.
Feedback

Dearborn Courthouse Budget Talks Stall With No Input From Judges

City Council members expressed reluctance to support the court's climbing expenses without more explanation as to why revenues are down.

City leaders expressed concern Tuesday night that Dearborn's  could not justify its expenditures.

At a budget meeting Tuesday night, court administrators brought documents to explain the department's expenses and revenue history, plus caseload and staffing comparisons to similar courthouses.

But most questions from City Council members and Mayor Jack O'Reilly did not yield immediate answers—and several councilmembers expressed disappointment that Chief Judge Richard Wygonik did not attend the meeting.

"I personally am not happy he's not here," Councilman Bob Abraham told court representatives. "We've had problems in the past and we're trying to work past them. But it's important that the person in charge should be here."

Council President Tom Tafelski agreed.

"We have a lot of questions," he said, "and it would help if the chief judge or one of the judges could come and answer some of them."

Among their biggest concerns were statistics showing that while caseloads and expenses continue to go up, revenues are down nearly $400,000 since 2008.

The court's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget requests $4.369 million–roughly $900,000 more than 2008.

"I just cannot swallow it," Abraham said. "I have a hard time supporting (the budget) given all the issues we're going through."

Court Administrator Sharon Langen contested that the court is operating with as small of a staff as possible.

"I did a survey of other courts ... and if you compare our numbers to courts with a similar caseload, we're actually operating very efficiently," she said. "I don't think we could afford to eliminate another position."

The 19th District Court's caseload is just over 80,100, and the staff includes 11 full-time and four part-time clerks, three full-time and two part-time probation officers, and one full-time probation clerk.

According to Langen's survey, the closest comparable district by caseload–the 43rd District Court (Ferndale/Madison Heights/Hazel Park)–employs six full-time clerks and two full-time probation officers. However, several courthouses (Birmingham and St. Clair) employ more staff than Dearborn, but with caseloads 20,000-40,000 less.

City leaders also heavily questioned the court's system for enforcing the collection of delinquent payments.

As of April 11, 62 percent of money owed from collection notices dating back to 2006 has been paid. The percentage paid goes down every year forward, with just 11 percent of delinquent fines for 2011 marked as paid.

"This is disappointing in terms of percent and duration of how long it takes to collect," Mayor O'Reilly commented. "If we exercise the bench warrant and bring them in, we’d like to get data on how soon that happens, is the total amount paid and what’s the percent paid."

Councilwoman Suzanne Sareini suggested that the court look into the possibility of working with a collection agency.

Council requested to have the court budget discussion moved to a meeting later this month at a time when one or more of the district's judges would be able to attend and answer the city's questions.

