Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Agreement between Courts and County Council Signed
On June 17, 2008, a majority of the members of the Carroll County Council and Judges Currie and Smith signed the agreement resolving their differences regarding the 2008 budget.
Friday, June 6, 2008
What Happens When You Can't Keep Up!
Although the budgetary problems faced by Carroll County and the Carroll County Courts are not a laughing matter, a little comic relief is sometimes helpful. As I envisioned the consequences of what would happen to the cases in my court without adequate staff, this scene from an "I Love Lucy" episode, remembered from childhood, kept coming to mind. It was a pleasant surprise to discover the video clip was available on YouTube. I hope it will make you smile too! Jeff Smith
Statement by Judges in June 11, 2008 Comet
CARROLL COUNTY COURTS UPDATE
We are thankful that an understanding has been reached with the Carroll County Council that provides the funds necessary for the courts to remain fully open. The courts will have the staff required to handle the caseload which has been undiminished by the recent financial crisis. Without the funding now in place, the courts would have been unable to adequately handle the 750 criminal cases, 118 dissolutions (divorces), 89 estates and guardianships, 50 paternity case, 1600 traffic infractions, 400 small claims, 62 protective orders, and a large number of other civil cases we anticipate will be filed in 2008.
Funds have also been appropriated to meet the state and federal constitutional requirement of providing attorneys for indigent criminal defendants. Without the ability to provide counsel to those defendants, their cases cannot go forward.
The full text of the agreement can be found at:
www.carrollcountycourts.blogspot.com
After a scrivener’s error in the original agreement is corrected, we anticipate that the agreement will be signed by the County Council and Judges on June 17, 2008.
We have taken these budgetary matters seriously and consider it our duty to keep the courts open for business. It certainly has not been a laughing matter. However, having averted a crisis through the agreement with the Council, we have now included a lighter look at what our courts might have been like without adequate staffing through an I Love Lucy video on our Blog. We hope it will cause you to smile too.
Thank you to the many supporters and to those who have taken the time to become more fully informed regarding the responsibilities of the judiciary in Carroll County. We plan to continue to use the Blog to post information about the courts from time to time and will also include links that may be helpful to the citizens of Carroll County. After the agreement is signed, we may post our concluding thoughts, if appropriate.
Paid for by Donald E. Currie and Jeffrey R. Smith
We are thankful that an understanding has been reached with the Carroll County Council that provides the funds necessary for the courts to remain fully open. The courts will have the staff required to handle the caseload which has been undiminished by the recent financial crisis. Without the funding now in place, the courts would have been unable to adequately handle the 750 criminal cases, 118 dissolutions (divorces), 89 estates and guardianships, 50 paternity case, 1600 traffic infractions, 400 small claims, 62 protective orders, and a large number of other civil cases we anticipate will be filed in 2008.
Funds have also been appropriated to meet the state and federal constitutional requirement of providing attorneys for indigent criminal defendants. Without the ability to provide counsel to those defendants, their cases cannot go forward.
The full text of the agreement can be found at:
www.carrollcountycourts.blogspot.com
After a scrivener’s error in the original agreement is corrected, we anticipate that the agreement will be signed by the County Council and Judges on June 17, 2008.
We have taken these budgetary matters seriously and consider it our duty to keep the courts open for business. It certainly has not been a laughing matter. However, having averted a crisis through the agreement with the Council, we have now included a lighter look at what our courts might have been like without adequate staffing through an I Love Lucy video on our Blog. We hope it will cause you to smile too.
Thank you to the many supporters and to those who have taken the time to become more fully informed regarding the responsibilities of the judiciary in Carroll County. We plan to continue to use the Blog to post information about the courts from time to time and will also include links that may be helpful to the citizens of Carroll County. After the agreement is signed, we may post our concluding thoughts, if appropriate.
Paid for by Donald E. Currie and Jeffrey R. Smith
Agreement Between Council and Courts
AGREEMENT RE: 2008 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
The following agreement has been tentatively approved by both the Carroll County Council and the Carroll County Courts. It is anticipated that the document will be signed by all parties on June 17 when the County Council next meets.
The following agreement has been tentatively approved by both the Carroll County Council and the Carroll County Courts. It is anticipated that the document will be signed by all parties on June 17 when the County Council next meets.
Agreement made by and between the Carroll County Council (Council) and the Carroll County Courts (Courts) by Donald E. Currie, Judge of the Carroll Circuit Court, and Jeffrey R. Smith, Judge of the Carroll Superior Court.
Recitals
A. The funds to finance government services for Carroll County in 2008 are significantly reduced from prior years. This has created a financial crisis and required the Council to reduce the budgets of all county departments. As a result, the Council has been required to make many difficult decisions.
B. Under Indiana law, the Council is required to provide reasonable and necessary funds for the operation of the Courts and to provide funds for indigent counsel.
C. It is the duty of the Courts to see that criminal cases are tried. Criminal cases cannot be tried unless the defendant, if he is without funds or property to provide his own attorney, is provided an attorney at public expense.
D. The Indiana Constitution provides that courts shall be free and independent and able to function properly in administering justice. If reasonable and necessary funding is not provided by the Council, the Courts have the authority to require payment of expenses necessary for the proper functioning of the courts.
