Supervisors Offer Proposal to Keep Courts Operating

Two county supervisors unveiled on Friday a funding proposal designed to keep Orange County’s courts operating for a fraction of the amount that local judges are demanding in a court action filed earlier this week.

Board of Supervisors Chairman William G. Steiner and Supervisor Thomas W. Wilson are asking their board colleagues to appropriate up to $2 million in additional funding for the courts, as well as $625,000 to upgrade a computerized jury management system. Their plan also calls for an operational audit of the court system.

In a civil complaint that the state Supreme Court promptly assigned to a Los Angeles court, the county’s six presiding judges are demanding $13.3 million to cover court operations through the June 30 end of the current fiscal year, plus another $10 million for technology upgrades and capital projects, as well as to pay for 56 new positions that the courts want to fill next year.

The formal court complaint, signed by the six judges and filed in Orange County Superior Court earlier this week, signaled the beginning of what promises to be a lengthy court fight covering an obscure but potentially precedent-setting area of the law.

State law requires counties to provide the courts with “suitable” and “sufficient” facilities and personnel to operate, and the looming court battle will center on what constitutes sufficient funding.

County officials have repeatedly vowed to keep the courts open, even though they acknowledge that most courthouses don’t have enough money left in their accounts to cover payroll costs alone through June 30.

“If this proposal is approved, the doors of the courts will remain open,” Steiner said. “This won’t stop this litigation. But it is a good-faith effort that shows our commitment.”

Court administrators and judges immediately dismissed the proposal, which they said relies on state revenue that should be earmarked for the judiciary to begin with. They said the courts will continue to demand the full $13 million.

“It doesn’t begin to fill our needs,” said Alan Slater, executive officer of Orange County Superior Court. “It’s just a grand illusion.”

Slater and Presiding Judge Theodore E. Millard were equally dubious about the operations audit, which Slater dismissed as a “smoke screen.”

County and court officials have long disputed exactly how much the courts need to maintain operations through the end of the fiscal year, and whether the county is obligated to fund other projects such as an airport-style security system for the Central Courthouse.

County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier’s office estimates that the courts will need about $1 million to pay salaries through June 30.

Steiner and Wilson’s plan would give the auditor-controller’s office authority to move money between various court funds to allow each courthouse to cover payroll. County officials said the courts could sustain themselves longer by taking money out of their supplies and equipment budgets and placing them in their salary budgets.

But Slater said Friday that such juggling would be difficult, because some of the money for supplies and equipment has already been earmarked for certain items.

County officials said the Superior Court and two of the five Municipal Courts will run out of salary and benefits money on May 16.

But administrators in the Fullerton and Westminster courts said they might not be able to cover payrolls at the beginning of May. The two courts will ask the Board of Supervisors next week for about $1 million each to cover operations through June.

Steiner said he hopes the audit proposed as part of the plan would clarify some of the disputes the two sides have over court funding and operations. The Board of Supervisors plans to use such auditors in various county departments in an effort to boost efficiency.

Steiner pointed out that the Los Angeles County Superior Court recently agreed to its first ever-operational audit.

But Millard and Slater expressed doubts about the need for an audit, noting that the county already has full access to all court financial and operational data.

“We don’t see how wasting public dollars makes sense, but we are happy to talk about it, as we have in the past,” Slater said. “Everything we do is mandated and clear.”