WPC3 {kkDp \_MLT-~<6m|c:Ĉ1&3-X*%p@/ai-eE @FU0q|6]*jV>Tؤ1UQh SgiE LП̍[ڶ˨\2EwZI歿Q) hM:uX|!00UcRX naL0QyYv@0eoB z@e~}ڳ٦IϮ':Sf`# fU<>q % 0(EU>w@4]qUF^ X!L1_1 1m2 0cU333V5(^58A<?k ?uA B4C 00QC B*C 00%D B7D B*E B7FES}EHK*bOPccYMYU>[_,\,\0]]^U>^|_Q}`uaaiCc6d{e]g6hIi?knno q qqsU>uUNuO5vU>ww4wU>x44yU>hz8zz7{{{{{{{{{{U>}}}}}}U>S}}} }}U>}}}U>}}U>~~~U>Y~Y~~~~~~~U>U>%ʇʇU>U>--U>kkkkU>U>U>%U>ccU>U>ߌߌߌU>U>[[[U>U>׍׍׍U>U>SSSU>U>ώώώU> U>KKU>U>ǏǏǏǏǏǏǏǏǏǏǏǏǏǏǏǏU>U>CCCCU>U>U>U>;;;;U>yyyU>U>IBM 4039-10R Print AcceleratorIBMPCL5,,,,,,0 <( 9Z &Courier Regular,X($(( 9Z &Courier Regular DUDPDLNz#( 3|x   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    5    ݀Rogers'scriticismmayhavebeentooharsh.Hecitesjustthree  occasionswhencourtsofdifferentjurisdictionshaveclassifiedthesamepublicentityinconsistently.Inthehighestprofileincident,theSecondandThirdCircuitssplitoverthestatusofthePortAuthorityofNewYorkandNewJersey,aninterstatecompactentity.CompareFeeneyv.PortAuth.Trans P HudsonCorp.,873F.2d628(2dCir.1989)(denyingEleventhAmendment H immunity),aff'donothergrounds,495U.S.299(1990),withPortAuth.Police  BenevolentAss'nv.PortAuth.,819F.2d413(3d.Cir.),cert.denied,484 H  U.S.953(1987)(findingEleventhAmendmentimmunity),abrogationnotedin  @ Hess,513U.S.at34. 00   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    6    ݀ButseePillsburyCo.,Inc.v.PortofCorpusChristiAuth.,66F.3d  103,104(5thCir.1995),cert.denied,116S.Ct.1705(1996)(viewingHess X as"alimitedholdingaddressingthestandardtobeappliedtobistateentitiesnotcreatedpursuanttostatestatute").<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  H    $XGLXX,X0XXGL    2    00ԀCompareBaxterv.VigoCountySch.Corp.,26F.3d728(7thCir.1994)  (holdingcountydepartmentstobe"persons"under1983),andMackeyv. X Stanton,586F.2d1126(7thCir.1978),cert.denied,444U.S.882(1979) P (same),withMcCrumv.ElkhartCountyDep'tofPub.Welfare,806F.Supp.203  (N.D.Ind.1992)(holdingcountydepartmentsnot"persons"under1983).Cf. P 00CountyDep'tofPub.Welfarev.Stanton,545F.Supp.239(N.D.Ind.1982) H (holdingcountydepartmenttobeagencyofstategovernment);#00#Snyderv.  Mouser,149Ind.App.334,34041,272N.E.2d627,631(1971)(discussing H  countydepartmentimmunityfromtortsuit);Watsonv.DepartmentofPub.  @ Welfare,130Ind.App.659,66263,165N.E.2d770,772(1960)(discussing    state'sinterestincountydepartments). N  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    3    00ԀAlthoughJ.A.W.assertedanumberofclaimsagainstavarietyof  defendants,mostoftheclaimsanddefendantshavebeeneitherdismissedorarenotinvolvedinthisappeal.Forafullerstatementofthecaseseetheopinionbelow,650N.E.2dat114647&n.1.TheCourtofAppealsdecidedanumberofissues.Seeid.at114546.Nevertheless,onlytheMarion P Departmentpetitionedfortransfer,anditsoughtreviewofonlythe1983issue.Nootherparty,includingJ.A.W.,challengedthisoranyotherportionofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.Infact,theremainingactivedefendantshaveaskedustolimitreviewtotheissuepresentedbytheMarionDepartment.WegrantthatrequestandsummarilyaffirmthedispositionoftheCourtofAppealsastoallmattersexcepttheamenabilityoftheMarionDepartmenttosuitunder1983.Ind.AppellateRule11(B)(3).   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    4    00ԀInrecognizingthisdistinctioninWill,theCourtdidnotreasonfrom  thehistoricalpurposesoftheCivilRightsActof1871,asithasdoneinothercasesconstruingthescopeof1983.CompareWill,491U.S.at6470, P withNgiraingasv.Sanchez,495U.S.182,18789(1990),andDistrictof  Columbiav.Carter,409U.S.418,42131(1973).Cf.UnitedStatesv.Price, P 383U.S.787,80105(1966)(construingEnforcementActof1870,16Stat.140(codifiedat18U.S.C.241)).Nevertheless,abriefexaminationof"theeventsandpassionsofthetime,"Price,383U.S.at803,doesnotcontradict H  therecognitionofthisdistinction.  ForashorttimeaftertheCivilWar,"'radical'RepublicansdominatedthegovernmentsoftheSouthernStatesand[AfricanAmericans]playedasubstantialpoliticalrole."Price,383U.S.at804.Inresponse,theKu  8  KluxKlanandotherterroristgroupslaunched"awaveofmurdersandassaults...designedtokeep[AfricanAmericans]fromthepolls"and"[t]heStates...werehelpless,despitetheresortbysomeofthemtoextrememeasuressuchasmakingitlegaltohuntdownandshootanydisguisedman."Id.󀀀In1869,   CongressapprovedtheFifteenthAmendment;ratifiedin1870,itextendedtoAfricanAmericanstherighttovote.Section1983wasenactedayearlater.ItisplausiblethatCongresssawthestategovernmentsaspotentialalliesifthefederalgovernmentsufficientlyprotectedballotaccesssothatAfricanAmericansandliberalRepublicanscouldretaincontrolofthestategovernments.ThemainimpedimenttoequalvotingrightswaslocalviolenceindiscretecommunitiesintheSouth.SeeCarter,409U.S.at42829.  p   In1983,Congresssoughttocombatthisevilwithadamagesaction.Perhapsthebeliefwasthatiflocaltaxpayerswerefinanciallyaccountablefortheabusesoflocalgovernment,theincreasedtaxesthatmightbenecessarytopaycumulativedamageawardsmightpersuadelocalcommunityleaders,particularlytaxpayinglandowners,toopposeandsuppresstheterrorism.Infact,Congressseriouslyconsideredanadditionalprovisionthatwouldhaveimposedstrictliabilityonmunicipalitiesfor"damagedonetothepersonorpropertyofitsinhabitantsbyprivatepersons'riotouslyand ` tumultuouslyassembled.'"Monell,436U.S.at664.Thisamendmentsuggests X thatCongresswaskeenlyawareofthepossibilityofinfluencingthelocalbalanceofpowerbyforcingthesociallyandeconomicallyprivilegedtointernalizethecostsofviolentwhitesupremacy.Seeid.at667n.16("'Let P" thepeopleofpropertyinthesouthernStatesunderstandthatiftheywillnotmakethehueandcryandtakethenecessarystepstoputdownlawlessviolenceinthoseStatestheirpropertywillbeholdenresponsible,andtheeffectwillbemostwholesome.'"(quotingCong.Globe,42dCong.,1stSess.at761(1871)(statementofSen.Sherman))).  Incontrast,Congressmightnothavehadstatewideliabilityinmind.TheymayhavehopedRepublicanscouldretaincontrolofstategovernmentifthedemocraticprocesswerepreserved.Furthermore,statewideliabilitymighthavebeenthoughtlesseffectivebecausecostswouldbespreadovertheentirepopulationofthestate.Individualtaxpayerswouldbelessreadilyableeventoidentify,muchlessinfluence,apublicofficialactinginanotherpartofthestate.Thus,thehistoricalrecordsuggeststhatthedistinctionbetweenstatesandmunicipalitiesmightnothavebeeninconceivable.C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    7    <00ԀTheCourtitselfbeganitsanalysisinDoylebypointingoutthatOhio  haddesignatedschooldistrictsas"politicalsubdivisions"understatelaw.429U.S.at280. 0<0#5e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$25e  0  .3  0     $XGLXX,X0XXGL    8    N00ԀThiswastheexplicitviewofthedissentersinHess,see513U.S.at  55,5962(OConner,J.,dissenting),andtheimplicitviewofthemajority,seeid.at48&n.19(opinionofCourt).   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    9    V00i0V0ԀThecountydepartmentsprovidepublicassistanceandservicesto  dependentchildren,seniors,andpersonwithdisabilities;regulatethecareandtreatmentofabused,neglected,ordependentchildrenandchildrenwithdisabilities;administerthelicensingoffosterfamilyhomesandsupervisethecareandtreatmentofchildreninfosterfamilycare;andhandle"otherwelfareactivitiesthataredelegatedtoitbythestatedepartmentofwelfare."Ind.CodeAnn.12134(a)(WestSupp.1991)(repealed1992).