E. The funds currently appropriated for the Courts would reduce the Circuit Court staff to one person and the Superior Court staff to two persons during the second half of 2008 and reduce the funds available for indigent counsel by $50,000. The Courts contend this would make it impossible for the Courts to function properly in administering justice. The Courts have indicated their intent to file a mandate action to have the differences between the Courts and Council as to the funds necessary for the operation of the courts ultimately resolved by the Indiana Supreme Court.
F. The Council and the Courts have concluded that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Carroll County to resolve their differences through agreement and to avoid the expense and delay that would result from a mandate action.
G. The following agreement results in reductions in the general fund, allows previous reductions to remain in effect, and provides a means of avoiding additional appropriations for the cost of indigent counsel later in the year. It also allows the Courts to retain the staff essential for the operation of the Courts and provides funds for public defenders to indigent defendants as required by the United States and Indiana Constitutions.
Agreement
IT IS THEREFORE agreed as follows:
1. The Council will transfer the following probation department salaries from the General Fund to Fund #0504 (Supplemental Adult Probation Users Fees):
a. Chief Probation Officer's remaining salary as of April 4, 2008; and
b. Probation Secretary's remaining salary as of April 4, 2008
The Second Deputy Probation Officer's salary will be paid from the Supplemental Adult Probation Users Fees for all of 2008.
2. The parties acknowledge that the Supplemental Adult Probation Users Fees Fund is intended for supplemental probation services and not the replacement of other funding of probation services. In the light of the current financial crisis, the Courts will not voice an objection to the transfers. The Courts are not waiving the right to object to the payment of the Chief Probation Officer or the Probation Secretary from the Supplemental Adult Probation Users Fees in future years and will require that those positions be paid from the general fund in 2009.
3. The following reductions will be made in the Joint Court budget:
a. The total appropriation for Indigent Counsel will be reduced from 12,000 to $10,600;
b. The total appropriation for Additional Pauper Counsel will be reduced from $70,000 to $64,000; and
c. The total appropriation for Public Defender shall be reduced from $71,050 to $62,050;
for a total reduction of $16,400.
4. The Courts will make available any remaining funds in the Drug and Alcohol Fund for public defender, additional public defender, indigent counsel, or guardian ad litem expenses before seeking additional appropriations from the county general fund if the expenditure exceeds appropriations in 2008.
5. The Courts will re-evaluate the feasibility of qualifying for reimbursement of certain certified expenditures as provided by IC 33-40-7.
6. The amount originally appropriated for the Superior Court part-time court reporter will be reduced to $12,225 for 2008 from $15,225.
The Council and Courts have entered into this agreement this ____ day of May 2008.
Donald E. Currie, Judge Jeffrey R. Smith
Carroll Circuit Court Carroll Superior Court
Carroll County Council
By:
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Thank You to the Comet
Thank you for your article making the citizens of Carroll County aware of our blog.
I do think you need a better and more recent photo of Judge Currie. I will email you this one.
Jeff Smith
Important Update - New Calculations
Although we have reported in this blog the reductions already made to the court budgets (approximately $90,000), that has not been our primary focus. We want the public to understand that the additional demands made by the county council will cripple the courts. We believe our most recent assessment of the situation makes this clear.
Since posting the entry regarding contingency plans and making the video presentation below, we have made a more detailed calculation to determine the impact of the most recent cuts. Cases are scheduled several weeks and sometimes several months in advance. When the final budget was determined by the council in early May, the court calendars were already full through the month of June. The current staffing will be necessary for the scheduled cases, and it will not be possible to reduce staff of the courts prior to July 1, 2008.
To achieve the additional $20,000 reduction demanded of the Circuit Court, Judge Currie will have to do without his deputy court reporter during the final 26 weeks of 2008 and will have a bailiff for approximately 8 weeks of the 26 weeks. Allowing for vacation time already earned, the Circuit Court will only have one employee to do the work of three during the second half of 2008. There will be several weeks when he will not have a court reporter. (The current staff of the Circuit Court consists of a court reporter, deputy court reporter, and bailiff.)
To achieve the additional $20,000 reduction demanded of the Superior Court, Judge Smith will have to do without deputy court reporter, the part-time reporter, and will have to reduce the number of weeks that his court reporter will work during the second half of 2008. There will be several weeks when Judge Smith will only have one employee to do the work of three and one-half employees as well as times without a court reporter. (The current staff of the Superior Court consists of a court reporter, deputy court reporter, part-time court reporter, and a bailiff.)
With the required reductions in staffing, it will be not be possible for the court to conduct business as usual. A court reporter is necessary to have hearings in court. Sometime there will be no court reporter. The courts will be on life support for six months.
The courts, as instructed, have operated on the 2007 budget since January 2008. Due to the delay by the council in reaching a final budget, the additional cuts must be made over a six month period instead of a full year. The effect is to double the impact of the cuts. The elimination of a staff person at mid-year only reduces the annual budget by one-half of that person’s salary because the other half has already been paid to her.
Since posting the entry regarding contingency plans and making the video presentation below, we have made a more detailed calculation to determine the impact of the most recent cuts. Cases are scheduled several weeks and sometimes several months in advance. When the final budget was determined by the council in early May, the court calendars were already full through the month of June. The current staffing will be necessary for the scheduled cases, and it will not be possible to reduce staff of the courts prior to July 1, 2008.
To achieve the additional $20,000 reduction demanded of the Circuit Court, Judge Currie will have to do without his deputy court reporter during the final 26 weeks of 2008 and will have a bailiff for approximately 8 weeks of the 26 weeks. Allowing for vacation time already earned, the Circuit Court will only have one employee to do the work of three during the second half of 2008. There will be several weeks when he will not have a court reporter. (The current staff of the Circuit Court consists of a court reporter, deputy court reporter, and bailiff.)
To achieve the additional $20,000 reduction demanded of the Superior Court, Judge Smith will have to do without deputy court reporter, the part-time reporter, and will have to reduce the number of weeks that his court reporter will work during the second half of 2008. There will be several weeks when Judge Smith will only have one employee to do the work of three and one-half employees as well as times without a court reporter. (The current staff of the Superior Court consists of a court reporter, deputy court reporter, part-time court reporter, and a bailiff.)
With the required reductions in staffing, it will be not be possible for the court to conduct business as usual. A court reporter is necessary to have hearings in court. Sometime there will be no court reporter. The courts will be on life support for six months.
The courts, as instructed, have operated on the 2007 budget since January 2008. Due to the delay by the council in reaching a final budget, the additional cuts must be made over a six month period instead of a full year. The effect is to double the impact of the cuts. The elimination of a staff person at mid-year only reduces the annual budget by one-half of that person’s salary because the other half has already been paid to her.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Why the Carroll County Courts are in Crisis
Unless the judges are successful in restoring funding, the court reporting staff of each court will be cut in half. There will be times during vacations and illness when a court will have no court reporter. The court offices will be unmanned and closed during jury trials and during the bailiff’s vacation. The number of cases scheduled for hearing each week will be cut in half. This will result in delays in bringing criminal defendants to trial, resolving custody disputes, resolving small claims, and many other matters. In simpliest terms, one court reporter will not be able to do the work of two, but the caseload and work will not be reduced.
The funds for the public defender will be gone well before the end of the year. The right to representation by an attorney is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Indiana. The cases of defendants without the resources to employ their own attorney cannot be prosecuted if there is no public defender appointed. Delays resulting from the unavailability of public defenders and lack of staff may result in the dismissal of criminal cases.
Our efforts are to secure essential funds for the courts and not for personal gain. The county portion of our salary was among the first items eliminated by the county council. We do not seek the reinstatement of our salary. Our concern is for the judicial system in Carroll County and access to the courts for the citizens of the Carroll County.
Possible Contingency Plans are set out below.
The funds for the public defender will be gone well before the end of the year. The right to representation by an attorney is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Indiana. The cases of defendants without the resources to employ their own attorney cannot be prosecuted if there is no public defender appointed. Delays resulting from the unavailability of public defenders and lack of staff may result in the dismissal of criminal cases.
Our efforts are to secure essential funds for the courts and not for personal gain. The county portion of our salary was among the first items eliminated by the county council. We do not seek the reinstatement of our salary. Our concern is for the judicial system in Carroll County and access to the courts for the citizens of the Carroll County.
Possible Contingency Plans are set out below.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Is Mandate a "four-letter" Word?
"Mandate" is a a harsh and threatening word. It is unfortuante that "mandate" is the word used to describe the process through which a dispute between two separate but equal branches of the government is resolved.
Under the Indiana Constitution, the county council is required to provide the Carroll County Courts with sufficient funds to operate the courts. If the judges believe the funds are not sufficient, they may initiate an action called a "mandate." The Order of Mandate gives the county council notice of what the judges are requesting. The county council can agree to the request, and the matter is concluded. The county council can resist the request. Then, a special judge holds a trial and determines whether the request is for funds reasonable and necessary for the operation of the courts. If the special judge rules that the funds are necessary, then the Indiana Supreme Court must review and approve the decision before it becomes effective.
Given that "Mandate" is to many a four-letter word, why would we mandate funds? Not for personal gain. The county portion of our salary was among the first items eliminated from the budget. We are not asking for our salary to be reinstated. Our concern is not for ourselves but for the judicial system in Carroll County. It is our duty to assure the efficient administration of justice for the citizens of Carroll County, a duty we take seriously.
Please look at Financial Impact Upon Courts to see the financial impact upon the courts and why the courts will be unable function normally under the current budget.
Please look at Contingency Plans to see what drastic actions will required of the courts under the current budget.
Under the Indiana Constitution, the county council is required to provide the Carroll County Courts with sufficient funds to operate the courts. If the judges believe the funds are not sufficient, they may initiate an action called a "mandate." The Order of Mandate gives the county council notice of what the judges are requesting. The county council can agree to the request, and the matter is concluded. The county council can resist the request. Then, a special judge holds a trial and determines whether the request is for funds reasonable and necessary for the operation of the courts. If the special judge rules that the funds are necessary, then the Indiana Supreme Court must review and approve the decision before it becomes effective.
