U.S. Judges Protest Cuts in Security Guard Forces

Los Angeles federal judges and court officials Wednesday protested sharp cuts in staff and court services mandated by Congress--including a 36% reduction in security guards at the U.S. Courthouse scheduled to start next week.

Of more than 50 specific budget cutbacks immediately affecting the federal courts in Los Angeles and elsewhere, the curtailment of court security personnel caused special alarm because of current terrorist threats by Libya.

“I am very concerned about cuts in this vital area particularly at this time, “ said U.S. District Judge James M. Ideman, head of the security committee for the federal courts in Los Angeles.

“It’s an ill-considered decision that should be rethought,” he said. “I’m going to do whatever we can to get the present security levels restored.”

According to Chief U.S. Marshal Samuel Cicchino, the security cuts mandated by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act last year to force a balanced U.S. budget included eight of the 22 privately contracted security guards at the U.S. Courthouse and 18 employees of the U.S. Marshal’s Service hired on a temporary basis. Security guards at the courthouse said that even those not affected by the immediate cuts are looking for other jobs because they expect further reductions.

“Sometimes I wonder about the priorities, especially with (Libyan Col. Moammar) Kadafi shooting his mouth off,” one security guard said.

Parking Payments

One of the budget cuts announced by judges Tuesday was that the government would no longer pay the $5 parking fees for federal jurors in Los Angeles, but Chief U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real managed Wednesday to have that decision partially reversed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Real appealed directly to James E. Macklin Jr., deputy director of the administrative office, at a judicial conference in Monterey and was granted an exception for jurors already sitting on criminal and civil cases in Los Angeles when the cutback was announced.

Future federal jurors will have to pay for their own parking, however, unless some available free federal parking can be found for them, court officials said.

While most witnesses in federal cases in Los Angeles are provided with free validated parking and the judges themselves park free, there is a shortage of available parking nearby. Officials noted that most federal courthouse employees pay for their own parking and doubted that there would be any extra free space for jurors.

The cutbacks decided in Washington for the nation’s federal courts will remain in effect until Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year. At that point, most court officials expect an even sharper reduction in judicial spending, unless the national budget deficit problem has been resolved.

“This one we can live with,” said Chief Judge James R. Browning of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. “The next will cut into the bone. Certainly, if Gramm-Rudman contemplates balancing the budget, then there will be much more serious cuts over the next 2 1/2 years. They will be tough.”

A similar assessment of the national impact was made by Dewey Heising, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. He said that a total of $40 million will be cut from the judiciary’s budget for the next six months, 4.3% of the overall court budget, but stressed that greater reductions are likely.

The first round of Gramm-Rudman cuts included what amounted to a general hiring freeze, dismissal of temporary workers throughout the federal courts, a 10% cut in pay for court-appointed lawyers and investigators, restrictions on judges’ travel and furniture allowances, and postponement of raises for court personnel.

U.S. District Judge Laughlin E. Waters, chairman of the space committee in the U.S. Courthouse, said one of his particular concerns is that the restrictions on spending make it difficult to provide for any office space in the courthouse for the next two federal judges scheduled to be named in Los Angeles.

‘Washing Their Hands’

“It’s a sad commentary on the legislative process,” Waters said, denouncing the congressional act. “What we have here is these guys in Congress symbolically washing their hands of any responsibility for addressing the problem in a responsible fashion. The budget for the entire federal judiciary is less than one-tenth of 1% of the federal budget,” Waters said.

“They wouldn’t be close to wiping out the deficit if they did away with the judicial branch of government altogether.”

U.S. Atty. Robert C. Bonner, one of the few officials expressing any optimism that the situation might improve after Sept. 30, said the immediate impact of the cuts is also being noticed by federal prosecutors throughout the country.

“The Gramm-Rudman Act has impacted our ability to pursue federal prosecutions,” he said. “At the moment, it’s the equivalent of a hiring freeze for us. We have four openings for assistant U.S. attorneys which cannot be filled until at least the end of September.

Look to Supreme Court

“The hope is that Gramm-Rudman will fade into oblivion,” Bonner added. “One possibility is that the U.S. Supreme Court will declare the automatic cut provisions unconstitutional. Right now, it’s marginally impeding our ability. If it gets worse, we will have to abandon prosecuting some crime categories completely.”

Most court officials, including the security personnel affected most dramatically, said they will do their best to comply with the law, despite reduced manpower.

“I have to reanalyze our security situation,” said Chief Deputy Marshal Cicchino. “This means tighter restrictions than before at the U.S. Courthouse. With fewer personnel, I have to tighten my perimeter security. We’ll survive. . . .”