#V0i0# 0V0   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    14    c00ԀFormerlycodifiedatInd.CodeAnn.12134(West1982).The  StateDepartmentexercisedmoredirectcontroloversomeprograms,whilethecountydepartmentsprimarilyadministeredothers.CompareWelfareAct,pt. P III,arts.I,III,1936Ind.Actsat3444,5257(formerlycodifiedatInd.CodeAnn.chs.1215,7(West1982))(providingforprimaryadministrationofassistancetoseniorsanddependentchildrenbycountydepartments),with H id.,art.II,1936Ind.Actsat4452(formerlycodifiedatInd.CodeAnn.ch  1216(West1982))(providingforprimaryadministration,includingdisbursements,ofassistancetopersonswithvisualimpairmentsbyStateDepartment).   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    10    n00ԀSee,e.g.,Ind.CodeAnn.12122(b),2(d),(West1982)  (grantingstateboardofpublicwelfarelimitedoversightauthority)(repealed1992);id.12123(e)(WestSupp.1991)(providingforsupervisionof P countydepartmentsbystatedepartment)(repealed1992);id.12134(a)  (bindingcountydepartmentsto"rulesprescribedbythestatedepartment")(repealed1992).#0n0# 00 a  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    1    ݀In1993,thecountydepartmentsofpublicwelfare("county  departments")wererenamedcountyofficesoffamilyandchildren.See X generallyActofApril12,1993,Pub.L.No.41993,1,1993Ind.Acts1283, P 1284;ActofApril12,1993,13,Pub.L.No.51993,1993Ind.Acts1472,1481(redundantamendments).Forthepurposesofthisopinionweshallcontinuetorefertothemascountydepartments.   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    11    q00ԀSeegenerallyInd.CodeAnn.chs.12111,11.5(West1982&Supp.  1991)(providingforinvolvementofcountygovernmentsinfinancialaffairsofcountydepartments)(repealed1992).#0q0# 00 d(Z(3$ !  XGLXX,X0XXGL    0  &p d Pd(AWu$X-XXXR XLX-  1  R LR X-XMR 3+0 d d d&0 d d3+0 d d d I  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    15    ~00ԀLegislationauthorizingtheestablishmentofmunicipalcorporations  frequentlyincludesanexplicitdeclarationoftheirstatus.See,e.g.,Ind. X CodeAnn.201422(a)(West1995)(librarydistricts);Ind.CodeAnn.3681116(West1997)(fireprotectiondistricts).However,wehaveheldthat"[n]oparticularformofwordsisnecessarytoconstituteamunicipalcorporation,thoughaparticularformofwordsisgenerallyusedforsuchpurpose."Rosencranzv.CityofEvansville,194Ind.499,504,143N.E.593,  595(1924).#0~0# 00   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    12    v00ԀSee,e.g.,Ind.CodeAnn.12136(a)(WestSupp.1991)(granting  countydepartmentscapacitytolitigateinownnames)(repealed1992);id. X 12131(West1982)(providingforadministrationofcountydepartmentsbycountyboardsofpublicwelfare,notcountyexecutives)#0v0#(amended1983,1986;  repealed1992)v00.#0v0L# 00   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    16    ݀00Ind.CodeAnn.20522(1)(West1995)(schoolcorporations);id.  201422(a)(West1995)(librarydistricts);id.3671815(1)(West1997) X (localhousingauthorities);id.3681115(a)(11)(fireprotection P districts);id.369436(publictransportationcorporations);id.369  1322(a)(4)(countybuildingauthorities);id.51410(d)(WestSupp.1997) P (hospitalauthorities);id.162286(b)(1),34(a)(1)(West1997) H (hospitalcorporations);id.822311(1)(WestSupp.1997)(airport  authorities).#00# 00   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    17    00ԀInd.CodeAnn.12136(a)(West1982)(repealed1992).#00# 00   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    18    ݀00In1983,theGeneralAssemblytransferredappointmentandremoval  powertocountycommissioners.ActofApril22,1983,Pub.L.No.71983,13,1983Ind.Acts118,133.#00# 00 Y  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    21    00ԀBlack'sLawDictionary517(6thed.1990)("Intheconstructionof  laws...,the'ejusdemgenerisrule'is,thatwheregeneralwordsfollowanenumerationofpersonsorthings,bywordsofaparticularandspecificmeaning,suchgeneralwordsarenottobeconstruedintheirwidestextent,butaretobeheldasapplyingonlytopersonsorthingsofthesamegeneralkindorclassasthosespecificallymentioned."),rAZ"Arial Regular   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    22    00ԀLegislationauthorizingthecreationofmunicipalcorporationsoften  containsalistofenumeratedpowersthatincludesmanyoftheseattributesoflimitedsovereignty.See,e.g.,Ind.CodeAnn.20522(West1995)(school P corporation);id.3691322(a)(West1997)(countybuildingauthorities). E  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    19    ݀00Ind.CodeAnn.12131(West1982)(amended1983,1986;repealed  1992).#00# 00  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    23    00ԀSeesupranote12.C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT<( 9Z &Courier Regular C  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    34    ݀ 00Othermunicipalcorporationshadgreatercontrolovertheirown  employmentmattersthandidthecountydepartments.See,e.g.,Ind.CodeAnn. X 20522(7)(West1995)(schoolcorporations);id.3671810(West1997) P (localhousingauthorities);id.51410(i)(WestSupp.1997)(hospital  authorities).<( 9Z &Courier Regular U  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    24    00ԀSee,e.g.,Ind.CodeAnn.3671815(West1997)(localhousing  authorities);id.369429,33(publictransportationcorporations). &  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    20    ݀00Ind.CodeAnn.12133(West1982)(amended1983,1986;repealed  1992).#00#<( 9Z &Courier Regular r  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    25    00ԀSee,e.g.,Ind.CodeAnn.3691322(a)(5)(West1997)(county  buildingauthorities);id.162286(b)(3),34(a)(11)(hospital X corporations). G  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    35    ݀00Ind.CodeAnn.12133(West1982)(amended1983,1986;repealed  1992).#00# 00 k  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    26    00ԀSee,e.g.,Ind.CodeAnn.205231(West1995)(school  corporations);id.822314(b),15(West1982&Supp.1997)(airport X authorities). _  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    27    00ԀSee,e.g.,Ind.CodeAnn.20522(13),41,45(West1995)  (schoolcorporations);id.201438(2)to(5),310(librarydistricts). ,  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    36    ݀00Ind.CodeAnn.12137(West1982)(amended1986;repealed1992).#00# 00 q  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    28    00ԀSee,e.g.,Ind.CodeAnn.201423(West1995)(library  districts);id.367184,5(West1997&Supp.1997)(localhousing X authorities).  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    37    00Ԁ 0012133.   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    29    00ԀE.g.,Ind.CodeAnn.3681118(West1997)(fireprotection  districts).   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    30    00ԀThecountydepartmentsmaycontracttoprovidefamilypreservation  services,Ind.CodeAnn.121425.52(WestSupp.1997),mayholdliensjointlywiththestateagencyagainsttherealpropertyofassistance P beneficiaries,Ind.CodeAnn.1214163,12(West1994),andadministergiftsordevisesforthebenefitofchildrenundertheircareorsupervision,Ind.CodeAnn.12136(c),(d)(WestSupp.1991)(repealed1992). 