By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
Officials presented to lawmakers a new trial court funding proposal that includes a centralized system of collecting assessments for local courts last week with local governments and law enforcement opposing the plan.
The report from the Michigan Judicial Council was released earlier this month. Lawmakers received their first introduction to the report during a joint House Judiciary Committee and Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary
and Public Safety Committee from State Court Administrator Tom Boyd and Mike Bosanac, chief financial officer of Monroe County.
In written testimony, the Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Townships Association, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association and the Michigan Association of Counties said they opposed the plan.
The proposal seeks to eliminate “the pressure on judges to generate revenue, brings in the state as a more balanced funding partner and ensures people are held accountable for their actions but not saddled with debts they cannot pay.”
Under the funding model proposed, trial court operational costs will be funded through four sources: local governments, a new Trial Court Fund within the Department of Treasury, where fines and fees from all courts are deposited, existing state and federal contributions and increased funding from the state.
To determine how much local governments provide toward courts in their jurisdiction, the average amount contributed in 2023-25 will be calculated and their future payments will be limited to that amount.
Operational costs for all courts will also need to be determined. The proposal recommends “a carefully developed plain-language formula for calculating court assessments provides solid footing for a more uniform approach to assessments,” that distinguishes between types and purposes of assessments. And, the proposal says, there should be a uniform way to determine indigency based on income.
The local government groups were concerned about the Legislature providing additional funding for courts and in how the plan would determine what local governments are spending to run local courts.
“While we appreciate the work put into the report, we do not believe the final recommendations are a solution that can move forward,” several of the groups said in a joint letter to the committee.
Boyd, responding to the opposition, said there are options to move forward with the plan. He said there is consternation about moving to an appropriations process.
“The question is, and we’ve heard this from libraries and courts and law enforcement, is there the level of comfort with the annual appropriations process that they have with just waiting for the people in black robes to bring the cash in? There isn’t that level of comfort,” he said. “We all live in this environment. We all watch the annual appropriations process. Many of us are involved in it. We trust that process. The question becomes, is it is it comfortable? No.”
Rep. Jay DeBoyer, R-Clay, said the proposed changes are not sustainable.
“This would require good actors who do not run a budget deficit to continually subsidize irresponsible actors,” he said in a statement. “There are a handful of counties in our state that struggle with their court operations costs due to a variety of factors, including rampant mismanagement, ineffective collection methods, and other things. Counties like ones I represent should not be forced to pay for other counties who do not have their acts together and aren’t operating effectively. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a plan, and it is a gateway to use this same approach with other funding shortfalls.”
Gongwer News Service
Officials presented to lawmakers a new trial court funding proposal that includes a centralized system of collecting assessments for local courts last week with local governments and law enforcement opposing the plan.
The report from the Michigan Judicial Council was released earlier this month. Lawmakers received their first introduction to the report during a joint House Judiciary Committee and Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary
and Public Safety Committee from State Court Administrator Tom Boyd and Mike Bosanac, chief financial officer of Monroe County.
In written testimony, the Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Townships Association, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association and the Michigan Association of Counties said they opposed the plan.
The proposal seeks to eliminate “the pressure on judges to generate revenue, brings in the state as a more balanced funding partner and ensures people are held accountable for their actions but not saddled with debts they cannot pay.”
Under the funding model proposed, trial court operational costs will be funded through four sources: local governments, a new Trial Court Fund within the Department of Treasury, where fines and fees from all courts are deposited, existing state and federal contributions and increased funding from the state.
To determine how much local governments provide toward courts in their jurisdiction, the average amount contributed in 2023-25 will be calculated and their future payments will be limited to that amount.
Operational costs for all courts will also need to be determined. The proposal recommends “a carefully developed plain-language formula for calculating court assessments provides solid footing for a more uniform approach to assessments,” that distinguishes between types and purposes of assessments. And, the proposal says, there should be a uniform way to determine indigency based on income.
The local government groups were concerned about the Legislature providing additional funding for courts and in how the plan would determine what local governments are spending to run local courts.
“While we appreciate the work put into the report, we do not believe the final recommendations are a solution that can move forward,” several of the groups said in a joint letter to the committee.
Boyd, responding to the opposition, said there are options to move forward with the plan. He said there is consternation about moving to an appropriations process.
“The question is, and we’ve heard this from libraries and courts and law enforcement, is there the level of comfort with the annual appropriations process that they have with just waiting for the people in black robes to bring the cash in? There isn’t that level of comfort,” he said. “We all live in this environment. We all watch the annual appropriations process. Many of us are involved in it. We trust that process. The question becomes, is it is it comfortable? No.”
Rep. Jay DeBoyer, R-Clay, said the proposed changes are not sustainable.
“This would require good actors who do not run a budget deficit to continually subsidize irresponsible actors,” he said in a statement. “There are a handful of counties in our state that struggle with their court operations costs due to a variety of factors, including rampant mismanagement, ineffective collection methods, and other things. Counties like ones I represent should not be forced to pay for other counties who do not have their acts together and aren’t operating effectively. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a plan, and it is a gateway to use this same approach with other funding shortfalls.”
