Oct. 30, 2007 — A nearly $6 million budget cut will severely hamper the operations of the V.I. Supreme Court and make it difficult for the new entity to fully integrate itself into the local judicial system, court officials said Tuesday.
The testimony was made during a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee. During budget hearings in June, Chief Supreme Court Justice Rhys S. Hodge lobbied for senators' approval of an approximately $34.2 million budget proposal, which he said would cover the expenses of the Supreme and Superior courts, along with the Office of the Territorial Public Defender and Judicial Council.
At the time, Hodge described this figure — which included $7.3 million for the Supreme Court — as a "bare-bones budget" that would only use up four cents of every dollar spent by the government during FY 2008.
Coming out of the budget-markup process, senators cut the court's overall request down to about $31.37 million, with only $1.5 million earmarked for Supreme Court expenses. The cut had been a major bone of contention for minority senators, who said that the short-changing of $6 million would stymie any progress the court has made on setting up its offices within the territory.
No clear solution to the problem was presented after nearly four hours of debate Tuesday, as most senators said they would have to "find some way" to come up with the money needed to supplement the cut. While Sen. Carlton "Ital" Dowe assured Supreme Court representatives that an amendment identifying at least some of the funds should be introduced during the next full Senate session, testifiers from the Office of Management and Budget explained that the approval of any extra money would most likely result in cuts to the miscellaneous section of the FY 2008 budget or to the budgets of government departments and agencies.
Echoing the remarks he made in June, on Tuesday Hodge requested that senators look at amending their original decision by granting the court's budget proposal in its entirety, providing enough funds to cover, among other things:
— 41 employee positions, with salaries collectively valued at $2.9 million;
— operating expenses valued at about $1.8 million;
— $1.4 million in other services;
— equipment expenses valued at $750,000; and
— employer contributions of $680,432.
In addition, $450,000 was included in the budget to cover the development of an appellate case-management system with an e-filing component needed to prevent cases from piling up, Hodge said, adding that extra money would also be needed to set up and maintain the court's temporary offices in both districts.
"Justices Maria M. Cabret, Ive A. Swan and I, as well as all the employees who have toiled diligently to lay the foundation for this court, remain committed to our oath of office and our responsibility of providing an independent, accessible and responsible forum for the just resolution of disputes in this territory," he said. "We implore you to continue to support the Virgin Islands' vision for a complete and competent judiciary by adequately funding the operations of the Supreme Court."
Distribution of Money
Handed down in May by Gov. John deJongh Jr., the government's overall spending plan for FY 2008 included a $799.2 million General Fund budget. Of that amount, $51.9 million was to be split between the legislative and judicial branches. During Tuesday's hearing, OMB Director Debra Gottlieb said the executive branch had anticipated that the money be distributed accordingly:
— $18.9 million for the Legislature;
— $3 million for the Office of the Public Defender;
— $2.5 million for the Supreme Court;
— $26.4 million for the Superior Court; and
— $429,098 for the Judicial Council.
During the budget markup process, the Legislature's budget was increased to $19.8 million, while the Supreme Court's appropriation was cut down to $1.5 million, Gottlieb added. Though senators argued that the executive branch, in making its budget recommendation, did not seem to place much emphasis on the needs of the court, Gottlieb argued that OMB was not made aware of the $7. 3 million request prior to the submission of the executive budget in May.
Instead, the government's recommended $2.5 million appropriation for the newly created institution was based on the level of funds appropriated to the court in previous years, along with FY 2008 revenue projections, Gottlieb explained. Last November, then-Gov. Charles W. Turnbull signed into law a bill appropriating $5.75 million for the establishment of the Supreme Court and the construction of an office on St. Croix. On Tuesday, Hodge said that the appropriation fell short of what was actually needed to construct a building.
"Accordingly, during FY 2007, the Supreme Court … operated very frugally to stretch the appropriated sum as far as possible," he said. "The court operated with the three justices, three secretaries, the clerk and four instead of six law clerks. None of the recommended clerk's office staff were hired."
By stretching the money and cutting costs, the court was able to save nearly $2.8 million to set up its operations on St. Croix, Hodge added. However, renovations to a building purchased in Frederiksted have still not been completed, he said, and another $500,000 is needed to cover additional architectural costs.
When asked whether OMB could use any cost savings realized during FY 2007 to cover the court's expenses, Gottlieb said that all money leftover from departments and agencies' budget allocations are being used to cover outstanding appropriations made against the General Fund. Despite objections from some senators, Gottlieb pointed out that the government's expenditures for the past three fiscal years have exceeded its revenues, and any excess money is being used to eliminate the debts.
Legislative Mandates
The Legislature's recent override of a gubernatorial veto is also going to put an additional $1.9 million worth of expenses on the Supreme Court's shoulders, Hodge added during Tuesday's meeting. The veto applied to an amendment to the FY 2008 budget proposal that reorganized the structure of the Supreme and Superior courts and calls for the two entities to be run by separate administrators.
"While the court had hoped to avoid these additional costs by maintaining one central administrative structure throughout the judiciary, the additional costs are now paramount, as the Supreme Court will require additional administrative, accounting, human resources, maintenance, marshal and information-technology personnel that were not previously considered," Hodge said.
Trying to explain the reasons behind the override, Sen. Terrence "Positive" Nelson explained that some senators, during the budget markup process, had raised concerns about the Supreme Court's role in managing the Superior Court.
"There were talks that the Supreme Court was going to micromanage the Superior Court," he said. "Some said that the original legislation that set up the Supreme Court did not intend for that to happen."
Hodge explained that judicial systems in most U.S. jurisdictions call for a unified judicial branch with one central administration.
"We're not administrators, we're jurists," he said. "In every court system, that's the way it is. There is a unified structure, where there is a court administrator that is responsible to the chief justice. It's not meant to micromanage."
Speaking against the override, Sens. Juan Figueroa-Serville and Ronald E. Russell said the call for a separation of the courts' administrations was a "reckless" and "embarrassing" move made by the Senate's majority.
"It was reckless, irresponsible and very unfair to a separate and equal branch of government," Russell said. "But what really occurred was a
very clear and distinct disrespect for the chief justice, who wrote every one of us a letter saying, 'Please, before you do this, let me come before you and testifiy.' The majority has allowed favoritism to bleed into every step of this process, and what they did with this override is effectively undo all the work, research, debate and well-reasoned law that created the Supreme Court. I am very disappointed that all of that work was undone, and that it was undone by a majority that is misguided and bent on leading the people of this territory down the wrong road."
Senators said they would consider allowing Hodge to come back and testify on what kind of impact the override will have on the courts' budgets and operations.
Present during Tuesday's meeting were Sens. Liston Davis, Dowe, Figueroa-Serville, Neville James, Nelson, Basil Ottley Jr., Richards and White.
Back Talk Share your reaction to this news with other Source readers. Please include headline, your name and city and state/country or island where you reside.