5  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    31    400ԀTheboardswerebrieflyreconstitutedascountywelfareadvisory  boardswhichperformedverylimitedresearchandreportingfunctions,1986Amends.,55,1986Ind.Actsat44445(addingInd.Codech.12124),untiltheywerealtogetherabolished,seeActofMay2,1989,Pub.L.No.1461989,  1,1989Ind.Acts1340,1340(repealingch.12124). u  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    32    T00ԀSee1986Amends.,11,1986Ind.Actsat415(amendingInd.Code  12133)(transferringappointmentofdirectorsofcountydepartmentsfromcountyboardstoStateDepartment). d  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    33    s00ԀSee1986Amends.,35,1986Ind.Actsat42931(amendingInd.Code  121112)(transferringbudgetaryfunctionsofcountyboardstocountydepartments).  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    38    00Ԁ 0012133,7.   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    39     00Ԁ#0 0#00StatePersonnelAct,ch.139,2,1941Ind.Acts387,388(current  versionatInd.CodeAnn.41523.8(1)(WestSupp.1997)).#00# 00   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    40    ݀0012133,7;seeStatev.King,413N.E.2d1016(Ind.Ct.App.  1980);IndianaPersonnelBdv.Galloway168Ind.App238,342N.E.2d903(Ind. X Ct.App.1976);1937Op.AttyGen.129,131.#00# 00<( 9Z &Courier Regular(O Z 6Times New Roman Regular E  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    41    00ԀInd.CodeAnn.12138(West1982)(amended1983,1986;repealed  1992).#00# 00<( 9Z &Courier Regular *  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    42    00Ԁ1986Amends.,11,1986Ind.Actsat415(amending12133).#00# 00<( 9Z &Courier Regular *  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    43    00Ԁ1986Amends.,14,1986Ind.Actsat420(amending12137).#00# 00<( 9Z &Courier Regular .  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    44    00Ԁ1986Amends.,2,1986Ind.Actsat40506(amending510.371).#00# 00 -  $XGLXX,X0XXGL    45    00Ԁ1986Amends.,15,1986Ind.Actsat42021(amending12138).#00# 00<( 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier RegularH&<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    13    600ԀThelegislaturehasactedonthetopicofcountydepartmentsthree  timesinrecentyears.SeeActofMar.12,1986,Pub.L.No.161986,1986 X Ind.Acts403[hereinafter1986Amends.];ActofMay12,1991,Pub.L.No.91991,1991Ind.Acts905[hereinafter1991Amends.];ActofFeb.14,1992,Pub.L.No.21992,1992Ind.Acts177[hereinafter1992Amends.].Wemaydispensewiththe1991and1992amendmentseasily.Bothstatuteshadsavingsclauses,providingthatanyrightsofliabilitiesaccrued,violationscommitted,orproceedingscommencedbeforetheireffectivedateswerenotaffectedandshouldbeenforcedunderpriorlawasiftherevisionshadnotbeenenacted.1991Amends.135,1991Ind.Actsat1042;1992Amends.,905(b),1992Ind.Actsat1272.Becausealltherelevanteventsinthiscaseoccurredbeforetheseamendmentstookeffect,theenactmentsbytheirowncommandmustbetreatedfortoday'spurposesasthoughtheyneveroccurred.Thecentrallegislativeeventisthusthe1986enactment.<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    46    00ԀForinstance,Congress,appropriated$1.4billioninfiscalyear1990  tosupportfostercareandadoptionassistanceservicesaroundthecountry.SeeDepartmentofHealth&HumanServicesAppropriationsActof1990,Pub.L. P No.101166,tit.II,103Stat.1166,1175.Similarly,duringthe198586fiscalyear,theIndianalegislatureappropriated$29milliontoreimbursecountiesforpublicwelfareemploymentcosts.SeeActofApril19,1985,Pub. H L.No.3721985,2,1985Ind.Acts2503,2549[hereinafter1985Approps.].Inshort,thestateandfederalcontributiontoacountydepartment'sbudgethaslikelybeensubstantialinanygivenfiscalyear.#00# 00   $XGLXX,X0XXGL    47    00ԀThecountiesretainedauthoritytoapproveclaimsforadministrative  expenses,Ind.CodeAnn.12139(WestSupp.1991)(repealed1992),butthe1986amendmentsclearlymadetheStateDepartmentresponsibleforpayingthesecosts.Inaddition,thepowerofthecountiestomakedecisionsregardingadministrativeexpenseshadbeensharplylimitedevenbefore1986.SeeMonroe P Council,402N.E.2d1285(Ind.Ct.App.1980);BartholomewCouncil,400N.E.2d H 1187(Ind.Ct.App.1980).#00# 00<L 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular<L 9Z &Courier Regular !  7GLXXdXXd7 %XXGLXX,X?T!A#) xdE0xA   ATTORNEYSFORAPPELLANT h     ATTORNEYS FORAPPELLEES      `     h     STATEOFINDIANA,MARION Jon o JonPactor     h     COUNTY DEPARTMENTOFPUBLIC 7  SteveLaudigIndianapolis,Indiana  h  h  h     WELFARE,FAMILYANDSOCIAL O  Indianapolis,Indiana   `      h     SERVICESADMINISTRATION,     `     h     ELIZABETHSAMKOWSKI,RAY   `     h     MARTINANDPEGGYWEBERATTORNEYSFORAPPELLEES h       o   BRIANTOEPPANDTHEMARION    JeffreyModisett   7  COUNTYPROBATIONDEPARTMENT     AttorneyGeneralofIndiana       `     h     AndrewP.Wirick   h     JonLaramore ?  OfficeofCorporationCounsel    DeputyAttorneyGeneral W  Indianapolis,Indiana h     Indianapolis,Indiana      `     h     ATTORNEYSFORAMICUSCURIAE _  LORETTAROBERTSANDGORDONCHASTAIN Stewart&Irwin  Indianapolis,IndianaPlews&ShadleyIndianapolis,IndianaA$) xdE0xA G   OXXXXGLINTHE  SUPREMECOURTOFINDIANA   QXGLXXOXJ.A.W., `     h     ) #%    `     h     )  Appellant(PlaintiffBelow),  ) %b '    `     h     )   ` v.    h     )32S019510CV1199 &!)    `     h     )intheSupremeCourtSTATEOFINDIANA,   h     ) 2(#+ MARIONCOUNTYDEPT.OFPUBLIC    ) (J$, WELFARE,etal.   h     )32A019212CV415 )%-    `     h     )intheCourtofAppeals  Appellees(DefendantsBelow).  ) R+&/  ,j'0   A$) xdEw0xA x   APPEALFROMTHEHENDRICKSSUPERIORCOURTTheHonorableMaryLeeComer,JudgeCauseNO.32D019004CPV277  A$) xdE 0xA   SHEPARD,ChiefJustice.    InApril1990,J.A.W.commencedthisactionagainsttheCountyDepartmentofPublicWelfareofMarionCounty("MarionϜDepartment"Q0XQXGL "u0Q000  1  00XGLX0    #XGLXXXGL#),variousotherpublicentities,andseveral   Мindividuals.Heallegedthatbetween1978and1989,theMarionDepartmentfailedtoprotecthimfromtheextremesexualabusehesufferedinfostercareandaffirmativelyconspiredtosuppressinformationabouttheabuse.HecontendsthatthisbehaviorviolatedtheCivilRightsActof1871,42U.S.C.1983(1994).  TheMarionDepartmentcounteredthatitwasnotamenabletosuitunder1983becauseitwasanarmofthestate.ThetrialcourtagreedandgrantedtheDepartment'smotionforsummaryjudgment.Inaninterlocutoryproceeding,theCourtofAppealsreversed,holdingthatcountydepartmentscouldbesuedunder1983.J.A.W.v.State,650N.E.2d1142(Ind.Ct.App.1995). #)  &!-   TheMarionDepartmentpetitionedfortransfer.Becausethisquestionhasgeneratedpersistentconfusioninthecourts,0XXGL "u0000  2  00XGLX0    ׀we @ grantedthepetition.0XXGL "u0000  3  00XGLX0    ׀Wenowholdthata1986reorganization,Act   ofMar.12,1986,Pub.L.No.161986,1986Ind.Acts403,renderedthecountydepartmentsarmsofthestatefor1983purposes.Consequently,weaffirmthetrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment.  I.WhoIsImmune?       