Like jury tampering, municipal court’s dissolution almost guaranteed

Truth or Consequences City Commissioners have been trying to get rid of the municipal court for over a year. It’s nearly guaranteed to succeed.

Similar to jury tampering, the seven-person committee to ascertain whether the court’s dissolution is good for the community is stuffed with five people who have already expressed their desire to do away with it.

City Commissioners likely violated the Open Meetings Act in order to prearrange who would be on the committee. Nominations and votes went like greased lightning at the July 13 meeting.

State law 35-14-1 requires that before dissolving a municipal court, using magistrate court instead, a committee must be formed comprised of:

(1)       the mayor;

(2)       a member of the governing body;

(3)       a municipal judge;

(4)       the chief of police; and

(5)       three members of the public, each selected by the mayor, the governing body and the municipal judge.

Mayor Amanda Forrister, the first member of the committee, during recent and last year’s budget sessions, made it clear she wanted to cut the court’s budget to the bone. During that time the municipal court budget has gone from about $270,000 to $195,000. A recent legal ad in the Sentinel newspaper stated the court has had to go to restricted hours, which is probably due to staff cuts.

Forrister nominated Mayor Pro Tem Rolf Hechler as the governing-body member, unanimously approved by the city commission. During a recent city commission meeting Hechler stated, “Clearly we are not getting what we want from the municipal court.” As if the city commission should have sway over the court in dispensing justice.

For her member-of-the-public nominee, Forrister named City Manager Bruce Swingle, who is an at-will city employee who can be fired by the city commission. Swingle has also expressed disapproval of the municipal court during public meetings. Cases are kicked back to the citing officer in many cases, he said, taking too long to resolve. Sanders responded that citing officers don’t show up to court, leaving her with out-of-date information often rebutted by defendants.

The city commission, as a body, named Frances Luna as the second member-of-the-public committee member. Luna was a city commissioner until Jan 1. She vigorously pursued cutting the municipal court’s budget during last year’s budget talks and grilled Sanders on prisoners’ jail and medical costs. Swingle, who was less than a month into the job as city manager, informed city commissioners the city owed Sierra Vista Hospital $100,000 for prisoner care. Sanders responded she was not involved with or responsible for keeping prisoner-care records. This year Sanders stated, “I save the city a lot of money” by negotiating resolutions with the mostly elderly and poor instead of putting them in jail.

Chief of Police Victor Rodriguez, the fourth member of the committee, stated in recent city commission meetings he’s already asked officers to cite all their cases into magistrate court, except for the very few city-ordinance infractions not covered by state law. Officers are supposed to have discretion where they cite cases. He agreed with Swingle that cases take too long to resolve.

Municipal Judge Beatrice Sanders, the third member of the committee, has about a year and a half remaining of her term as an elected official. The law doesn’t allow the city to dissolve the court until her term is up. Despite the many months remaining before a decision needs to be made, the city commission approved a resolution at the June 22 meeting that required a committee be in place within 15 days. Sanders said she was told at the last minute she had to find and nominate someone. Klarene Rich, a school teacher, was her nominee.

The committee’s duties, according to the state law:

A municipal ordinance jurisdiction advisory committee shall:

(1)       hold at least one public hearing on the question of designating the magistrate court of the county in which the municipality is located as the court having jurisdiction over municipal ordinances;

(2)       hear testimony from all interested persons, including the mayor, the governing body and the municipal judge; and

(3)       submit a report, including recommendations directly to the governing body of the municipality, with copies to the mayor and municipal judge.

1. Following receipt of a report from the municipal ordinance jurisdiction advisory committee, the governing body of a municipality may, subject to approval by the supreme court, adopt an ordinance upon a three-fourths’ majority vote to designate the magistrate court of the county in which the municipality is located as the court having jurisdiction over municipal ordinances.  An ordinance adopted shall become effective only upon supreme court approval and the expiration of the term of the municipal judge in office on the date of the supreme court’s approval of the ordinance.

The law does not state the committee’s report will be sent to the judge, but to the governing body, mayor and municipal judge. It appears the law attempts to instill consensus-building and public input into the court-dissolution process, which assumes the city commission will make a good-faith effort to engage the community.

The mayor and city commission, instead, short-circuited public input by placing the city manager and a previous city commissioner on the committee. This was an obvious demonstration of authoritarian (and likely back-room exercise of) power. They did their best to minimize the public’s check-and-balance authority over local government, which you may want to consider when their seats come up on the ballot. The city commissioners are Forrister, Hechler, Merry Jo Fahl, Destiny Mitchell and Shelly Harrelson.