Court Response to County Executive's proposed budget

BY CHIEF JUDGE MICHAEL SULLIVAN

MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

Good morning.  For any of you who don't know me, my name is Mike Sullivan and I am the Chief Judge of Wisconsin Judicial District One, whose boundaries are identical with those of Milwaukee County.  This is my first appearance before you and it's a difficult one, given the County Executive's proposed budget and yours and my positions as  coequal branches of government called upon to assess his proposals.  I stopped down to your offices this past Friday to see Supervisor Quindel and  discuss with him a legal opinion from the County Corporation Counsel, William Domina, regarding the authority of the courts relative to the County Board, which opinion I'll address later on.  As I was a few minutes early, I thought I'd stroll around the waiting room a bit.  While doing so, I saw the Milwaukee County government's mission statement hanging on the wall.  It states that Milwaukee County government will provide high quality, responsive services that enhance (among other things) the personal safety..and quality of life for all its people.  Those words struck me because I believe County Executive Walker's proposed budget with respect to the courts falls woefully short of that statement and I'm here to ask you to correct his proposed budget to meet that mission statement.

To put it bluntly, Mr. Walker's budget for the courts - if passed as proposed - will not only not enhance public safety and quality of life for the citizens of Milwaukee County, it will seriously compromise them.  This budget proposes cuts in funding for the courts that could have disastrous effects for the people of Milwaukee County.  Those cuts would hamstring the courts' and clerk's office operations by eliminating their fiscal and operations manager. The cuts could force the closing of more than 20 per cent of our 47 courts for lack of clerks to staff them.   Those cuts could force the curtailing of criminal intake because of a lack of court commissioners to staff it; this would quickly result in an overcrowded population in the county jail and deny, not only defendants but also victims their timely day in court.  Small claims could be affected as well, seriously compromising the rights of property owners and tenants.  These cuts could force the courts to require additional bailiffs because of the elimination of law clerks, who also perform bailiff duties in civil courts.  Those cuts would eliminate the County Law Library, which has been open since the 1930's to serve the citizens of Milwaukee County, especially of late citizens who represent themselves in court, often because they cannot afford the services of a lawyer.

In past years, the Executive Branch has proposed such flawed budgets and this committee has seen the necessity of restoring that budget to a more reasonable posture.  I ask you to do so again.  I've provided you some handouts and I'd like to refer to them as I go through the things I wish to point out.

First, I want to address the next to last item of the Executive's budget under "Personnel Changes," that of  Fiscal and Operations Manager.  (That budget is in your packet, starting at page 2 and I refer you to the bottom of the third page) The budget eliminates that position Fiscal and Operations Manager.  The person staffing this position  - and his name is Dennis Decker -  effectively serves as a combined budget director and money manager for the clerk's office and the courts.  This is an essential position for the courts.  Not only is he responsible for the control of some $45 million dollars a year in court expenditures, he oversees the receipt, disbursement and investment of $80 million dollars going through the Clerk of Courts, which is by law an operation separate from the County Treasurer.  (A job description for our Fiscal and Operations Manager can be found starting at pg. 14 of your materials .)  It is mind boggling to suggest that we could function without this position, any more that you could do without Terry Cooley's position or that the Exec. could do without Terry Kocurek's spot.  What the Executive is trying to do is take away my ability, as chief judicial officer of this district, to oversee and monitor the financial aspects of the courts.  In fact, last year, if you can recall, this committee voted to underfund the courts by $1 million dollars.  I believe Supervisor McCue voted against that proposal because he thought  the budget should reflect the actual cost for the courts.  But as I sit here today, I can tell you that in an attempt to be reasonable and to work with the County Board, we in the courts resolved to make it our goal to live within that underfunded budget.  Moreover, I can report to you today, that largely under the watchful eye of our Fiscal and Operations Manager, Dennis Decker, we stand a good chance of meeting that goal.  Again on the necessity of the courts' operation needing its own fiscal person, remember, the clerk of court is a constitutional officer and the judiciary is a separate branch of government.  We must have our own people in sensitive positions such as this, people that are not attempting to serve two masters, the County Executive and the courts.  Indeed, there is another position of sensitivity that I also wish to address your attention to, that of personnel director for the Clerk of Courts.  In another attempt to cooperate with the Executive plan for consolidation of governmental functions, we agreed - reluctantly - to accept a reassignment of the Clerk of Court's chief personnel officer, Jean Gmindel, from the Clerk's office to the Department of Administrative Services.  That reassignment has left her with just the ambivalence I referred to, especially in this turbulent work climate where personnel cuts are being proposed and where the clerk's office is facing a huge number of retirements this coming year.  We ask that you not only restore the position of fiscal and operations manager, but that you transfer back to the clerk of courts budget the position of personnel director.

