Opinion ID: 853838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Allegedly misleading findings.

Text: The County Council acknowledges that factual findings should be set aside only in situations where the evidence is without conflict and points unerringly toward a conclusion opposite that reached by the special judge. Vigo County Council v. Vigo Superior Court, 272 Ind. 344, 346-47, 397 N.E.2d 969, 971 (1979). In this case, the County Council argues not that the facts as found are incorrect, but rather that they are incomplete to the point of being misleading. The County Council points to evidence, not included in the special judge's findings, showing that the standard work week for county employees in Knox County is 35 hours per week, while the standard work week in four of the seven counties used in one of the salary comparisons is 40 hours. Further, it complains the special judge's findings do not note that Knox County provides a $35,000 life insurance policy and medical insurance at no cost to employees. Thus, argues the County Council, when the total compensation package is compared, Knox County reporters are perhaps not as low as the special judge's findings indicate. This evidence is relevant, but also requires some clarification. According to the exhibit admitted into evidence upon which the County Council relies, [1] all the counties to which Knox was compared offer medical insurance to employees, and Knox is hardly alone in offering such insurance at no or very low cost to the employee. Further, all the counties to which Knox was compared provide life insurance policies in various amounts to employees. Moreover, no evidence was offered at trial as to the actual monetary value of any of the fringe insurance benefits provided by the counties being compared to Knox County. With regard to the length of the work week, the evidence shows that the work weeks for counties across Indiana vary from as low as 32 hours per week to as high as 40 hours per week. Of the seventeen counties of comparable size to Knox, seven have 35 hour work weeks for most county employees (including Knox); two specify 35-40 hour work weeks; three have 37.5 hour work weeks; four have 40 hour work weeks; and one was not recorded. Thus, the 35 hour work week applicable to Knox County employees is not unique. And while one might debate the effect of the length of the work week on the ability to attract and keep qualified staff, these statistics do not alter the fact that the gross pay for Knox County court reporters is the lowest in the surrounding counties and is the lowest among the seventeen counties of comparable size. The County Council also asserts the following finding is misleading: Judge Land replaced one court reporter within the past three years and a second reporter within the last year. (Finding 11, in part). The basis for the County Council's challenge to the finding is that it refers to the same position within the court. In other words, a reporter left within the past three years, was replaced, and then the replacement left within the past year. The County Council contends that the finding is misleading because it suggests that the two reporters who left were in two different positions. If the challenged finding is misleading, and we are unconvinced that it is, we cannot see how it in any way prejudices the County Council. The County Council advances a similar challenge to the following finding: Knox County courts do not have bailiffs, secretaries or auxiliary staff. The court reporters comprise the entire staff of the court. (Finding 14). The County Council admits the statement is true, but asserts it creates an illusion that the courts lost staff when in fact there was simply a reclassification of all personnel. Here again, if there is anything misleading about this finding, the Court finds no prejudice to the County Council in that regard. If the facts provide substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment, the action of the special judge will be affirmed. In re Mandate of Funds in Harrison Superior Court, 674 N.E.2d 555, 556 (Ind.1996). The facts found by the special judge provide substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment, and the additional evidence to which the County Council directs the Court does not convince us that an error has occurred.