State Should Act to Resolve O.C.’s Disorder in the Courts

It is disheartening to see the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the county’s judges edging toward the precipice for the second consecutive year in a quarrel over financing the courts.

The judges of the Superior and Municipal courts are accustomed to mediating disputes, trying to bring people together for a solution short of trial. The supervisors likewise spend much of their time deciding between contesting factions, juggling demands for more personnel and money by various county agencies with the small pool of available dollars.

It was not too much to expect that people who are used to negotiating and who spend their professional lives helping to hammer out compromises would be able to sit down with each other and work out an agreement between their two sides. In fact, even with the judges’ issuance last week of a court order to the county to provide more money, the opposing parties need to keep talking. Lawsuits cost money, time and attention, items that neither the judges nor the supervisors can afford to spare.

The judges say they need the county to supply more money to keep the courts operating through the end of the fiscal year, June 30. To that end, they ordered the supervisors to provide $13 million for salaries, services and supplies through June 30 and an additional $10 million for new positions, technology and better equipment.

County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier has contended for months that the courts can get by with much less in extra money. She said about $2 million would be enough to keep the courts operating through June. Last month the judges had agreed to accept more than $4 million immediately to cover salaries and another $4.3 million available for other costs, in addition to the normal operating budget. This year, the county budgeted $130 million for the courts.

Unfortunately, last month’s nearly done deal unraveled. The supervisors wanted the $4.3-million pot to be used just for salaries. Judges wanted to be able to tap it to pay for other necessities to keep the courts running.

The best solution to avoid turning these disputes into annual spectacles would be for the state Legislature to pass and Gov. Pete Wilson to sign a court funding bill. After all, the courts are a state responsibility; the state should send the money to the counties, which have the job of acting as agents for the state.

Orange County’s legislators in Sacramento should be in the forefront of getting the needed laws passed and ensuring that their colleagues give enough money to the courts for them to function. The state now pays about 35% of the cost of court operations. The target in bills introduced in Sacramento is 70%.

For too many years the state has left counties scrambling for funds because Sacramento appropriated property taxes to finance most of its spending. That was a dubious tactic even during the recession; with economic times far better the past few years, it is time to stop the state raids on county treasuries.

If the judges and supervisors proceed with a full-fledged court battle on the question of the exact requirements for a county to fulfill its obligations to the courts, it likely will be drawn-out and expensive. The money could be better spent elsewhere, especially with a county that mortgaged itself for decades to get out of bankruptcy. The supervisors properly have pledged to provide enough funds to keep the courts running despite the battle over money.

One year ago, after the Legislature came up with the millions of dollars needed then to keep the courts open, Superior Court Judge Theodore E. Millard said he and his colleagues did not “want to go through next year what we went through this year.” Unfortunately, the sequel has taken place. Millard, the presiding judge of the Superior Court, was one of the negotiators who tried to avert a court clash with the county. He needs to keep trying, as do the supervisors.