County Board restores staff, partial funding

Listen to this article

On. Nov. 16, the Milwaukee County Board overrode a veto by County Executive Scott Walker. The move keeps the courts fully staffed. However, the final budget only restores $2.9 million of the extra $4.4 million that Chief Judge Kitty K. Brennan said was necessary to maintain court operations. Photo by Tony Anderson

The Milwaukee County Board restored 28 staff positions to the Milwaukee County Circuit Courts. The board voted 17-2 to override a county executive veto, which would have eliminated those positions.

The County Board’s Nov. 16 vote ended the court’s battle to hold on to its entire support staff. During an interview after the vote, Chief Judge Kitty K. Brennan expressed relief that the positions were restored. At the same time, she cautioned that the courts were not out of the woods yet. Although the County Board restored all the staff positions, they did not approve all of the funding Brennan said was necessary to maintain court operations.

“I appreciate their responsiveness and their good faith. I think they are a credit to the community because the budget that the county executive presented them with was dead wrong,” Brennan said, noting the challenges the board faced working with the proposed budget.

Brennan said she appreciated board members meeting with her to discuss the courts’ situation. The veto override will give her “maximum flexibility” to run the court, she said.

The 17-2 vote was one of five votes the County Board took to override executive vetoes County Executive Scott Walker had made to the budget, which the board had approved Nov. 7. In each case, the board overrode the county executive’s vetoes related to pension funding, appropriating money for contingencies, and abolishing the 28 court positions. However, the court staff veto was overridden by the largest margin of any other vote.

By overriding Walker’s vetoes, the County Board approved an additional $9.7 million in expenditures, adopting a budget with $1.26 billion in expenditures. The move raises the tax levy from $224.2 million with Walker’s vetoes to $232.

In a released statement, Walker said, “I am disappointed that the board today missed an opportunity to lower property taxes.”

Walker chided the board for overriding vetoes of money to the pension fund. During the Nov. 16 meeting, board members said failing to put the additional $1.7 million into the fund would cost taxpayers more down the road.

Walker also raised concerns about returning full staffing to the courts when the county was not fully funding those positions.

“The board’s decision to retain positions in the court system without sufficient funding is both irrational and fiscally imprudent,” said Walker.

The County Board overrode the court veto without any discussion. During an earlier Finance Committee meeting, several members expressed a desire for the state to pick up a greater share of court costs.

Budget History

On Sept. 29, the county executive announced his proposed budget for 2006, which included plans to cut 25 percent of the court’s support staff and 20 percent of the sheriff’s bailiffs. The proposed budget called for the elimination of 79 court support positions, such as 10 court commissioners, 11 law clerks, 18 deputy court clerks and additional staff.

The county executive’s proposed budget cut $6 million from the $29.5 million Brennan had requested to maintain court operations. The chief judge told the County Board’s Finance Committee that she could get by if $4.4 million were restored to the court’s budget, but she needed to have it fully staffed. Failing to restore those positions would have dire consequences for Milwaukee’s court system, she warned, noting that the civil and family courts would suffer most.

After reviewing Walker’s proposed budget throughout October, the County Board came back with a revised budget, which restored all the court’s staff and provided the court with an additional $2.9 million. Walker used an executive veto to cut 28 support staff positions in order to match the level of funding the County Board had approved, said Walker spokesman Rod McWilliams. On Nov. 16, the County Board overrode that veto.

Sigh of Relief

Although the final budget was less than she had originally sought, Brennan was satisfied with the outcome. The chief judge said she could absorb some of the costs, but not all of them.

“At $2.9 (million), I’m $3 million short of what I needed. I can eat some of that, by not filling positions, not fixing copiers, but that’s not going to be enough,” Brennan said.

“I am going to operate all of the present courts and programs as long as I can,” she continued. “If I don’t make it to the end of the year, I will take advantage of the two choices I have. One is to go back to the board to seek supplemental appropriations. Two is to pursue legal avenues.”

Brennan said she appreciate the board’s responsiveness and willingness to work with the court system. She noted that her priority is to keep court operations functioning.

Bar Support

The chief judge credited the legal community with providing some essential support for staffing and funding the court system. She thanked the many lawyers and bar associations that contacted county officials about the proposed budget. Brennan pointed to copies of letters she had received from many bar associations and numerous lawyers, who also had written the county executive and supervisors.

Ted M. Warshafsky, of Warshafsky, Rotter, Tarnoff & Bloch SC, was one of many lawyers who took time to write. Warshafsky sent letters to 1,600 active and recent clients and to the County Board members. The letter explained the potential effect the cuts would have on the courts, particularly the Civil Division.

Washafsky told the Wisconsin Law Journal that he was moved to act because the county executive’s proposed courts budget “bore no relation to the reality of the courts and to the needs of the public for a competent judicial system.”

In his budget proposal, the county executive referred to a staff review of statistics from the Consolidated Court Automation Program (CCAP). He maintained that those figures indicated the courts were operating at 86 percent of the level that could be achieved.

McWilliams said, “This wasn’t a number that was pulled out of thin air. This was based on a study of the CCAP data, the same data that the court system uses when they ask for additional judges.”

State and local court officials said the county executive’s staff was told those statistics were not the best tool to determine the level of court activity.

Warshafsky said he warned clients of the devastating effect the elimination of court commissioners would have on the small claims courts. During the interview, he indicated the proposed budget had already affected one of his large claim civil cases.

“I had someone who I think is a very excellent judge,” he explained. “We had a meeting to set a trial date in January or February and the judge said ‘Let’s come back in January and talk about it again, because I don’t know whether or not we will be called upon to do other things such as suspend dates helping small claims court.’”

The veteran personal injury lawyer noted that the court system is not perfect. He admitted that some things that might be done to make the system more efficient, but the proposed budget was not taking those steps.

“I felt gratified by hearing that they decided to override his veto,” he said.

Moving Forward

Brennan said she was grateful to all the members of the legal community who contacted the county in support of the staffing and funding for the courts.

“We had so many lawyers call and write the board to get them to do the right thing,” Brennan said.

For now, the chief judge said she is committed to living with the budget, to keeping the courts functioning and to convening a panel to review the court system.

The County Board plans to review the court system as well. In the 2006 budget, the board appropriated $50,000 for an audit of the courts. Brennan did not fight that move. The chief judge indicated she is looking forward to seeing the study results.

McWilliams said the county executive would consider the information coming from that survey when preparing the courts budget for 2007.

“He’s said all along that if there is data that shows a different picture, we’ll be happy to look at that and study that as well,” McWilliams said.

Tony Anderson can be reached by email.