NORMAN — Editor’s note: This is the last in a series of stories on how Oklahoma’s budget crisis is affecting the court system.

Oklahoma courts are facing a Fiscal Year 2012 budget shortfall that could sharply impair the district courts’ ability to provide timely and adequate services.

“We have a projected shortfall of somewhere between $7 and $9 million next year in the judicial system,” said Michael Evans, director of the administrative office of the Courts. “If those budget needs are not met, we’ll have very substantial layoffs statewide at either the local or state level, or both.”

With 77 district courts across the state, employees at risk in the current economic crisis include special judges, deputy court clerks and secretary-bailiffs.

“I think with our projected shortfall this year, if the need is not met, it could have a negative impact on our ability to provide court services at the level we have had in the past,” Evans said. “There will be adverse effects.”

Taxpayers who think those services affect only criminal litigation should think again. Court services include a broad range of civil and domestic arenas.

“The civil side is 40 to 50 percent of it statewide,” said Evans. “If these cuts occur, it will affect court services.”

Currently, district courts operate in every county. In addition to criminal cases, district courts deal with civil issues including suits seeking damages, writs and equity, family and domestic issues such as divorce, annulments and victim protection orders, small claims cases, guardianships, mental health cases, adoptions and judicial determinations, tickets by various law enforcement agencies including game rangers, and a variety of licenses such as beverage licenses, going out of business sales, marriage, pool hall, process server and records of credentials of ministers.

In addition, court clerk offices prepare and issue thousands of jury summons each year.

Anyone who has ever filed a civil suit and paid all of the fees and claims, which in civil cases is due up front, may question how the courts could be facing a money crisis.

Ditto for those convicted in criminal cases, though collection is more complicated in those issues.

The bottom line?

District court clerks collect fees for 40 different agencies.

“If 100 percent of the fees collected through the court system were kept by us, we would be fully self-supporting and have money left over to send back to the state’s general fund budget,” Evans said.

But only a percentage of the fees collected is rolled back into the court system.

Pull up almost any case where there has been a guilty plea on OSCN.net, the website of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network, and scroll to the bottom of the case file to see the fines and fees assessed.

A receipt for $1,048 paid by one defendant listed the following:  

· $28 for clerk fees

· $3 attorney general victim services unit

· $150 sheriff fees

· $9  CLEET penalty assessment  

· $50 victim’s compensation assessment (VCA)  

· $500 fines  

· $5 AFIS fund  

· $10 sheriff’s service and incarceration fee  

· $12 law library fee  

· $18 court clerk revolving fund  

· $3 child abuse multidisciplinary fee  

· $5 forensic science improvement assessments  

· $10 medical expense liability revolving fund  

· $25 DA Council prosecution assessment fee  

· $10 Oklahoma Department of Health/trauma care fund  

· $150 OCIS revolving fund  

· $50 jail fund (bond fee) sheriff or private jail  

· $10 sheriff’s service fee for courthouse security  

“Most of us would acknowledge the programs benefiting from that money are programs we like and programs we support,” Evans said. “It’s not my job to judge the merit or lack of merit [of those fees collected].”

Fees are set by legislative action. The state legislature chooses what it wants the courts to collect and what amount is appropriated back to the court system.

“Historically, the way the legislature has funded the courts has fluctuated,” said District Judge Dwayne Steidley, who once served in the state House of Representatives and knows both sides of the budget issue.

Those fluctuations have gone from requiring courts to be self-supporting to a court system infused by legislative appropriations. In the current economy, the financing model for the Oklahoma courts is moving back toward a self-supporting system.

One means of increasing revenue for Oklahoma courts is for the state legislature to increase fees.

But while fee increases in the district courts might be a partial solution, fees in the civil area were challenged on constitutionality last year, and some were kicked out, Evans said.

Like many directors of state agencies, Evans is charged with making the most of what the state legislature gives him. Together with Chief Justice Steven W. Taylor, Evans is working with district courts to increase revenue through better collection of fees.

“Civil fees have to be paid up front. We don’t lose civil money,” Evans said. “In criminal cases, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and don’t pay anything up front.”

People don’t ask to have criminal charges filed against them and can’t be forced to pay court fines if they are proven innocent, Evans said.

If a defendant is guilty, fines and fees are assessed in a variety of areas, some of which have nothing to do with that particular case.

Approximately 95 percent of criminal cases are negotiated with judges and prosecutors and settled with a plea bargain, Evan said.

Judges have  discretion in waiving fees, but in the current economic environment, there are internal and external pressures to make defendants pay. That can be tough. There is a socio-economic connection between poverty and crime, Steidley said.

In some cases, collecting from defendants is like trying to get water from a dry well, but payment schedules are arranged as part of the plea bargain process, and defendants who do not keep up with payments risk jail time.

District courts are operating on an increasingly aggressive collection model these days.

According to Evans, one positive effect on collections has been participation by many of the district courts in the statewide warrant program. Under this program, courts can turn warrants over to collection agencies.

“It’s bringing in a substantial amount of money,” said Evans. “I think it’s had a positive impact.”

But fees and fines are not just about producing revenue for the state, Evans said. They also serve as a deterrent to criminal activity.

“Paying fines is just as important as other requirements, such as attending DUI school,” Evans said. “The judges have to be the point people.”

In a state budget dealing with billions of dollars, Evans can only hope the court system is a priority for legislators. Still, if the money isn’t there, it can’t be appropriated.

“The legislature is probably going to say to us, ‘We don’t have any more money this year,’” Evans said.

Evans believes the Oklahoma court system is reasonably “lean,” without a lot of fat to trim.

The bottom line of economics, however, dictates that the state must either find more revenue or reduce spending.

With court fees already inflated, legislators may need to look toward ways to save money, rather than putting more of the burden back onto taxpayers.

One area of potential savings would require a modification in state law to allow for the consolidation or reduction of judges in very small, rural counties.

State statute mandates that every county have a full-time judge. There are counties with less than 3,500 people, Evans said, and there are several counties with fewer than 12,000 people.

In those counties, a full-time judge has a much lighter workload than in counties with larger populations.

Under the current law, special judges serving in larger counties would have to be cut, despite the workload, while those smallest counties would each retain a full-time judge.

Lawmakers will have to question whether such policies make good sense under the current economy, but any decision to consolidate judges serving the most under-populated areas of the state would not be well received with folks in those districts.

It may be a case of inconveniencing the few in order to avoid placing a heavier burden on the many.

Joy Hampton writes for CNHI and Claremore Daily Progress. She can be reached at jhampton@claremoreprogress.com.