The Court-Funding Crisis: What Must Be Done

BY DAN BLINKA

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY

LAW SCHOOL

Our judicial system is threatened by the fiscal crisis that has beset state and local government. In her October 16, 2003 “State of the Judiciary Address,” Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson warned of the severe strains imposed on “an already under-funded judicial system.” Nowhere are the strains more evident than in our own courthouse.  

Faced with a bleak fiscal forecast, the Milwaukee County Executive proposed a budget that would severely impede the civil and criminal justice systems as well as citizens’ access to courts. No one is wearing a black hat in this story; the reality is that public monies are scarce yet in high demand. Fortunately, all parties are working in good faith to avert desiccating our judiciary, but the best solution may be only a short-term fix. A long-term answer will require the support and efforts of the MBA. The purpose of this month’s column is to explain briefly the nature of the fiscal crisis, the response, and what we must do to assure the continued excellence of justice in Milwaukee County.  

County Executive Scott Walker’s original proposed budget abolishes 26 positions in order to save about $2 million, cuts that will cripple many critical court operations if imposed. The proposed cuts include:

• A fiscal operations manager for the courts

(i.e., a budget analyst).

• Twelve deputy clerk of court judicial assistants.

• Four court commissioners.

• Nine legal research interns.

For example, the loss of deputy clerk positions will make it impossible for some courts to operate, since state law requires that a clerk be present when court is in session. Clerks keep records of all court proceedings, manage civil files, schedule hearings, handle correspondence, and also attend to citizens with questions. The loss of court commissioners could most severely impact small claims proceedings where they help resolve the nearly 38,000 actions filed in 2002.

The MBA anticipated the budgetary bad news. Attorney Patrick Schoen of Quarles & Brady, who chairs the Courts Committee, convened a standing room-only meeting several days before the County Executive announced his proposal. The membership was fully briefed on the possible cutbacks and their likely impact on the courthouse’s operations. Needless to say, the forecast was gloomy but accurate.

When the proposed cuts were officially announced, Pat Schoen and I worked with Chief Judge Michael P. Sullivan and District Court Administrator Bruce Harvey to make known to the County Board the ramifications of the proposed cuts. At a Finance Committee meeting, Pat testified to the likely effect (disastrous) of staffing reductions, and I addressed the ramifications of slashing $200,000 from the “Legal Resource Center,”which provides critical services to pro se litigants who appear in a variety of small claims and family court matters. Other MBA members appeared in person, or wrote letters, to express their support for the judiciary.

Following that meeting, Chief Judge Sullivan and his staff continued to work toward a resolution with the County Board’s Finance and Audit Committee. The Finance Committee conditionally agreed to restore about $2 million to the “Courts” budget, provided that the State agrees to pay that same amount in additional GAL and interpreter fees. At that hearing on October 13, I appeared along with Executive Director Jim Paetsch to express our support for that solution, which will require a united MBA effort

to succeed. As of this writing, we await the decisions of the entire County Board and the County Executive on the proposal.

Where exactly does this $2 million come from, you ask? According to the County Board’s budget analysis, Milwaukee County’s costs for GALs and interpreters are projected to be about $3.2 million for 2004.

Although the State has agreed to reimburse counties for these costs, the present formula will result in projected State payments of only $1.2 million, thus saddling county taxpayers with the remaining $2 million. The County’s budget analyst put the matter starkly: “This appropriation falls short despite the

fact that funds for these reimbursements come from revenues generated by the Circuit Court support fee which is imposed by the state and fully retained by the state.” Put differently, if the State agrees to reimburse the county for its projected costs in these two areas from funds already generated by the courts, the $2 million shortfall disappears.

It is imperative that the State fully fund the costs of GALs and interpreters. First, these are costs that the State has agreed to reimburse. Second, the prevailing “sum certain” formula covers only one-third of those projected costs. Third, the revenues are already generated by the support fees that are imposed “by the state and totally retained by the state.”

More fundamentally, the circuit courts are part of a state judicial system which must be adequately funded. Since the old county courts were folded into the state circuit court system over twenty-five years ago, we have maintained a first-rate, statewide judicial system that inevitably depends on county funding to a great extent. Certainly “total” state funding is nowhere in the near-term picture and will require extensive study, but reimbursement for GAL and interpreter costs is a good place to start.

What can we do? Local legislators must be made aware of the issues and of the importance of adequate state funding even in this bleak fiscal climate. In the coming weeks, the MBA Board of Directors and pertinent committees will work out a plan of action in cooperation with Chief Judge Sullivan. Members will be informed on the MBA website as well as through mailings and e-mails. Your suggestions are welcome and your help essential.

---

This article was originally published in the November 2003 issue of the Milwaukee Bar Association, Inc's newsletter, The Messenger.  It has been reprinted with the permission of the MBA.