Given that "Mandate" is to many a four-letter word, why would we mandate funds? Not for personal gain. The county portion of our salary was among the first items eliminated from the budget. We are not asking for our salary to be reinstated. Our concern is not for ourselves but for the judicial system in Carroll County. It is our duty to assure the efficient administration of justice for the citizens of Carroll County, a duty we take seriously.
"The efficient administration of justice which is the duty of the courts, cannot be made to depend upon the discretion or whim of the county council or any other administrative or executive officer of county government." INDIANA SUPREME COURT
Please look at Financial Impact Upon Courts to see the financial impact upon the courts and why the courts will be unable function normally under the current budget.
Please look at Contingency Plans to see what drastic actions will required of the courts under the current budget.
Contingency Plans for operation under the current budget
With the last cuts in the court budgets by the County Council, each court will lose one-half (1/2) of its court reporting staff for the balance of 2008. Funds for public defenders will be exhausted by the end of September. There are two possible contingency plans.
Contingency Plan #1
Remain a full-service court and hope for the best
Continue to operate with a full staff knowing that by November the appropriated funds for the court staff will be nearly exhausted. If the Indiana Supreme Court has not approved the courts’ request for additional funds by November, both courts will close except for initial hearings in felony cases and emergency matters, perhaps sharing one part-time court reporter. When the funds for public defenders are gone, the cases of defendants entitled to a public defender will be continued to 2009, when hopefully funds will be available. The funds needed in 2009 will obviously have to include funds for those 2008 cases that were not resolved because the courts could not provide a public defender. The hope is that the mandate action will be completed before the courts have to shut down and additional funds are provided.
Contingency Plan #2
Immediately Reduce Courts Services by One-Half
1. The number of hearings scheduled will be reduced by one-half. Criminal cases will be given priority.
2. A morning will be set aside for small claims once a month and the number of cases scheduled for that morning will be capped. Small claims are currently scheduled three or four mornings per month.
3. Jury trials will be limited to no more than two a month. Criminal cases will be given priority. Defendants now know that if a resolution of their case is not reached promptly they will face a jury trial within a few weeks. If defendants believe delays may result in the dismissal of their case, the number of cases now routinely resolved without trial will become smaller.
4. Two days will be set aside without hearings at the end of each quarter for preparation of the quarterly report.
5. During the four weeks of the remaining full-time court reporter's vacation, only emergency hearings will be scheduled. The judge will attempt to schedule his vacation time to coincide with that of the court reporter.
6. One morning per month will be reserved for child support cases with a cap on the number of cases scheduled.
7. If funds for public defenders and indigent counsel are reduced, counsel will be provided in the more serious cases. Less serious cases will be delayed until funds are available. If a defendant is not brought to trial within the time required by Criminal Rule 4, the case will have to be dismissed.
8. No hearings will be set on the Friday following a Thursday night court session so that the orders from the night court can be written, signed, placed in the order book and mailed to the parties in a timely manner.
9. File a mandate action, request an expedited trial and hope for a quick resolution so the courts can resume full-time status.
Deciding which contigency plan to use will not be easy, but unless the county council reconsiders, it will have to be made quickly.
Contingency Plan #1
Remain a full-service court and hope for the best
Continue to operate with a full staff knowing that by November the appropriated funds for the court staff will be nearly exhausted. If the Indiana Supreme Court has not approved the courts’ request for additional funds by November, both courts will close except for initial hearings in felony cases and emergency matters, perhaps sharing one part-time court reporter. When the funds for public defenders are gone, the cases of defendants entitled to a public defender will be continued to 2009, when hopefully funds will be available. The funds needed in 2009 will obviously have to include funds for those 2008 cases that were not resolved because the courts could not provide a public defender. The hope is that the mandate action will be completed before the courts have to shut down and additional funds are provided.
Contingency Plan #2
Immediately Reduce Courts Services by One-Half
1. The number of hearings scheduled will be reduced by one-half. Criminal cases will be given priority.
2. A morning will be set aside for small claims once a month and the number of cases scheduled for that morning will be capped. Small claims are currently scheduled three or four mornings per month.
3. Jury trials will be limited to no more than two a month. Criminal cases will be given priority. Defendants now know that if a resolution of their case is not reached promptly they will face a jury trial within a few weeks. If defendants believe delays may result in the dismissal of their case, the number of cases now routinely resolved without trial will become smaller.
4. Two days will be set aside without hearings at the end of each quarter for preparation of the quarterly report.
5. During the four weeks of the remaining full-time court reporter's vacation, only emergency hearings will be scheduled. The judge will attempt to schedule his vacation time to coincide with that of the court reporter.
6. One morning per month will be reserved for child support cases with a cap on the number of cases scheduled.
7. If funds for public defenders and indigent counsel are reduced, counsel will be provided in the more serious cases. Less serious cases will be delayed until funds are available. If a defendant is not brought to trial within the time required by Criminal Rule 4, the case will have to be dismissed.
8. No hearings will be set on the Friday following a Thursday night court session so that the orders from the night court can be written, signed, placed in the order book and mailed to the parties in a timely manner.
