Gag Order Weighed in O.C. Funds Dispute

A Los Angeles judge said Wednesday that he wants Orange County supervisors and judges to stop their public bickering over a courts budget deficit, and to make sure they comply he said he will consider issuing a gag order.

“I’m unhappy about this,” Superior Court Judge Harvey Schneider told attorneys representing the county and the judges.

Schneider said he hopes a gag order would “reduce some of the tensions,” adding: “The overall problem isn’t helped by statements in the press that are inflammatory.” Attorneys for both sides indicated that they would not oppose a gag order and agreed to draft it jointly over the next week.

The judge’s comments came after a week of heated public debate between county officials and court administrators about overspending by Orange County’s six courts. The court administrators exceeded their 1996-97 budget by about $1.4 million, purchasing computers, carpeting and other supplies that they insisted are needed for normal court operations.

County attorneys and auditors are poring over the courts’ financial records to determine whether court administrators violated any state laws or county procurement rules with the overspending. Under state law, government officials can be held personally liable for spending that exceeds an approved appropriation.

On Wednesday, attorneys for the courts asked Schneider to grant a temporary restraining order preventing the county from closing the books on the 1996-97 budget year, a move that would technically dodge the issue of overspending because no final spending figure would be fixed. They suggested a second order that would require the county to use surplus funds to close the courts’ $1.4-million deficit.

Court attorneys said the orders were designed to protect court administrators from any personal liability or penalties stemming from the overspending.

But Schneider rejected the requests, agreeing with county attorneys that halting closure of the books could be a disaster for county accountants and budget planners.

Still, the judge said he is concerned that some vendors whose bills are caught in the overspending dispute might not be paid for their services or merchandise. “I don’t want the vendors to be stiffed,” Schneider said. “We’d have to do something about that.”

He also instructed the attorneys to meet and draft a court order that could give court administrators some interim protection against liabilities until he rules on the larger funding dispute.

But after the hearing, the attorneys still disagreed on the details of such an order.

The county and the courts are locked in a bitter legal battle over what constitutes an appropriate funding level for the courts. The courts maintain that the county is not giving them enough operating funds.

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

The court fight centers on what is “suitable” and “sufficient.”

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.