Court Officials to Ask Immunity on Funding

Orange County court officials will ask a judge today to immunize them from any possible penalties after the county accused the courts of overspending their budget by at least $1.4 million.

The move came as county supervisors harshly criticized court administrators for the overspending--and as County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier said that her office would strip the courts of their purchasing authority.

As auditors continued to sort through courts’ accounts on Tuesday, County Counsel Laurence M. Watson said his office is attempting to determine whether any court officials violated state laws or county policies in their spending, which occurred during the final days of the 1996-97 budget year in late June.

Watson said his office would forward the case to the district attorney’s office if he believes such action was warranted. State law says that government administrators can be held personally liable for spending that exceeds an approved appropriation, he added.

Attorneys for the courts will ask a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to grant a temporary restraining order prohibiting the county from closing the books on the 1996-97 budget year. The attorneys also suggested a second order that would require the county to use $77 million in surplus funds to close the courts’ deficit.

Such an action might protect court administrators from any personal liability stemming from the extra charges, which went for such items as carpeting, painting and computers.

The county and courts are locked in a bitter legal war over funding. The courts maintain that the county is not providing them with enough operating funds. In a civil complaint filed in April, Orange County’s six presiding judges said the courts needed $13.3 million to cover employee salaries, equipment and supply purchases and other operating costs just to keep operating through June 30.

Tom Umberg, an attorney representing the county courts, said the overspending was “appropriate” to meet court needs. He also defended the court administrators, dismissing the allegations made by county officials as “baseless and ridiculous.”

But county supervisors disagreed, saying the courts were provided adequate money for operations.

“It’s really astonishing,” Board Chairman William G. Steiner said. “I am not sure the presiding judge of the courts realizes the implication of the actions made by the administrators.”

Mittermeier’s office plans to begin scrutinizing all purchase order requests submitted by the courts to make sure they comply with all rules and regulations.