Judge questions proposed court budget cut

Of the departments covered in the Douglas County budget, only the district courts have the authority as a separate government branch to challenge the recommended allocation.

District Judge Dave Gamble said Friday he was taken aback by the size of their recommended cut.

Commissioners recommended Thursday that district courts trim $324,000 from their $3.6 million budget request.

Gamble said he and Judge Michael Gibbons, chief probation officer Scott Shick, and court information services manager Alan Bates met April 8 with Commissioner David Brady, Chairman Mike Olson and County Manager Michael Brown.

"They gave us numbers that there would be across-the-board level cuts to all departments and all personnel so there would be parity among the departments," Gamble said.

He remembered the proposal as being approximately 5 percent.

"We committed to that, and explained how we proposed to meet those reduction obligations," Gamble said.

By the time the cuts were introduced Thursday, Gamble said the method had changed to "priority budgeting."

"We don't know what their priorities are, or have we seen any evidence to justify them," Gamble said.

For example, there were no budget cuts proposed for the district attorney's office while Tahoe Justice Court is expected to take a 12 percent hit.

"We were assured by Chairman Olson that public safety was of paramount concern and would remain that way. Here we are - public safety - and receiving nearly double (cuts) what we were expecting," Gamble said.

Departments have a Tuesday deadline to turn in their proposed reductions.

"Judge Gibbons and I are now discussing with our department heads whether we can provide efficient administration of justice here and make those cuts," he said.

"We have had three decades of utter cooperation between the budget authority and the district judges," Gamble said. "It goes back to at least the time of creation of the second department when Judge (Norman) Robison came on with Judge (Howard) McKibben."

He said there have been two instances where there were "slight impasses," at budget time, but were resolved "by friendly discussion and peaceful resolution."

"We are very, very committed to that sense of harmony and peace that has existed ever since I've been here," he said. "In the past, if the county government needed something from us, we said yes. If we needed something from them, we asked and they said yes. This appears to be a change in the tone in county government that I am really disappointed in."

Gamble said he questioned the reasoning behind no budget cut for the district attorney's office and what he said was a disproportionate share the courts were expected to take compared with the sheriff's office.

"The sheriff's office brings us our work; the district attorney's office brings us our work. We are a reactive branch of government. We don't cause our own work. I am especially concerned about the juvenile probation office. They do a lot of preventative stuff that doesn't show up in caseloads," Gamble said.

Gamble said the judicial system was prepared to honor its original commitment to the cuts.

"We have avenues to do things formally to exercise the power the judicial branch has, but we are loath to do that. It's never been the style here.

"If Mr. Brown and the county commission decide that's how they want to do things, it's unfortunate to me and sad. I know how hard everybody works here. Previously we cut all the fat. On Tuesday, we're going to submit the cuts we're able to make and still function."