Budget Woes Mount For Judicial Branch
http://www.ctlawtribune.com/getarticle.aspx?ID=36167
1980s court ruling could be avenue for added funding
By THOMAS B. SCHEFFEY
Monday, January 25, 2010
For months, Judicial Branch officials have said that unexpected budget cuts will make it nearly impossible for them to operate the court system and related programs for the entire fiscal year.
Last week, they used their strongest language yet. Chief Court Administrator Barbara Quinn told lawmakers that “we will simply run out of money and stop paying our bills sometime in the spring” unless the Judicial Branch can abandon tasks it is now required by law to perform.
Quinn told the legislative Judiciary Committee that initiatives such as moving 16-year-olds from the adult to juvenile court system and creating residential treatment facilities for sex offenders are in direct conflict with budget cuts.
Quinn asked for money to restore imperiled programs, and again noted that three leased courthouses – in Bristol, Norwalk and Willimantic – are already slated for closure this year, as are six of the state’s 16 courthouse law libraries.
Additionally, Quinn said the Judicial Branch has curtailed a February class for training new judicial marshals to fill vacancies. The 4,000-person Judicial Branch has lost 400 employees through early retirement and attrition since a hiring freeze was imposed in June 2008.
After Quinn’s presentation, Sen. Andrew McDonald said her testimony was “eye-popping” and some of the most alarming he has heard as a co-chairman of the committee, which covers court-related subjects. Rep. Michael Lawlor, the other co-chair, also expressed alarm at the severity of the situation.
State Treasury Access?
In her testimony, Quinn said that the Judicial Branch has peacefully worked out financial issues with the executive and legislative branches “since at least the mid-1980s.”
That was a reference to a 1983 case, when the Connecticut Supreme Court was challenged to decide whether it had an independent right to get money from the state treasury to discharge its constitutional duties of dispensing justice.
Theodore Koskoff, then-president of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, tapped appellate attorney Wesley W. Horton to mount a challenge on behalf of civil clients who were facing long delays in getting trials, exacerbated by a perceived shortage of judges.
In that case, Mary D. Pellegrino et al. v. William O’Neill, a three-judge majority held that the courts could not order the other branches to appoint or fund more judges. However Justice David M. Shea, in the majority opinion, made a telling point. “The constitutional obligations to provide justice without undue delay and to afford due process of law must be taken to empower the courts charged with that responsibility to have access to the state treasury in an emergency for any funds reasonably necessary for that purpose.”
Then-Associate Justice Ellen Ash Peters, in a dissent, saw the Pellegrino demand for constitutionally adequate courts as analogous to the argument that all Connecticut students should have constitutionally adequate schools. The state Supreme Court had upheld that right in the landmark 1977 case of Horton v. Meskill.
Last week in her testimony, Quinn said that the Judicial Branch was “not at that point right now” where it cannot fulfill its constitutional mandate. But others suggested that moment might not be too far off.
“The Pellegrino case is a very important case for the legislature to read and for the judiciary to read,” said Horton, “because it says a lot about the power of the courts in a crisis situation.”
Scrimp And Cut
At the root of the problem was a decision by Gov. M. Jodi Rell to trim an additional $13 million from the Judicial Branch budget last fall. At the time, state lawmakers were meeting in a special session in an attempt to address the state’s budget deficit.
Some Democrats tried to restore the funding, which came from the Judicial Branch’s “other expenses” budget line, but they were unsuccessful. Last week, Quinn once again called the budget cuts “extraordinary, unprecedented and unworkable.” Contrary to what one might expect, the “other expenses” or “OE” budget, includes everyday operating expenses. The $13 million cut from the OE budget left the total at $63 million, which was less than the Judicial Branch’s expenses for 2005, said Quinn.
By closing courthouses, extending hiring freezes, and cutting funds slated for outside organizations, the Judicial Branch has cut expenses by about $5 million so far.
Savings were achieved by not giving the Connecticut Bar Foundation $1.5 million it was slated to receive, of which $500,000 was for legal services to the poor. Quinn noted that legal services agencies are benefitting from new court fees designed to raise $8 million in new funding for legal services.
A non-profit group, Children in Placement, was slated to get $350,000 this fiscal year, but that has been cut to $150,000. Similarly, a program to aid female prostitutes, known as the Paul and Lisa Program, was budgeted for $128,000 but will receive only $33,000.
Judicial Branch officials said about $7 million from other budget lines will be shifted to cover much of the rest of the $13 million. However, even after these accounting movers, the officials said they are $1.2 million short of what is needed.
When asked how much input the Judicial Branch had in the process of deciding which budget areas would be cut, Quinn said the communications with Rell’s office and the Office of Management and Budget were not good. “I would say we have communication largely after the fact,” she said.
Quinn was joined at the Judiciary Committee hearing by Thomas Siconolfi, the Judicial Branch director of administrative services, who has computed the total Judicial Branch budget cuts for this year and last about $47 million.
“The exchange of information that we would like isn’t occurring,” he said. “We clearly would want something different than what we have today.”
Copyright 2010, ALM Properties, Inc.
Join our Facebook Cause. Fight the Lies.