Employees & Judge of the Second Judicial District Court v. Hillsdale County

378 N.W.2d 744, 423 Mich. 705

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: December 2, 1985
• Docket: Docket Nos. 73180, 73952. (Calendar Nos. 12, 13)
• Status: Published

Opinions

Boyle, J.

These cases require determination of whether a trial court may employ an administrative order to compel funding in excess of appropriations and consideration of a procedure to guide the fair and expeditious resolution of conflicts between the judiciary and local funding units.

The governmental funding crisis that is the backdrop for these conflicts began in this state in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. An explosion of litigation, the creation of new courts, new judicial remedies, inflation, the introduction of unionization into the public sector, substantial unemployment, and public resistance to tax increases created increased competition between the courts and units of local government for local tax revenues.

The judicial system would be benefited if our "one court of justice,” Const 1963, art 6, § 1, was financed by the State Legislature. While the state has undertaken to eliminate local funding of state functions, MCL 600.9947; MSA 27A.9947, relief has been forthcoming primarily in Detroit and in Wayne County. The result has been disparity in compensation and in delivery of services.

The allocation of tax revenues has become an ever more difficult task for local funding units. The need to maintain and improve local court staff and services is confounded by shortage of funds. Local judges who should be independent of the political process find themselves increasingly involved in the political give-and-take inherent in the appropriation process.

In this perplexing and disturbing situation, we attempt to provide guidance for resolution of conflict and a basis for the development of data supporting further movement toward statewide financing by procedures set forth in the administrative order attached as an appendix, effective upon issuance of the Court’s judgment orders.

I. Facts

A. Hillsdale County

The County of Hillsdale established a contributory retirement plan in which the employees contribute three percent and the county four percent of the gross wages of all non-union county employees. In a previous action, the district court employees for that county obtained a circuit court judgment against the county declaring that they could withdraw from the plan; thereafter they entered into an agreement with the judge increasing their compensation by the four percent that the county would, under the plan, have been required to contribute.

When the county refused to provide funds to pay the additional compensation, the district court issued an administrative order directing the county to pay the additional four percent to the court employees. The county again refused and the employees and the judge commenced this action in the circuit court to compel payment by the county. The county filed a countersuit for injunctive relief.

The circuit judge found that payment of the increase would not adversely affect the county and that failure to pay the increase would not adversely affect the operation of the district court. Placing the burden of proving that the administrative order was unreasonable on the county, the circuit judge held that the order was reasonable and that the county was obliged to pay the increased salary. The county appealed to the Court of Appeals and filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court before issuance of a decision by the Court of Appeals. We granted leave on May 17, 1984.

B. Cheboygan County

The Cheboygan circuit judge asked the county to provide $5,619.25 for a part-time mediation clerk. The board of commissioners agreed to provide $2,400 to employ one part-time employee for one full seven-hour day each week at the rate of $4.93 per hour. However, the judge hired a part-time mediation clerk for 17 Vi hours per week and directed that she be paid $5.91 per hour and receive pro-rata sick leave, vacation, medical, and hospital insurance benefits. The county policy is that part-time county employees do not receive such benefits. The board adopted a resolution stating that the employee would not receive fringe benefits and would be paid $4.93 per hour in accordance with county policies for all part-time personnel paid with county funds.

On January 6, 1984, the judge issued Administrative Order 1984-1 requiring that the county provide the wages and benefits agreed upon by the judge. The county decided to comply to the extent of the $2,400 previously appropriated for part-time circuit court employees. In March 1984, the county advised the judge that it did not consider the employee’s salary to be reasonable and necessary to the court’s operations and that it would not appropriate funds beyond the $2,400. The county also took steps to charge the fringe benefit costs against the $2,400 appropriation. On March 28, 1984, the circuit judge entered Administrative Order 1984-2, requiring, inter alia, that the county refrain from altering the budget of the court without prior written consent of the court. The administrative order warned that it was enforceable through the judge’s contempt power. On April 3, 1984, the judge issued an order to show cause why the county clerk should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the administrative order. On April 6, 1984, the board, the county clerk, and the county treasurer filed a motion for immediate consideration and a complaint for superintending control with this Court. The judge filed a counter-complaint for declaratory judgment and sought an order requiring payment by the county of attorney fees incurred in defending the case before this Court. This Court granted the county’s motion for immediate consideration and ordered that the case be argued and submitted as a calendar case together with the Hillsdale County appeal. On stipulation of the parties, hearings in circuit court to enforce the administrative orders were adjourned.