Section1983createsacivilactionagainstany"person"whoactsundercolorofstatelawtodepriveanindividualofafederalright.42U.S.C.1983.Whetheragovernmentalentityisamenabletosuitunderthatprovisiondependsonthemeaningofthe  term"person."TheU.S.SupremeCourthasheldthatfor1983purposesthattermdoesnotincludeastateoritsadministrativeagencies,Willv.MichiganDep'tofStatePolice,491U.S.58   (1989).Thetermdoesincludeastate'spoliticalsubdivisions,likecitiesandothermunicipalcorporations.Monellv.Department  @ ofSoc.Serv.,436U.S.658(1977).Becausethisdistinctionisa     matteroffederalstatutoryinterpretation,itisbindingonthis `  Court.0XXGLԜ "u0000  4  00XGLX0    כ     Indistinguishingstateagenciesfrompoliticalsubdivisions,theU.S.SupremeCourtappliesthesamemethodologyfordeterminingwhetheragovernmentalentitysharesthesovereignimmunityofits  @ parentstate.StatesandtheiragenciesaregenerallyimmunefromnonconsensualsuitinfederalcourtbecauseofeithertheEleventhAmendment,PennhurstStateSch.&Hosp.v.Halderman,465U.S.89   (1984),orimpliedlimitationsonArticleIIIofthefederalϜConstitution,SeminoleTribev.Florida,116S.Ct.1114(1996);  @ Hansv.Louisiana,134U.S.1(1890).Politicalsubdivisions,even    thoughcreatedbysomekindofstatelawcharterandgenerallyregulatedbythestate,donotsharethatimmunity.LincolnCounty   v.Luning,133U.S.529(1890);seeOwenv.CityofIndependence, 0  445U.S.622(1980).Thequestioniswhether"'thestateisthereal,substantialpartyininterest'"whentheentityissued.Pennhurst,465U.S.at101(quotingFordMotorCo.v.Departmentof 0 Treasury,323U.S.459,464(1945));accordInreAyers,123U.S. p 443,506(1887).  TheCourt'sapproachtothisquestionhasevolvedovertheyears.TheFordMotoropinionseemedtoproposeasituational   approach,suggestingthatagovernmentalentity'samenabilitytosuitdependedon"theessentialnatureandeffectoftheproceeding."323U.S.at464.Inthatcase,FordsoughtreimbursementfortaxesthattheIndianatreasurydepartmenthadunconstitutionallycollected.Sinceanyjudgmentwouldhaveoperatedagainstthestatetreasury,theCourtheldthatthestatewastherealpartyininterest,eventhoughthetreasurydepartmentwasthenormalparty.Id. 0*%0  +'2   TheBurgerCourtshiftedfromthissituationalapproachtoacategoricalone.InMt.HealthyCitySch.Dist.Bd.ofEduc.v. @ Doyle,429U.S.274(1977),itsoughttodetermine,regardlessof   thenatureofthesuit,whetheranOhioschooldistrictwasastateagencyorapoliticalsubdivision.TheCourtacknowledgedthattheschooldistrictwassubjecttosomestatecontrolandreceived"asignificantamount"offinancialsupportfromthestate.Id.󛀜at `  280.Itneverthelessconcludedthatthedistrictwas"morelikeaϜcountyorcitythanitislikeanarmoftheState."Id.In 0  weighingthedistrict'sattributes,theCourtpointedoutthatthedistrictwasdesignatedasapoliticalsubdivisionunderstatelaw,Ϝwas"butoneofmanylocalschoolboardswithintheState,"andhad"extensivepowerstoissuebondsandtolevytaxes."Id. p М(citationsomitted).  Twoyearslater,theCourtheldthataregionalplanningcommissioncreatedbyaninterstatecompactbetweenCaliforniaandNevadacouldnotassertthosestates'sovereignimmunity.Lake @" CountryEstates,Inc.v.TahoeRegionalPlanningAgency,440U.S.  $ 391(1979).TheCourtfocusedonanumberoffacts:thestatesdisclaimedanyintenttoshieldthecommissionfromsuit;thecompactlabeledtheentitya"politicalsubdivision";countiesappointedamajorityofthecommission'sadministrators;countiesalsoprovideditsfunding;thestateswerenotliableforthecommission'sfinancialobligations;itsprimaryactivity,landuseregulation,wastraditionallyalocalfunction;andthestates +'2 couldnotvetothecommission'srules.Id.at40102.Following  theconsistentthrustofthesecharacteristics,theCourtrefusedtoextendsovereignimmunitytothecommission.  Takentogether,DoyleandLakeCountryEstatessuggestthat  @ theCourtsoughttoattain,totheextenttherecordpermitted,aholisticunderstandingofagovernmentalentity'spositionandfunction.TheCourtcouldthenusethatperspectiveasabackdropformakingwhataresometimesdifficultclassifications.However,lowercourtstookthesefactandcontextsensitiveopinionsandpromptlyboiledthemdowntodisparate"tests"ofanywherefromtwotonine"factors."AlexE.Rogers,Note,ClothingState 0 GovernmentalEntitieswithSovereignImmunity:DisarrayintheEleventhAmendmentArmoftheStateDoctrine,92Colum.L.Rev. P 1243,126971(1992);seealsoHessv.PortAuth.TransHudson  Corp.,513U.S.30,59(1994)(O'Connor,J.,dissenting).Rogers  p blamed"conflictingresults"arisingfromthedisparatetestsontheSupremeCourt'sopinions,callingthem"devoidofguidancewithrespecttotherelativeweightorimportanceofeachcriterion."  $ Id.at1269.  "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  5  00XGLX0    כ `"& Л #@(   In1994,theCourtrespondedtotheconfusion.Writingforamajority,JusticeGinsburgexpoundedatsomelengthuponthemethodologyfordistinguishingadministrativefrompoliticalsubdivisions.SeeHess,513U.S.at4351.UnderHess, `  determiningthestatusofapublicentitybecameathreestepprocess.Acourtshould(1)establishapresumptionastoapublicentity'sstatus,(2)balancefivegeneral"[i]ndicatorsofimmunity,"513U.S.at44,and,iftheseindicatorspointindifferentdirections,(3)resolvethequestioninlightofthepurposesoftheEleventhAmendment.  InHess,theCourtconsideredthestatusofthePortAuthority 0 ofNewYorkandNewJersey,anentitycreatedbyinterstatecompact.Itexpresslyarticulatedarule,originallyimpliedinLakeCountryEstates,440U.S.at401,thataninterstatecompact  entityispresumptivelynotprotectedbyitsparentstates'  p sovereignimmunity.Hess,513U.S.at43.TheCourtjustified   thispresumptionbynotingthatasuitbroughtinfederalcourtagainstoneoftheseentitieswouldnotbeanaffronttotheparentstatesbecausetheyhadvoluntarilytransferredslicesofsovereigntytoaninterstateentitywhosecreationrequiredfederalapproval.Id.at4142.Thepresumptionthatinterstatecompact % * entitiesareamenabletosuitcouldbeovercomeif"goodreason"Ϝexistedtothinkthestateshadintendedtoextendsovereignimmunitytoit.Id.at4344. 0*%0  +'2   TheCourthasnotexplicitlyarticulatedapresumptionwithrespecttopurelyintrastatesubdivisions,butHessdoesprovide @ someguidance.There,theCourtreasonedinpartthatastate'scessionofpowerstoaninterstateentityinsulatedthestatefrominsultwhenafederalcourtexercisedjurisdictionovertheϜentity.  "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  6  00XGLX0    כSimilarly,astateisnotnecessarilyinsulatedifithas    intentionallycededcertainpowerstoapoliticalsubdivisionoverwhichafederalcourtlaterexercisesjurisdiction.Thekeyiswhetherthestatehasintendedtocreateaquasisovereignpoliticalsubdivision.Wethinkthemannerinwhichanentityisclassifiedunderstatelawisthebestindicatorofsuchanintent.Therefore,wewillpresumethattheclassificationofanintrastateentityforEleventhAmendmentand1983purposesisthesameasitsclassificationunderstatelaw.0 "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  7  00XGLX0     P   Afterestablishingapresumption,wemustbalanceindicatorsofimmunitytoseeiftheyconsistentlysupportorcontradictthepresumptiveimmunitystatus.Aswenotedabove,theCourt'sopinionsinDoyleandLakeCountryEstatessuggestthatthis  $ balancinginvolvesanyrelevantattributesthatcanassistacourtinmakingtheclassificationdecision.InHess,however,the #@( majorityseemedtoapplyastricterfivefactortest.Underthat % * approach,acourtshouldaskthefollowing:Ӝ  (1)whethertheentityperformsatraditionallystateorlocalfunction;  (2)whethertheentityisdesignatedasastateagencyorpoliticalsubdivisionforstatelawpurposes;  (3)whethertheentitywassubjecttostatecontrolorlocalcontrol;  (4)whetherprimaryfundingfortheentitywasprovidedbythestateor,incontrast,eitherlocalgovernmentortheentity'sownindependentrevenuegeneratingcapacity;and?  (5)whetherthestatewasliablefortheentity'sdebts,includingjudgmentsagainstit.ӜSee513U.S.at4446.Byexaminingtheseindicators,acourt  seekstodeterminewhetherthelegislatureintendedtorenderanentityimmunefromfederalsuit.  Ifthepresumptionandthebalancingofindicatorsareconsistent,theinquiryends.SeeLakeCountryEstates,440U.S. X at402.Iftheseindicators"pointindifferentdirections,"Hess, 8 М513U.S.at47,acourtmustfurtherevaluatetheentitysstatusinlightofthedualconcernsthatanimatetheEleventhAmendment:"theStatessolvencyanddignity,"id.at52.These !% considerationsmayultimatelymakethefifthindicator,stateliabilityforthepublicentity,determinative. "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  8  00XGLX0    כ $ )   Theconcernforstatesolvencyfocusesdirectlyonthreatsto '(#- thestatetreasury.Acourtmustask,"Iftheexpendituresoftheenterpriseexceedreceipts,istheStateinfactobligatedtobearandpaytheresultingindebtednessoftheenterprise?"Id.at51.   "Whentheansweris'No'bothlegallyandpracticallythentheEleventhAmendmentscoreconcernisnotimplicated."Id.  @ Presumably,whentheansweris"Yes"legallyorpracticallytheentityshouldbedeemedanarmofthestate.  Thematterofstatedignityismoredifficulttoquantify.TheCourthasobservedthatstatesretain"attributesofϜsovereignty"andareentitledtorespectas"membersofthefederation."PuertoRicoAqueduct&SewerAuth.v.Metcalf&Eddy, 0 Inc.,506U.S.139,146(1993).Immunityfromsuitisanelement p ofthatsovereignty.Id.AccordingtotheCourt,astates P dignityisthreatenedifaprivatepartyisabletosubjectastate,withoutitsconsent,tocompulsoryjudicialprocesses.In  p reAyers,123U.S.443,505(1887).Thisnotionofdignitydoes   notitselftelluswhichentitiesarestateagenciesentitledtosharethatdignity.  Nevertheless,thekeyissueunderlyingdignityseemsalsotobestateliability.InAyers,theCourtreasonedthatinorder % * fullytoaffirmstatedignity,itwouldhavetoextendsovereignimmunitytoanysuit"wherethestate,thoughnotnamedassuch,is,nevertheless,theonlyrealpartyagainstwhichaloneinfactthereliefisasked,andagainstwhichthejudgmentordecree +'2 effectivelyoperates."Id.at506.Inthecaseofinjunctive  relief,theaffrontwouldseeminglyinvolveafederalcourtinstructingastatetocontrolapublicentityinaparticularmanner.WeshallnowapplytheHessthreestepprocesstothe `  countydepartments.@  II.CountyDepartmentofPublicWelfare  0    Therehasbeensomeambiguityaboutthenatureofthecountydepartments.Theirmanyduties "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  9  00XGLX0    כmakethemfundamentalcomponents 0 oftheStateshumanservicessystem,andtheStateDepartmentofPublicWelfarehasalwayshadauthoritytooverseetheiroperation.( "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  10  00XGLX0    כAtthesametime,countydepartmentshavealways  reliedoncountygovernmentstomanagetheirmoney.  "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  11  00XGLX0    כInstill  p otherrespects,countydepartmentshavepossessedameasureof   autonomy.' "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  12  00XGLX0    כ    RelyingheavilyonMackeyandfocusingonfinancing,J.A.W.   contendsthatwhenhecommencedthisactionin1990,theMarionDepartmentwas"aseparatecountyfundedentityaddressingseparateanddistinctcountyconcerns."(AppellantsReplyBr.at4.)RepresentingtheDepartment,theAttorneyGeneraldisagrees,stressingthe1986restructuringofthecountydepartmentsinarguingthattheywerestateagencieslongbeforeJ.A.W.filedsuit.  Toresolvethiscontroversy,wemustweightherelevantlegalattributesofthecountydepartmentsaccordingtotheHess p methodology.Becausethoseattributesaremattersofstatelaw,x "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  13  00XGLX0    כ P wehavefinalauthoritytodefinetheirsubstance,asdistinguishedfromtheir1983import.Thus,wemustapplyafederalstandardofreviewtostatelaw"facts"thatwemayconclusively"find."   Ї  A.StateLawClassification @ vY  InapplyingtheHessmethodology,webeginbypresumingthat `  theclassificationofanintrastateentityunder1983isthesameasitsclassificationunderstatelaw.Indianalawdistinguishesthestateanditsagenciesfromits"politicalsubdivisions."See `  Ind.CodeAnn.361213(West1997)(localgovernmentcode);id.   𛀜34416.52(c),(f)(tortclaimsact).Politicalsubdivisionsmaybeeither"specialtaxingdistricts"or"municipalcorporations,"id.𛀜361213;seealsoid.34416.52(f)(6), P Є2(f)(5),respectively,andthelattercategoryincludesnotonlycountiesandcitiesbutalsospecializedentitieslikeschooldistricts.Ind.CodeAnn.361210(West1997).̛  1.ClassificationBefore1986.TheSocialSecurityAct,ch.  p 531,49Stat.620(1935),requiredthatstatesparticipatinginitsfederallysubsidizedprogramsestablishastateagencytoeitherdirectly"administer"theprogramsor"supervise"theiradministrationby"politicalsubdivisions."SocialSecurityAct,2,402,1002,49Stat.at620,627,645.TheIndianalegislaturechosethedecentralizedoptionintheWelfareActof1936,ch.3,1936Ind.Acts12.Thestateactcreatedthecountydepartments,id.18,1936Ind.Actsat25,andchargedthemwith (#.  "administration"ofmostoftheprograms,id.21,1936Ind.Acts 0*%0 at29. "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  14  00XGLX0    כTheactalsocreatedtheStateDepartment,id.2,1936   Ind.Actsat14,withtheauthorityto"administ[er]orsupervis[e]...allpublicwelfareactivitiesofthestate,"id.5,1936   Ind.Actsat16.Mostsignificantly,theActobligatedtheStateDepartmentto"organiz[e]andsupervis[e]"thecountydepartmentsasaservice"tocountygovernments."Id.5(f),1936Ind.Acts    at17.Itvesteddirectgovernanceofthecountydepartmentsinlocalbodies,countyboardsofpublicwelfare("countyboards").   Id.18,1936Ind.Actsat25. 0    Theinfluenceofthefederalactismanifest.Wethinkthegrantof"supervisory"powertotheStateDepartmentdemonstrateslegislativeintenttoestablishasystemofdecentralizedadministrationbypoliticalsubdivisionsanticipatedbythefederalact.BecausetherelationshipbetweentheStateDepartmentandthecountydepartmentsremainedrelativelyunchangedovertheensuingfiftyyears,weconcludethatforstatelawpurposes,thecounty   departmentswerenotadministrativearmsofthestatebeforethe @" 1986restructuring.  Principlesofagencyarerelevantinconsideringwhetherthe #@( countydepartmentswerearmsofthecountiesorseparatepoliticalsubdivisionsunderstatelaw.CountygovernmentshaveneverhadϜsignificantauthorityoverthedailyoperationsofcountydepartments.Forinstance,countygovernmentshadnoauthoritytoreviewadepartmentsapprovalofaidtoaclient.Ind.CodeAnn.12139(West1982)(repealed1992).Before1986,countygovernmentswereresponsiblefortheadministrativeexpensesofthecountydepartments,id.121113(a),includingfacilities,id.   12134(b),butnoteveninthesemattersdidcountygovernmentspossessunfettereddiscretion.SeeCountyCouncilv.Departmentof  Pub.Welfare,400N.E.2d1187(Ind.Ct.App.1980)(holdingcounty P governmentcouldnotcontrolnumberofemployeesofcountydepartment)[hereinafterBartholomewCouncil]. p   Countygovernmentshavehadaroleinmanagingthefinancialaffairsofthecountydepartments,buttheirdutieshavebeenlargelyministerial.Before1986,theexpensesofeachcountydepartmentwerepaidfromaseparatecountywelfarefund.Thatfundwascomposedofstateandfederalgrantscombinedwithrevenuefromadistinctcountypropertytax,leviedannually"inanamount...necessarytoraisetheportionofsuchfundwhichthecountyisobligedtoraise."Ind.CodeAnn.121111(West1982)(repealed1992).Eachyear,acountydepartmentandboardadoptedabudgetandrecommendedataxlevy,whichweresubmittedtothecountygovernment"forconsideration"afterapprovalbytheStateDepartment.Id.121112.Thecountycouncilhadalegalduty +'2 tomakenecessaryannualappropriationsfromthecountywelfarefund"tomaintainthewelfareservicesofthecountyandtodefraythecostoftheadministrationofsuchservices."Id.12111   3(a).Thecouncilwasalsoobligatedtolevythecountywelfaretaxinanamountnecessarytocovertheappropriations.Id.  @ CountiesalsohadacontinuingobligationtomakeadditionalappropriationsorborrowmoneytocoverdeficitsthataroseinϜtheirrespectivecountydepartments.Id.121113(b).County   governmentshadlittlerealdiscretioninthesematters.  Althoughacountygovernmenthadsomeauthoritytodeviatefromthebudgetandrecommendedtaxlevy,seeid.121114; 0 Newsomv.PennsylvaniaRailroadCo.,133Ind.App.582,181N.E.2d p 240(1962),itsdiscretionwassharplycircumscribedbythelegalobligationtosupportlocalwelfareservicesadequately,see12  1113(a)(usingmandatorylanguage);1950Op.Att'yGen.201,202;1947Op.Att'yGen.288,291.AcountyboardcouldandattherequestoftheStateDepartmentwasrequiredtoappealanydeviationstothestateboardoftaxcommissioners.Id.12111  $ 4.Indeed,weonceheldthatacountygovernmentlackedstandingtochallengeanorderofthestateboardoftaxcommissionersadjustingtheappropriationortaxlevy.Weconcludedthatacountygovernmentwasessentiallyanagentthroughwhichthepublicwelfaretaxwascollected,andlocaltaxpayers,notthecountygovernment,weretherealpartiesininterestincontroversiesinvolvingtax.CityofIndianapolisv.IndianaStateBd.ofTax +'2 Comm'rs,261Ind.635,63839,308N.E.2d868,870(1974).  Furthermore,taxeslevied"[t]omeettherequirementsofthecountywelfarefund"havenotbeenincludedinthecalculationofacounty'smaximumpermissibleleveloftaxation.Ind.CodeAnn.61.1183(b)(6)(West1989&Supp.1997).Inlightofthelimitedmeasureofcontrolthatcountygovernmentscouldexerciseoverthecountydepartments,weconcludeasamatterofstatelawthatthecountydepartmentswerenotarmsofcountygovernmentsbeforethe   1986restructuring.  Webelievethecountydepartmentswouldhavebeenmostappropriatelyclassifiedasmunicipalcorporationsbeforethe1986restructuring.UnderIndianalaw,a"municipalcorporation"isdefinedasany[county,city,town,township],schoolcorporation,librarydistrict,localhousingauthority,fireprotectiondistrict,publictransportationcorporation,localbuildingauthority,localhospitalauthorityorcorporation,localairportauthority,specialservicedistrict,orotherseparatelocalgovernmentalentity x! thatmaysueandbesued. @" wwwInd.CodeAnn.361210(West1997)(emphasisadded).Thecountydepartmentsarenotenumeratedinthislist,norhasthepublicwelfarecodeeverexpresslydeclaredthemtobemunicipalcorporations.& "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  15  00XGLX0    כNevertheless,wethinktheywouldhavequalified % * underthecatchallphrasebefore1986.  Underthecatchallphrase,alocalgovernmentalentityisamunicipalcorporationifitcanlitigateinitsownnameandifitis"separate"fromotherlocalentities.Liketheenumeratedentities,( "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  16  00XGLX0    כthecountydepartmentspossessedtherighttosueand    besued.) "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  17  00XGLX0    כMoreover,ouranalysisoftherelationshipbetweenthe `  countydepartmentsandcountygovernmentssuggeststhatthecountydepartmentswereseparatelocalgovernmentalentities.  Otherreasoningsupportsourconclusionthatthecountydepartmentswere"separate"localgovernmentalentitiesbefore1986.Wehaveheldthatindeterminingwhetheranentityisamunicipalcorporation,wemustconsiderwhetherthelegislaturehasintendedtheentitytoexerciselimitedsovereignpowers,Joint  CountyParkBd.v.Stegemoller,228Ind.103,113,88N.E.2d686,  p 690(1949)(quotingBrinkmeyerv.CityofEvansville,29Ind.187,   191(1867)).̛̜  Inadditiontoexercisingdiscretioninmakingawardsof #@( publicassistanceandcarryingoutotherhumanservicesfunctions,theadministrativestructureofthecountydepartmentssuggestedthatthelegislatureintendedthemasdistinctentities.Before1986,thecountydepartmentswereadministeredbythecountyboards.Themembersofthoseboardswereappointedandremovableforcauseonlybythelocalcircuitcourt,Ind.CodeAnn.12132(a),(d)(West1982)(repealed1986);* "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  18  00XGLX0    כtheyhadtobecounty `  residents,id.12132(a)(1);andtheycouldnotsimultaneously   holdanyelectivecountyposition,id.12132(a)(4).This 0  Courtheldthatmembersofthecountyboardswerepublicofficers,notcountyemployees.Stateexrel.Newkirkv.SullivanCircuit P Court,227Ind.633,637,88N.E.2d326,32728(1949).Eachboard 0 hadimmediateadministrativeauthorityoveritsrespectivecountyoffice. "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  19  00XGLX0    כandappointeditsdirector.9 "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  20  00XGLX0    כThisstructuresuggeststhe P legislaturewenttogreatpainstoinsulatethecountydepartmentsandthepublicwelfaresystemfromcontrolbyotherlocalgovernmentalentities.  @"   Wearealsoaidedbythedoctrineofejusdemgeneris,+ "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  21  00XGLX0    כwhich   invitesustocomparethecountydepartmentstotheenumeratedmunicipalcorporations.Theenumeratedentitiesexhibitsomecommonattributesoflimitedsovereignty.- "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  22  00XGLX0    כAsnotedabove,they `  maysueandbesuedintheirownnames.1 "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  23  00XGLX0    כTheyalsopossessat  @ leastlimitedcontractualauthority.7X  "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  24  00XGLX0    כSomemayalsoacquire,    hold,ortransferproperty=p  "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  25  00XGLX0    כandexercisethepowerofeminent `  Мdomain.?0 "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  26  00XGLX0    כFinally,municipalcorporationsalmostalwayshave   authoritytoraiserevenue,whetherbylevyingtaxes,collectingfees,issuingbonds,orborrowingfunds.A "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  27  00XGLX0    כTheoversightauthority   oflocalgovernmentalunitsisgenerallylimitedtocreatingthe P municipalcorporationsandappointingtheiradministrators.C "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  28  00XGLX0    כ   Localgovernmentalunitsalsohaveauthoritytoreviewfiscaloperationsofsomemunicipalcorporations.E0 "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  29  00XGLX0    כ     Before1986,thecountydepartmentsgenerallyfitthismodelofthemunicipalcorporation.Althoughthepublicwelfarecodecontainednobroadcharterofenumeratedpowers,itdidgranttheϜdepartmentsafewattributesoflimitedsovereignty.Theycouldsueandbesuedintheirownname.Ind.CodeAnn.12136(a)Ϝ(West1982)(repealed1992).Theyalsohadsomelimitedcontractualandpropertyrights.FH "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  30  00XGLX0    כMoreover,thefiscalpowersof P thecountydepartmentsweresimilartothoseoffireprotectiondistricts,seeInd.CodeAnn.3681118(West1997),county p buildingauthorities,seeid.3691335,andairport P Мauthorities,seeid.822323(WestSupp.1997).Finally,  Мcountydepartmentspossessed"allotherrightsandpowers...necessarytoadminister"theirhumanservicesresponsibilities,id.   12136(a)(West1982)(repealed1992).Althoughthecountydepartmentsdifferedfromothermunicipalcorporationsinthat  $ theirpowersweresubjecttorulespromulgatedbytheStateDepartment,id.12134(a),thissupervisionwasnecessaryto @ meettherequirementsoftheSocialSecurityAct.  