Feb. 8 hearing on Bloomington annexation canceled as judge cites potential conflict, recuses self
On Thursday, a big event in Bloomington’s years-long effort to annex more territory into the city was canceled.
Not taking place as scheduled was an 11 a.m. hearing at the Monroe County justice center, on a motion for summary judgment in a constitutional challenge that was filed by Bloomington two years ago.
On Thursday, special judge in the case, Kelsey Hanlon out of Owen County, issued the order canceling the hearing, and announcing her recusal from the case, which started in March 2022.
The order from Hanlon says: “Due to a recently discovered potential conflict of interests, Kelsey B. Hanlon, Special Judge, now recuses herself as Judge presiding over this matter.”
Bloomington initially filed one lawsuit for each of the seven annexation areas, but they were consolidated into a single case. Bloomington eventually waived the constitutional claim for two of the areas, in order to get the judicial review of just those two areas moving forward. The trial for those two areas is set to start on April 29, 2024.
In those two areas, remonstrators had collected enough signatures to force judicial review, but not to stop the annexation outright. The remonstrators in the other five areas managed to collect enough signatures to stop Bloomington’s effort without any kind of further judicial review.
The constitutional question concerns a 2019 law, enacted by the state legislature, which voided many of the annexation waivers that Bloomington was relying on for a successful annexation effort. The waivers were supposed to ensure that landowners with such waivers attached to their property would not have their signatures counted for any remonstration against annexation.
More than two dozen people showed up for Thursday’s 11 a.m. hearing, including remonstrators and at least three news outlets, counting The B Square. By five minutes past the appointed hour, it seemed apparent that something was amiss, because neither the judge nor attorneys for either side had arrived.
Around 11:20 a.m. the clerk of the courtroom announced to the audience that the hearing had been canceled and would be rescheduled.
Attorneys knew not to arrive because they had been notified of the hearing’s cancellation and the judge’s possible recusal in an email message that was sent by Hanlon earlier that morning.
In the email message, Hanlon wrote: “Due to a recent change in my husband’s employment, I may have developed an unwaivable conflict of interest.”
The message continues, “I plan to discuss this with our ethics attorney and I will be circling back as soon as possible.”
Hanlon’s husband is an attorney, Justin Roddye, who recently moved from Monroe County’s public defender’s office to Monroe County’s legal department. That’s the department headed up by David Shilling, where Jeff Cockerill and Molly Turner-King also work. It’s the office that provides legal support for the various other departments of county government, including the auditor’s office.
The potential conflict for Hanlon likely stems from the fact that the named defendant in the case is Catherine Smith, in her then-capacity as Monroe County auditor. Smith left the position on Jan. 20, because she was selected by a Democratic Party caucus to fill the vacant county treasurer’s position.
It’s the county auditor who is responsible for certifying the remonstrator signatures in a municipal annexation process. Because it was the auditor who applied the 2019 law to signatures—counting many of them that the city felt should not have been part of the certified tally—the auditor is the named defendant in the case.
Reached by phone, Monroe County’s personnel administrator, Elizabeth Sensenstein confirmed to The B Square that Roddye started work in the county’s public defender’s office in mid-July of 2017 and transferred to the legal department in the first part of December 2023.
The next step for this annexation lawsuit will be to find a new judge.
According to Hanlon’s Feb. 8 order, the procedure to be followed to find a new judge is covered in Trial Rule 79(D), which says the two sides have seven days to agree on a special judge and to file that with the court. If that doesn’t happen, the issue can get referred to the District Facilitator for appointment of a special judge.
Selected filings
- 2022-03-29 Complaint filed by city of Bloomington.pdf
- 2022-05-18 Answer filed by intervener to Bloomington lawsuit.pdf
- 2023-10-10 Bloomington’s Response to motion for summary judgement.pdf
- 2023-10-30 Intervenor’s reply on cross motion for summary judgement.pdf
- 2024-01-03 Motion by Bloomington for Leave to File Sur Reply.pdf
