Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0803 Documents Submitted , ~tlf/M,.rrd' .. M1 btIWJ , IfYru . Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am here tonight to share my concerns with you about the impact of the . above-referenced Ordinance and Resolution on Ashland Municipal Court's integrity and the ability of the Court to administer justice. (I will call it the Fees and Charges Ordinance.) Municipal Court judges have a close up view of these difficult economic times. We are all familiar with the headlines proclaiming how high Oregon ranks in unemployment and foreclosures. I remember how shocked I was to learn that Ashland's median income is the second lowest in the county (White City was the lowest), that 42% of families in Ashland are headed by a single parent, that Ashland and White City have the highest number of families living at the poverty level in the County. (2000 US Census) The dollar amount of any new local fees and charges, and which ones to include or delete from the proposal, are Council policy decisions. I do not have time tonight to discuss in detail the 16 new local fees which are proposed. Based on my experience as Ashland Municipal Judge, I have questions about a few of the fees, objections to others, and no objection to some. I have attached a written copy of remarks I made before you at the April 20, 2010 Council meeting. These remarks, as well as the letters, emails, phone calls and additional testimony offered three months ago concerning the Municipal Code Ordinances are pertinent and apply equally to some of the decisions you are being asked to ma.ke tonight You are being asked to change the way the Ashland Municipal Court has historically functioned with regard to local fees. The same basic principles are raised by the Fees and Charges Ordinance: will the Ashland Municipal Court continue to be a Court that reflects our comrnunity values and is characterized by flexibility and the ability to exercise judicial discretion? To pass this Ordinance and Resolution as written would essentially make our Court different from all other Municipal Courts that I am aware of in our state. Different because the Ordinance mandates what the court "shall" and "shall not" do with regard to these 16 new local fees. (There are exceptions, however they are narrowly drawn, or the circumstances in which they arise seldom occur.) The Ordinance restricts the Court's discretion, it ties the Judge's hands when making a determination about the amount of a fee or whether and how to waive a fee. Other Municipal Courts around our state do have local fees, as recounted by the Assistant City Attorney's work sheet I have contacted these courts and as I reported at the June, 2009 Council Study Session, none of the Courts I spoke '.. i , with are required to impose their local fees. In most cases, the request for the fees originated with the Judge, and remain completely within the court's discretion as to their imposition and amount Furthermore, and equally important, none of these Municipal Courts, which uniformly have the power to waive or reduce local fees, are required to make written findings to justify their decisions regarding these local fees. I would like to draw an analogy which I hope will help illustrate the difficulties presented by imposing a written requirement During City Council meetings you each make many decisions, you cast your individual votes a number of times. I ask you to imagine what it might be like if a large number of those decisions required you to stop and "make a written finding supported by competent evidence in the record." Such a requirement would take time, it would be cumbersome, even burdensome. It is not a compromise to replace all the "shalls" and "shall nots" to "may" if you impose the proposed written finding requirement First, I am concerned about the practical application of requiring a written finding. If the Council does impose this unusual condition on Ashland Municipal Court, there are a number of legal questions as well as serious logistical issues which would need to be addressed, some minor, some major. For example, how many copies of the order will be made and to whom are they sent? Who would review the Court's findings? (The City Administrator, City Attorney, Director of Finance, The City Council?) Are there time constraints? What if an insufficiency is found? Is there an appeal process? What are the costs of the appeal? Second, I am concerned that this requirement could not only turn out to be unworkable, but also expensive. Just as you make many decisions as Mayor and . Council members, the Ashland Municipal Judge (and Court Clerks, because the Court is a Violations Bureau) make decisions about fees and charges all day long, not only in Court, but also in response to emails, letters, and phone calls as well as at the Court's "counter." Written findings require paper and staff time, development of a system to track the paper, establishment of standards, etc. This aspect of the Ordinance increases the duties of the Court and staff and would therefore increase the cost of running the Court. It is hard to determine what the benefit of this increased work load would be. If the state surcharges are not renewed and do terminate in July, 2011, the Ordinance provides that Council enact an automatic $45/$35 local fee to replace the state surcharges. (There are four other fees that are part of House Bill 2287 which you would also determine whether to reduce/continue, etc.) Between October 1,2009, and July 31,2010 the $45/$35 surcharge fees have generated $69,172.00 for the City treasury, an average of @ $7,000.00 per month. Because the fees were only attached to violations and crimes committed after 10/1/09, it took several months for those cases to clear Ashland Municipal Court. '- . I , Starting in January, 2010, the revenue has averaged@ $9,000.00 per month. The Court and staff do spend considerable time explaining what these surcharges are and that they have been imposed by the State legislature. People express a combination of frustration, cynicism and defeat wh~n they are told that the Court has no discretion with regard to the imposition of these fees. Probably only a very few, if any, write letters to Salem or call their state elected officials. The Court itself has not been able to use any of this revenue. We had hoped to acquire our first scannerto help the Court run smoother, as well as a few other needed improvements, but that has not happened yet. The