The state of the State

By NORA NEWMAN JURGENS

The inconsistency of the court

THE legislature affects the court system by the laws it passes and the money it appropriates for the courts. This year, as every year, the court presented its recommendations for legislation, including full funding of the courts. This year, unlike other years, findings of corruption by the federal Greylord investigation of the Illinois courts in Chicago pressured the court to rewrite its rules to expand and make public financial records of the state's judges. This year, as in other years, the court continues to forbid access by the auditor general to the records of two attorney regulatory offices administered by the court. In this constitutional dispute between the legislative and judicial branches, the Illinois Supreme Court is both defendant and arbiter.

Being "fully cognizant of the respective roles of the General Assembly and the courts," and not intending to "intrude upon the prerogatives of the General Assembly in determining what legislation should be enacted," Supreme Court Chief Justice William G. Clark submitted this year's report to the General Assembly February 26. The report contains a list of 24 recommendations and reflects a wide range of judicial concerns: from state funding of circuit courts to repealing obsolete laws.

While several of the recommendations have been picked up by legislators, as of press time (May 1), only three of the bills had received "emergency" status.

Full funding of the circuit courts remains a priority with the Supreme Court. According to Clark: "The courts of Illinois, including the circuit courts, are state courts and the funding for their operations should come from appropriations made by the General Assembly." The state currently funds the operations of the supreme and appellate courts, including salaries, operating expenses and capital improvements. The counties, however, must fund operation of the circuit courts. Clark notes that less than 1 percent of the state budget has been appropriated for the operation of the courts. A bill introduced by Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch (D-4, Chicago) would fund everything but the cost of physical facilities, including the expenses of the chief judge's office in multi-county circuits, another recommendation of the Supreme Court.

Realizing that the General Assembly may not be ready to consider full funding, Sen. Netsch decided to refer the idea for further study to the Joint Judicial Advisory Committee. The committee is expected to hold hearings this fall and then reintroduce the bill next year.

Clark also points out the need for lawmakers to use the Judicial Note Act when proposing legislation that would require either an increase or a decrease in the number of judges. Several new laws, including the crackdown on drunk driving (DUI) and the Domestic Violence Act, have increased judicial responsibilities without providing for additional resources, Clark says, causing chief circuit judges to ask the Supreme Court for more associate judges from the "limited pool the General Assembly has given to the court."

Changing the position of clerk of the circuit court from elected to appointed makes good administrative sense from the court's point of view but may be too hot to handle politically. A report submitted to the Supreme Court in 1974 by a committee on clerks of court pointed out that a circuit clerk's "principal responsibility is to faithfully execute policies set forth in statutes, rules or orders of the court — regardless of the reaction of the local electorate." In this election year Clark urges the General Assembly to consider changing the law, but no legislators stepped forward to champion the suggestion.

Four other court recommendations were picked up by Sen. William Marovitz (D-3, Chicago), but none of his bills made it out of Rules. These included bills on presentencing reports, vocational rehabilitation plans tied to benefits received under the Workers' Compensation and Occupational Disease acts, judicial pension benefits and expunging records of misdemeanor convictions or municipal ordinance violations.

The court's suggested changes to the Unified Code of Corrections on resentencing were sponsored by Sen. Timothy F. Degnan (D-11, Chicago). S.B. 1978, which was held in Rules, would prevent a judge from automatically crediting time spent on probation when resentencing an offender whose probation has been revoked. Clark points out that a defendant's sentence for violating probation can be rendered "meaningless" if time served on probation exceeds the sentence.

The Supreme Court needn't wait for legislative action to change its rules governing judicial conduct. On April 1 the high court announced major changes in its Rule 68 on financial disclosure. Responding to the federal Operation Greylord investigation into judicial corruption in Cook County, the court ordered financial disclosure statements filed by the state's judges to be made public. Judges have always been required to list their finances, but that information was kept sealed and only opened when authorized by the Supreme Court as part of an investigation of misconduct.

The court also broadened Rule 68's disclosure requirements. The rule now requires judges to list all sources of income, including the income of their spouses and minor children (previously, they only had to list their own income). Judges must also disclose the names of anyone to whom they, or their families, owe more than $500 ($1,000 had been the threshold). New provisions require judges to name any lawyer with whom they have financial dealings and to list any gifts valued over $100. The rule takes effect August 1 for judges recently appointed to fill vacancies. All judges must comply effective April 30, 1987.

4/June 1986/Illinols Issues

Although the Supreme Court has acted to make the financial records of judges more open to public scrutiny, it is not willing to open the accounts and records of two regulatory bodies under its jurisdiction to audits by the legislature's auditor general. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the State Board of Bar Examiners are funded by fees paid by lawyers. Since "public funds" are not involved, according to the Supreme Court, the court considers the two offices to be exempt from the state's auditing requirements. Auditor General Robert G. Cronson is charged by the Constitution to examine both the financial and programmatic activities of all state agencies receiving state funding. Cronson insists that because both offices are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, they are indeed public bodies and he should audit them (see Illinois Issues, "Judging the auditor general," December 1983, pp. 6-11). Contending that he cannot conduct a "partial audit, delineated and conditioned as to scope by the Supreme Court," Cronson has not audited any of the court's accounts since 1980.

In an attempt to force Cronson to conduct the audits, the acting director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts recently went on the offensive. William M. Madden, named acting director by the Supreme Court when Roy O. Gulley retired in December 1985, filed a petition for mandamus March 21 with the high court. The petition requests that Cronson be ordered to audit the regular accounts of the court, including the administrative office, which Gulley had headed since its creation by the Judicial Article. The court agreed March 27 to hear the case.

The Supreme Court has no problem with the constitutional mandate to "consider the work of the courts and to suggest improvements in the administration of justice" to the General Assembly. But its insistence that it will not submit to a complete audit indicates that the high court does not interpret the Constitution to mean it must always cooperate with the legislative branch.

June 1986/Illinois Issues/5