Controller Urges End of Probate Referee System

Calling for an end to “one of the last remnants of the political spoils system here in California,” state Controller Kathleen Connell on Wednesday proposed eliminating the state’s probate referees--the appointed officials who evaluate estates for the probate courts.

Connell pledged to press for legislation needed to abolish the current system, which she said was kept in place by her predecessors despite criticism that the appointments were used to reward cronies and for political paybacks. “There is no reason for California to be the only state in the nation relying on political appointees to appraise estates,” Connell said at a Capitol news conference.

While waiting for legislation to eliminate the appointed referees--and strip her office of the power to name them--she said she had taken steps to ensure that “it will no longer be business as usual. The probate referee system will no longer be tainted by any hint of political cronyism. I am going to require professional work by true professionals.”

Connell, a Democrat elected controller last year, said she wanted to replace the current referees with court-appointed, independent appraisers. But it is not certain how her proposal will strike lawmakers.

Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento), who heads the Assembly Judiciary Committee, said he thought that lawmakers would approach Connell’s proposal with open minds. “The notion of doing away with the controller’s political appointees would meet with a high degree of approval,” Isenberg said. “In general, it’s a terrific idea.” But he was not certain that having courts appoint appraisers to do the same job would get the same reception.

And Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) said, “Historically I’ve believed that the current system is cheapest and the most consumer-friendly, but I have an open mind, and I’m very interested in what concerns her.”

One current probate referee, who asked not to be identified, said Connell’s plan may have tough sledding. He pointed out that some referees are contributors to legislative campaigns and have the ear of their local lawmakers. “I would hope that they are going to at least listen to us,” the referee said.

And not all members of an advisory committee that Connell appointed to review the probate referees agree that it is necessary to abolish the current system.

One panelist, Superior Court Judge Robert Letteau, the presiding probate judge for Los Angeles County, said: “I think the problem . . . is putting the courts in the position of selecting people. I don’t think courts do an especially good job of that. . . . What have we accomplished by replacing one group of individuals with state scrutiny and standards with another group?”

On Wednesday, Connell said the panel did not vote on the issue of whether to eliminate the referees. But Letteau and the others did agree that it was helpful to tighten qualifications for referees under the existing system.

After studying the issue for six months, Connell said, she had concluded that there was simply no justification to continue the part-time posts and that she would use all the resources of her office to win approval for her plan.

In the interim, she said, all applicants will be required to meet new professional and educational standards, and the 134 referees now in place will have two years to show that they meet those qualifications.

She said that referees will have to demonstrate that they have the appraisal skills needed to do the job, which can bring as much as $100,000 a year in fees from the estates they evaluate.

A series of stories in The Times beginning in late 1993 pointed out that Connell’s immediate predecessor, Gray Davis, now lieutenant governor, appointed as referees a former Democratic assemblyman, the son of former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, Davis’ former chief of staff, and relatives of other politicians and contributors.

Few were experienced appraisers, and some lacked college degrees.

Davis stated that he had taken a number of steps to improve the probate system he had inherited and the quality of the referees. His appointees had done an outstanding job of serving the public, he said.

After questions about referees who had been spending much of their time out of state--one developing business interests in China and the other taking a job with the national Democratic Party and moving to Maryland, the two resigned.

Under Connell’s new qualifications, all referees will be required to live and have offices in the counties where they are appointed. They also will have to have college degrees with courses in appraisal, or an equivalent level of professional experience. And she said they can expect to be audited regularly to ensure that they are doing their own work and not “skimming” a fee while farming out appraisals to others.

Connell complained that in the past, referees could earn credits toward satisfying the controller’s continuing education requirements simply by having lunch with a judge. Now she will give credit only to courses that her office has approved in advance.

Connell did not directly criticize Davis or any other past controller.

And Davis’ chief deputy, Garry South, was skeptical but not directly critical of Connell’s proposal. “The probate referee system has earned the trust not only of judges throughout the state but also the IRS,” South said. “If the controller can come up with a replacement system that serves the public equally at a comparable price, then God bless her.”

Connell’s efforts to reform the probate system began soon after she took office. She instituted a new, tougher qualifying exam for referees up for reappointment. Of those who took the test, 44% failed and were dropped from the list of referees.