Supervisors Won’t Back Court Funds Request : Budget: Officials fear that the county might not be reimbursed for costs of state-mandated program.

County supervisors Tuesday refused to back a request for $232,000 to implement a state-mandated program aimed at reducing delays in Orange county’s overcrowded courts.

Citing mounting budget problems and fear that the state might not reimburse the county, the county administrative office reversed its previous position and advised the supervisors to turn the request down.

The move drew an immediate protest from the Orange County Bar Assn., which claims that the wait for a courtroom is now so long that it amounts to a “failure of justice.” In 1989, the bar sued various state officials seeking to force the creation of more judgeships for Orange County. That suit is still pending.

Each new judgeship costs an estimated $600,000. Superior Court Executive Officer Alan Slater is asking the county for $232,000 to pay for a variety of support services to existing judges for six months.

“Courts are not getting the funds we need,” said Bar Assn. President Andrew J. Guilford. “As a result, Orange County is way behind in the number of judges we need to effectively dispense justice in this county.

“Of all the services that a government provides, an effective judicial system is among the most important. I know that most people don’t go to court. Most people do deal with schools and freeways and parks. Maybe that’s the reason courts get short shrift.”

However, Board of Supervisors Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez warned that funding the program without a guarantee that the state would eventually pay for it would put shaky county finances at risk.

“We’re basically taking a walk out on the plank,” Vasquez said.

Supervisor Roger R. Stanton was equally skeptical.

“We don’t have a surplus of funds,” Stanton said. “It’s not going back to the old days. It’s going to get tighter and tighter and tighter.”

Though board members did not reject the request outright Tuesday, they want the matter of the $232,000 dealt with as part of the overall trial court budget for 1991-92, said Ronald S. Rubino, associate county administrative officer for management and budget.

The county’s superior and municipal courts, marshal’s office and court clerk have asked for a total of $114.3 million for the next fiscal year--a 24% increase over last year, Rubino said.

Rubino said his orders are to negotiate a budget proposal with court officials that includes funding for the delay reduction program and report back to the supervisors by March 1.

Backlogged courts have been a practical and political problem for the Superior Court for years.

In 1987, a state judicial panel that evaluates the workloads of courts recommended that Orange County have at least 72 Superior Court judgeships. It still has only 59.

As of March, 1990, 7,431 civil cases and 595 criminal cases were ready to go to trial in Orange County Superior Court but had to be put on hold because there were no available judges to try them, Slater has said.

Enter the new Trial Court Delay Reduction Act of 1990, passed by the Legislature in hopes of streamlining and speeding up court operations. Superior Court Presiding Judge Leonard Goldstein, who is in charge of implementing the new system by July, 1991, said in a letter to the county that it represents “the most significant organizational and procedural changes in the court’s history.”

Among other changes, cases are being assigned to a single judge, who will hear them from start to finish as trial judges in the federal court system do. In the past, different phases of a complex case were argued before different judges. Proponents of the new system, including Guilford, hope it will reduce paperwork, streamline procedures and cut down on “legal gamesmanship.”

Judge Goldstein has said that the change is designed “to maximize judicial performance with the limited resources we have.”

With judges becoming more involved in managing their caseloads, Goldstein said, “it should mean that cases that are going to settle will settle more quickly.”

Among other changes, four courtrooms that formerly handled civil law and motions are being freed up for use in civil and criminal trials.

Slater requested the $232,000 to hire bailiffs, security guards and clerks for those courtrooms and provide other support services between now and July, when the new fiscal year begins.

The money will also pay for security in a Santa Ana building where family law disputes, including explosive domestic violence, divorce and custody cases, are mediated, said Capt. Robert Murrow of the Orange County marshal’s office.

In a Jan. 15 letter, Marshal Michael S. Carona said he is spending $6,500 a month in overtime pay to guard those courtrooms now. He warned that running the courtrooms without appropriate security “places at risk the safety of judges, litigants and mediation staff.”

Guilford, however, said the issue points up a continuing court budget squeeze that worsens delays.

“You can’t have judges without bailiffs and clerks,” Guilford said. “If you don’t get the support personnel, you don’t get the judges.”

He said the bar association would consider whether to lobby the supervisors to change their minds.

The supervisors had been on the verge of approving the court’s request a few weeks ago when the county administrative office recommended it be funded.

But the proposal was put on hold after Supervisor Don R. Roth raised questions about the financial impact. On Tuesday, Rubino said Roth’s concerns and a bleak budget picture had caused the office to reverse its position.

“Things are getting worse,” Rubino said.

The county projects a $10.8 million shortfall by the end of the fiscal year, and the state’s deficit projection is swelling to almost $10 billion.

Rubino said that the delay reduction program will cost more than $400,000 a year and noted that the state has a history of failing to reimburse local governments for such mandated programs.

If the delay reduction program is the Superior Court’s first priority, Rubino said, the board may have to tell the court to “cut something else. We do not have the money to give you an increase.”