Therefore,weholdasamatterofstatelawthatthecountydepartmentswereclassifiedasmunicipalcorporationsunderIndianalawbefore1986.InapplyingtheHessstandards,wewillpresume `  thatthecountydepartmentswouldalsohavebeendeemedmunicipalcorporationsunder1983beforetherestructuring.  2.ClassificationAfter1986.The1986amendmentstothe P publicwelfarecoderadicallychangedtheadministrativestructureofthecountydepartments.Theyabolishedthecountyboards,madetheemployeesofthecountydepartmentsfullfledgedstateemployees,alteredthemethodoffinancingoperatingexpenses,andtransferredthepropertyofthecountydepartmentsfromcountytostateownership.Thesesignificantchangespersuadeusthatthelegislatureintendedtoabandonthedecentralizedstructureithadadoptedin1936.ThelegislatureeffectivelytransformedcountydepartmentsintosubordinateunitsoftheStateDepartment.  Perhapsthemosttellingchangewastheabolitionofthecountyboards,whichhadprovidedtheonlymechanismforlocalcontrolofthecountydepartments.The1986amendmentseliminated thecountyboardsastheyhadpreviouslyexisted,see1986Amends., 0*%0 М84,1986Ind.Actsat471(repealing12132).G "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  31  00XGLX0    כThemore   significantpowersofthecountyboardsweretransferredtoeithertheStateDepartment,H "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  32  00XGLX0    כorthecountydepartments.I "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  33  00XGLX0    כ     Beforethe1986amendments,employeesofthecountydepartmentswereinsomevaguesensesharedemployeesofthestateandcounty.5X  "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  34  00XGLX0    ׀Forinstance,althougheachcountyboardappointed `  thedirectorofitsrespectivecountydepartment>h "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  35  00XGLX0    כandreviewedthe   directorshiringdecisions,B "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  36  00XGLX0    ׀theStateBoardofPublicWelfare 0  couldremovethedirectorforcauseand,ifthecountyboardrefusedtoappointasuccessor,couldappointoneitself.D "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  37  00XGLX0    כIn P addition,thecountydirectorandotheremployeesofadepartmenthadtobeselectedfromcandidatesonstatepersonnellists.J` "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  38  00XGLX0    כIn p factthedefinitionof"stateservice"intheStatePersonnelActhasalwaysincludedthedirectorandemployeesofthecountydepartments.L "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  39  00XGLX0    כThewereentitledtocompensationaccordingto   statesalaryschedules,M "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  40  00XGLX0    כandcountygovernmentscouldbeforcedto `  appropriatefundstoprovidethoselevelsofpay,CountyCouncilv.  @ MonroeCountyBd.ofPub.Welfare,402N.E.2d1285(Ind.Ct.App.    1980)[hereinafterMonroeCouncil];BartholomewCouncil,400N.E.2d `  М1187(Ind.Ct.App.1980).Furthermore,thestatehadadutytoreimbursecountiesforhalfofthecostsofretirementcontributionsforcountyofficeemployeesP "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  41  00XGLX0    כandtoprovidefringe  benefitsconsistentwithstatepersonnelrulesifcountiesfailedtodoso,StateEmployees'AppealsComm'nv.Brown,436N.E.2d321 0 (Ind.Ct.App.1982).  The1986amendmentsclarifiedthismuddledemploymentstatus.Withtheabolitionofthecountyboards,theStateDepartmentwasempoweredtoappointthedirectorsofthecountydepartmentsS "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  42  00XGLX0    ,and   toapprovethedirectorshiringdecisions.U(  "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  43  00XGLX0    כTheenactmentalso @" addedthecountydirectorsandemployeestothestateemployees  $ retirementsystemW "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  44  00XGLX0    כanddeletedlanguagerequiringpartialstate  reimbursementtocountiesforretirementcontributions.Y8 "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  45  00XGLX0    כ @   Therestructuringalsoalteredthefinancingofthecountydepartments.Before1986,thecountygovernmentsweresolelyresponsibleforadministrativecosts,seeInd.CodeAnn.𛀜12139    (West1982)(repealed1992),includingfacilities,id.1213 `  4(b).Inthe1986amendments,thelegislaturecreatedanewstructureforcoveringadministrativecosts.Itcreatedanewpublicwelfaretax,tobecollectedbythecountiesandforwardedtothestatewelfarefundonamonthlybasis.Ind.CodeAnn.ch.12111.1(WestSupp.1991)(repealed1992).TheStateDepartmentassumedresponsibilityfortheadministrativecostsofthecountydepartments,includingfacilities.12138(WestSupp.1991)(repealed1992).TitletoallthepropertyofthecountydepartmentswasalsotransferredfromthecountiestotheStateDepartment.1986Amends.,82(c),1986Ind.Actsat471.Withregardtoadministrativeexpenses,countygovernmentswerelargelyrenderedtaxcollectorsfortheStateDepartment.  ThesesignificantstructuralchangesclearlyreflectalegislativedesiretocentralizemanagementofthepublicwelfaresystemintheStateDepartment.Consequently,wewillpresumethatthecountydepartmentswerepoliticalsubdivisionsunder1983 (#. beforethe1986amendmentsandarmsofthestateafterwards.  Withthesepresumptionsestablished,wenowapplytheremainingHesscriteria. `   @ C.TheHessCriteria  `    Whilewepresumethatanentitysclassificationunder1983Ϝmirrorsitsclassificationunderstatelaw,wemusttestthatpresumptionwiththespecificinquiriesestablishedinHess.If P theseinquiriesproduceaconsistentresult,ouranalysisisatanend.Ifnot,wemustfurtheranalyzetheentityatissueinlightofthepurposesoftheEleventhAmendment.Ourultimatequestistodeterminewhetherthelegislatureintendedtoextendsovereignimmunitytotheentity.  Thefirstinquiryiswhethertheentityperformsatraditionallystateorlocalfunction.Inthiscase,wecannotsaythatprovidingpublicassistanceandothersocialservicesreadilyfitsintoeithercategory.Aswenotedabove,theSocialSecurityActallowedstatestovestadministrationofitsprogramsineitherastateagencyorpoliticalsubdivisions.Thisinquiryneitheradvancesourunderstandingofthe1983statusofthecountydepartmentsnorcastsdoubtonourpresumptions. +'2   Thesecondinquiryiswhethertheentityissubjecttostateorlocalcontrol.Asweconcludedabove,thecountydepartmentshavebeensubjecttoasignificantmeasureofstateoversightsincetheirinceptionin1936.Thatmeasureofcontrolwouldhavebeensufficient,underordinarycircumstances,tosupporttheinferenceofanagencyrelationshipbetweenthecountydepartmentsandtheStateDepartment.Wemightconclude,then,thatthecontrolinquirysupportsthepropositionthatthecountydepartmentshavealwaysbeenarmsofthestatefor1983purposes.  