New budget woes may shut down rural courthouses
courts

New budget woes may shut down rural courthouses


By Kevin Miller
BDN Staff

AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine’s chief justice said Thursday that she is hopeful the judicial branch can find ways to weather the next round of deep budget cuts without closing courthouses in rural areas of the state.

But should the Legislature demand that some of Maine’s 39 courthouses be shuttered, District Court facilities in Millinocket, Lincoln, Madawaska, Calais and Rumford would be on the short list, Maine Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Leigh Saufley said.

Gov. John Baldacci has directed the judicial branch of government to identify an additional $4.3 million in budget cuts as part of the state’s effort to close a shortfall now expected to climb beyond $400 million. Lawmakers and Baldacci administration officials will decide exactly how much of a cut the court system would be forced to absorb when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

“That amount of $4.3 million over 20 months would really be devastating and we are continuing to work with the governor and the Judiciary Committee to figure out what to do,” the chief justice told members of a courthouse advisory committee.

In her presentation, Saufley outlined a rough plan to save money by not filling the 30 to 40 existing staff vacancies and by reducing the days or hours some courthouses are open. That would likely add to the backlog and could cause headaches for the public, she acknowledged.

“My hope is not to close any courthouses, with the possible exception of Madawaska, and not to lay off any staff,” she told the committee.

Madawaska’s court is typically only open one day every three weeks and uses staff who travel from the Fort Kent facility. Judicial representatives have been talking with Madawaska officials for some time about eliminating court hours in the town.

Closing courthouses in rural Maine likely would save the state between $50,000 and $75,000 a year in facilities costs for each location because the space is leased. There likely would be no savings on staff costs because those positions — and all of the cases they handle — would have to be transferred elsewhere, she said.

“You can’t save on personnel costs because the cases still exist,” she said.

Saufley called for maintaining the leases on all of the courthouses except Madawaska and, instead, operating the facilities less often in hopes of restoring service levels once the economy recovers. Committee members endorsed the plan, which will be presented to the Judiciary Committee.

But recognizing the fact that lawmakers may demand closures, Saufley said that, if requested, she would propose also eliminating the court services in Calais, Lincoln, Millinocket and Rumford.

Committee member Evert Fowle, district attorney for Kennebec and Somerset counties and president of the Maine Prosecutors Association, questioned whether the savings from closing courthouses or scaling back services would be worth the social costs.

Fowle gave the example of someone who needed a protection order but was unable to obtain one fast enough because the local courthouse was closed.

Fowle also pointed out that judicial offices were closed the Friday before Labor Day as part of the government shutdown days included in the current budget. When he came back to work, eight or nine people had been arrested on Thursday and spent the long weekend in jail — at taxpayers’ expense — who otherwise likely would have been released if offices were open on Friday.

“This is a core function of state government,” Fowle said of the court system. “This is why we have state government.”

Sen. David Hastings, a Fryeburg Republican who serves on the Judiciary Committee, said he was uncomfortable with any proposals that targeted courthouses in rural areas of the state.

“If there is pain that has to be suffered from this, it has to be suffered statewide,” Hastings said.

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
18 comments on this item

You think the courts are behind now just wait and see what happens they will be backed up for years and tax payers will be paying for this screw up. Thanks Baldy

But keep paying for Brain Injury Recreational Therapy - Thanks DHHS! But close everything else to sustain this never ending, world's most expensive adult daycare! Why do these luxury programs still exist while others are being told they need to give up basics? For the sake of the almighty federally reimbursed dollar! Sounds fair to you? NOT!!

The trickle down effect If there was a branch of government that was over managed its the jurist depart where you're buying food and shelter for sixty year olds because somebody had some narcotic on them?? Put bracelets on the non violent ones and send them to road crews.

Prohibition is breaking our budget. We can't afford to babysit all these non violent drug users.

This article begs the question for Mainers, what do you want, a fully functioning legal system, $9,000,000,000 in annual subsidy to the Maine Maritime Academy to support 450 students (1/2 the body) that are agressively recruited from out-of-state and leave after graduation and never look back?

9 billion to MMA?--I think you added a few too many 0000s--the annual state budget is under 6,000,000,000.

And why do we need a district court in Caribou and one in Presque Isle, 15 miles from each other????????????

