I hand filed a divorce for a new client today. I hand filed it because at this court they have less then 60% of the staff the staffing study says is needed – and it is taking weeks for mail to be opened and processed.
Despite hand filing, the counter clerk refused to give me the Summons so I could serve the other party – she said that there were only two counter clerks and she would mail it to me. I supplied her with an envelope with a stamp self-addressed to me – there is no one to address envelopes and postage is underfunded.
Now, in this case, a husband walked out to live with his pregnant mistress – and left his wife of 17 years, his 14 year old, and 7 year old to cope.
What if it was a husband, and the wife left, and said, “Good luck seeing your kids?”.
Six days have passed. The Summons has not come in the mail. How am I to seek relief for my client or serve her husband?
As Judge Peter W. Agnes, Jr said today in No shortchanging justice
The governor’s budget cuts won’t simply lead to delays; conflict that is not addressed appropriately in court will be resolved inappropriately in our homes and on our streets. Access to justice by lottery is not access to justice at all.
Budgets are about choices. This year, the Massachusetts Legislature took many difficult choices. The judicial branch is prepared to meet its obligations with the budget we received from the Legislature. But if the governor’s latest cuts are allowed to stand, there will be a heavy price to pay in the future.
Of the Governor’s vetoes, $18.5 million, of 12.5 percent are taken from the judicial branch, though only two percent of the budget is spent on the judicial branch.
Only in court can the “little guy” fight city hall, injustice, and the squeeze from on high. I guess the little guy doesn’t count for much when the Governor looks at the big picture – nor does access to justice.
Is it really we don’t have the money. I thought it might have been just that he didn’t put it in his own budget, but I never thought he would veto something like this from the legislature. Will Doug Rubin’s successor follow his example and come to BMG and explain?
From a financial standpoint Courts rarely offer any clear cut “gains”, and many obvious “losses.” The biggest problems with the system in this state if not everywhere is bureaucratic inefficiency and a chronic lack of consistent levels of funding.
<
p>Turf issues and incompetent political appointees waste money when it is given to the courts of the commonwealth, and impede the supposed goal of giving true Justice. Likewise lack of funding to “punish” individuals or courthouses for incompetency also thwarts “Justice” by eliminating access to those who need it most.
<
p>The only answer is to somehow crush turfing (not happening due to human nature, Remove the politically appointed hacks (not happening in this state), and Give the courts sufficient funding (plausibly not possible due to years of mismanagement).
<
p>What a functional court system does is provide clear, concise, just, and unbiased guidance as to the appropriate consequences for a wrong act. the goal supposedly being to make people not do that act, or repeat that act.
<
p>The two most common misconceptions about the American justice system are first, that it is supposed to somehow “fix” people. ITS NOT. It is supposed to get people to function as productive members of society, and that’s it. You get to be odd, strange, or bizarre, that’s what “free speech” means. Cross the line and we hit you with a stick til you stop crossing the line.
<
p>Second is the meaning of “cruel, and unusual punishment.” Most people think “cruel” means mean. It really is intended to mean “excessive.” That’s why you cant give Joe blow the death penalty for jaywalking. “Unusual” refers to unfairly assigned. That’s why we have mandatory minimums for some crimes white folks, black folks, brown folks, hell polka dotted yellow chartreuse folks all are supposed to receive punishments that are similar for similar actions.
Which renders the “stick” either random, or meaningless.
<
p>In the family law context, and in the juvenile law context – the current level of underfunding is having a horrible impact.
<
p>Children are deprived of their families, visitation and support orders are not timely. There are not enough sessions to service the cases, basically.
…are the two biggest problems you see with the court system. From a distance, I would tend to agree. You seem to be fatalistic about the chances of fixing the bureaucratic inefficiencies, which leaves us with only one other route…more money for a poorly run system, so that they can so a acceptable level of work. Count me as one of many (I think) that does not accept this as a solution.
I want to focus on this paragraph from your comment:
<
p>”The only answer is to somehow crush turfing (not happening due to human nature, Remove the politically appointed hacks (not happening in this state), and Give the courts sufficient funding (plausibly not possible due to years of mismanagement).”
<
p>I’m not exactly sure what turfing is in this context. It seems this should be settled by law regarding who gets to do what. As for appointed hacks, to whom are you refering? Judges themselves are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by Council, similar to federal judges. I for one definitely do not want to elect our judges. Our other court-related officials – District Attorney, Clerk of Courts, Register of Deeds, and Register of Probate – are elected at the county level (even in non-existent counties) so no hack appointments there.
And if the court is in the district of a legislator with clout, it gets much better funding and is even, at times over staffed.
<
p>If the court is in a back-bencher’s district, or has somehow incurred the displeasure of the Speaker, or the Head of Ways and Means, or the Chief Justice for Administration and Management [the “CJAM”} [currently Robert Mulligan who has been appointed to a second five year term as CJAM] – then the court house doesn’t get repaired. Supplies arrive slowly, if at all. Other court houses with fewer cases get more money and staff. Positions at the disfavored court house not get filled, personnel are transferred away to other courts – if you want to see an architechtural jewel allowed to crumble & moulder, just go to the Cambridge Middlesex and Probate Court House at 208 East Cambridge Street. There are wonderful murals – but due to water damage, hunks of paint hanging down, missing tiles in the floors, boarded up plywoood here and there, and a woefully understaffed facility through no fault of its own.
<
p>The CJAM calls that building a “money pit” – he hates it. This is a very very well known fact.
<
p>The employees located at the Sullivan Court House [40 Thorndike St.] sued the CJAM due to asbestos, improper removal and health concerns – then Middlesex AG Coakley was a party – and the response was to let the building fall apart, and move the various courts to different cities.
<
p>It used to be that there was a court cluster in Cambridge – but no more.
<
p>I get the sense that Galorn does – or has – worked or interned in a court house and seen many problems first hand, of the sort I am describing.
<
p>By accepting the wise, but frugal numbers in the House budget drafted with the direction of Charles Murphy as Chair of Ways and Means – Gov. Patrick plays into this whole shoddy dynamic and looks clueless. Unlike Patrick, Representative Murphy practiced in the courts of the Commonwealth, often representing the indigent. He therefore knew what the bottom line needed to be.
<
p>Patrick’s veto of so much trial court funding looks clueless and would do real harm. I hope that this veto is over ridden and the figure from the House Ways and Means Budget is put back into play.
Sorry. Typo.
…that structural damage should be taken care of, and that staff funding should be decided by some sort of standard formula based on caseload. I’m not an expert – just thinking out loud.
But never followed. See: http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc… and http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc… and staffing metrics: http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc…
<
p>In fact, time standards and tightened, almost draconian, management is now in place. That doesn’t help when the budget is an entity over which no court has any control, nor its own allowed staffing levels.
If you think that Court clerks, and other back room staff aren’t hired at least in part due to political patronage you are woefully unaware of the reality of the courts in the commonwealth.
<
p>Furthermore as far as “elected” officials such as the Register of Probate go at least once to my knowledge the particular individual was “reelected” as he was running unopposed, despite being under indictment for fraud and embezzlement if my memory is correct.
<
p>http://www.middlesexda.com/pre…
It just occurred to me that not every Gentle Reader here might have known that.
<
p>Giving transferability between those line items to CJAM Mulligan wouldn’t help, either [read the rest of the posts on this thread.]