The Cook County courtroom is a busy place every other Tuesday and Wednesday when Judge Kenneth Sandvik, his law clerk, and a court reporter are in town, and it’s busy on other days as well when a jury trail is taking place. If recommendations from a state-appointed committee are followed, the courtroom could become nothing but a big, woodpaneled, unused room overlooking Lake Superior.
In January 2008, the Minnesota Judicial Council formed an Access and Service Delivery committee after deciding “to examine the appropriate level of service delivery necessary to provide access to justice throughout the state.” The 13-member committee, which included nine judges and was assisted by three project staff, evaluated the issue and submitted a report in July 2008.
According to the report, “Fundamental demographic shifts in the population present a longterm challenge for the courts that will extend well into the next decade. …Seniors over the age of 65 will exceed the number of school-age children for the first time in our history. Thecost for government-funded social security, medical care, and public employee pensions for those aging Baby Boomers will put unprecedented financial pressures on local, state, and federal governments. These pressures will shift government spending priorities to issues of aging and health and away from other state services, including the courts.
“As the percent of retired people in the population grows, tax revenues needed to pay for state and local government decline. …The state demographer estimates that the Minnesota workforce will continue to shrink over the next two decades and at a rate that exceeds the national average.
“The courts face twin challenges in the future: 1) Significant budget constraints…. 2) Smaller available workforce with significant competition for a limited pool of workers.”
While nothing has been decided yet, options under consideration include reducing the number of court locations in order to reduce redundancies, reducing court administration department hours of operation, and increasing use of technology, such as offering information electronically (similar to what banks have done) or holding court through interactive TV.
Other considerations include giving probation officers authority to impose sanctions for violations (subject to court review at the request of the violator), decriminalizing various categories of misdemeanors or redefining non-violent misdemeanors as petty misdemeanors, increasing the list of offenses that may be resolved by paying a fine rather than appearing in court, eliminating civil jury trials, eliminating the right to a jury trial for misdemeanors, requiring binding arbitration for property disputes in marriage dissolution cases, allowing voluntary placement of juveniles without court involvement, and changing court appearance scheduling to reduce continuances.
“If successful, the court may actually find itself in the position of providing improved and better service in spite of the predicted labor shortage and funding downturn,” the report states.
Increasing efficiency, such as through centralization of services and staff specialization, was one of several strategies “that will help shape the court of the future,” the report states. “Some appropriate body should systematically consider such ideas and deliberately begin planning for and adopting strategies to achieve the needed changes.”
The report goes on to say, “The smallest courts, where a limited number of staff need to engage in a variety of tasks and specialization is not possible, demonstrated the least staff productivity. This is not to say that staff in the smallest courts are not working hard, rather that the opportunity for economies to be gained by performing similar tasks repeatedly was not available.
“The committee found that savings from closing the smallest courts are relatively small while stakeholder opposition is expected to be high.”
Opposition to the possibility of closing the Cook County courtroom is
high in the County Attorney’s Office. One of County Attorney Tim Scannell’s concerns is that “the entire discussion is occurring behind closed doors without transparency or public debate,” he said. “The courts have begun discussing closing certain courthouses, and Cook County has been selected as a possible sacrificial lamb.
“The state took over the funding of the courts from the counties a few years ago,” Scannell continued, “without any input from the county attorneys, law enforcement, county boards, citizens, or other persons or groups that have an interest in the administration of justice.”
If the Cook County courtroom and court administration were moved out of the county, Scannell, said, “citizens would have to drive many hours to participate in the justice system. Our sheriff would become, in essence, a long-distance taxi service, and prosecution of local cases … would occur in front of nonlocal juries (or perhaps local jurors would have to travel)…. In addition, without the presence of our local court, the presiding judge(s) would not have knowledge of local issues or concerns when dealing with Cook County.
“This approach arises from a stated desire to increase efficiency,” Scannell went on. “But efficiency for whom and at what cost in dollars and justice? …Theapproach would compromise the ability of local residents to participate in one thing we all take to be our American birthright: a fair and efficient justice system. …Child support hearings will have to occur elsewhere, contesting traffic stops will occur hours away, …defendants will have to be trucked hundreds of miles away – all at local cost, in some form or fashion.
“The approach is incoherent and metro-centric; the fact that we aren’t allowed to weigh in on the discussion and planning is improper and democratically bankrupt.”
Judge Sandvik discussed the issue with county commissioners at a county board meeting earlier this year. Scannell said, “I know the local judge, board of commissioners, sheriff, and I all are very interested in making this problem public and weighing in on the merits of the approach.”
“At this time,” the report states, “the Access and Service Delivery Committee recommends maintaining local county court locations, although operating within the parameters of the most efficient staffing norms may require limited hours and services in some locations.”
“It’s unclear what’s happening and where things will end up—if anywhere,” Scannell said. “From my perspective, closing the Cook County courtroom would set us back in immeasurable ways. Prosecution would become exceedingly difficult due to logistics, costs would go up dramatically, and resources would be spread thin as new workloads would be created for the Sheriff ’s Office and this office. It’s difficultto say strongly enough what a bad decision and result it would be.”
Loading Comments