We hold that MCR 8.112(B) does not provide authority to compel expenditures and conclude that when agreement cannot be reached between a court and a funding unit, the court may initiate suit and shall bear the burden of proof¹ regarding expenditures in excess of appropriations. Our first conclusion requires vacation of the administrative order and pendent contempt proceedings in Cheboygan Co Comm’rs v Cheboygan Circuit Judge. Our second conclusion requires discussion of the law applicable to the situation presented in Employees & Judge of the Second Judicial Dist v Hillsdale Co.

II. Analysis

The issue in Hillsdale is whether the district control unit has the authority to decline to fund salary increases for district court employees which were not alleged or proven to be necessary to maintain a statutory function of the court or to provide for the overall administration of justice. In Cheboygan the issues are whether a court may direct a county to appropriate funds by means of an administrative order and whether the circuit judge may employ counsel to defend the court’s interest in these proceedings.

Each branch of government has inherent power to preserve its constitutional authority.

It was certainly never intended that any one department, through the exercise of its acknowledged powers, should be able to prevent another department from fulfilling its responsibilities to the people under the Constitution. [O’Coin’s, Inc v Worcester Co Treasurer, 362 Mass 507, 511; 287 NE2d 608 (1972).]

However, an indispensable ingredient of the concept of coequal branches of government is that "each branch must recognize and respect the limits on its own authority and the boundaries of the authority delegated to the other branches.” United States v Will, 449 US 200, 228; 101 S Ct 471; 66 L Ed 2d 392 (1980).

No claim has been asserted in the Hillsdale case that a statutory function, the overall operation of the court, or a constitutional function² is in jeopardy because of the actions taken by the funding unit.

The Legislature has specifically authorized the district court to "appoint employees and fix their compensation,” MCL 600.8271; MSA 27A.8271. However, we are unable to conclude from the record in Hillsdale that additional expenditures beyond appropriations may be compelled.

This Court held in Judges of the 74th Judicial Dist v Bay Co, 385 Mich 710; 190 NW2d 219 (1971), that the directive by the Legislature that the court shall appoint and fix compensation of its employees represents a legislative intent to place those determinations in the control of the district court judge. The court has the authority to fix salaries, which if reasonable and within appropriations, must be paid by the funding unit. Sturgis v Allegan Co, 343 Mich 209; 72 NW2d 56 (1955). We are unable to conclude, however, that the phrase "within appropriations provided by the . . . district control unit,” MCL 600.8271; MSA 27A.8271, is a determination by the Legislature that the funding unit is limited to approving the amounts fixed by the district court. To so construe the statute would be to disregard the statutory language. The Legislature has amended several statutes authorizing the courts to appoint and fix salaries.³ It has not, however, eliminated the function of the funding unit. Despite amendment of the District Court Act by 1980 PA 438, the language restricting the compensation "within appropriations fixed by the district control unit” has been retained. MCL 600.8271(1); MSA 27A.8271(1).

The Legislature has stated that the exercise of the judicial authority is limited to setting of salaries "within appropriations set by the governing body of each district control unit,” MCL 600.8271; MSA 27A.8271. This language cannot, however, bar a claim that an amount in excess of appropriations is necessary to fulfill a function mandated by the Legislature. To hold otherwise would be to permit a legislative directive to be frustrated by the funding units’ failure to provide necessary funds. Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne Co, 15 Mich App 713, 726; 167 NW2d 337 (1969). See also Jail Inmates v Wayne Co Sheriff, 391 Mich 359; 216 NW2d 910 (1974).⁴

Where the Legislature has by statute granted authority or created a duty,⁵ the local funding unit may not refuse to provide adequate funding to fulfill the function.⁶ _

However, since the trial court in Hillsdale found, and it is not disputed here, that the district court was functioning at a level "satisfactory to all,” without the four-percent increase proposed by the district court judge, there is on this record no basis for resolving the issue of when and under what standards the judiciary may compel expenditures beyond those appropriated to fulfill a statutory function.