9. File a mandate action, request an expedited trial and hope for a quick resolution so the courts can resume full-time status.
Deciding which contigency plan to use will not be easy, but unless the county council reconsiders, it will have to be made quickly.
Friday, May 2, 2008
What is the financial impact of the current budget upon the courts?
The judges agreed to reductions totaling approximately $90,000. The council then cut an additional $90,000 from the court budgets. The following chart illustrates the magnitude of the cuts.
The jail budget was cut 11.3% and the sheriff's budget was cut 17.7 percent. The percentage of total reduction to the Joint Court Budget, the largest of the court budgets, is nearly four times that of the Jail Budget and two and one-half times that of the Sheriff's Budget.
The impact of these cuts is magnified by county council's delay in finalizing a 2008 budget. We have been operating on the 2007 budget. Thus, all of the reductions for the 2007 budget will have to be made over an eight month period instead of a full year. For the joint court budget, that will mean $15,217 per month instead of $10,145 per month.
The jail budget was cut 11.3% and the sheriff's budget was cut 17.7 percent. The percentage of total reduction to the Joint Court Budget, the largest of the court budgets, is nearly four times that of the Jail Budget and two and one-half times that of the Sheriff's Budget.
The impact of these cuts is magnified by county council's delay in finalizing a 2008 budget. We have been operating on the 2007 budget. Thus, all of the reductions for the 2007 budget will have to be made over an eight month period instead of a full year. For the joint court budget, that will mean $15,217 per month instead of $10,145 per month.
2007 2008 Budget Comparisons
The Carroll County Courts voluntarily reduced the Joint, Circuit and Superior Court budgets that were approved in September 2007. When that budget was rejected, additional cuts were agreed to by the judges. The following chart shows the changes by the courts and by other departments. Please note that Joint Court Budget, the largest of the court budgets, has the largest reduction. The reductions of the Circuit Court and Superior Court Budgets are in line with those of the other offices in the courthouse. It is clear from the numbers that the illusion that the courts have failed to address the present budget crisis is inaccurate.
2003 2008 Budget Comparisons
After the budget approved by the Carroll County Council in September 2007 was rejected by the Department of Local Government, all departments were requested to reduce their budgets to 2003 levels. The Carroll County Courts complied. The following table compares the level of compliance by different departments:
This chart is not here to suggest that other departments have not done their share or where additional cuts should be made, but only to illustrate that the Carroll County Courts have not refused to do their part in addressing the financial crisis.
This chart is not here to suggest that other departments have not done their share or where additional cuts should be made, but only to illustrate that the Carroll County Courts have not refused to do their part in addressing the financial crisis.
Response of Carroll County Judges in the Comet
CARROLL COUNTY:
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Fiction: Judge Smith and Judge Currie are using the power of mandate just because they can.
Fact: Unless we are successful in restoring funding, the court reporting staff of each court will be cut in half. There will be times during vacations and illness when a court will have no court reporter. The court offices will be unmanned and closed during jury trials and during the bailiff’s vacation. The number of cases scheduled for hearing each week will be cut in half. This will result in delays in bringing criminal defendants to trial, resolving custody disputes, resolving small claims, and many other matters. Fact: The funds for the public defender will be gone well before the end of the year. Public defender cases cannot be prosecuted if there is no public defender. Delays resulting from the unavailability of public defenders and lack of staff may result in the dismissal of criminal cases. Fact: Our efforts are to secure essential funds for the courts and not for personal gain. The county portion of our salary was among the first items eliminated by the county council. We do not seek the reinstatement of our salary. Our concern is for the judicial system in Carroll County and access to the courts for the citizens of the County. The Indiana Supreme Court has stated: “The efficient administration of justice which is the duty of the courts, cannot be made to depend upon the discretion or whim of the county council.” Fact: Under the Indiana Constitution, the county council is required to provide the Carroll County Courts with sufficient funds to operate the courts. If the judges believe the funds are not sufficient, they may initiate an action called a "mandate." The Order of Mandate gives the county council notice of what the judges are requesting. If the Council resists the request, then, based upon evidence presented at a trial, both a special judge and the Indiana Supreme Court must find that the request for funds is reasonable and necessary for the operation of the courts. Then and only then does the mandate become effective.
Fiction: The Carroll County Courts have not done their share and are to blame for the fiscal crisis facing the county. Fact: The County Council failed to distinguish between income and investments (savings) in determining the budgets in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. The Council was slow in recognizing the problem, in determining the cause of the problem, and now in correcting the problem. Fact: At the request of the Council, both the Courts reduced their budgets to or below the 2003 budgets. To do so, $90,000 was removed from the 2008 court budgets. Some other departments are still not below their 2003 budgets. Fact: The $90,000 in dispute is an additional $90,000 that the Council arbitrarily removed from the court budgets. The Council needed to reduce the overall budget by $90,000, and the courts were an easy target. The additional $90,000 reduces the joint court budget for 2008 to 44% below the budget approved by the Council for 2007 and the Circuit and Superior Court budgets by 30% and 27.7% respectively.