Second, I address on page three of Mr. Walker's proposals for the court operations the abolition of 12 deputy clerk of court positions.  Is this reasonable?  The Clerk of Court, John Barrett, has written me - and you have a copy of his September 24th memo at pg. 17 of your materials - that he will not be able to staff 10 of the courts if he loses these clerks.  That would result in a most unreasonable situation for Milwaukee County's citizens.  The courts of this county cannot function without deputy clerks in attendance.  The statutes require clerks to be present and to keep an accurate record of court proceedings.   So, which courts do I close?  Do I tell the tenant she can't get into court to request a stay of eviction for 10 days while she arranges for her new apartment for herself and her young children?  Do I tell the couple desperate to adopt a special needs child that they'll have to wait six months because we don't have enough clerks to staff the judges in children's court  and there are other cases more pressing than hers?  Do I tell those plaintiffs injured by e-coli bacteria in the Sizzler cases that they're just going to have to wait a couple of extra years to have their case tried because I don't have a full complement of civil courts?  Do I tell the domestic violence victim that she'll just have to live in fear and apprehension for the next three months because I can't get her case into court?  Do I tell the mortgage bankers that I’m sorry we can’t get their judgments won't be docketed right away; they’ll just have to sue Milwaukee County for treble damages like South Milwaukee did in the year 2001?  (See page 18 of your materials for the check for $275,000 that the County had to pay.)  I'm sure you'll agree with me that  to deny any of those litigants their timely attention to their rights would be - to put it mildly - most unreasonable. Which brings me to Mr. Domina's legal opinion of September 24, 2003, which starts at pg. 19 of your materials.)  In his opinion, he responds to Supervisor Quindel's query about the authority of the sheriff and the courts relative to the county board.  Mr. Domina addresses the sheriff's position first, and states on the second page of the opinion that should there be a conflict, "the issue will be whether the budgetary constraints which the County Board attempts to impose are in fact reasonable."  At page 3, when addressing the Clerk of Court's position, Mr. Domina states that much of what is stated above (with respect to the sheriff) applies with equal force to the clerk of court and that the county may not exercise its budgetary authority so arbitrarily as to narrow or frustrate the proper exercise of the clerk's constitutional and statutory duties.  Well, committee members, that is exactly what Mr. Walker's budget does when it effectively shuts down 20% of the county's courts.   These positions have to be restored or drastic measures will be necessitated.  In saying this, I understand you are under tremendous budgetary limitations, but, as you know, sec. 753.19 of the statutes mandates that the county - with certain exceptions - pay for the costs of the courts.   (That’s at pg. 23 of your materials) Now, of course,  the Clerk of Courts office has to be reasonable in its requests.  So, are we being reasonable?  I invite your attention to the next section of your handout, beginning at pg. 24, entitled "Court Comparison, Year 2003."  Browse down those three pages, noting the first (untitled) column and the fourth column, entitled  "Number of Court Support Staff per Judicial Officer."  We've compared 7 court systems, three of which are larger than Milwaukee County  and three of which are smaller than us.  If you compare the number of judicial staff per judicial officer (and that includes clerks, support staff and administrative staff), we are at the bottom of the list.  In fact, the average of support staff per judge is 7.8 and the Milwaukee County judges and commissioners make do with only one-half that number, or 3.9.  Yet our disposition rate remains among the best in the country.  We ARE being reasonable and attempting to give the citizens of Milwaukee the most we can for their money.  Mr. Walker's budget in this regard doesn't just cut fat, or just to the bone, but actually gouges out the bone tissue of the Milwaukee county courts.   