The chief justice cannot figure this one out. The State is hurting for money and the courts are crying foul because they say they can’t function on their reduced budget. What about all the potential revenue from the backlog of cases they won’t dive into and address that would reduce the so-called backlog? For someone who will not show up for work and be ready to do their job until 9:00 am and plan on being out of there at 3:00 with an hour for lunch somewhere in between to tell you they can’t get their work done is foolish. The courts can’t catch up with their backlog with all its potential revenue for the State? They just need to go to work and do it. Take the hint from Nike.

Threatening to close rural courthouses in the State sounds just like when the school districts talk about their budget woes and threaten to cut the most important stuff as a public scare tactic. In addressing the courthouse advisory committee on reducing the number of days courthouses are operating Saufley said, “That would likely add to the backlog and could cause headaches for the public.” See, instead of telling judges who work under her direction to start in at 7:00 am and work until 5:00 pm until there is no more backlog, Saufley drags her feet and cries ‘woe is me and my entourage’ to legislators who are also lawyers with a vested interest in how long cases last. That in itself is a conflict of interest. An idea floating about the public is to make lawyers pay something for their lack of overhead costs in using our public facilities to log hours from their clients. They’re sucking money up waiting for the judge to arrive and the client is getting no real benefit from that time.

There is also the fact that within the past month several news articles were published following Saufley throughout the State exploring needed upgrades to courthouses. Forget that idea and get to work.

It seems that those who are tax paying citizens are losing their jobs due to budget cuts. We should only be cutting positions that don't bring in much revenue to the state at this point in time.

I agree with JeffDubay on this one. Our justices need to work harder, more hours and GET TO WORK ON TIME!!

$50,000 to $75,000 savings is nothing compared to what we need to cut in the budget.

Quite frankly, I don't care about the court houses. The only time I will deal with the court system is when I might have to mail in the fine for a traffic ticket. Stay out of trouble, and it doesn't affect you. I don't care if someone spends the weekend in jail because the courthouse isn't open. It will certainly make them think before they do whatever got them there in the first place. As they said on the TV show Hogans Heroes, "three days in the cooler." Why do court houses and court rooms always have to be so fancy? We need to be able to dispose of minor cases minus an attorney. You plead out a minor case before the judge, pay the fine, and you are done. Next Case! Our legal system is the model for the new health care system. Medical backlogs are next.

Its not a matter of the judges working longer. They are frequently present at work before the 8am opening of the courthouses and remain beyond the 4pm closing times. Additionally, most, if not all, bring work home with them in the evening and on weekends. The backlog of cases exists because of the fact that during the hours of service the courts employ clerks and court security officers in addition to the judges, all of whom deserve to be paid for the work they do, and the state cannot afford to pay them to work these additional hours.

A better way to raise revenue for the judicial branch would be to change the current practice of charging standardized filing fees and instead charge a fee based upon how much of the court's time and resources the parties actually take up. An unconstested divorce, which takes about 15 minutes to finalize, requires a filing fee in the same amount as a divorce that results in a trial lasting days. A uncomplicated divorce between two people with modest incomes requires a filing fee in the same amount as an extremely complicated divorce between two millionaires. The judicial branch ought to make the litigants pay filing fees in proportion to the time and resources they consume.

Yes Matt, but I've been to court when the judge is seen pulling into the driveway at 8:45, at the local bar for lunch and then to Abel Blood's right after court. ;o) Maybe where you can see from things are different.

Ahem....but then if you consider their salary, retirement, insurance, and other perks, they are very well paid. I don't feel a bit sorry for them if they have to take work home. "Salaries for most Superior Court and District Court judges would increase from $105,292 to $125,542 a year." This figure is from a two year old article. You can assume they make more now. By the way, as they are a government employee you need to add about 25% to that figure for benefits, that figure was from salary alone. That alone cost the taxpayers about 130K minimum for a judge. (I am sure some local judges are paid less) Then divide that number by the days they work, and the hours they keep. By the way, most judges have clerks and secretaries that do all the legwork. I have a friend that is a judge, and I have never seen him bring anything home from work, not even his black robe as it is laundered for him at work.

A lot less Legislators and State Workers would Work for Just ole ME<<

Ya I agree Legalize IT<<

How about cutting the renovations to the Machias Courthouse (12 million). That should take care of the shortfall.

Why are they building new court houses? they can't keep the ones the have now staffed.

You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.