Fiction: The judges of Carroll County refuse to cooperate and/or work with the Council in an attempt to help fix the county fiscal problems. Fact: The Courts initiated meetings and attempted to work with the Council in an effort to reconcile budgetary issues so that more costly alternatives might be avoided. Fact: Although informed by the judges that the courts would be unable to function without their present staff and an adequate public defender budget, the Council approved the current budget and “dared” us to file a mandate. Statements made by council members indicate they believe the judges will be successful in a mandate action.
Questions: Why would the County Council adopt a budget knowing it can be successfully contested by the judges? Why would the Council adopt a budget that cripples the courts and prevents the judges from fulfilling their requirements of office? Is it to deflect the heat away from the judges and put the courts in an awkward position?
As Judges of Carroll County, we believe that it is important that the citizens of the county receive the full and uneditorialized truth; we therefore paid for the publication of the above information with money from our own pockets.
Judge Don Currie
Judge Jeff Smith
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Fiction: Judge Smith and Judge Currie are using the power of mandate just because they can.
Fact: Unless we are successful in restoring funding, the court reporting staff of each court will be cut in half. There will be times during vacations and illness when a court will have no court reporter. The court offices will be unmanned and closed during jury trials and during the bailiff’s vacation. The number of cases scheduled for hearing each week will be cut in half. This will result in delays in bringing criminal defendants to trial, resolving custody disputes, resolving small claims, and many other matters. Fact: The funds for the public defender will be gone well before the end of the year. Public defender cases cannot be prosecuted if there is no public defender. Delays resulting from the unavailability of public defenders and lack of staff may result in the dismissal of criminal cases. Fact: Our efforts are to secure essential funds for the courts and not for personal gain. The county portion of our salary was among the first items eliminated by the county council. We do not seek the reinstatement of our salary. Our concern is for the judicial system in Carroll County and access to the courts for the citizens of the County. The Indiana Supreme Court has stated: “The efficient administration of justice which is the duty of the courts, cannot be made to depend upon the discretion or whim of the county council.” Fact: Under the Indiana Constitution, the county council is required to provide the Carroll County Courts with sufficient funds to operate the courts. If the judges believe the funds are not sufficient, they may initiate an action called a "mandate." The Order of Mandate gives the county council notice of what the judges are requesting. If the Council resists the request, then, based upon evidence presented at a trial, both a special judge and the Indiana Supreme Court must find that the request for funds is reasonable and necessary for the operation of the courts. Then and only then does the mandate become effective.
Fiction: The Carroll County Courts have not done their share and are to blame for the fiscal crisis facing the county. Fact: The County Council failed to distinguish between income and investments (savings) in determining the budgets in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. The Council was slow in recognizing the problem, in determining the cause of the problem, and now in correcting the problem. Fact: At the request of the Council, both the Courts reduced their budgets to or below the 2003 budgets. To do so, $90,000 was removed from the 2008 court budgets. Some other departments are still not below their 2003 budgets. Fact: The $90,000 in dispute is an additional $90,000 that the Council arbitrarily removed from the court budgets. The Council needed to reduce the overall budget by $90,000, and the courts were an easy target. The additional $90,000 reduces the joint court budget for 2008 to 44% below the budget approved by the Council for 2007 and the Circuit and Superior Court budgets by 30% and 27.7% respectively.
Fiction: The judges of Carroll County refuse to cooperate and/or work with the Council in an attempt to help fix the county fiscal problems. Fact: The Courts initiated meetings and attempted to work with the Council in an effort to reconcile budgetary issues so that more costly alternatives might be avoided. Fact: Although informed by the judges that the courts would be unable to function without their present staff and an adequate public defender budget, the Council approved the current budget and “dared” us to file a mandate. Statements made by council members indicate they believe the judges will be successful in a mandate action.
Questions: Why would the County Council adopt a budget knowing it can be successfully contested by the judges? Why would the Council adopt a budget that cripples the courts and prevents the judges from fulfilling their requirements of office? Is it to deflect the heat away from the judges and put the courts in an awkward position?
As Judges of Carroll County, we believe that it is important that the citizens of the county receive the full and uneditorialized truth; we therefore paid for the publication of the above information with money from our own pockets.
Judge Don Currie
Judge Jeff Smith
What information did the courts provide to the council?
Members of the Carroll County Council have expressed their surprise at the announcement by the Carroll County Judges that they will be required to file a mandate to address the failure of the Council to provide essential funding. The following statement was read to the Council prior to their final decision by Judge Smith. Judge Currie also plainly advised the Council of the impossibility of operating the courts under the proposed budgets.
The Carroll County Courts have been requested to make the following additional reductions:
Carroll Circuit Court budget $20,000
Carroll Superior Court budget $20,000
Carroll Joint Court budget $50,000
The budgets approved for the courts by the council in September for 2008 resulted in a significant reduction from prior years. Later, at the request of the Council, the judges made additional reductions to bring both court budgets and the joint court budget in line with the 2003 budget.
The Council without consulting with the judges further reduced the joint court budget by transferring payment of the probation office secretary and the chief probation officer from the joint court budget to the supplemental adult probation users fees. This was in violation of a recent court holding that supplemental adult probation users fees can only be used to supplement probation services and not to pay for services already being provided through the general fund and that appropriation from the fund must be at the request of the courts.
