In a year when virtually every state agency and department is facing budget cuts, the state Supreme Court's 2016-17 budget is slated to grow by $4.2 million to $143.6 million — but Chief Justice Menis Ketchum told members of the House and Senate Finance committees that's strictly because of legislative mandates.
“Our budget has increased from $139 million to $143 million, and the reason it increased is because of these legislative mandates that the Supreme Court is required to pay,” Ketchum said during budget hearings. “I'm a skinflint, and I'm not happy at all with this budget.”
Among the mandates Ketchum cited: Last year, the Legislature passed bills increasing salaries for magistrates and staff, as well as adding four circuit court and two family court judges, at a total cost of $1.35 million a year.
Similarly, the Justice Reinvestment Act requires the Supreme Court to have drug courts operating in every county in the state by this July 1, at an additional cost of $1.12 million.
About 85 percent of the Supreme Court's budget is mandated by law, which Ketchum said makes it difficult to cut spending.
“Every time we try to cut our budget, there's another bill passed that says, the Supreme Court pays for it,” said Ketchum, who said it's frustrating to not be able to reduce spending during the current state budget crisis.
“We've got a fiscal responsibility to this state, and it's broke,” he said. “It's a little bit hard when we get additional costs thrown on us.”
Ketchum said he's particularly concerned the Legislature could mandate creation of an intermediate appeals court, which he said could cost in excess of $15 million a year.
“I'm scared to death about what it's going to cost for an intermediate appellate court,” he told the Senate Finance Committee. It was the only reference made in either committee to the proposed mid-level court.
He said the legislative mandates are squeezing the high court's own operating budget.
“We're getting to the point of laying off people,” Ketchum said. “We've got to be fiscally responsible. It's going to hurt people, but if we have to, we've got to do it.”
Meanwhile, Ketchum outlined to both committees what he said could amount to $10 million of annual savings, if the Legislature would undo three mandates:
n Eliminate drug courts, which will cost $5 million a year, whose functions could be handled by circuit judges and probation officers, Ketchum said.
“The judges have the tools in their tool box to do these very same things without special courts,” he said.
Sen. Jeff Kessler, D-Marshall, questioned whether the savings to the court system would be lost to higher Corrections costs to incarcerate drug offenders — noting a key reason the drug courts were created was to keep nonviolent drug offenders out of prison.
n Eliminate special sex offender probation officers. A provision of the 2006 law increasing penalties for sex offenders whose victims are under 18 created special probation officers to supervise those offenders when they are released from prison, and made those officers employees of the Supreme Court, not county employees.
At $3 million a year, Ketchum said not only could the work of the special officers be handled by regular probation officers, but said the special officers have little oversight.
“How do I know if someone in Tucker County is actually working?” he asked.
n Repeal a provision in the law requiring the Supreme Court to pay counties for the costs to lease space for family courts.
“We don't pay rent for circuit courts or magistrate courts, but for some reason we pay it for family courts,” he said.
Currently, the Supreme Court pays $1.25 million to lease space for family courts, but Ketchum said he's afraid that amount could soar, as other counties follow the lead of the Monongalia County Commission, which recently doubled the Family Court rent there from $12 a square foot to $24 a square foot.
Also Monday, Ketchum said:
n The Supreme Court has budgeted $2.9 million for employer contributions to the Judicial Retirement System fund, which is currently about 150 percent funded, but is awaiting a letter from the Consolidated Public Retirement Board's actuary verifying that most of that funding can be freed up for other uses.
n He will not be appointing a retired judge to the bench to hear oral arguments Tuesday afternoon in the petition to the court over which political party should be allowed to nominate a replacement for former Sen. Daniel Hall, who resigned from the Senate on Jan. 4.
Ketchum said it would not be appropriate to appoint a retired circuit court judge to hear the matter, which involves constitutional law.
Reach Phil Kabler at philk@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-1220, or follow @PhilKabler on Twitter.