Our responsibility in this case is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature, In re Certified Question, 416 Mich 558; 331 NW2d 456 (1982).

We harmonize the principles outlined above and give effect to each by concluding 1) that the court has the authority to set salaries which, if reasonable and "within appropriations,” must be approved by the control unit, and 2) that where the parties are unable to agree, the court may institute suit and shall bear the burden of proving that the appropriation it seeks is necessary to the performance of its statutorily mandated function. This construction carries out the apparent intent of the Legislature that the courts are free to appoint employees and set salaries "within appropriations,” and yet provides a means for the court to obtain additional funds where it demonstrates that they are necessary to perform a statutory function.

The issue in Cheboygan is whether the trial court may employ an administrative order to compel funding in excess of appropriations. We hold that the use of administrative orders to compel payment of requested funding is inappropriate under MCR 8.112(B).⁷ MCR 8.112(B)(1) states:

A trial court may issue an administrative order governing only internal court management. [Emphasis added.]

We conclude, in view of the clear language of the rule, that MCR 8.112(B) does not authorize trial courts to issue administrative orders to compel appropriations.

As there has been no determination of the reasonableness of the attorney fees incurred by the circuit judge in Cheboygan in connection with his representation before this Court, we remand for a determination of the reasonableness of the attorney fees incurred. MCL 49.73; MSA 5.826.⁸_

III. Conclusion

This Court has stood "foursquare” in support of the constitutional doctrine of inherent power, Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne Co (On Rehearing), supra, 386 Mich 8. However, the standard against which such authority is to be measured has not been articulated. Indeed, the original Black-Dethmers opinion in Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne Co, 383 Mich 10; 172 NW2d 436 (1969) (adopted by the Court on rehearing), references several possible standards.⁹

We agree with the statement of our dissenting colleagues that an inherent power analysis is implicated when judicial functions are in jeopardy. Post, p 743.

However, this observation is simply inapplicable to the cases before us. On this record there is no allegation and no proof that the additional salary item(s) were required to be funded by any formulation of the inherent-power doctrine.

An assertion of judicial power ultimately rests on the consent of thoughtful citizens. Where circumstances demonstrate a right and the record supports relief, history demonstrates public support. Public belief in the propriety, fairness, and justice of our decisions is essential. Therefore we defer to the observation that public willingness to accept and abide by a court decision "ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction.” Baker v Carr, 369 US 186, 267; 82 S Ct 691; 7 L Ed 2d 663 (1962) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).

In our judgment such confidence will be fostered by awaiting a proper record for further development of the relationship between judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers.

The opinion of the trial court in Employees & Judges of the Second Judicial Dist v Hillsdale Co was not based on an asserted constitutionally conferred power to compel increased compensation for the district court employees; nor was it premised on an impairment of a statutory function. Therefore, we reverse.

Administrative Orders 1984-1 and 1984-2 and the pendent contempt proceedings in Cheboygan Co Comm’rs v Cheboygan Circuit Judges were not appropriate under MCR 8.112(B). Accordingly, we vacate the proceedings below. We remand to the Cheboygan Circuit Court for a determination of reasonable attorney fees under MCL 49.73; MSA 5.826 and entry of an appropriate order.

No costs, a public question being involved.

Levin, Brickley, and Cavanagh, JJ., concurred with Boyle, J.

Appendix

The present anomaly of constitutionally and statutorily mandated state functions financially dependent on local governments — which often operate on a limited tax base — leaves trial courts in a vulnerable and perplexing position.

Until such time as full state court financing is realized, it is important to accomplish several objectives. First, in the interest of governmental comity and in deference to the principle of separation of powers, it is important to avoid conflicts between state courts and local funding units that arise over unsubstantial or marginal appropriation issues. Second, it is necessary to have a procedure and a data base that will insure that where there is a substantial difference between a court and its funding unit that rises to a constitutional or statutory neglect the court can prudently but effectively protect its mandate. Finally, to give guidance to the courts in effective budgeting and in dispute resolution involving courts and local funding units, and to prepare for the administration of full state court financing, there is a need for a broader, centralized data base on trial court budgeting.

