, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution, a jury could disregard the instructions of the trial court, but had no right to disregard the law. Id. at 1254, citing Blaker v. State, 130 Ind. 203, 204, 29 N.E. 1077, 1077-78 (1892). Our analysis in Holden also noted recent views from other jurisdictions and discussed recent academic literature arguing that a jury’s right to decide the law did not encompass the right to nullify. Holden, 788 N.E.2d at 1255. Holden did not attempt to resolve these competing perspectives, but rather issued a narrow holding focused on the propriety of expressly advising the jury that “you [have] the latitude to `refuse to enforce the law’s harshness when justice so requires,'” an instruction that had been tendered but refused. Id. at 1253. We held only that a jury should not be affirmatively instructed that it has a right to disregard the law, and that the tendered instruction was properly refused. In my view, however, Holden does not prohibit Indiana juries from exercising their historic power to find in favor of a criminal defendant despite substantial contrary evidence.
. . .
Third, the majority acknowledges that the rejected jury instruction was a correct statement of law, but declares that it would have been inappropriate to inform the jury of this legal principle because of the effect it might produce. . . . [T]he majority concludes that the substance of this instruction was adequately communicated to the jury by the following instruction: “[Y]ou have the right to determine both the law and the facts. The Court’s instructions are your best source in determining the Law.” Id. at 261. I cannot agree that this latter, broad, unspecific, and opaque instruction was adequate to inform the jury of the legal principal embodied in the defendant’s tendered instruction . . . .
Innocuous, generic, non-specific jury instructions are not an adequate substitute for plain-language advisements that meaningfully explain to jurors the reality of their rights and permissible function under the law. In my view, the resulting obfuscation and secrecy is inconsistent with the Rule of Law.
Because I believe that the defendant was entitled to have the jury meaningfully instructed regarding its right to find in favor of a criminal defendant despite substantial contrary evidence, a historic right of American juries and one additionally preserved in Section 19 of the Indiana Bill of Rights, I dissent from the majority’s opinion.
11] “In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the ‘liberty’ specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ[t] … to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children” which is referred to as “[T]hat fundamental parental right.” TROXEL V. GRANVILLE (99-138) 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
The following is the text of my editorial letter that appeared in the Lebanon Reporter on 12 March 2018.
In reading last Wednesday's edition of The Lebanon Reporter, I perceived conflicting messages about the issue of criminal matters. Crime reduction is a difficult subject which is complicated by the division of crime into its two categories; natural or common law crimes where there is a direct victim such as battery or theft and statutory crimes such as applying an aerosol weed killer to your garden when wind speeds exceed 5 mph or letting an errant marijuana seed grow in that garden and then die unharvested.
From the front page story about the killing of Deputy Pickett I read “[T]he ‘revolving door’ of criminals being caught and released from jail is trouble to both (the prosecutor) and local law enforcement.” Yet on the back page is a brief story about a guilty plea being accepted which seems to grease that ‘revolving door.’
In that instance charges of criminal confinement where a vehicle was used; intimidation where defendant draws or uses a deadly weapon; and pointing a firearm at another person were filed. Additionally, carrying a handgun without a license was filed to which the defendant plead guilty in exchange for dismissal of the other three charges. The defendant was sentenced to one year of jail time suspended in lieu of probation.
This plea arrangement is troubling in that it essentially dismisses what amounted to hostage taking [natural crime] but “punished” the paperwork [statutory] crime. Hence, threaten the lives of other people and that can be overlooked but neglect to file some paperwork and pay a processing fee and the heavy hammer of probation (with more fees being likely) is going to come down upon you.
Ample research clearly demonstrates that culture is highly influential in the expression of crimes. In our combat oriented culture a higher rate is no surprise. A cultural shift can diminish that. One way is to alter our use of language to less conflict oriented expressions — we don’t “fight crime” but instead “promote lawfulness.” Another manner could be a top-down governing demonstration that common people matter more than regulation and fees.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
The Lebanon Utilities is seeking to have the City Council modify the rate schedule to allow for a rate increase to pay for proposed projects primarily to accommodate increased water and sewer usage demands. The City Council met on Monday 09 April 2018 where the ordinance proposal was heard on first reading. I provided the only public comment which I was asked to put into writing. So here is basically what I had to say.
First, I rise in support of the proposed water utility projects and the desired funding increases although there is a caveat. In a historical sense, even inclusive of an increase, delivery of water to our homes is a bargain compared to carrying buckets to the community tap and risking contracting cholera. Contemporarily though it is still a small price for the average water customer.
My concern tonight is that the overall revenue or average bill does not reflect what I propose is a fundamental error in the rate structure. The current rate scheme is based upon the private for-profit goods supplier model. That is it considers a base transactional cost and then discounts volume; the goal being higher consumption. While this is a common profitable tactic employed by the corporate community I contend that a public utility, a member of the public trust, has an ethical obligation to follow a different model.
Two models are in practice which encourage conservation. One is the flat per unit approach. That is where one unit price is set. The price which each customer pays is directly proportional to usage. The customer using twice as much pays twice as much; ten times as much pays ten times as much. This is comparable to the sales tax approach to taxation.
The other model is punitive based scheme designed to have a greater influence on behaviour. Under this approach the median user may pay a median rate while those who use less pay a progressively lower per unit rate. On the upper end the rate would progressively increase. Those who place the greatest strain on the system pay the highest rate. This is the mode that produces greatest conservation. This is comparable to the federal income tax approach to taxation which discourages and penalizes productivity and income growth.
Our current pricing structure, being just the opposite of that, places and added burden on the poor or youth who are less likely to use automatic dishwashing machines, lawn watering systems, or other opulent uses of water and may even do laundry off site. In effect those who conserve or use moderate amounts of water are taxed to support the wasteful or opulent users.
Utilities, just as with all other goods suppliers, are an energy dependent agent. Thus, to some degree it is a polluter which diminishes quality of life for all to some extent. I therefore suggest that you adopt a new pricing structure that encourages conservation.
I propose that a single per unit rate be applied and if water supply or treatment resources should suddenly become overtaxed in the future before upgrades can be implemented then a progressive rate structure could be temporarily imposed to further promote conservation.
I do not object to expansion or rate increases but I do not feel that those who place the least burden on the system should be disproportionately burdened to subsidize those who do.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
As a child custody policy advisor I have written and had child custody related legislation passed into law. My counseling of lawyers and appearances as an expert witness have helped them achieve more favorable results for their clients including winning appeals, gaining parenting time, reducing conflict, and mediating agreements. Additionally I made important contributions to the amended Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines that went into effect March 2013 and am currently formulating recommendations for the Indiana Child Support Guidelines which are to be amended this year. For parents I offer child custody based life coaching to help them maintain control of their lives and increase their fitness as parents so they can truly serve the best interest of their children.
