MPR reported a month ago, April 13.
Strib editorialized, same time frame, April 11.
Both items are still online.
Courts always have backlogs. Some worse than others. When there are backlogs things are delayed. When there are insufficient numbers of law clerks things are delayed or pushed out in less than perfect form. Orders and opinions either can be done with insufficient attention, or later than best. And criminal calendar matters, speedy trial rules, etc., intervene to push the civil calendar back in the queue.
The picture is from MPR, their caption, "Anoka County Judge John Hoffman in his courtroom. Anoka needs seven more court clerks, but can't hire them because there isn't enough money in the budget. (MPR Photo/Elizabeth Stawicki)."
I have seen one motions calendar heard by Judge Hoffman, where the bulk of the calendar was unopposed matters, with one matter opposed.
I have seen one recent trial last December in the Anoka County District 10 courts, and a total of five motions calendars (including the one with Hoffman presiding).
Six different judges, no overlap, while I was tracking the progress of two separate civil cases. In one of the cases each side was represented. In the other one side was pro se, meaning the client representing himself/herself without counsel appearing in the matter (although a lawyer might be consulted in an advisory capacity with the party still litigating pro se).
On at least two instances I observed, the same law clerk had been assisting separate judges. The norm is each judge has his/her own law clerk, a recent law school graduate of above average standing in his/her graduating class, and the position is important to keep the courts functioning. The term "clerk" now suggests a functionary with limited duty, but before there were law schools one became learned in the law by clerking. Abe Lincoln did not go to law school. He clerked.
Unlawful detainer matters are heard on the motions calendar, i.e., ouster of tenants from housing by their landlords, with right to possession the limited issue. That is the most frequently calendared thing I have seen on motions calendars. It is routine, mostly, probably where the phrase, "Going through the motions," originated.
But some matters result in orders and opinions, and that takes time. Things are taken under advisement. After a hearing or trial with things under advisement statutes or court rules, I am not sure which, permit a judge 90 days to hold a case under advisement without any earlier duty to issue a ruling. And if something is not wrapped up in that time, no sane lawyer would oppose giving a judge more time if requested. That would be like provoking a pit bull unnecessarily - no good for the client would ensue, and the lawyer might end up chewed up, one way or another.
With that as background, last month MPR reported:
The governor and the Legislature are both calling for spending cuts for Minnesota's courts as a way to balance the state's budget. But those who work in the judicial system say they simply can't absorb any more. They say they've already eliminated critical positions and any further cuts will seriously jeopardize the state's system of justice.
Last year Gov. Pawlenty appointed two additional judges in Anoka County based on the county's burgeoning caseload. One of those judges, Tom Fitzpatrick, took the oath Jan. 1.
"The idea was that this courthouse would be fully equipped, 17 judges and 17 courtrooms simultaneously, and right now we don't have the budget to do that because we don't have the staff to support all 17 judges at once," said Fitzpatrick.
Judges are the public faces in courtrooms, but they don't work alone. They depend on administrative clerks to file and update court documents, fill out forms, take notes in court, and swear in witnesses. Right now, Anoka needs seven more clerks but can't hire them because there isn't enough money in the budget.
Judge John Hoffman who's been an Anoka judge for 11 years said that means the current clerks can't keep up.
"It is pretty consistent now that when I get my files up the day before for review, that current pleadings are not in my files," said Hoffman. "There's been more than one occasion in the last year where I get attorneys in front of me, litigants in front of me and they're talking about documents and I don't have them."
In addition to administrative clerks, judges depend on law clerks. These are typically new attorneys who perform much of the legal research. They also schedule calendars and are the court's contacts with attorneys and other parties in cases. Under judicial ethics rules, judges aren't supposed to talk with one side in a case without the other side present.
Anoka can only afford to pay 13 law clerks for 17 judges so four judges at a time work for six months without one. One of those is Ellen Maas who's been an Anoka County judge for 13 years.
"I just got back from an extended vacation and my voice mail was filled with messages from attorneys, She said. "Now ethically, I can't return those calls. I'm scrambling now because…I have a four week trial coming up in May involving four fatalities. I have no staff for that."
The budget problem facing the 10th district, which includes Anoka is not unique. The Minnesota court system as a whole has held open 207 positions or 7 percent of its staff, encouraged employees to take leaves without pay, closed public counters a half day a week in three districts and will close a satellite court in Washington County July 1.
And for the first time, districts are laying off personnel. The third district has given layoff notices to five long-term employees who will lose their jobs at the end of April. The tenth district has layoff plans. Now the governor is proposing to cut funding for the courts by 4 percent or $13 million which would cost another 220 positions.
Minnesota Chief Justice Russell Anderson said such cuts would be "devastating." He said the courts can't just cut caseloads. They have to handle the cases that come through the doors, particularly criminal cases. The Constitution mandates that the courts also offer services such as interpreters; psychological testing; and jury costs--costs that have all been rising in the last year.
The state House and Senate have proposed smaller cuts in the court budget than Pawlenty, but Anderson said it's still too much.
"We have appreciated the Legislature's attempt to lessen these cuts, but even with the Legislature's proposal we're estimating that we would have as many as another 100 positions that would be lost," he said.