In response to those concerns and in furtherance of these goals, we adopt the following Administrative Order to be effective on issuance of the judgment order in the instant cases:

Administrative Order No. 1985-6

Court Funding; Funding Disputes Between Courts and Local Funding Units; Submission of Budgets

I

This Administrative Order applies to all trial courts as defined in MCR 8.110(A).

II

A court shall submit its proposed and appropriated annual budget or any supplements thereto to the State Court Administrator at the time of its submission to or receipt from the local funding unit or units.

Ill

If, after the local funding unit or units have made their appropriations, a court concludes that the funds provided for its operations by its local funding unit or units are insufficient to enable the court to properly perform its duties and that legal action is necessary, the procedures set forth in this order shall be followed.

1. Legal action may be commenced 30 days after the court has notified the State Court Administrator that a dispute exists regarding court funding that the court and the local funding unit or units have been unable to resolve. The notice must be accompanied by a written communication indicating that the chief judge of the court has approved the commencement of legal proceedings. With the notice, the court must supply the State Court Administrator with all facts relevant to the funding dispute. The State Court Administrator may extend this period for an additional 30 days.

2. During the waiting period provided in paragraph 1, the State Court Administrator shall attempt to aid the court and the involved local funding unit or units to resolve the dispute.

3. If, after the procedure provided in paragraph 2 has been followed, the court concludes that a civil action to compel funding is necessary, the State Court Administrator shall assign a disinterested judge to preside over the action.

The procedures provided in this Administrative Order do not apply to any portion of a court’s budget that is funded by the state.

1 These cases do not present a question involving the authority of a court to negotiate collective bargaining agreements, Livingston Co v Livingston Circuit Judge, 393 Mich 265; 225 NW2d 352 (1975). Our opinion is not intended to reach this question.

2 An examination of the cases dealing with funding of the courts reveals two dimensions to the disputes. The first involves the kinds of expenses for which the power to compel funding is asserted. Second, the courts reviewing such disputes have taken three distinct approaches to the issues before them.

The kinds of expenses for which the power to compel funding has been asserted can be classified along a spectrum. In the first kinds of cases, funding is sought for a specific matter necessary to conducting court, and the propriety of the amount sought is not disputed. These cases have often involved expenses necessitated by somewhat unusual, even emergency, circumstances. See, e.g., O’Coin’s v Worcester Co Treasurer, 362 Mass 507; 287 NE2d 608 (1972) (tapes and tape recorder for use in criminal trials where stenographer not available); Stowell v Jackson Co Bd of Supervisors, 57 Mich 31; 23 NW 557 (1885) (boarding and lodging costs for sequestered jury); Grimsley v Twiggs Co, 249 Ga 632; 292 SE2d 675 (1982) (temporary clerical help for court clerk); Knuepfer v Fawell, 96 Ill 2d 284; 449 NE2d 1312 (1983) (provision of sufficient number of courtrooms). Closely related are cases in which the authority of the court to employ certain permanent personnel is at issue. See, e.g., Flathead Co Comm’rs v 11th Dist Court, 182 Mont 463; 597 P2d 728 (1979) (county refused to fund position provided for by statute). In the next category of cases, while the court’s authority to hire certain personnel may also be discussed, it is the amount of compensation which is at issue: here the proper amount of funding for the position is disputed. See, e.g., In re Lyon Co Court Clerk v Lyon Co, 308 Minn 172; 241 NW2d 781 (1976); Young v Pershing Co Bd of Comm’rs, 91 Nev 52; 530 P2d 1203 (1975) (probation officers, secretary, and other court employees). Related cases involve the question of who, the court or the county, has the power to hire, control, and determine the compensation of court personnel. See, e.g., Mowrer v Rusk, 95 NM 48; 618 P2d 886 (1980); State ex rel Weinstein v St Louis Co, 451 SW2d 99 (Mo, 1970); Holohan v Mahoney, 106 Ariz 595; 480 P2d 351 (1971). Finally, other cases involve the broadest assertion of judicial inherent power to determine the overall budget of the court; here, the focus is not upon a specific court function, or a specific cost, but instead upon the sum total of the costs for all the functions of the court. See, e.g., Commonwealth ex rel Carroll v Tate, 442 Pa 45; 274 A2d 193 (1971); Mowrer v Rusk, supra; Beckert v Warren, 497 Pa 137; 439 A2d 638 (1981).