revenue generated by the Court meets or exceeds the costs of running it and has for many years. The City Council has the discretion to redirect revenue from the Court to support other departments. As I stated at the April 20, 2010 Council Meeting,."one of a court's functions is to generate and collect revenue." However, if revenue collection becomes, or appears to be one of a Court's primary purposes, the integrity and reputation of the Court is compromised. In conclusion, if the Council decides to add new local fees, as Judge of the Ashland Municipal Court, I ask that you change the "shall" and "shall nots" to "may." Do not make AMC the only Court in Oregon that has mandated local fees. AND, if you do choose to retain the discretion and flexibility that has historically characterized Ashland Municipal Court, do not make it the only Municipal Court in the state required to make written findings each time it reduces or waives a local fee. This requirement has serious consequences for the functioning of Ashland Municipal Court which I am concerned have not been well considered. This decision, the decision to maintain an independent, flexible Court, the Court our community has supported for decades, is in your hands. ... - ~ '. , '- ,i Mayor and Council Members, I am here to share my thoughts with you about the significance of these proposed changes to the integrity of the Ashland Municipal Court, and the Court's ability to administer justice. I am here because of my passion for local community process, democracy, and the separation of the three powers of government; and 'most importantly, to talk about the value and role of the Ashland Municipal Court in our community. Because, like you, i am an elected official. I am here to stand up for the flexibility, the more fluid process that has historically characterized Ashland Municipal Court. I have worked in the Court for over 22 years, 19 years as an Ashland Municipal Court Judge Pro tem, and for over three and one half years as the elected judge. I have been fortunate to work for a court that has flexibility, creativity, discretion, and is not standardized. I believe our community supports Ashland Municipal Court and that the Court reflects our community values. One of the benefits, beauties, if you will, of living in a small community is to be able to count on the Court's ability to respond to individual cases. This is how Ashland Municipal Court has long served our community. Ashland Municipal Court is a place where the judge can listen, exercise discretion in administering the Court's justice and educate Ashland's citizens, especially our youth; and identify persons who need help, or a good lecture, or just a listening ear. It is not a mechanistic, standardized process. For many Ashland citizens, their local court may be the only governmental body they ever engage. That interaction, the process of coming to the realization that this governmental body can and will listen and does care, is fundamental to the Court's integrity. If a court is not fair, or is not perceived as fair, the public will lose respect for that court, and the court will fail in its mission. If the Council wants to standardize procedures, then create a classification system. Set the penalties as maximums only, not mandatory minimums that must be imposed no matter what the particulars of the case or defendant may be. Maintaining the Court's discretion allows the Court to continue its role in the community: to educate, to combine education with enforcement, to effect change in behavior. [fthese ordinances are passed, there will be a significant loss to our community of the kind of court they have had for decades. Our Municipal Court has not previously had these kinds of restrictions or limitations. Minimum fines essentially dictate the outcome of cases. These proposed changes are not brought forward from the community, out of concern or complaint. In fact, I fear that most of our citizens are unaware of these proposed ordinances and their consequences. . ,/ How much ofthe Ashland Municipal Court caseload involves Municipal Code cases? Traffic citations represent the majority of the cases the Court hears. However, to minimize these Municipal Code cases is to minimize the importance of these matters to those charged. In addition, while the Court is hearing an Ashland Municipal Code case, the rest of the people in the room are listening and learning, and will take away an opinion oftheir Municipal Court and government. Fimilly, I believe that enforcement of Ashland Municipal Code ordinances is likely to increase, which will increase the Court's caseload. Municipal Code violations touch every member of our community, regardless of economic circumstances. These ordinances will increase revenue. It is true that one of a court's functions is to generate and collect revenue. However, these ordinances go a long way towards making this function the Court's primary function, and would interfere with the Court's value to the community. The Court should not be a toll keeper, there should not be a rush to judgment. From my experience, and that of my fellow Municipal Court judges around our state, I know that people want their day in court, whether their checking account is big, or non-existent. We need to look for better ways to change behavior than simply writing a check, especially for juveniles (whose parents might be writing that check), for people on fixed incomes, including senior citizens, students, the disabled, those who hold minimum wage jobs or are unemployed, people of modest means. Fines do not and. cannot solve problems in every circumstance. Working in Lithia Park or at the YMCA or North Mountain Park, or attending a bike safety class, might be a better, more relevant solution to the problem at hand. The proposed ordinances take away tools that the Court currently has and limits the Court's ability to employ alternative forms of sentencing. To summarize, my concerns focus on the establishment of minmum fines, because minimum fines essentially dictate the outcomes of individual cases. This effort to restrict discretion and standardize outcomes will substantially change the essence ofthe Ashland Municipal Court, which has served our community well and represents our community's values. Instead of insuring fairness, these ordinances will take away the Court's ability to make the punishment fit the crime, to assess the totality of the circumstances. They would disable the Court's ability to administer justice.