Before 2005, courts negotiated their budgets with individual county boards. Now decision-makers in St. Paul negotiate for the court system statewide. Those decision-makers include the State Court Administrator's office and the Judicial Council, a 25-member committee which includes judges and administrators, chaired by the Supreme Court Chief Justice.
The goal in moving to a state-funded system was to save money and provide an equal level of justice throughout the state.
But several Minnesota judges, including Anoka County Judge John Hoffman, say new negotiators haven't asked for enough.
"I think most legislators would tell us that they're shocked that we have the financial problems that we have," Hoffman said. "I think when the people that negotiate our budgets build into the process 2 percent raises and then negotiate with many of the collective bargaining agents, 3.5 percent raises and then say, 'you have a structural deficit. Fix it.' We were never in control of those decisions."
Chief Justice Russell Anderson said the executive branch has much larger unions and the court system has to follow their lead.
"We certainly have to follow their lead in the negotiations," he said. "And I would say to our critics, 'where have you been? Where have you been when the rest of us have been over there day and night?' This just doesn't happen by staying home and complaining about St. Paul."
Other judges have told MPR privately they've tried to have a bigger say in budgeting. They say they've been told the court speaks with only one voice and that voice comes from St. Paul.
The judges said they wanted to speak on the record but were afraid that if they did, their districts might get penalized in future funding decisions.
I have not kept up with the situation, MPR reported that at the time there was conference committee work going on in the legislature on budget bills, with the ultimate say being the governor's via line item veto (as I understand it he can cut an item but not pencil it in for a newer higher or lower number - and he would not veto an entire court appropriation). I expect the final result will be in the last days of session, and the courts will not get enough. MPR noted, "the courts portion of the budget is only a small part of the overall negotiations over the state's $935 million projected deficit."
Strib's editorial from last month was supportive of the judiciary:
Minnesota's executive and legislative branches aren't the only parts of state government that feel pinched when the economy turns sour. The third branch of government, the court system, sees more cases of domestic violence, marriage dissolution, child protection, debt collection, foreclosure and low-level criminal activity. Constitutionally mandatory expenses for psychological services, interpreters and juries are all rising fast this year.
That makes this a bad time for Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Legislature to cut court budgets. Yet Pawlenty recommended a $9 million reduction in the state's judiciary funding for the coming fiscal year -- 4 percent of nonmandated salaries. The Legislature's conference committee is considering smaller figures, but still has a court funding reduction in its sights. Facing a $935 [million] deficit, many difficult budget decisions are being made in St. Paul this year. But viewed in the context of a $34 billion budget, the governor and Legislature should be able to find room to maintain a quality court system.
This is the second year in a row that court administration has been on the budget chopping block. The 2007 Legislature allocated $13 million less than the courts projected for employee costs through mid-2009.
As a result, judicial staffing already has been cut 7 percent around the state. Public service counters have been closed one-half day per week in three of the state's judicial districts, including the largest, Hennepin County. Hennepin has also stopped doing criminal-background checks for the public and terminated arbitration services. The Rochester-based Third Judicial District cut the frequency of conciliation court and extended jury terms. A satellite court in Washington County has been closed.
That's the story the state's about-to-retire judicial branch CEO, Chief Justice Russell Anderson, is telling anyone who'll listen these days. He's spending his final weeks in office pleading that the judiciary be spared from the latest round of state budget cuts.
His message deserves heed. Courts are a bedrock function of democratic government. Yet justice delayed, and hence denied, will be the story in every courthouse in Minnesota if Pawlenty's proposal becomes law, Anderson warns. Staff reduction in this biennium would swell to 15 percent, the chief justice said in a recent letter to the State Bar Association. Drug and conciliation courts would be curtailed or eliminated, and some courthouses may close.
The courts don't come to the Capitol with the well-heeled special interest friends that defend other parts of the state budget. But they have Minnesota's foundational compact on their side -- and for elected officials sworn to uphold the state Constitution, that ought to count for much.
So in a nutshell, at least three factors - first, everyone gets cut, so the courts get cut; second, the pay rate negotiation does not involve the judiciary but they are bound by its results so they cannot meet budget by adjusting compensation, only by cutting head count; and last, the lobbyists take care of the special interests [think of Elwyn Tinklenberg's many Tinklenberg Group contracts with municipalities to aid their transportation funding thirsts] while the courts do not hire or use lobbying; and get disadvantaged because of it.
More reason to dislike the "way things are done" with revolving door lobbyists, and to not want to send one of them to DC as my representative, where the pool for such mischief as lobbyists do for a living is far bigger and I worry the man will mainly focus on making contacts, and in two years time, if elected now, will be back through the revolving door in the lobby when Minnesota is projected to lose a seat and it likely will be via the Sixth District being cut up and parceled out to other existing districts. I would hate to see my vote have any chance of going to a career politician - revolving door lobbyist who would or even could view the thing as a two year paid opportunity, with pension and health benefits, to build up the lobbying rolodex. Two more years of Michele Bachmann in the minority, juxtaposed against that; who is to say what is worse. Neither option is in any way appealing, in my view.