The possibility of having to travel out of the county for court proceedings continues to loom on Cook County’s horizon as the state faces a budget crisis and shrinkage of the workforce as Baby Boomers retire.
Two years ago, the Minnesota Judicial Council, the administrative policy-making authority for the Minnesota Judicial Branch, set up a committee to research what could be done to face those challenges. The committee considered many options, including reducing the hours court administration offices are open, resolving more offenses with fines instead of court appearances, and closing some courtrooms.
Closing Cook County’s courtroom would mean that law enforcement officers, social services staff, the county attorney and assistant county attorney, jurors, and community members would spend a lot of time on the road to get to court proceedings.
The committee’s recommendations continue to be discussed, and after State Court Administrator Sue Dosal told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that funding for courts in small counties would be reduced, the Cook County
News-Herald
contacted several officials asking for their opinions on what this could mean for Cook County.
James Florey, chief judge of the 6th Judicial District (Cook County’s district), wrote, “The concerns you raise about the ramifications of cutting back court services in Cook and other 6th District courts are certainly understandable. I can assure you that the Judicial Council, the Judicial Branch’s policymaking body, took these potential ramifications under consideration when it decided last summer to change the funding formula for our district courts.” Judge Florey is on the Judicial Council.
“We in the courts are well aware that cutting back court services would create extra expenses and hardships for litigants, defendants, and our justice system partners,” Judge Florey continued. “This move was undertaken for one reason only: as a response to the underfunding of the Judicial Branch, which has left us unable to fully staff all of our courthouses.
“I would also like to point out that we are implementing many innovations to help us continue to provide service in spite of our staff shortages: interactive TV (ITV) for arraignments and child support, web and phone payment of fines and fees (coming to the 6th District this year), judges traveling to multiple courthouses, centralizing of the jury summons process, centralizing the processing of more than one million citation payables across the state, and more.
“I would like to make clear that no decisions have been made at this point to eliminate service at any 6th District courthouse. I wish I could say that it will never happen, but that will depend on the level of funding provided by the legislature and the governor, the two branches of our government charged with taxing and spending decisions.”
Sixth District Judge Kenneth Sandvik would like the state to find solutions that do not affect Cook County so adversely. “I do not share the perspective nor the assumptions that some others share,” he wrote, “and while not intending to be disrespectful of the chief justice nor my district chief judge, as an elected official and a constitutional officer of long experience, I think it important that you understand that not all members of the judicial branch see the issues and the resolution of those issues in the same manner.
“While we can agree that fairness is a desirable goal, we do not agree as to how we define fairness. …The costs to our rural counties in the form of local law enforcement costs, local prosecution costs, the costs to local human service agencies is significant if they must go some distance to a regional trial center. Some of us believe that fairness from a cost perspective ought not just reflect the costs to the state government but reflect the cost to the other levels of government as well.”
The cost-cutting measures could include reducing the amount of state funding smaller counties get because smaller counties get more funding per capita than some larger counties. Judge Sandvik pointed out, however, that while Cook County gets $31 per capita and Lake County gets $24, Ramsey County gets $34 and Hennepin gets $37.
Judge Sandvik would also like to see more people involved in making these decisions. “Whether or not we should move away from a system where each of our 87 counties ought to have a fullservice courthouse or at least all ought suffer the same level of reductions is a debate and discussion that ought involve more persons, more stakeholders than have been involved. While it may ultimately [be] decided that the citizens of Lake or Cook ought have less access to the courts than the citizens of Anoka or Dakota have should not just be a decision of the judicial branch but should in my opinion include other stakeholders and indeed the citizens.”
Sandvik stated that about a decade ago, Minnesota went to state funding of courts rather than county funding in order to “equalize” services around the state. To put some of those costs back on counties would be “contrary to the premise of the takeover,” he wrote.
“…The assumption that the resources we have and that are being allocated is what we reasonably should expect is not a universally held assumption. The governor’s position that we ought not have any new taxes may be accepted by at least a plurality of our citizens, but those same citizens are not appreciative [of] the $10 per day we pay our jurors nor that some citizens ought have less access and more expensive access to the courts than others,” Sandvik wrote. “Court is acceptable for non-St. Louis County citizens. Grand Portage residents who are 150 miles from the St. Louis County Courthouse would be among the most significantly adversely affected.
“Some of us think we can do better and should do better.”
Leave a Reply