It should be noted that the joint court budget submitted by the judges for 2008 included funds for indigent counsel based upon prior years. There is no reason to belive the cost of indigent counsel will go down in 2008. The original budget approved for 2008 already cut those funds below what will be expended in 2008. The costs for indigent counsel providing to us by the council at the last meeting indicates that the per diem cost for indigent counsel is 17% below the state average.
The additional reductions requested can only be achieved through the elimination of a court reporter in each court. That would leave the Circuit Court with only one court reporter. During the court reporter's vacation or when the court reporter is sick, there would be no court reporter available. During jury trials, there would be no one left to keep the court offices open. A single court reporter would be in the court room twice as much as she presently is and would have twice as much office work to do with half of the time she previously had to do it. The Superior Court would have the same problem even though it has a part-time court report. There is a part-time court report in the Superior Court because the full-time court reporters cannot get all of the work done. Because of the nature of the caseload of the Superior Court, there are more court hearings and more orders to be written. The Superior Court has more than 600 criminal cases every year. The Circuit Court has less than 100 criminal cases each year. There is little if any difference in the time required in doing the clerical work for a criminal case in Circuit Court and a criminal case in Superior Court. It is remarkable that we are keeping up most of the time now.
The suggestion by the county council that a court reporter can be eliminated by sharing staff incorrectly assumes that the staff of either court has down time with nothing to do. We do share staff during extraordinary circumstances and sometimes use probation staff to keep the courts functioning.
This sharing enabled us to function without adding employees.
The non-compensatory portion of the Carroll Superior Court budget consists of items such as office supplies, printing, postage, maintenance of equipment, copy expenses, etc. These are fixed expenses that do not vary from year to year because the caseload does not vary from year to year. The non-compensatory portion of the 2008 budget is not only lower than the 2003 budget but lower than the 1992 budget. Additional reductions would impair the ability of the court to function. Elimination of the entire non-compensatory portion of the budget would reduce the total budget by less than one-half of the amount requested by the council.
Non-Compensation Portion of Superior Court Budget
1992 $10,680.00
2003 $12,200.00
2008 (82% of 1992 budget; 72% of 2003 budget) $8,760.00
The county council has determined that an additional reduction in the county general fund budget is necessary and, without apparent rhyme nor reason, has demanded that the judges of the Carroll County courts reduce their budgets by an additional $90,000. Cuts in spending should not be determined by arbitrary amounts or percentages. A 5% cut by one office or department may have more serious ramifications than a 20% cut some where else. It was difficult for the courts to make the reductions that are already in place when the court operations were already very efficient. Further reductions are impossible.
The county council has made a general demand for additional reductions without reference to any line item in the court budgets because the council members know that further reductions in any line item will effect the ability of the courts to function. When they approved the budget for 2007, the council intended to have a very conservative budget providing only for the essentials. The council is now seeking to reduce the budget approved in 2007 for the Circuit Court budget by 30%; for the Superior Court budget by 28%; and for the Joint Court budget by 44%.
The council is engaging in "magical thinking." - the ability to draw conclusions that are based on a person's desire for what reality should be, not necessarily upon what reality actually is. The council apparently believe:
There will be a significant reduction in crime during the balance of 2008;
Those who do commit crimes will all be employed and have sufficient cash reserves to employ their own attorney;
Carroll County courts will become the first in the nation to achieve the paperless office;
Domestic tranquility in Carroll County will eliminate divorce;
Carroll County citizens will resolve their own disputes and everyone will pay their bills eliminating the need for a small claims court; and
One court reporter will be able to do the job of two, preparing orders in the office while recording in the courtroom at the same time.
What is the bottom line? The funds necessary for office supplies, printing, copying, postage, maintenance, public defenders, translators, transcripts, per diem for jurors, and staffing are all determined by caseload. We, as judges do not control the number of cases filed. We can use the funds available efficiently, and because we have done so in the past, there is no room now for further reductions.
What the Indiana Supreme Court has said about Mandates
We do not read these authorities as giving courts carte blanche to mandate funds for salaries and expenses of operation. The judiciary may mandate only an amount necessary for the operation of the courts. By the same token, we must maintain the degree of integrity and independence so essential to a strong and effective judiciary. Fiscal independence goes hand-in-hand with this concept. Accordingly, a balance must be drawn so that reasonable, rather than excessive or inadequate, funds are provided for our courts. Vigo County Council v. Vigo Superior Court, Div. 1, 272 Ind. 344, 346 (Ind. 1979)
The efficient administration of justice which is the duty of the courts, cannot be made to depend upon the discretion or whim of the county council or any other administrative or executive officer of county government. . . . A court of general jurisdiction . . . . can not be directed, controlled, or impeded in its functions by any of the other departments of the government. The security of human rights and the safety of free institutions require the absolute integrity and freedom of actions of courts. Woods v. State (1954) 233 Ind. 320, 324-5n. 3, 119 N.E.2d 558.