Butthecontrolinquirycannotproceedinavacuum.In1936,ϜourlegislaturechosetosetupasdecentralizedasystemastheSocialSecurityActpermitted.Thelegislaturecreatedthecountydepartmentsasdistinctmunicipalcorporationsandprovidedforlocalappointmentsofnotonlythedirectorsofthecountydepartmentsbutalsothemembersofthecountyboards.Thecountydepartmentsapprovedgrantsofpublicassistanceandprovidedotherclientlevelhumanservices.TheSocialSecurityActrequiredthatifstateschosetoallowpoliticalsubdivisionstoadministerprogramsinthisway,thestateshadtoretainsupervisoryauthority.Toviewthatsupervisionasnecessarilytransforminga #@( politicalsubdivisionintoanarmofthestatewouldcontradicttheSocialSecurityAct'sofferofachoicebetweencentralizedanddecentralizedadministrationandwouldrendertheAct'suseoftheterm"politicalsubdivision"somewhatsuperfluous.Weareunwillingtoadoptthatview. +'2 Ї  AlthoughtheStateDepartmentpossessedsupervisorycontroloverthecountydepartmentsbefore1986,thatcontroldoesnotimplyanextensionofsovereignimmunity,forthesupervisionwasmandatedundertheSocialSecurityAct'soptionfordecentralizedadministration.Theincreasedlevelofstatecontrolestablishedin1986,however,isarelevantindicatoroflegislativeintenttodrawthecountydepartmentsunderthestate'sumbrella.Thecontrolinquiryproducesaresultthatisfullyconsistentwithourpresumptionthatthecountydepartmentswerepoliticalsubdivisionsunder1983untilthe1986restructuringmadethemarmsofthestate.  Thethirdinquiryiswhetherfundsfortheentityareprovidedbythestateor,incontrast,byeitherlocalgovernmentortheentity'sownindependentrevenuegeneratingcapacity.Asweexplainedabove,eachcountydepartmentissupportedbyacountywelfarefund.Althoughasignificantamountofrevenueforthisfundcomesfromthecountywelfaretax,thefundalsobenefitsfromsubstantialgrantsfromthefederalandstategovernments. "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  46  00XGLX0    ׀The  $ diversityoffundingsourcesreflectstheobviousfactthatpublicwelfareactivitiesinIndianawereintendedtobecooperative #@( endeavorsamongfederal,state,andlocalgovernments.Thisinquirydoesnotsignificantlycontributetoourabilitytoclassifythecountydepartmentsasstateorlocalentities.Thefundingschemeisnotnecessarilyinconsistentwithourpresumption.Furthermore,totheextentthestateassumedanevengreaterfinancialroleinthe1986restructuring,thefundingschemesupportsthenotionthatthecountydepartmentsbecamearmsofthestateatthattime.  Finally,wemustconsiderwhetherthestatewasliableforthedebtsofthecountydepartments,especiallyjudgmentsagainstthem.Bothbeforeandafterthe1986restructuring,thecountieswerelegallyresponsibleformanyofthedebtsofthecountydepartments.Awardsofpublicassistanceandotherexpensesrelatedtoprovidinghumanservicesconstitutedclaimsagainstthecountiesbothbeforeandaftertheamendments.SeeInd.CodeAnn.  p 12139(West1982&Supp.1991)(repealed1992).Also,the1986actexpresslyprovidedthatitdidnotfreethecountiesoftheirobligationstosupportbondsandloanstheyhadissuedtoϜcovershortfallsincountydepartmentbudgets.1986Amends.,80(a),1986Ind.Actsat46970.Ontheotherhand,whileclaimsrelatingtotheadministrativeexpenseswerecountyobligationsbeforethe1986amendments,see12139,121113(a)(West '`", М1982)(repealed1992),theresponsibilityforpayingthosecosts wastransferredtothestateintherestructuring,seeid.121 0*%0 38(a)(WestSupp.1991)(repealed1992). "uXGLXXXGL0XXGL  47  00XGLX0    כ     Courtsholdingthatthecountydepartmentswerearmsofthecountiesandamenabletosuitunder1983havefocusedonthesefiscalobligationsofthecountygovernments.SeeBaxterv.Vigo  @ CountySch.Corp.,26F.3d728,73233(7thCir.1994);Mackeyv.    Stanton,586F.2d1126,113031(7thCir.1978),cert.denied,444 `  U.S.882(1979).WethinkthosecourtsgavetoolittleweighttoourpriorconstructionofIndianalawinattributingsuchsignificancetothesefiscalmatters.Claimsinvolvingthecountydepartmentswhetherforpublicassistanceorpre1986administrativecostswerepayableonlyfromthecountywelfarefund.SeeInd.CodeAnn.121113(a)(West1982&Supp.1991) p (repealed1992).Moreover,thecountiesissuedbondsorobtainedloansunderthepublicwelfarecodeonlyinordertoprovideadvancestothecountywelfarefund.Id.121113(b).  p Underlyingthesefunctionswasalegalobligationofcountiestosupportcountywelfareactivities.Astomanagementofthecountywelfarefund,weindicatedin1974thatthecountygovernmentswerevirtuallyfinancialagentsoftheautonomouscountydepartments.See󛀜CityofIndianapolisv.IndianaStateBd.ofTaxComm'rs,261 #@( Ind.635,63839,308N.E.2d868,870(1974).Whenthecounty % * departmentsweretransformedintosubordinantagenciesofthestatesin1986,thecountygovernmentsbecamewithrespecttotheseactivitiesfinancialagentsofthestate.Wesoholdasamatterofstatelaw.  Wereachasimilarresultwithrespecttojudgmentsrenderedagainstacountydepartment.Beforethe1986restructuring,thepublicwelfarecodeprovidedthatnoneoftheofficersoremployeesoftheStateDepartmentorthecountydepartmentscouldbeheldpersonallyliable,"excepttothestateofIndianaorthecounty  foranyofficialactdoneoromittedinconnectionwiththeperformanceoftheirrespectivedutiesundertheprovisionsofthisact."Ind.CodeAnn.12143(West1982)(emphasisadded)(repealed1992).Giventhiskindofindemnificationscheme,eitherthestateorthecountiescouldbeheldliableforjudgmentsrenderedagainstthecountydepartmentsbefore1986.  However,thestateandthecountieswerenotjointlyandseverallyliable.TheWelfareActestablishedthecountydepartmentsasmunicipalcorporations,but,again,theSocialSecurityActrequiredthatthestateretainsupervisoryauthority.Wethinkthisstructuraloxymoronhadimplicationsforliability.Theveryexistenceofsupervisoryauthoritymightleadonetoconcludethatthestateshouldhavebeenheldstrictlyorvicariouslyliablefortheofficialmisconductofacountydepartment.Butthatresultwouldcontradictthestatusofthe +'2 ?T"H  ?T"H  countydepartmentsasmunicipalcorporationsandwouldeliminateanyneedforthecountyindemnificationpermittedunder12143. @   The1986amendmentssweptawaythistension.TheymadethecountydepartmentssubordinatearmsoftheStateDepartmentanddeletedtheauthorityforcountyindemnification.1986Amends.,17,1986Ind.Actsat422;Ind.CodeAnn.12143(WestSupp.Ϝ1991)(repealed1992).Anymisconductbythecountydepartmentsbecamedirectlyattributabletothestate.Evenifthemisconductinvolvedadenialofpublicassistanceandwouldconsequentlybecompensatedfromthecountywelfarefundmanagementofthecountywelfarefundbecameastatefunction.Infact,wethinkjustastitletothepropertyofthecountydepartmentswastransferredtothestatein1986,sothecountywelfarefundseffectivelybecamespecialpoolsofstatemoney.Wesoholdasamatterofstatelaw.  Insummary,weconcludethatunderstatelawbeforethe1986amendments,thecountydepartmentswereresponsibleforcertaindebtsandthestatewaslikelyliableforothers.After1986,thestate,operatingthroughthecountydepartmentsandcountygovernments,becameresponsibleforallpublicwelfaredebtsandjudgmentsagainstthecountydepartments.  Thisresultisgenerallyconsistentwithourpresumptionthatthecountydepartmentswereamenabletosuitunder1983untilthe1986amendmentstookeffect.Theonlycontradictioninvolvesthoseinstancesinwhichthestatemighthavebeenliableforajudgment P-(4 beforetherestructuring.Excludingthatcontradiction,alltheHessfactorsconvergetosupportourpresumption. @   Ӝ % l III.Conclusion  @      WhenJ.A.W.suedtheMarionDepartmentin1990,itwasanentityentitledtoimmunityundertheEleventhAmendment.Thetrialcourtproperlyenteredsummaryjudgmentforthedepartment.Dickson,Selby,andBoehm,JJ.,concur.Sullivan,J.,notparticipating.