Supervisors Seek to Regain Control Over Courthouse After Unlimited Access Bid

The Board of Supervisors, frustrated over a last-minute snag in lease negotiations with the state, voted Friday to seek repeal of a 1982 law mandating the historic Orange County Courthouse as permanent home to the state Court of Appeal.

Supervisors acted in response to state demands for access to the 84-year-old building’s historic courtroom for as many as 30 days a month, which they contend effectively precludes county Historical Commission use of the courtroom as a museum.

The latest chapter in the longstanding struggle for control of Southern California’s oldest existing courthouse--where a $3.2-million, earthquake-safety renovation is nearing completion--pits the Historical Commission and now the supervisors against Assemblyman Richard Robinson (D-Garden Grove). Robinson won legislative approval to create the branch appellate court in 1981 on the condition that a building was available to house it.

Frontier-Style Monument

Some county officials contended that the state’s demand for unlimited access to the courtroom could be a ploy by the four appellate justices to avoid moving from their centrally located modern offices in downtown Santa Ana to the Frontier-style monument of granite and sandstone at the east end of the civic center.

But Presiding Justice John Trotter denied the contention and suggested that Friday’s move was inspired as a “last-ditch effort” by the Historical Commission “to keep us out of there.”

Supervisors--acting as the Legislative Planning Committee, which meets bimonthly--voted 4 to 0 to urge the Legislature to repeal Robinson’s 1982 bill mandating the courthouse as home to the appellate court. They also asked the state to ensure the county’s legal title to the building. Supervisor Bruce Nestande was absent.

‘Let Us Off the Hook’

“Given the fact that it appears the (appellate) court wants the entire building and . . . that it appears it is not going to be sufficient for them anyway,” said Supervisor Roger Stanton, referring to bills pending in Sacramento to add new justices, “this might be the time for us to ask the Legislature to let both of us off the hook--the state and the county.

“From what I hear, my sense is that they (the justices) are probably fairly happy with where they are.”

Jan Howard, lease negotiator for the county, said that her counterpart with the state, Bryan Bailey, told her two weeks ago that he was changing the final form of the lease document because Trotter had demanded the right to use the historic courtroom upon 24 hours’ notice every day during the month.

Howard said lease language that formerly placed a cap of five days of court use of the room was eliminated.

‘Could Not Plan for Tours’

“The way it reads now, they (the justices) could use it every day during the month. That means we could not plan for tours and exhibits of that room in case the appellate court would want to use it,” Howard said.

Bailey was not available for comment.

But an official for the state Judicial Council denied that it was demanding unlimited access to the Old West-style courtroom, and suggested the supervisors were acting precipitously in a matter best left for contract negotiators to resolve.

“There is no thought that the courtroom would be used more than five or six days a month,” said Burton Oliver, deputy director of the administrative office of the courts.

“But to put an absolute limit on the number of days did not seem to be reasonable. We’re saying, ‘Hey, let’s not get locked into something that will result in an argument.’ We’re not asking for time; we’re asking that we have that flexibility so that justice can be served,” Oliver said Friday.

“For the county to react this negatively without having explored the motivation (for the request) seems a little premature on their part to me,” Oliver said.

Historical Commission Chairman Jane Gerber, who helped push for Friday’s action of the board and was asked to consult with Robinson about changing his legislation, said she was pleased with Friday’s vote.

“I think it is in the best interest of the taxpayers of the county and the state because the court won’t have to spend another $1.5 million on improvements they already have where they are,” Gerber said. Gerber and the commission have fought to retain county control of the building as a historical museum of county politics and government.

But an angry Robinson, who said that he was “shocked” and “totally blind-sided” by Friday’s action, called it “outrageous that the Board of Supervisors would take this action without consulting me.”

‘Political Chicanery’

“It smacks to me of the political chicanery of Roger Stanton,” said Robinson.

“There has been no contact between Stanton and his office with my office for over six months on this subject. . . . If he wanted to sit down and meet with me, I’ve certainly been available.”