The court or the judge thereof is better informed in that particular area than may be members of a legislative body or council who may desire from time to time to pull the purse strings too tight upon the operations of some court which falls within its disfavor. Carlson v. State ex rel. Stodola (1966) 247 Ind. 631, 638, 220 N.E.2d 532, 536.
Comment: A central purpose of courts is the resolution of disputes. The judges believe maintaining their current staff and having the ability to pay public defenders is essential to their judicial function. The county council apparently does not. The filing of a order of manadate is the method of bring the dispute between two branches of the government ultimately before the Indiana Supreme Court for a resolution. The special judge and the Supreme Court will determine whether funds in dispute are reasonable.
The efficient administration of justice which is the duty of the courts, cannot be made to depend upon the discretion or whim of the county council or any other administrative or executive officer of county government. . . . A court of general jurisdiction . . . . can not be directed, controlled, or impeded in its functions by any of the other departments of the government. The security of human rights and the safety of free institutions require the absolute integrity and freedom of actions of courts. Woods v. State (1954) 233 Ind. 320, 324-5n. 3, 119 N.E.2d 558.
The court or the judge thereof is better informed in that particular area than may be members of a legislative body or council who may desire from time to time to pull the purse strings too tight upon the operations of some court which falls within its disfavor. Carlson v. State ex rel. Stodola (1966) 247 Ind. 631, 638, 220 N.E.2d 532, 536.
Comment: The judges are better informed regarding the staffing needs of the court. No staffing studies were made by the county council. No member of the council cames to the courts to make inquiry about caseloads or court calendar. The decision to demand the removal of an additional $90,000 from the court budgets was based solely upon a need to reduce the overall budget by that amount without regard to the impact upon the courts. That is why the county council has refused to indicate the what line items should be reduced or eliminated.
Trial Rule 60.5, Procedure for Mandate of Funds
The courts, as the third branch of government, are dependent upon the legislative branch for funding. If the legislative body fails in its duty to provide adequate funding, then the court through a mandate can require the legislative body to do so. A mandate is not immediately effective. There are safeguards in place. The mandate must first be approved at a trial by a special judge. The special judges' order must then be reviewed and approved the Supreme Court before the mandate take effect. The Indiana Supreme Court has provided the procedures for a mandate action in Trial Rule 60.5. Mandate of funds:
(A) Scope of mandate Courts shall limit their requests for funds to those which are reasonably necessary for the operation of the court or court-related functions. Mandate will not lie for extravagant, arbitrary or unwarranted expenditures nor for personal expenditures ( e.g., personal telephone bills, bar association memberships, disciplinary fees).
(B) Procedure Whenever a court, except the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, desires to order either a municipality, a political subdivision of the state, or an officer of either to appropriate or to pay unappropriated funds for the operation of the court or court-related functions, such court shall issue and cause to be served upon such municipality, political subdivision or officer an order to show cause why such appropriation or payment should not be made. Such order to show cause shall be captioned "Order for Mandate of Funds". The matter shall be set for trial on the merits of such order to show cause unless the legislative body, the chief executive officer or the affected officer files a waiver in writing of such a trial and agrees to make such appropriation or payment.
Unless expressly waived by the respondent in writing within thirty (30) days after the entering of the trial judge's decree, a decree or order mandating the payment of funds for the operation of the court or court-related functions shall be automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. Promptly on expiration of such thirty (30) day period, the trial judge shall certify such decree together with either a stipulation of facts or an electronic transcription of the evidence to the Supreme Court. No motion to correct error nor notice of appeal shall be filed.
No mandate order for appropriation or payment of funds made by any court other than the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals shall be effective unless it is entered after trial as herein provided and until the order has been reviewed by the Supreme Court or such review is expressly waived as herein provided.
(A) Scope of mandate Courts shall limit their requests for funds to those which are reasonably necessary for the operation of the court or court-related functions. Mandate will not lie for extravagant, arbitrary or unwarranted expenditures nor for personal expenditures ( e.g., personal telephone bills, bar association memberships, disciplinary fees).
(B) Procedure Whenever a court, except the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, desires to order either a municipality, a political subdivision of the state, or an officer of either to appropriate or to pay unappropriated funds for the operation of the court or court-related functions, such court shall issue and cause to be served upon such municipality, political subdivision or officer an order to show cause why such appropriation or payment should not be made. Such order to show cause shall be captioned "Order for Mandate of Funds". The matter shall be set for trial on the merits of such order to show cause unless the legislative body, the chief executive officer or the affected officer files a waiver in writing of such a trial and agrees to make such appropriation or payment.
Unless expressly waived by the respondent in writing within thirty (30) days after the entering of the trial judge's decree, a decree or order mandating the payment of funds for the operation of the court or court-related functions shall be automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. Promptly on expiration of such thirty (30) day period, the trial judge shall certify such decree together with either a stipulation of facts or an electronic transcription of the evidence to the Supreme Court. No motion to correct error nor notice of appeal shall be filed.
No mandate order for appropriation or payment of funds made by any court other than the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals shall be effective unless it is entered after trial as herein provided and until the order has been reviewed by the Supreme Court or such review is expressly waived as herein provided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)