Questions raised over drug testing policy enforcement in Judge's office

A whistleblower complaint is raising concerns about fairness and accountability in Scott County government after allegations surfaced that a courthouse employee was allowed to remain on the job despite a positive drug screening for marijuana.

The employee tested positive in May 2024, according to county records. Despite clear county policy requiring follow-up testing and potential disciplinary action, no such measures were taken.

Instead, Judge Jason Mount refused to send the employee for follow-up testing. In February 2025, the employee was pulled again for a drug test — and again, Judge Mount did not send the employee. The pattern repeated in May 2025, when the employee was pulled to be tested a third time. Once more, the judge declined to send the employee.

In an email response to the Health Department, Mount wrote, “I will not be sending the person today… If I decide next week that we, as an administration, are continuing to voluntarily participate in this policy, I will let you know.”

Scott County Commissioner Adam Bomar has since filed formal complaints with the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission. He has also heard that the Lieutenant Governor’s office has been made aware of the situation.

“This is a double standard,” Bomar said. “He sends others to be tested. Are drug convicts going to be set free? Because there are people sitting in jail right now facing marijuana charges.”

The county’s drug testing procedure is handled by the Scott County Health Department, with results sent directly to the county auditor. But according to Bomar, “The county auditor just sat on it and did nothing.”

Bomar says all county employees are required to follow the rules in the employee handbook — including policies about drug testing — but elected officials like judges, commissioners, the auditor, and the clerk are technically exempt. Still, he argues, the ethical obligations should be the same. “Right is right, and wrong is wrong,” he said. “It shouldn’t be illegal, but it is. It’s black and white.” Bomar clarified that he personally believes marijuana should be legal due to its medical benefits — but the current law must still be upheld consistently.

Bomar’s complaint states that Judge Mount has presided over cases where individuals were convicted for the same type of drug use allegedly committed within his own administration — conduct that he says, “raises serious questions about [Mount’s] impartiality, credibility, and fitness to serve on the bench. This could have long-lasting effects. If we’re going to have rules, they should apply to everyone.”

In an email response to this newspaper, Judge Mount said, "Unfortunately, due to my ongoing ethical obligations as a Judge, out of respect for the legal and privacy rights of the employee, the related alleged personnel issue, and for the reason that a full understanding of the alleged issue may involve HIPAA-sensitive confidential information, I cannot offer comment at this time. I look forward to providing more relevant facts and circumstances if and when it may become appropriate to do so, in the proper forum."

In a recent County Commissioner's meeting, their attorney, Zach Stewart, clarified the factual, legal, and policy issues at play. The following are the key highlights in relation to chain of command and how issues and complaints are handled.

County government operates differently from a business. Commissioners are not CEOs and do not have authority over all departments. Many county offices are independently elected (auditor, assessor, treasurer, sheriff, prosecutor, judge, etc.). These elected officials oversee their own staff and are not under commissioner control.

Employees generally report to their elected official or department head, not to the commissioners. The commissioners only have authority over departments directly under their jurisdiction (e.g., Highway, EMS). Commissioners do not handle disciplinary actions for employees under other elected officials unless there’s a structural or serious concerns. Whistleblower complaints must follow a legal process. Not all employee grievances qualify as whistleblower cases. Complaints should start with the Human Resources (HR) department and must often be submitted in writing to trigger formal investigation. While third-party investigations are sometimes used, they are expensive ($32,000 cited in one case), and not mandatory unless the complaint meets a certain threshold. The county handbook is used as a guideline, but elected officials are not legally bound to follow it unless they voluntarily opt in. Each office may handle discipline and operations differently, depending on the officeholder’s preferences.

Commissioners Randy Julian and Greg Prince emphasized their limited power and clarified that they support department heads to manage their employees. They encouraged public understanding that not all complaints merit full-scale investigation and urged residents to “do their homework” at election time if they are dissatisfied.

The public expressed concern over the perceived lack of follow-up on prior whistleblower complaints. Stewart reiterated that many matters are discussed in executive sessions, and not all actions are made public to protect employee privacy.

At press deadline there had not been any response from the Indiana Judicial Commission nor from the Lieutenant Governor's office.