Showdown Nears on Court Budget : Judiciary: L.A. County could lose $130 million in state funding for the system if judges and the Board of Supervisors don’t settle their differences soon.

Los Angeles County’s Board of Supervisors and the more than 400 Superior and Municipal Court judges are squaring off in a last-minute showdown over the vast judicial system’s proposed annual budget of $401 million.

And if the sides don’t patch up their differences by a Nov. 15 deadline, the county could lose $130 million in state funding for the courts.

“For the county to reject (the budget) would be shooting themselves in the foot,” said Superior Court Executive Officer Frank Zolin.

The two sides hammered out an agreement in negotiations over the past two months, but when the paper work got to the supervisors last Tuesday, the budget package was suddenly questioned as too expensive by some of the board’s conservative members.

In all, the total Los Angeles County court budget will jump about $60 million, or 17.5%, to $401 million.

Under the agreement reached by negotiators for the board and the judges this year, the county is required to pay about $185 million of the total 1990-1991 budget that takes effect on July 1. The state would pay $130 million, with revenues from the county’s court operations making up the remainder of the funding.

“It’s fiscally irresponsible” said Supervisor Pete Schabarum in an interview about the proposed $401-million budget for Superior and Municipal courts.

Schabarum said he plans to vote against the agreement when it goes before the supervisors Tuesday. He charged that the budget is bloated with “added perks the judges bestowed on themselves” and “an unconscionable enhancement of operations.”

Schabarum complained about a 10-fold jump in expense accounts for supervising Superior Court judges from $1,800 a year to $18,000 and a $600 annual personal safety bonus for each of the 236 Superior Court judges. On the Municipal Court side, Schabarum objects to a $350-a-month “professional enhancement” allocation for each of the 180 judges. The “professional enhancement” money can be spent on professional publications, seminars and computers.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich on Tuesday proposed amending the agreement to require judges to institute procedures to quicken jury selection and expand night court. Supervisor Deane Dana additionally called for amendments that would expand money-saving procedures in appointing counsel for indigent defendants.

Zolin defended the increased budget as necessary to maintaining existing legal services and making needed expansions, such as a new courthouse that will open in early 1990. The money allocated for judges’ expenses, he said, are only reasonable reimbursements and not back-door pay hikes.

Judge Robert Mackey, chairman of the presiding judges of the county Municipal Courts, said, “Some of the things (the supervisors) are asking for are not appropriate for a financial agreement.”

Los Angeles County Presiding Superior Court Judge Richard P. Byrne said, “Supervisor Schabarum appears to not like the courts. He feels the courts have too much say about what they do. He would like to consider the courts . . . as another county department.”

The court system is an independent arm of the county government. And determining its budget is a unique process for the supervisors.

While the courts do not answer to the supervisors, they are dependent on the county for funding. On the other hand, under state law the county is obligated to give the courts all the funding necessary to carry out justice.

“It’s a very unusual bargaining position to be in,” said Supervisor Edmund Edelman, chairman of the county Board of Supervisors. “We can only push so far.”

Under the state’s Trial Court Funding Act, the state will pay much of the expenses of running the county courts, but it also requires the Board of Supervisors and the judges to agree on additional funding.

And state law sets a deadline--Nov. 15--for that agreement to be voted on and accepted by majorities of the Superior Court judges, the Municipal Court judges and the supervisors.

If the supervisors attempt to amend the agreement, it may be impossible for the judges to take another vote. “It’s a hell of a problem mechanically,” said Zolin.

And it is possible that if the state deadline is missed, the county would lose the $130 million in state funds, county officials said.

“I don’t want to risk losing $130 million because we can’t cross a few t’s and dot a few i’s,” said Edelman.

But as Mackey said, with no pun intended, “It’s in the board’s court now.”