I have already used the term "reasonable" several times.  I've done so not just because Mr. Domina used it in his legal opinion, but also because in past years this committee has worked with us to find "reasonable" solutions to budget dilemmas faced by the county and the courts.  We have had agreements in which we've worked together to address problems, such as the overcrowding of the Milwaukee County Jail, the ever growing small claim caseload, the increased need of juveniles and their parents and the societal problems of divorce and paternity as well as domestic violence.  I speak of your provision for and our deployment of circuit court commissioners.  We have been able to work together to control that jail population, dispose of those small claims cases, get juveniles before a court officer more quickly to determine whether they can be safely released and get family and domestic violence cases before a judicial officer in a timely fashion.  This has provided more timely access to courts for the citizens of Milwaukee, including the poor, the disadvantaged and victims of crime.   You have provided us with enough circuit court commissioners to allow us  to run a multi-faceted and highly efficient criminal and traffic intake system.  We have kept that system running  7 days per week.  Commissioners staff the in-custody intake on Saturdays and Sundays and I wish to add, at NO extra cost to the county since the commissioners receive compensatory time in return for this duty.  But the county exec's budget would remove four of those commissioners (see item #3 of the proposed budget on pg. 3 under "personnel changes.").  If that unreasonable proposal proposal stands, the courts will have to reassess the status of intake court and small claims court.  We'll have to consider combining some traffic and criminal intake functions and we may not be able to operate that system seven days per week.  The result will not only be an increase in the jail population, but also a reduction in revenue for the County that the traffic intake court typically produces.  Also, we may have to remove some commissioners from small claims, and that will, no doubt, slow that court considerably.   The bottom line here is that the court system needs all those court commissioners and so does Milwaukee County.  Those four positions should be restored to the budget, not just for the courts, but for the citizens of this county, that they may have timely access to justice.

Perhaps the shining example of a reasonable and cooperative agreement between the courts and the county board is that of the 9 law clerks that Mr. Walker wants to summarily dismiss.  (See item #5 of the personnel changes on page 3 of the exec's budget - he calls them legal research interns.)  In his haste to reach his zero increase, he disregards years of work between your body and the courts.  Because you have provided these law clerks, who perform research functions primarily for civil judges in complex litigation and also provide bailiff functions with regard to juries, we have been able over the last several years to reassign  four civil branches to other pressing areas, including family court, criminal court and children's court.  Our civil large claim filings continue to rise, which is in part due to "harassment" cases, but there is no doubt that there are more complicated cases coming into the system.  Examples of that in the recent past are  cases like "Big Blue," the crypto-sporidium cases, the e-coli cases, asbestos cases, the City of Milwaukee pension cases and computer fraud cases, to name a few.  Those law clerks are of tremendous assistance to judges by researching the mountains of motion work those cases require, not to mention the weekly summary judgment motions, the writs of habeas corpus, the administrative reviews and other difficult litigation.  By the way, these law clerks are not just some boondoggle designed to make life easier for circuit judges of Milwaukee County.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules state – as you can see at page 27 of your materials – in section 70.39 (11) (b) that " each branch of the circuit court should be staffed by one full-time law clerk."  We have 9 for 47 judges.  Nevertheless, both sides are benefitted.  The availability of law clerks in the civil division has resulted in the court's waiving the statutory requirement  of Wisconsin Statutes sec. 59.27(3) (at page 28 in your materials), that the sheriff or one of his or her deputies shall attend the circuit court during its sessions.  If we no longer that agreement, and the law clerks are axed from the budget, then as Chief Judge, I must revisit the need for bailiffs in the civil courts.  In the end, that could prove more costly to the county than funding the law clerks, since law clerks cost roughly $41 thousand per year and receive no fringe benefits, while deputy sheriffs cost the county roughly $90 thousand per year, including their fringe benefits.  It should be noted that the number of bailiffs the sheriff and the courts have agreed upon to staff the various branches of the circuit court presupposes that the law clerks  remain in the budget.  To avoid problems on several fronts, those law clerks need to be restored to this budget. 

