Reforming the Courts

 

As a member of the Citizens Coalition for an Independent Judiciary, we will work with fellow advocacy organizations to reform the operation and management of the Commonwealth’s judicial branch. Most importantly, we will strongly advocate for true separation of power by decreasing the power of the legislature to make decisions relative to the judiciary.

 

Click on the links to learn more about judicial reform:

Report of the Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts ("The Monan Commission")

Press Release Accompanying the Monan Commission Report

Statement of the Rev. J. Donald Monan, S.J. to Common Cause Members at the 2004 Brunch


The Monan Commission was established in the spring of 2003 to assess the performance of Massachusetts' judicial branch.  The above report outlines many shortcomings in how the courts are currently run and offers a roadmap toward more efficient and courteous administration of justice in the Commonwealth.

 

1. Background on judicial reform

2. The Citizens Coalition for an Independent Judiciary

3. Take action on judicial reform!

 

***********************************************

1. Background on Judicial Reform (source: Pioneer Institute)

***********************************************
Excerpted in whole from the Pioneer Institute website:

Background: Judicial branch lacks power, independence

The Massachusetts judicial system is facing a crisis, as detailed in a Pioneer White Paper by retired Judge James W. Dolan. In recent years, court operations have been characterized by rising costs, declining caseload and productivity (see graphs below), and an inequitable distribution of resources. Despite cuts during the past year, court budgets have increased by more than 70 percent since 1994, even as workload has decreased.


Each year, the chief justice for administration and management, who is the statutory administrator of the trial court, forwards a budget for the entire judiciary to the governor to be included in the state budget. Within that budget are requests for new staff positions, calibrated to the needs of the court system. The legislature largely ignores this budget request and instead produces a document with individual line items (179 in 2002) that control funding and human resources for each court.

Of the 27 states with centralized, state-funded court systems, Massachusetts is the only one to use line items so extensively. The approach was decried as far back as 1987, when a Senate Ways and Means Committee report found it was undermining the Trial Court’s ability to strategize, prioritize, and manage efficiently.

Between 1998 and 2001, the legislature mandated the creation of 416 positions never requested by the judiciary. Over the four-year period, the positions cost the Commonwealth $50.1 million; Massachusetts taxpayers continue to bear those costs (see graph).

This rampant patronage leads to an inequitable allocation of resources. For example, the Springfield District Court, which has the largest caseload in the Commonwealth, received $3.14 million in 2002. The Boston Municipal Court’s caseload is about 15 percent smaller and includes fewer serious criminal cases. The BMC received $8.57 million in 2002. In 2001, Springfield had 102 employees, and the BMC had 157. The Boston Municipal Court, though functionally a district court, is in fact a separate court department with its own chief justice and an administrative staff that rivals that of the chief justice of the entire district court, who is responsible for 69 courts across the Commonwealth.

A broader comparison of district court budgets for Suffolk County (population 689,810) and counties in the western part of the state (Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire—combined population of 814,970) is also telling. In 2002, the western district courts had a combined budget of $13.3 million, while the Boston Municipal Court and Suffolk County district courts received a total of $26.1 million.

Like all other areas of state government, the judicial branch is facing cuts as a result of the state’s fiscal crisis. But judicial leaders are prohibited by the legislature from deciding how the cuts should be administered across the system. Legislators have shielded patronage hires from lay-offs. In a recent supplemental budget, the legislature attempted to restore some of the funds, but there was little correlation between the neediest courts and those that received funding. Springfield, for example, was not slated to receive any additional funds.

The judiciary’s budget has risen more than 70 percent since 1994, from $261.6 million to a high point of $475.5 million in 2001 (see graph, top right)—an increase of 82 percent—before the state’s fiscal crisis necessitated cuts resulting in a current budget of almost $452 million. From 1994 to 2001, the number of court employees increased by almost 40 percent (see graph, bottom right). Yet caseloads have remained stagnant or decreased since 1996.

In 1996, Massachusetts taxpayers paid $278 per case entry; by 2000, we paid $405. Over the same period, case entries per employee fell from 190.6 to 142.3, a decline of more than 25 percent. The courts are further hampered by a lack of skilled administrators; the system deprives the judiciary of independence in administrative and funding matters. This balkanized structure also contributes to cuts being administered unevenly. Vulnerable and low-paid employees essential to the day-to-day functioning of many courts are being laid off, and even basic court services are being dramatically curtailed.

 

 

******************************************

2. The Citizens Coalition for an Independent Judiciary

******************************************

 

I. Problem Statement

 

The Massachusetts court system is in crisis.  Budgetary problems are threatening even basic court functions.  Meanwhile, judges, clerk magistrates and probation officers vie for control of courthouses across the Commonwealth.  The recent Pioneer Institute white paper, A Declaration of Independence: Reaffirming the Autonomy of the Third Branch, documents debilitating problems in the administration of justice in Massachusetts.

  • Rising court costs even as work load is declining;

  • Creation, over the last four years alone, of over 400 unneeded jobs and $20 million in unnecessary annual spending within the Judiciary;

  • Grossly inequitable distribution of resources among courts around the state, resulting in a lack of access to justice for underserved persons;

  • Legislative micro-management that is undermining central court administration;

  • A balkanized judicial branch.  Seven trial court departments,each with itsown chief justice, a Chief Justice for Administration and Management, and the Chief Justice of the SJC, the judiciary rarely speaks with one voice;

  • Court administrators without the appropriatemanagement expertise.

The current state fiscal crisis has exacerbated these serious problems. Judicial leaders are prohibited by the Legislature from deciding how $40 million in budget cutsshould be allocated. Moreover the Legislature has shielded patronage hires from layoffs that are the result of revenue shortfalls. At the same time, court management suffers from a lack of skilled administrators.  As a consequence, severe budget cuts in the courts are being shouldered by the most vulnerable court personnel and the day-to-day functioning of many courts is being dramatically curtailed.

II. Objectives

Members of the coalition agree that its activities will aim to remove legislative interference in the day-to-day management of the courts, and ensure accountability within the courts to permit the speedy and fair delivery of justice.  Specifically, the coalition's objectives are to:

  •   Consolidate state court appropriations into a single line item for the Judiciary.  Massachusetts' use of 179 line items is not only unique in the country, but also the major cause of patronage and poor resource allocation in the court system.

  • Return the authority to hire all court personnel to the Judiciary.  A chain of command has to be established to ensure accountability and the independence of adjudicatory matters. 

  • Adopt a workload-based system for determination of resource allocation and establish performance measures for the courts.  Once given the power due an independent branch of government, the Judiciary must be prepared to allocate resources in an efficient and appropriate manner. The Legislature should refocus on oversight of the Judiciary and ensuring that performance standards are adopted and adhered to. 

  • Bring professional management to the Judiciary by creating a single oversight position in the judiciary to be filled by a professional manager specifically trained in court administration.

III. Working together for reform

Members of the Citizens Coalition for an Independent Judiciary include Common Cause Massachusetts, Pioneer Institute, Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, and the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts. The Coalition will guide all activities with the aim of reforming the operation and management of the Commonwealth’s judicial branch.  Once structured, the Coalition will raise resources for research, legal, and public education efforts and coordinate the work of its diverse membership to leverage the maximum benefit of allied resources.

  ****************************

3. Take Action on judicial reform

****************************

It's as easy as 1,2,3, to take action in support of rules reform:

 

1. Call or email your elected officials and encourage them to ensure the judiciary's separate powers by:

Supporting:

SB#

HB#

Opposing:

SB#

HB#

 

How to contact your elected officials: