By Peter H. Glade, MBA President
As I write this column in October, I can only guess at what the November election will bring. As you read this edition of the Multnomah Lawyer, you probably already know the results. Given the number of ballot measures, judicial contests and other races for political office that will significantly impact the future welfare of our justice system, the political and fiscal landscapes could be radically changed. Whatever the election results, the upcoming legislative session will be the next major challenge for those committed to the stewardship of our justice system.
It should come as no shock that the challenge is funding. The State Court Administrator cannot obtain any more money to run the system than the legislature provides. The legislature controls the budget. The new legislature convenes after the first of the year, but the preparation for the battle for funding has already begun. And, depending on the election results, we may be scrapping for a piece of an even smaller pie than currently anticipated.
Of course, there are many worthy candidates for budget consideration. I am a big fan of adequately funded schools, roads, health and welfare services, environmental control, wildlife and forest management, state parks, law enforcement and many of the other services provided by the State. However, since I am writing in the Multnomah Lawyer and the MBA’s mission includes support of Oregon’s justice system, I will focus on some of the major challenges we face and the reasons why you should do all you can to help secure adequate funding for that system.
Salaries. A recent national survey of state court trial judge compensation ranked Oregon 49th out of 50 states. There are those who contend that, depending on how one values retirement and other benefits, the results are not quite that bad. I find this argument provides little comfort. We are lucky to have attracted the quality of judges that we have, but continued toleration of such inadequate compensation puts the ability to recruit and retain excellent judges at great risk.
Our appellate judges also fall on the low end of the spectrum, so we face the same problem with all of our courts. Similarly, the staffing of the courts has suffered from financial neglect. Reasonably compensated judges will not be able to cope with their case loads unless they have the staffing necessary to support courthouse operations, to manage their case loads, assist in the courtroom and provide all the other courthouse services required for efficient operations.
Facilities and Infrastructure. You may have noticed that despite the efforts of many of our judges, state courthouse technology has not emerged from the 20th century. The Chief Justice and State Court Administrator have identified the modernization of the court system’s technology as a high priority in their draft budget. Again, money is the problem, because technological advances require the investment of substantial sums. Bringing court system technology up to date will promote greater efficiency and convenience.
Yet, it makes no sense to install technological improvements in courthouses that are falling down around those who use them. Multnomah County is not alone in its need for new courthouse facilities. Although the counties retain responsibility for supplying courthouse facilities to the system managed by the state, the Chief Justice has established a task force to quantify the money needed to repair our deteriorating courthouses, and he plans on requesting the legislature to take the same kind of action it took to repair the capitol building when it was damaged by an earthquake in 1993.
The Multnomah County Commissioners have resolved to select a site for the new downtown courthouse by the end of the year. Actually funding the project poses a different set of problems. State involvement could help move the process along, but that would require interest and action on the part of the legislature. Neither the county nor the state will be able to raise the money necessary to build new facilities here unless we can convince the voters of the necessity of spending that kind of money.
Indigent Defense. The Court Administrator’s budget also includes funds for Oregon’s Public Defense Services Commission, which, in turn, contracts for representation of criminal defendants who are without means to hire their own lawyers. In Multnomah County, these services are provided by Metropolitan Defenders and a collection of consortia of private firms and lawyers. In the current biennium, the budget is $175.8 million. That’s a lot of money, but it’s not nearly enough. This year, it appears that the budget may fall short by more than $7.5 million.
More importantly, however, the current budget will not support adequate compensation for these dedicated lawyers who provide constitutionally mandated services in the most difficult cases. The public at large does not appreciate the importance of these services, and the effort to provide public funds to adequately compensate lawyers providing defense to poor defendants accused of heinous crimes has fallen far short of the mark.
Like the risk we run by underpaying our judges, the risk created by failing to set aside adequate funding for indigent defense could have an enormous impact on the whole community. We cannot constitutionally prosecute criminals unless they are provided a competent defense. We cannot attract lawyers competent to defend the most difficult cases without providing them with adequate compensation. If we offer inadequate compensation, competent lawyers, no matter how dedicated, will be forced to seek other employment. And if we cannot supply a competent defense, criminal defendants will go free.
All of these financial challenges to the justice system have several common traits. First, they all involve under-funded court operations that depend on the legislature for their budgets. Second, they involve operations and services that are not widely understood or appreciated by the public. Accordingly, when it comes down to dividing up the available funds, the legislature feels little public pressure to find a way to provide the system with an adequate budget.
The MBA, the OSB, other lawyer organizations and individual lawyers and judges have all sought to influence the legislature to recognize that it has a duty to provide sufficient funding for the judicial system, which is, after all, not a state agency, but an independent, co-equal branch of the government. But, if we really want to put some pressure on our law makers, then we have to start building public understanding and support.
A Public Outreach Task Force was established by the MBA a few years ago to address this need for public education. If you are interested in participating in this organized effort, please contact the MBA.
Even if you do not wish to get involved on that level, speak to your friends, neighbors and clients about these issues, and let them know that unless we all recognize the importance of these elements of the justice system to the health of our community, and unless we communicate the need to give the system high budget priority, we risk a significant and prolonged erosion of our quality of life.
This column appeared in the November 2006 issue of Multnomah Lawyer, the monthly newsletter of the Multnomah Bar Association. Peter Glade was president of the association from 2006 to 2007. View this article on the MBA's Web site at http://www.mbabar.org/docs/newsletters/ml_nov2006.pdf.