 I turn next to the second item of the Executives proposed personnel "changes" as he euphemistally calls them.  Of course, personnel "cuts" is what they really are.  This one gets very personal.  In a billion dollar budget, he removes a "Clerical Assistant I (NR)".  That position is none other than the receptionist for the Chief Judges office, our first line of service for people who come to us up on the 6th floor.  Without her, we have two choices: we either allow the dozens of people who request service from us daily to wander into the office with no direction whatsoever or we lock the door and have people ring a bell for service so I or my administrators can go running out there to answer their inquiries.  That’s neither efficient nor safe; such a situation does not serve the citizens of Milwaukee County.  It is not a large budget item, though, and the position should be replaced, even if it goes unfunded.  I have visited your office complex many times over the past several months and been greeted by your friendly and helpful clerical assistant, Dominique Hall.  We need the same sort of position and person to properly operate our office.

 Two other positions that the exec’s budget abolishes are a Family Court Commissioner and a felony court coordinator.  Those are the 1^st and 7^th entries on the personnel changes at page three of his proposal.  That family court commissioner position is actually funded through Child support and 60 percent of the commissioner’s work is support collection.  That will directly affect revenue for the county but I guess that’s up to you.  As to the felony court coordinator, we have again attempted to cooperate and keep costs down by keeping that position vacant for some time now.  That’s an important position because – as you know – there are many participants in the criminal justice system and if we are to keep control of that jail population, we must keep cases moving through the system as smoothly as possible.  That person’s job is really one of trouble shooter.  We’re getting it done as best we can with existing resources. 

 Before I make my summary of specific requests, I’d like to draw your attention to one more of the state’s laws, specifically sec. 753.016 of the Wisconsin statutes.  (That’s at page 29 of your materials.  It says at sections (1) and (2) what the county board, the sheriff, and the clerk of court shall provide the courts in Milwaukee County.  This is one more recognition in our state’s law that Milwaukee County is special and requires special handling under that law, which rules the judges and all the county officials, as well.  Despite what the County Executive suggests on television, the Courts are not a department of the County.  We are a separate branch of government, which the County is obligated to fund in a reasonable manner.

In summary, I ask you to restore to the courts their ability to manage their financial and personnel affairs by placing back in the budget the position of fiscal operations manager and by returning to the courts budget the personnel officer now assigned to the Department of Administrative Services.  I ask that you reinsert the 12 deputy clerk positions cut by the executive so that the courts may remain open to full capacity and properly serve the citizens of Milwaukee.  I ask that you replace the 4 court commissioners cut by the proposed budget so that we can continue to get people in our juvenile, small claims and criminal courts a timely judicial hearing and avoid the population of the jail skyrocketing out of control.  I ask you to reinsert the 9 law clerks removed by Mr. Walker so that the courts can continue to work with the County to allocate our resources in a way most effective for our citizens. I ask you to reinsert the position of Clerical Assistant I, even if you do not fund the position, so we in the Chief Judge’s office can service real people with real problems.  Only if you make these budgetary changes can we help you fulfill your mission to provide responsive services that enhance the personal safety and quality of life of your citizens.

---

This article was originally presented to the Milwaukee County Board's Finance committee during the 2004 budget deliberations.  It has been reprinted with the permission of Chief Judge Michael Sullivan.