Local Judges on Probate Court Restructuring: Bad Move
Probate courts around the state are set to undergo a massive restructuring and some probate court judges are worried what the effects will be on the local level.
A plan to overhaul the probate court system is raising concerns among judges in New Canaan and Darien, whose courts are to be combined.
Starting in January, probate courts in the state of Connecticut will undergo a massive restructuring, combining the 117 probate courts that currently exist into just 54.
"I think it's going to be a very significant challenge," said Darien Probate Court Judge John Rearden, who voted against the redistricting of the probate courts.
"To put these courts together and to get them running smoothly is going to take a lot of time and a lot of effort on the part of the new judge and I think administratively it's going to be very difficult to get that done," he continued. "This is a big deal."
Beginning Jan. 5, the probate courts of New Canaan and Darien will be merged into one. The change has New Canaan's current probate court judge, Russell Kimes wondering about the motivations behind the redistricting.
"You will have, I think, a handicap beginning in January," Kimes said. "After 350 years, the state has decided to control probate courts centrally… It's a control thing, state government likes to be in control."
According to the state-appointed Probate Court Budget Committee, the restructuring of probate courts will have saved the state $4 million by the end of the 2011-12 fiscal year. Costs for the restructuring are estimated at nearly $1.5 million.
However, despite the saved money, other probate court judges fear redistricting will diminish the court's community appeal.
"You're just not going to get the personal community service you did in the past, at least in many of the communities throughout Connecicut," said Redding Probate Court Judge Richard Emerson, whose district will balloon from 8,000 residents to 80,000 when it combines with Bethel, Newton and Ridgefield.
"I'm concerned the personal and community aspect of the probate court may be lost going forward," Emerson added. "You'll have a much busier court and the clerks aren't going to be able to spend the time they do now, at least in the smaller towns."
Apart from an increased workload, incoming probate judges must also restructure their staffs, which could lead to layoffs. Despite the concerns expressed by probate court judges and their staffs, Probate Court Administrator Judge Paul J. Knierim, who played an active role in the push for redistricting, believes the changes were made with everyone's best interests in mind.
"Our hope is that the best features of the probate courts are preserved and even improved," Knierim said. "I won't say the outcome is perfect—it's hard to achieve perfection in any redistricting scenario—but I think the redistricting process was done with a great deal of sensitivity to establishing courts in communities that have common interests and common goals."
As for New Canaan attorneys who deal with the probate court as part of their job, a new court in Darien could mean more money spent on gas.
"It will be more inconvenient for people in New Canaan," said Attorney Sperry De Cew, who has more than 35 years of experience with the probate court. "It means I have to go further to attend a hearing."
connecticut probate advocates
9:11 pm on Tuesday, July 20, 2010
It is a big shell game, They added the children’s courts to the probate courts and this increased the budget immensely.
Now they want you to believe the probate courts are fine. How is cutting the probate courts in ½ reform? As it stands now some probate judges don’t schedule motions, miss decisions dates and so on.
What will the service levels be like in January 2011 when we have ½ the courts and the extra work that will be created by adding in the additional family services. This is only a win win for the Judges their pay almost doubles and they are only required to work 20 hrs a week. This so called reform is the brain child of Probate Court Administrator Judge Paul Knierim. Real reform will come, but it will take time.
www.myctprobate.com
Connecticut Probate Advocates.
Max Schlusselberg
10:00 pm on Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The points you raise concerning the backed up courts and overworked judges are valid. However, not all judges will be seeing pay raises. Under the current formula for determining a probate court judge's salary, the judges who handle larger, wealthier estates get larger paychecks. Their workload does not factor in.
Under the new system, judge's will be paid proportionate to the amount of cases they process. So, the New Canaan/Darien judge will not see a pay raise, since they are already among the highest compensated probate court judges and their salary is disproportionate to their caseload. Judges in smaller, less wealthy districts will see a higher salary if they are incorporating other districts.
Russell Kimes
4:03 pm on Thursday, July 22, 2010
To expand on the quotation that you attribute to me in your report entitled “Local Judges on Probate Court Redistricting:” when I said “You will have ... a handicap beginning in January” I was referring to the new judges in the consolidated districts. As I explained, these judges will be working under very sever limitations because they will no longer be in charge of their courts. Whereas, for 300 years, the individual judges independently managed their courts and since 1976 have continued to manage their courts within written guidelines from the Administrator, beginning in January these judges will no longer be in charge. Beginning January the judges will be told how many people they can employ, what those positions can be, and how much money the employees can be paid. The courts will be given operating budgets that are so detailed that they will even be told how much money they can spend on water and coffee. (I am not making this up. Go to: http://www.jud.ct.gov/probate/budget/default.htm There you can see just how much centralized micromanagement will result from the “reform” of the system.)
Russ Kimes
4:50 pm on Thursday, July 22, 2010
On “savings to the State” resulting from “reform”, the comment by Connecticut Probate Advocates is dead on. The savings claims are a “shell game”. To understand the concept of “savings” you have to understand the history of the probate courts. If you want the facts then you should know that the State of Connecticut paid nothing to run the probate counts before 1999. From the 1600’s to 1999 the courts ran on court fees alone. Even in 1967 when the State established the Administrator’s Office because of a problem in the Hartford Probate Court it paid for the Administrator and his office entirely out of a dedicated fund made up of assessments on the individual courts. The change came in 1999 and 2000 when the State paid $500,000 each year toward the costs of court appointed attorneys in indigent cases as they do in the Superior Courts. But facing a budget shortfall in 2001 the State reversed itself and not only eliminated this $500,000 subsidy but also took $5 million from the Probate Administration Fund. The following year the State took $10 million from the Fund.
The Budget Committee Report claims “Court consolidation will immediately reduce expenses.” Yet the report omits the fact that the State will have to pay $8.4 million this year and $12.5 million next year to achieve these savings. Sure the State is going to save money, it will just have to pay $12.5 million more to save it.
Max Schlusselberg
8:17 pm on Thursday, July 22, 2010
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Judge Kimes. I will dig deeper into the funding of the probate courts as well as the changes that will be made in coming months.