Effects of Budget Cuts on Courts

When we examine Gov. Pete Wilson’s revised state budget plan (“Revised State Budget Includes Deficit Spending,” May 21) and find it devoid of any efforts to address the funding crises facing the courts, we believe that it is the courts’ responsibility to explain the harsh impact of the current trial court funding proposals adopted by the Senate and Assembly. The consequences of these funding proposals are unthinkable.

The governor’s budget was adopted by the Senate and recently revised downward. It now imposes a $90 million cut in statewide trial court funding over the present fiscal year’s level. This would result in about a $29 million cut for Los Angeles County courts.

Additional Assembly reductions would result in a total statewide funding cut of $180 million. The Los Angeles County Superior and Municipal courts’ share is approximately $58 million.

In addition, under both the Senate and Assembly version of the budget, the state is taking filing fees, which were collected and retained by courts in the first three months of this year, thus further reducing trial court funding. The Los Angeles County Superior Court’s share of this cut is $6.5 million.

A cut of the magnitude imposed by either the Senate or Assembly would result in the courts having to lay off employees. In this fiscal year the Los Angeles Superior Court has reduced its expenditures by $11 million and the Los Angeles Municipal Court has reduced its expenditures by $4 million. Additionally, by imposing hiring freezes and other measures, both courts have absorbed inflationary increases. The courts have virtually eliminated purchases of all items save essential clerical supplies. The only area left to cut is personnel.

Today, as a result of the hiring freeze and an early separation plan, the L.A. Superior Court’s work force has already been reduced by almost 17%, and the L.A. Municipal Court’s work force is down by over 15%. Further reductions would reduce the Superior Court’s 1993-94 funding by about $35.5 million, and necessitate reduction of the court’s work force by another 1,065 employees to about 55% below the authorized number of 2,800. Further required reductions in the Los Angeles Municipal Court would cut the work force by another 100 employees to 25% below the authorized level of 1,157.

Public safety would compel the Superior Court to try criminal and juvenile cases as priority matters. With a reduction of 55% of its personnel, the court would be unable to try civil cases. Similarly, the Municipal Court is required to process felony and misdemeanor criminal cases as the highest priority, with traffic infractions, civil and small claims cases taking lesser priority.

The consequences of these reductions would be severe. The protection of the courts would be unavailable to those who need it most, such as battered women and children, who are the subject of custody disputes. Injured persons seeking recompense, consumers seeking their rights, businesses seeking to enforce contracts for payment of goods, and landlords seeking to collect rents would be turned away.

The courts in California provide a constitutionally established process for protection our citizens by resolving civil disputes. This process is at the core of a civilized society. Without access to the courts, one’s legal rights exist only on paper.

ROBERT M. MALLANO

L.A. Superior Court, Presiding Judge

AVIVA K. BOBB

L.A. Municipal Court, Presiding Judge