When government tax coffers are overflowing during economic boom times, our elected officials are quick to build new roads, eager to hire new teachers and falling over one another to be the first to announce a multimillion-dollar tax break to help fund a new sports arena.
When government tax coffers are dwindling during challenging economic times, many of those same legislators throw up their hands and argue that without an ever-increasing pool of tax revenue, they have no choice but to cut government spending across the board, rarely making distinctions among discretionary programs, such as overseas travel junkets to visit “sister” cities, versus mandatory basic government services, such as court operations.
Here in King County, the month of April saw several news reports detailing an emerging budget problem that threatens our ability to ensure adequate funding for the administration of justice.
The county’s budget director, who in March projected a $45-million deficit for the 2009 budget year, raised his estimate in April to $60 million of potential red ink. The cause of this deficit? Lower interest rates for county-invested funds, reduced sales tax revenues and a decline in property tax receipts. Limitations on property tax rate increases and the inability to receive funding through sales tax or the business and occupation tax give the county very few options for a balanced budget other than cutting expenses.
Budget requests for 2009 are currently being developed by all program areas in the county, from the sheriff’s office to the cable communication department, from the records and licensing department to the superior court. Instructions from the county’s budget office to these offices are that “required” services, such as police, jail and courts, plan for an 8.65% across-the-board cut in 2009. Public health and human service agencies would be even more dramatically impacted, having been told to plan for a 33% across-the-board cut in 2009.
Certainly, government offices should have to tighten their belts during lean budget years, just as King County residents must when their own personal financial resources are reduced. But at what point do we go beyond merely delaying a road building project by a year to instead facing serious — and dangerous — cuts that might mean our community isn’t ensuring fair trials for the accused, putting their liberty in jeopardy?
For example, look at the superior court’s budget. For 2008, its budget is $46.5 million. With an automatic across-the-board cut of 8.65%, the court would need to find $3.8 million in programs to eliminate. Where within this budget might cuts be made? Like most organizations, the bulk of the court’s expenses relate to personnel costs (payroll, taxes and benefits). Would we have to lay off court personnel or not fill vacant commissioner positions? How would this affect the court’s ability to manage its docket and ensure timely justice for the citizens of King County?
Perhaps an alternative is to cut back or eliminate some discretionary court programs instead. The choices are no better here, though. Do we eliminate the drug court? Do we stop providing family court services, such as social workers and investigators? If we choose one of these options, what would the affect be on other areas of the court? Would we just be shifting the budget problems to another cell on a management spreadsheet, not really gaining any true savings at all and possibly harming a citizen’s access to justice?
Given the massive cuts likely to be under consideration by the county this summer and fall, and their substantial impact on so many critical county programs, it’s a very likely scenario that interest groups will be lobbying their elected officials to save various pet projects. Groups could find themselves pitted against each other, with supporters of parks lobbying against supporters of human service programs, or attorneys lobbying for judicial funding against doctors seeking public health initiatives.
We need to avoid comparisons of the worth of some county programs to other programs, and we surely do not want to “throw under the bus” any of the programs championed by our friends and neighbors. Yet the bar’s voice must be heard in this public budget debate. The bar has an obligation to speak out in support of adequate legal system funding, be it for the prosecutor’s or the public defender’s office, be it for jail facilities or court needs.
Our challenge is to ensure that complete, impartial access to justice exists in King County. We must insist that our legislators focus not on across-the-board cuts, but instead focus on providing stable revenue sources to ensure that the necessary programs in our legal system, especially the court system, can continue their good work on the public’s behalf.
With the same vigor elected officials give to finding ways to spend money in economically strong times, we must persuade those same legislators to solve the county’s looming budget crisis by shoring up revenues and not destroying the programs that protect us all.
Andrew Prazuch is executive director of the King County Bar Association. He can be reached by email (andrewp@kcba.org) or phone (206-267-7100, ext.7061).
Go Back