Senate OKs Bailout for O.C. Courts

On the day the state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bailout for the county’s trial courts, a new dispute flared up Thursday over how much money Orange County actually intends to contribute to keep the courts open.

The state’s bailout--which Gov. Pete Wilson is expected to sign Monday--calls for an extra $8.8 million to go to the courts and for the county to kick in about $13 million.

In recent months, the county has allocated about $8 million, leaving $4.6 million that it still must provide to close a more than $20-million shortfall that the courts face.

Without more cash, judges say they will run out of money within weeks and might have to shut down the courts, triggering a constitutional crisis.

The dispute that erupted Thursday centers on the wording of the county’s pledge to come up with the $4.6 million.

County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier said in a memo that the county is committed to providing a sum “that does not exceed $4.6 million.”

But court officials said that’s not good enough.

They contend that the state’s bailout bill requires the county to give exactly $4.6 million, and that any lesser commitment from the county could jeopardize the state’s grant.

“It’s a major difference,” said Theodore E. Millard, presiding judge of the Orange County Superior Court. “They basically don’t read the [bailout bill] the same way we do. We are kind of at an impasse over this.”

Millard said that he and other judges are reluctant to approve a bailout plan that does not provide exactly $4.6 million because, by accepting the money, the courts must give up their right to sue the county to secure adequate funding.

The money would be used to keep the courts operating through the close of the fiscal year on June 30. Millard said he was perplexed by the county’s position because any portion of the $4.6-million grant not used by the courts would be returned to the county.

“Let’s say we only spend $3 million. They’d get $1.6 million back,” the judge said. “We don’t keep the money we don’t spend.”

In her memo, Mittermeier said she expects the court will require “considerably less than the $4.6 million requested.”

Supervisors and county officials downplayed the seriousness of the dispute Thursday and predicted that the bailout would move forward as scheduled.

“The board is committed to getting them what they need,” said Supervisor William G. Steiner. “If they need the full funding, they will get it. If they don’t, they won’t.”

Supervisor Don Saltarelli agreed. “We plan to keep our word and do right by them,” he said. “But at the same time, we want to try to keep every penny we can as we move out of bankruptcy.”

Yet another dispute may be developing between the judges and the chief executive over future court funding.

It concerns Mittermeier’s proposal to develop in consultation with court officials a “Model Court System for the Twenty-First Century.” Though plans have yet to be worked out, Mittermeier has talked about hiring a consultant to examine how to reduce costs and provide more efficient service.

County officials said judicial restructuring is important because the courts will likely face a $40-million to $50-million deficit next year. While judges are hoping the state will provide additional funding, it remains unclear if such an allocation will actually be part of the new state budget.

Court officials expressed a willingness to work with the county but said the concept duplicates much of what the judiciary has already studied in statewide initiatives.

Bill Brennan, executive officer of Municipal Court in Fullerton, said courts have embarked on efforts to coordinate services with neighboring jurisdictions, reduced operating costs and computerizing records.

But Brennan and others questioned whether the courts would be able to significantly reduce their budgets while still providing their constitutionally mandated duties.

“Nothing goes on in court that isn’t mandated,” he said. “We don’t have any elective programs.”