Panel backs drastic court overhaul
|
|
Toolbox
By Louis Porter VERMONT PRESS BUREAU - Published: November 7, 2009
MONTPELIER – A massive and controversial restructuring of the state court system was approved by a commission studying the judicial system Friday and will be taken up by lawmakers in January.
The proposal includes wholesale changes to court structure, dramatically reducing the number of probate courts and changing the role of the elected assistant or side judges.
The most fundamental need for the study and the proposed changes was simple, the commission said. "Vermonters can no longer afford the current system," according to the final report by the Vermont Commission on Judicial Operation.
The problems with the system are widespread and systemic. The system is splintered, divided between a state system that oversees district courts for criminal cases and superior courts for civil ones, and a county court system that deals with probate issues and small claims. That is both inefficient and expensive, according to commission members.
On the fiscal front, the temporary savings plan instituted by the courts, including furlough days in which courts are shuttered, is unworkable as well, said Chief Justice Paul Reiber. If the required $3 million in savings in the upcoming fiscal year 2011 budget is applied in an across-the-board way "such dramatic cuts would crippled the justice system in the state," Reiber said.
If lawmakers approve the reorganization plan, it would mean one of the largest changes to the court system in Vermont history. Among the proposals:
Restructuring the judiciary into a single superior court system in each county that would be administered by the Supreme Court (instead of splitting responsibility between county and state court officials). Those superior courts would handle probate, civil, criminal and family law.
Reducing the 14 probate courts to a much smaller number, perhaps five across the state, and require that probate judges be lawyers.
Consolidating into one superior court system with four divisions would save an estimated $649,000 by allowing the elimination of middle managers.
Instituting a change so assistant or side judges would no longer hear cases from the bench. Instead they would retain only their function as county administrators. That would save some money for the state (which now pays side judges when they hear cases) but two more court hearing officers would have to be hired.
Consolidating of probate court into the state judicial system would save about $440,377, according to the study.
According to the report's estimates, all of the recommendations together would save $1.2 million in property taxes and about the same amount now spent from the state's General Fund.
The approved report – and a draft bill that goes along with it – has stirred up plenty of controversy among lawmakers, judges, side judges and attorneys, particularly in the areas of the law that would be most affected.
"Doing nothing is not an option," agreed Probate Judge Toby Balivet, repeating an explanation given for the need for the changes. But, he said, "dismantling the best parts of the system is not a solution."
Dianne Pallmerine, a Shelburne lawyer specializing in elder law who deals frequently with probate court, said that she often sends the less well-off who need help but cannot afford a lawyer to get assistance from the probate court, a service in jeopardy if there are changes.
"What I see is a system that is working," she said. "This is saving people at the bottom end of the economic system money they can't afford to pay lawyers."
There is also resistance from side judges, who are a constitutional office in Vermont and part of a long judicial tradition.
"I ran for the office of side judge to be a judge," said Barney Bloom of Washington County. "This commission says we are going to have judges with no judicial duties. That is an oxymoron."
Reiber acknowledged that court services received by Vermonters will be different – and in some cases decreased – with the cuts.
But the simple fact is that the state must save money in courts as in other places in the midst of the economic crisis the country is undergoing, and court services have already been diminished by furlough days and other stop-gap measures, Reiber said.
"We are already there," he said.
Cases, particularly in family and criminal courts, are already getting backlogged, Reiber said. That means less time for some courts to do parental rights cases, and those children spend more time in foster care among other impacts, Reiber said.
Officials hope that with the increased use of computers – for instance with court records and dockets – that over the next several years more can be done with less staff. But the commission members, who voted unanimously to support the recommendations, did not shy away from the fact that in the short term things will be tight.
The judiciary budget is about $35 million annually, about $31 million of which is from the General Fund. The more than $3 million in annual savings anticipated if the Legislature approves the commission recommendations are expected to continue beyond a single year, according to the report.
louis.porter@rutlandherald.com
39