Is the Courts Commission on the chopping block?

A bill filed last week by Representatives Justin Burr, Mike Hager and Jamie Boles would ditch the decades-old commission charged with evaluating and advising the legislature about issues related the courts and hand that responsibility over to a legislative committee.

House Bill 820 proposes, among other things, to abolish the Courts Commission, first established in the 1960s and resurrected in the early 1990s to recommend changes to the courts as needed in the eyes of its 28 members. That work would instead be done by the existing Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety.

Is it about money? Hard to say, since the bill’s sponsors were unavailable for comment, though that’s unlikely according to Administrative Office of the Courts Director John Smith, who said that funding was needed only to cover the travel expenses of commission members.

Is it about power? That’s unlikely too, since the commission — comprised of members from all branches of government as well as from the public — serves largely as an advisor to the legislature and has no independent authority of its own.

Rather, the move to eliminate the body may stem from a lack of both an awareness of the commission’s involvement in shaping the judiciary over the years and an appreciation for its potential in the highly-partisan environment of the current legislature.

“There’s a good understanding between the branches on the commission,” said Court of Appeals Judge Robert C. Hunter, who’s been a member as both a legislator and a judge for most of the years since 1981and has served at times as its chairman. “And that’s what we need today. We need the legislature to understand what the judicial branch does, or can’t do, and the same from the judicial branch about the legislature — what’s doable and what’s not doable. There is no other body that has that blend and can get things done.”

***

The Courts Commission dates back to the 1960s, said AOC Director Smith, when Article 4 of the constitution was adopted, which reformed the courts.

“The Courts Commission was critical to getting all that done – you could almost call it revolutionary,” he said. “And it was truly independent, broad-based and well-supported.”

Over the years, though, it wasn’t needed as much, Smith added, and there came a point where the General Assembly stopped funding it.

The Commission was resurrected in the early 1990s, though, and today operates as an independent, 28-member advisory body. The governor, chief justice, speaker of the house and president of the senate each appoint seven members from their respective branches and from the public.

By statute, it is charged with studying “the structure, organization, jurisdiction, procedures and personnel of the Judicial Department” and making recommendations to the General Assembly that will “facilitate the administration of justice.”

In practice, that’s yielded some detailed recommendations and some significant reforms — including the creation of victim’s compensation and victim’s witness assistance programs — all developed with bipartisan support within the commission, and passed by the legislature because of that support.

“One of the benefits of the commission is that all of the stakeholders are involved,” Hunter said. “With that type of makeup, if something got recommended by the commission, most times it was going to pass.”

Its composition also enables the commission to tackle problems legislators alone might hesitate to confront.

“I do think there’s some value in there being a formalized process, by which the information is gathered from people who actually work in courts on a daily basis,” said Wake County Clerk of Court Lorrin Freeman, who’s been a member for six months. “I also think that that there are certain things that the commission, or any entity that’s apart from the legislature, can look at without as much concern about political fallout. Any new initiative, any policy, anything that would require funding would all ultimately have to be approved by the legislature. But there may be some value to this group being separate and apart from the legislative process in terms of things they would be able to tackle that legislators who have to run every two years might be reluctant to look at.”

Recently the commission has been examining the reclassification of misdemeanors and infractions and the problems with the State Bureau of Investigation and its employees’ roles as expert witnesses in the courts.

***

If the commission has had any failing, it’s that it hasn’t met regularly, or frequently, especially in recent years.

“Because of that fact, people — including some in the legislature — may not know much about it,” Hunter said.

He attributes that in part to turnover on the commission’s chairperson seat. The chair is always a legislator, appointed by the governor in consultation with the Chief Justice. That means that as biennial elections go, so goes that seat.

“We’ve just had a history of bad timing with the chairmanship and it’s interrupted the flow of the commission,” he said. “It’s been one of the most frustrating things over the last several years, because we could see what the potential was. And I hope we can get it back.”

A bill proposed by current Courts Commission chair Rep. Larry Hall, H715, would change that by having two chairs — one from each legislative chamber — preside over the commission.

Tom West, a partner with the Poyner Spruill law firm and a 12-year member of the commission, shares Judge Hunter’s frustration and hopes that, with two co-chairs, the commission will meet more regularly.

“I think it would benefit from having a chair from both houses, and frankly, from both parties,” West said.

He also noted that over the past several months the commission has met two or three times, a sign that it’s ready to take on the many issues facing the courts – a task that somebody needs to tackle.

“This is one of those commissions that ought to be active,” West said. “If not, the legislators need to do something like the proposed bill [H820] and empower that existing committee to study these issues.”

A group comprised of both legislators and people working in the courts has worked well in the past and can continue to do so, Hunter said.

“I think it would be a huge mistake to abolish the Courts Commission. It’s a wonderful opportunity for the legislators to learn about the court system and for members who are tied to the court system to learn about the problems of the legislature and the things they have to deal with.”