The courts have also taken three distinct approaches in reviewing disputes over court funding. Sometimes, where statutes are not considered, or where the applicable statutes are found not to authorize the funding sought by the court, the issues are resolved solely on the basis of an inherent power analysis. See, e.g., Commonwealth v Tate, supra; Beckert v Warren, supra; In re Salary of Juvenile Director, 87 Wash 2d 232; 552 P2d 163 (1976); Young v Pershing Co Comm’rs, supra (expenses for secretary and library); People ex rel Bier v Scholz, 77 Ill 2d 12; 394 NE2d 1157 (1979); Noble Co Council v State ex rel Fifer, 234 Ind 172; 125 NE2d 709 (1955); Smith v Miller, 153 Colo 35; 384 P2d 738 (1963). The second approach interprets the applicable statutes to be coextensive with the inherent power of the judiciary, either on the grounds that the statute would otherwise be unconstitutional, or on the ground that the statute constitutes a legislative recognition of the judiciary’s inherent power. See, e.g., Grimsley v Twiggs Co, supra; O’Coin’s v Worcester Co Treasurer, supra; State v Superior Court of Marion Co, 264 Ind 313; 344 NE2d 61 (1976); State ex rel Johnson v Taulbee, 66 Ohio St 2d 417; 423 NE2d 80 (1981) (discussion of prior statute). The third approach to resolving such disputes is based solely on statutory analysis. In these cases, a statute is either held to provide sufficient authority to meet the court’s need, or the court’s claim is held to fail because statutory procedures have not been followed. See, e.g., Deddens v Cochise Co, 113 Ariz 75; 546 P2d 811 (1976); Knuepfer v Fawell, supra; Pena v Second Dist Court, 681 P2d 953 (Colo, 1984); State ex rel Schneider v Cunningham, 39 Mont 165; 101 P 962 (1909); State ex rel Kitzmeyer v Davis, 26 Nev 373; 68 P 689 (1902).

Inherent power analysis often does not distinguish between a court directive to provide funds to fulfill a specific constitutionally required function, and a court directive to fund that which is reasonable and necessary for the administration of justice, Beckert v Warren, supra. See Note: The courts’ inherent power to compel legislative funding of judicial functions, 81 Mich L R 1687-1701 (1983).

3 MCL 600.1481; MSA 27A.1481 was amended in part by 1980 PA 438, but the provision concerning the compensation of judicial assistants (other than those in the 36th District Court, the Third Judicial Circuit Court, and the City of Detroit Recorder’s Court) was unchanged: "The compensation of a judicial assistant shall be fixed by the recommending judges within the sum appropriated therefor by the legislative body . . . .” MCL 600.1471; MSA 27A.1471, which 1980 PA 438 amended to provide for law clerks in district courts as well as circuit courts, states: "The compensation of a law clerk shall be fixed by the judges of the court within the sum appropriated for that purpose by the county board of commissioners or by the governing body of the district control unit.”

4 Justice Brennan has explicated a distinction between the legislative and executive functions of the county. He stated:

"Within the limits of its delegated legislative powers, counties may pass appropriations for the expenditures of county funds for county purposes.

"But in the scheme of county government, the Legislature has not seen fit to delegate that ultimate power of the purse by which a legislative judgment must be made in advance of payment of any and all public funds.” Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne Co (On Rehearing), 386 Mich 1, 24; 190 NW2d 228 (1971) (separate opinion of Brennan, J.).

We note that the statutory analysis suggested by Justice Brennan is not directly applicable to a dispute involving the district courts. His analysis rested upon an express "exclusion” of jurisdiction over the circuit courts from the general legislative powers granted to county boards under MCL 46.11; MSA 5.331. See Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne Co (On Rehearing), supra at 14-15. No similar "exclusion” exists concerning the district courts.

5 Cf. Wayne Co Prosecutor v Wayne Co Bd of Comm’rs, 93 Mich App 114; 286 NW2d 62 (1979) (where the Legislature has statutorily imposed duties and obligations, the court determines whether sufficient levels of funding have been provided).

