O.C. Judges to Issue Order for Court Funds

Setting the stage for a constitutional clash with statewide implications, Orange County’s top judges announced Thursday that they will order county officials to provide as much as $13.9 million in additional funding needed to prevent a shutdown of some court operations next month.

The decision, taken in a late afternoon meeting of the judges who preside over the county’s six courthouses, came after two county supervisors decided to abandon their monthlong attempt to hammer out an emergency funding deal that would have kept the courts fully operational until the June 30 close of the county’s budget year.

Theodore E. Millard, presiding judge of the Orange County Superior Court, said the judges’ attorneys are making some last-minute revisions to a court order that will be served as soon as possible on the county supervisors, Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier and Auditor-Controller Steve E. Lewis, who handles the disbursement of county funds.

County officials have said they will immediately challenge any such order--a move that effectively places the matter before the state Supreme Court, which will assign the legal fight to a court outside Orange County.

If the Orange County judges were to prevail in that court action, the county would have little choice but to appropriate the money being demanded.

The looming court fight will mark one of the few times in state history that state judges and county government officials have gone to court over a funding dispute.

Referring to County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier, Millard said, “The CEO wanted a constitutional crisis, and I guess she is going to get her way. This is the first time to my knowledge that there has been case of the magnitude that we are now dealing with. . . . We feel we have no choice but to proceed.”

Orange County is but one of more than a dozen counties across the state dealing with severe funding problems. Court officials in other counties are watching the results of the Orange County showdown to see whether the judges are successful in their attempt to force reluctant county officials to give them more money for court operations.

The Orange County judges contend that county government has not provided them with sufficient funds to pay employees and purchase supplies through the end of the fiscal year, as well as to complete “critical” capital projects like an airport-style security system for the Central Courthouse.

Mittermeier’s office, however, has consistently rejected the judges’ dire predictions that a $13-million budget shortfall will force the courts to shut down in mid-May, saying the courts needed at most $2 million to cover costs through June.

The two sides tentatively agreed in negotiations to a funding compromise that would have provided the courts with at least $4.2 million, and possibly as much as $8.5 million, but the deal collapsed last week with each side accusing the other of making last-minute changes.

Board of Supervisors Chairman William G. Steiner expressed disappointment Thursday that the many rounds of negotiations didn’t produce a settlement. But he said the county is prepared to deal with the court order.

“It’s is certainly their right [to issue a court order],” Steiner said. “But it will not be a hammer, because in some respects we welcome the opportunity to get a final definition of what the courts’ needs are. So if this is supposed to be intimidating, it’s not. It is not going to force us to write a blank check.”

After the funding compromise fell apart, a new set of court negotiators meet with county officials several times to see if another deal couldn’t be reached. But Steiner said he and Supervisor Thomas W. Wilson concluded Thursday morning that the agreement could not be salvaged.

“We decided we couldn’t put it back together,” he added. “The window of opportunity was two weeks ago, and it’s now lost.”

While the compromise deal is dead, Steiner said he will bring before the Board of Supervisors on April 29 a proposal that would provide a modest amount of additional funding to the courts, as well as a pledge that the county would not allow them to close their doors for want of operating cash.

“We want to give [the judges] a comfort level that the courts will not close,” Steiner added.

The court funding crisis stems largely from moves by the Legislature in recent years to allocate less state money for court operations, and to shift more of the financial burden of running state courts to the counties.

Orange County is not the only county struggling under the revamped funding formulas, but because of the recent bankruptcy finds itself with less money to fill the growing funding gap. The courts practically ran out of money last year but were bailed out by the state.

State law requires counties to provide the courts with “suitable” facilities and “sufficient attendants, heat, light, furnishings, equipment, stationery, supplies and other personal property for courtrooms and chambers.”

The legal battle between the courts and the county will likely center on exactly what is “suitable” and “sufficient.”

Millard said the judges will probably seek $13.9 million in additional funding, the amount they said was needed before negotiations began.

Millard said the total includes money to pay salaries and maintenance costs as well as some capital projects that under the compromise would have been deferred until next year. “We were willing to defer in the spirit of compromise,” he said. “If there is no compromise, there is no need to defer it.”

Even if the courts don’t receive any more funding from the county, a full-scale shutdown remains highly unlikely. Courts with severe financial problems elsewhere in the state have reduced operating hours, slashed services, cut juror pay and limited the number of small-claims and civil cases that are heard. These cutbacks have allowed criminal case to proceed in a timely manner.

Orange County’s courts handled about 750,000 cases in 1995, including 14,000 serious felonies, 60,000 lesser crimes, 11,000 divorces, 2,600 probate filings and thousands of civil disputes.

Judges in other counties have filed similar court orders in disputes over courthouse construction, security and other issues. But Millard said this is the first case he is aware of where judges are alleging that courts do not have sufficient operating funds.

Millard said he and the presiding judges of the five Municipal Courts originally agreed months ago to sign the order if the county failed to provide additional funds. They reaffirmed their decision Thursday during a telephone conference, he added.

“As soon as our attorneys are done drawing the order, I hope I am the first one to sign it,” Millard said. “Signing this court order is a certainty. The county has left us no choice.”

The judges have long complained that the county has kept court funding at an austere bankruptcy level of $129 million a year, while increasing the budgets of the Sheriff’s Department and the district attorney’s office. “We cannot stay on a bread-and-water diet forever,” Millard said.

Mittermeier’s office, however, contends that the courts are exaggerating their needs. “My job is to make recommendations to the board based on documented need,” Mittermeier said in a statement Thursday. “The courts have not given us that kind of documentation.”

If ordered by a judge, the county could probably cover the $13.9 million by tapping into a $3-million contingency fund and $26-million debt repayment fund. But either action would require the approval of four out of the five supervisors.

The compromise hammered out two weeks ago would have provided the courts with $4.2 million immediately to cover salaries, and another $4.3 million to be made available in case the courts could not cover other costs.

But negotiators for the courts and the county disagreed on whether the $4.3 million should cover only salaries, as county supervisors wanted, or salaries and other “court obligations” as the judges sought.

Even after the order is filed, both Millard and Steiner said more talks could occur. But the discussion would likely occur between lawyers for the two sides, not the officials themselves.

“Once the order is signed, it’s in the hands of the lawyers and judges and out of our hands,” Millard said. “We become clients and witnesses in this case.”

Steiner said the whole negotiating process left him with a sour taste in his mouth. “It’s going to cost a lot of taxpayer dollars when we are suing each other,” he said.