Washington Courts: Judicial News Report Detail

Judges talk about: Funding for the future

Judge Faith Ireland calls it the "white elephant in the middle of the room," a big problem that's hard to confront, but impossible to ignore.

She's talking about funding for state courts. Her point: the longer it is ignored, the more serious the consequences.

Recent news clips, one from the east, the other from the west side of the state, help illustrate that point. In one, a superior court judge is quoted as saying her court has fewer staffers now than it did 15 years ago--but has to deal with a significantly higher caseload. In another, a district court administrator says she had to strike a work-share deal with the prosecutor's office, after continuing staff cuts made it impossible for her employees to complete normal photocopying chores in a timely manner. In a speech to county officials last November, Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel said such "nick and cut" reductions had left the criminal justice system "overloaded" and "broken." "Our future is in jeopardy," he said.

In an effort to face the issue head on, Ireland, president of the Superior Court Judges' Association (SCJA) and Renton District Court Judge Robert McBeth, president of the District and Municipal Court Judges' Association (DMCJA), hosted three-hour discussion sessions with their members across the state. The December events attracted presiding judges of the state's superior, district and municipal courts to sessions held in Tacoma, Everett, Pasco and Spokane.

Need for discussion

Unfunded state mandates, Initiative 601, and changes in the way federal, state and local funds are distributed, were amongst the subjects under discussion.

To get at these and other issues, both trial court associations asked the Board for Judicial Administration (BJA) to sponsor a long-range planning process for funding of the courts. Face-to-face discussion sessions were planned as a first step towards understanding and dealing with funding issues that face individual courts across the state.

"I thought it was a wonderful opportunity to bounce rather complex ideas off the membership and get some feedback, so that we would have some direction in which to proceed," said McBeth. "The issues are complex...and it was a good opportunity to discuss in more detail the problem of funding in the courts--where we go, and how we go about solving it."

Short range-planning is also seen as critical. Predictions are that "funding status quo" is unlikely to be maintained by the 97 Legislature, and that judges may be called upon to respond to new court funding proposals. In particular, Initiative 601 is expected to increase competition for the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) and Public Safety and Education Account (PSEA) funds. Together, these sources provide the majority of state court funds.

County governments also plan to promote court funding during the upcoming legislative session. Some officials have proposed the state take over all nondiscretionary expenses of the court, including juror fees, indigent defense, expert witness fees, interpreters, and judges' salaries.

Common threads

Discussions at the four meetings had many common threads, according to Ireland and McBeth.

"I had the distinct impression that most people agree that there is a funding problem," stated McBeth. "Where the big differences came is that some counties enjoy very good relationships with their local funding authorities, and some counties have very problematic relationships." Ireland agreed.

To gauge funding problems that face courts, a series of pre-set questions were proposed at each discussion session.

The first inquired about budget needs that are chronically underfunded or not funded at all. Top answers included judicial positions, staff, interpreters, probation, facilities (including security), training and travel, indigent defense, and court/trial costs.

"Why does this underfunding occur?" participants were asked. Competition with other members of the criminal justice system; a perception by local funding authorities that judicial salaries are too high, and shrinking revenue/tax bases were listed. So were lack of a supporting constituency; unfunded state mandates, and the fact that increasing caseloads are doubted or not believed by other officials.

Non-discretionary expenses

There were also concerns about state funding of non-discretionary expenses. The biggest concern: loss of local control. Other concerns included a fear smaller jurisdictions would lose out in the urban vs. rural competition for funds, the local lack of familiarity with state processes and players, and possible interference with local judicial independence.

Suggested ways to neutralize these concerns: requiring anti-supplanting language in statutes or budget bills which mandate a certain percentage of local funding "saved," as a result of state assistance, be directed back to the court, to reduce supplanting potential; limiting state funding to non-discretionary expenses to reduce possible over-reaching of state control; and requiring all felons sentenced to incarceration for six months or longer (as opposed to one year) be sent to state facilities rather than county jails, mandating a portion of the local savings to trial courts.

No quick fix

Though the meetings were viewed as a productive first step, it is clear work on this subject is far from over.

"The last thing I would want to leave anyone thinking is that we had four regional meetings and now we solved the problem of funding for the courts, because that is not the case at all," said Ireland. "We don't have a plan, I think we're a long ways away from understanding even what all the options might be."

The next step is to take the meeting results to the BJA. Both McBeth and Ireland encourage judges who were unable to attend the December meetings to contact them.

"We felt these talks were very helpful to us in terms of preparing responses to issues that are likely to arise," Ireland said. "We were very pleased that so many judges took the time and devoted the energy...because they were rather intense. It's not the most glamorous topic. People came, stayed and concentrated, and we really appreciated that."

A summary report of the four regional meetings will be sent to presiding judges this week.