anina April 18, 2012 at 10:40 am
Aren't these the same judges who showed upto council a month ago hands out to get their verdicts paid by us taxpayers? This is shameful. Can't the council do something about these guys?
Ricardo April 18, 2012 at 11:26 am
I think they were out campaigning.
Peder Blohm April 18, 2012 at 11:56 am
Could it be that the City are bringing stupid cases to court (Beast), and the city is using the court as a fine collector, you see a bunch of field inspectors at the court house every time someone has a problem with a ordinance issue......
Anina Bachrach April 18, 2012 at 02:05 pm
Seeing shome one is using my name, I will respond. Isnt this what Judge Somers was trying to fix. He was getting rid of the dead wood and the jury felt the ' poor worker" who was not doing her job was wrongly let go. Think she was taking her work home which is not alowed but she was. Yes the City should have been insuring their Judges. Think that is normal business practice.
Frank Lee April 18, 2012 at 02:50 pm
This is a prime example of a complete and total vacuum of leadership in our city. Nobody is focused on the day to day struggles, of balancing the budget, or maintaining services. We have a mayor that wants to indulge in childish fantasies, remaking Dearborn into Ferndale 2.0. Our judges would rather engage each other in petty feuds resulting in lawsuits, than administering justice and balancing the books. When this travesty of public administration is brought before council, Sareini's brilliant response is "maybe the court should hire a collection agency" The citizens of Dearborn should be outraged. We are continually asked to pay for this and pay for that, and in return our mayor closes libraries and pools and looks for ways to shortchange and bully our police and firemen. Since the day O'Reilly became mayor our city has experienced major financial shortfalls, mismanagement of the CSO, multiple court judgements against our city, and a complete fire sale of our cultural and social legacies. The only winners in this debacle are the mayor and his department heads who continue to get pay raises and bonuses. Nobody in this city wants to be accountable. Not the Judges, not the Mayor, and not the Council. This is pathetic
Lee Jacobsen April 18, 2012 at 04:20 pm
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, but this pertains directly to the court budget and costs. Why is the city still paying 'justification' costs to the court employees? It amounts to over a hundred thousand dollars in the 19th district court alone. For those who are not sure what justification costs are, in the old days, when employees were asked to make a choice for health care plans and chose their spouse's plan instead of the city's,
to justify that choice of not using the city's health plan and thus saving costs (not true), the employee is given additional money as a reward. The private sector did away with this practice decades ago. Folk are going to choose the best plan irregardless, and the city should not be paying employees additional money to reward an obvious choice. Of course, the city has a deaf ear to these questions, and, as Frank notes, no one wants to be accountable and make a decision to save us taxpayers money. Who do we talk to in order to get answers? The city council?? On city wide TV??
Hakeem Fadallah April 18, 2012 at 04:35 pm
Spouting off on hee does nobody any good, if you really want to do something constructive, vote the Mayor and his yes men (theCouncil) out. Talk on hear is cheap, do something.
Rita Dennaoui April 18, 2012 at 05:34 pm
I am on board with you. I had to laugh at Ms. Sareini's brilliant idea. I have been in the collection world for many years, from automotive to property taxes, receivable, I wish I had a collection company. I would gladly take that portfolio. I am so sad when I hear that Dearborn is going down under. This mayor needs to get out.
Rita Dennaoui April 18, 2012 at 05:38 pm
Yes vote them all out. The Dearborn residents need to plan a protest. We cannot lose our city to idiots. We keep voting the same people in over and over . How sad real sad.
marooned in Dbn April 18, 2012 at 05:41 pm
Very well said Hakeem. Also dont forget to vote down ALL future tax increase ballot initiatives. Also, if there is ever a ballot initiative requireing city employees...(including managers and directors),...to LIVE in the city of Dbn.,...pass it.
Rita Dennaoui April 18, 2012 at 05:46 pm
I think it was at one time a requirment to live in the city if you were employed by the city. I think when Hubbard was in office, you had to reside in the city.
Maybe we can get out city back.
Kathy Abdel-Hak April 18, 2012 at 05:51 pm
Don't blame the Mayor, the City Council, or the Judges we all need to blame ourselves. Blame those who did not come out and vote, and blame the ones who voted for not vetting these candidates better. The court house is a very small part of the big problem in this city. Look at the over 300 million CSO cost, look at the civic center that cost double the projected price. Look at the parking structures that are losing over a million dollars a year. These are just a few of the disastrous projects over the years this city has failed at.
Maybe the court budget has been cut to much in the last 3 or 4 years. Maybe there isn't enough money to perform the services at the court house and this is why they're asking for more money.
marooned in Dbn April 18, 2012 at 07:32 pm
I agree. I voted against the recreation center next to the Youth Center, years ago. It seems I was the only no vote. 53,000,000 for that mistake. As for the CSO. That was an EPA dictate. As to that, I say that if the EPA wanted it so bad...the EPA should have paid for it 100%. However, this city needs a different mayor and a completly new council. I wait for the next round of elections.
James46 April 18, 2012 at 08:07 pm
Mrs. Bachrach, you are mistaken. Judge Runco purchased liability insurance for the 19th District Court during his tenure. Mark Somers decided to allow it to expire and did not pay the premium. Had he not done so, the Judgments against him would have been satisfied by the insurance company. Now the taxpayers will bear the burden. The premium was only a couple thousand bucks.