6 Although not dispositively resolved in the jurisprudence of this state, the question of a court’s authority to order salary increases has been the subject of considerable litigation elsewhere.

In Smith v Miller, 153 Colo 35; 384 P2d 738 (1963), and Deddens v Cochise Co, 113 Ariz 75; 546 P2d 811 (1976), the courts construed statutes which authorized a local court to fix the salaries of employees "with the approval of the board of supervisors,” Ariz Rev Stat, § 12-252, and "subject to the approval of the county commissioners,” former Colo Rev Stat 39-16-1, to create a "ministerial duty ... to approve [the amounts]” and to provide the means for payment, Smith v Miller, supra at 41, unless the board was able to show that the schedule of salaries was wholly unreasonable, capricious, and arbitrary.

Similarly, in Norman v Van Elsberg, 262 Or 286, 288-290; 497 P2d 204 (1972), the Oregon Supreme Court held that the words "approved” in a statute which conferred on local judges the authority to appoint persons "at a salary designated by the appointing judge and approved by the budget-making body of the county,” Or Rev Stat 419.604(1), permitted the budget-making body of the county to disapprove the salary schedule fixed by the judges only if salaries were unreasonable.

By contrast, in People ex rel Bier v Scholz, 77 Ill 2d 12; 394 NE2d 1157 (1979), the Illinois Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus vacating an administrative order of a chief judge fixing probation officer salaries above those approved by the county board. The court’s analysis rested on statutory provisions which provided, inter alia, that the amount of compensation "shall be determined by the board of commissioners or supervisors,” Ill Rev Stat 1977, ch 38, ¶ 204-6, Ill Const, and "each shall receive a monthly salary fixed by the county board,” Ill Rev Stat 1977, ch 23, ¶ 2683.

Likewise, in In re Salary of Juvenile Director, 87 Wash 2d 232; 552 P2d 163 (1976), the Washington Supreme Court interpreted the phrase "receive compensation which shall be fixed by the board of county commissioners” to preclude a claim of judicial power to fix salaries inferred from the power to appoint.

Other courts have held that statutes authorizing a judge to fix salaries "with the consent” of a funding unit do not delegate discretionary legislative power to the board and do not extend the power to veto reasonable budgeting requests, Young v Pershing Co Comm’rs, n 2 supra; Lubbock Co Comm’rs Court v Martin, 471 SW2d 100 (Tex Civ App, 1971).

7 MCR 8.112(B), substantially the same as former GCR 1963, 927.2, provides:

“(B) Administrative Orders.

"(1) A trial court may issue an administrative order governing only internal court management.

"(2) Administrative orders must be sequentially numbered during the calendar year of their issuance. E.g., Recorder’s Court Administrative Orders 1984-1,1984-2.

“(3) Before its effective date, an administrative order must be sent to the state court administrator. If the state court administrator directs, a trial court shall stay the effective date of an administrative order or shall revoke it. A trial court may submit such an order to the-Supreme Court as a local court rule.”

8 MCL 49.73; MSA 5.826 provides:

"Sec. 3. The board of commissioners of a county shall employ an attorney to represent elected county officers, including the sheriff, prosecuting attorney, clerk, treasurer, county surveyor, county executive, register of deeds, drain commissioner, mine inspector, public works commissioner, and judges of the county district, probate, and circuit courts in civil matters, as a defendant, when neither the prosecuting attorney or county corporation counsel is able to represent the particular officer. Legal advice, counsel, or court action shall be required under this section only in a case which involves an official act or duty of the office of the county officer. The attorney shall receive reasonable compensation as shall be determined by the board of commissioners. This section shall not supersede section 8 of Act No. 170 of the Public Acts of 1964, being section 691.1408 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.”

9 These possible standards include the following: "reasonably necessary to fulfill the constitutional obligation,” Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne Co, supra, 383 Mich 33-34, 36, "functions serviceably as a coequal branch of Michigan’s government,” "ascertainment of critical judicial needs and, if that ascertainment be affirmative (it is here indeed), of determining the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the monetary amount required to meet the urgency of the situation,” "critically pressing” needs.