Somers also insisted on appealing a denial of a summary judgment decision by Federal District Court David Lawson to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The only point he won on was the claim that the Court was not liable, but the Appeals Court also ruled that he remained personally liable. He let his hatred for Hultgren get in the way of his good sense. So, the Mayor now has a duty to the taxpayers to refuse to satisfy the verdict by placing it on the tax rolls. Recall that he supported Somers in the last election, so this cannot be an easy position to take. His friendship with Somers has not clouded his thinking, nor should yours. As to the merits of the case, that is best left to the 12 jurors who heard it, or the Court of Appeals who will now decide. Taking work home was never a problem when I was working. You cannot rely on the explanation of a defendant who has already presented his case, and if he was sharing administrative information with you off duty, shame on Sommers.
laplateau April 18, 2012 at 08:09 pm
Rita...the State Supreme Court, in it's infinite wisdom years ago, said it was unconstitutional to require police and firemen to live in the city they are woking for. So now we have those that don't live here with any real "ownership" in the city. It's just a place to work.
Kathy, I agree with you that Guido, and O'Reilly as the council president, along with several present and past councilmen, made the poor decisions to build those edifaces for their pown posterity. Look not only at those places you mention, but also the grandiose court building with all the marble and new judges offices areas. And, then there is the huge expansion of ice rink that serves more as a place for non-residents than those living here. Look at the parking lot---it is NEVER---NEVER near full. Yes, and now the O'reilly dream machine wants to sell city hall to Art Space who relies on grants from the state and federal governments to operate...yep---that's OUR tax dollars again! And, how much will it cost to move the city hall fat cats to new digs? OMG!!!...I can't stand it.
Rita Dennaoui April 18, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Great Kathy, are you planning on balancing their greed off your personal checking account. I know I had to cut back. I worked for automotive industry for 12 years and I am living on half of my salary. Enjoy
Frank Lee April 18, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Kathy, sadly you are right.
James April 19, 2012 at 01:03 am
Ms. Bacarach you are incorrect, but its complicated. Cities never insure the courts, they do so out of their own budget.There was liability insurance covering the 19th District Court which was purchased by Judge Runco during his tenure. Mark Somers in his infinite wisdom, let the policy lapse . The premium was only a few thousand bucks. Had Somers paid the premium, the insurance company would have paid these verdicts instead of the taxpayers. Somers created his own personal liability when he insisted on appealing a ruling of Federal Judge Lawson to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Up until that time the Court was on the hook. The US Court of Appeals dismissed the claim against the District Court but kept Somers personally liable. So did the juries.
Realizing he had screwed up, Somers as Chief Judge issued a memo (to himself) indemnifying himself from any personal liability in the upcoming trial. After the verdict he pulled out the memo, claiming the city had to pay the million dollar verdict against him. It's all online in court documents. The mayor, despite his friendship with Somers (he endorsed him last election) felt he had a duty to the taxpayers to refuse to pay the verdict as only the judge was personally liable. Somers has collected over a million dollars in salary over the past eight years from the taxpayers so he should be able to satisfy his debt on his own. As to taking work home, when I was working, that was a good thing!
Laura L April 19, 2012 at 01:28 am
and we elected the whole bunch of them.....judges, mayor, councilmen......actions have consequences including the action of how we place our votes. Don't like what you see.....maybe it is time to run for office yourself!!! Get out and get involved. Why is it that elected officials having difficulty coming to terms with the fact that they work for us?
Moe April 20, 2012 at 03:04 am
marooned, the Federal govt. dictated that we needed to fix the problem how the city chose to do it was up to them. We wasted about 40 to 60 million on the first try, a 6 mile long tunnel. Too bad federal money isn't involved now, maybe, an audit would be done and we would find out who got paid and for what.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Dearborn Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Carla O'Neill June 19, 2013 at 03:39 pm
Wasn't a major portion of the deficit a result of the failure of students to repay $$$millions inRead More student loans? There is a rumor that HFCC wants to forgive those loans and pass on the debt to Dearborn taxpayers. Was there due diligence regarding the awarding of these loans?
Tom B June 18, 2013 at 07:42 pm
Way too much for a college having financial problems.
Daniel Lai (Editor) June 12, 2013 at 03:09 pm
Here is a copy of the terms of service. http://dearborn.patch.com/terms We will not tolerateRead More readers posting with curse words or attacking other readers. Thank you for your comments. Have a nice week. If you require further clarification, you are welcome to email me.
Gary Woronchak June 12, 2013 at 10:32 am
Hasn't even worked one day? Not one day in 15 years? Really? Not even credit for one day? When IRead More worked at the Press & Guide (which eliminated my position in a budget restructuring that has continued under various corporate owners at the P&G for a decade and a half, resulting in them moving their offices to Southgate and more recently just out-and-out eliminating their editor, sports editor and photographer) we had a policy of no anonymous letters to the editor. This was done because, while everyone has the right to express their opinion, putting a real name with an opinion meant people displayed more decorum and, well, less cowardice than is allowed in online comments from the shadows. Joseph, the benefit of post-employment health care after just eight years of service may have, in the early 1990s, been more acceptable in some way I can't figure (retention of key department heads has been cited as a reason, as was that it apparently mirrored a benefit for state officials), but it clearly was part of the excesses of Wayne County that was unjustifiable and unsustainable in the 2000s. This practice was ended two years ago by a resolution I introduced.
Daniel Lai (Editor) June 12, 2013 at 11:22 am
The original comment has been deleted because it violates our terms of service.
Joseph Borrajo June 13, 2013 at 10:08 am
Thank you Gary Woroncahk for the response.
laplateau June 11, 2013 at 11:28 am
Yeah, unless the drinking trough is filled with taxpayer water.