Newtown Taxpayers Would Take Double Hit Under New Probate Plan

By John Voket

(This is the second of a two-part news feature on a proposed statewide probate court overhaul, and how Newtown officials are addressing issues involving the future of local probate services.)

Instead of using elementary business practices to help the centuries-old state probate court system thrive in the 21st Century, critics say an arcane proposal to overhaul the system may require taxpayers in smaller communities like Newtown to foot the bill for their own local probate court services, as well as regional courts serving neighboring communities.

The prospect of seeing her constituents paying twice for services under the proposed new system has Newtown’s Judge of Probate Margot Hall calling for legislators to take a hard look at all the implications and long-term costs of the plan. Judge Hall represents a growing number of Connecticut probate officials espousing a counterproposal by Judge Richard Lightfoot of Lyme that suggests applying proven business methods to address and fine tune particular elements of a proven system that some call one of the state’s oldest and most efficient public institutions.

Judge Lightfoot, who served as an attorney for ten years before spending 30 years in the business world, said he conveyed his ideas to the Probate Court leadership to no avail.

“I’ve conveyed to [Judge Lawlor] cost saving measures tied to pay scale statutes, my opinions on the devastating economic effects of building or expanding additional regional probate facilities, and ways in which daily local court functions could be modified to save millions in administrative support salaries, and he is either not effectively utilizing or deliberately ignoring proven and conventional practices to reduce operating costs,” Judge Lightfoot told The Bee.

Citing a “looming financial crisis in the state’s judicial system,” primarily blamed on skyrocketing health care and benefits costs, along with the gradual phase out of certain probate fees, Probate Court Administrator Judge James Lawlor said last October that “the [restructuring] plan would make the probate court system more efficient and professional, while avoiding wholesale court consolidation by allowing towns to address their individual needs.”

On December 16, 2004, Connecticut Chief Justice William Sullivan approved a modified plan and assigned Judge Lawlor with the responsibility of making whatever changes to the probate system were “necessary and appropriate.” Judge Sullivan further authorized legislation to be drafted reflecting those changes for consideration and possible action in the 2005 legislative session.

State Representative Julia Wasserman said she has been keeping a close eye on the probate court developments, and she agrees that the proposal as it stands puts an unfair burden on state taxpayers in smaller communities like Newtown.

“I’ve seen the proposal and I think it’s very premature,” Rep Wasserman said recently. “I think this plan requires a much broader review by a larger group of people. I’m sure Judge Lawlor put his best logic towards this, but I think it’s going to generate quite a fight.”

Rep Wasserman believes smaller towns should have the option of retaining and funding their own probate offices.

“Combining community probate courts should be done voluntarily,” she said. “I’ve talked to several of my colleagues about this already and they feel very strongly about keeping those offices in their own communities.”

During an interview Tuesday, Judge Hall provided draft copies of several legislative initiatives apparently designed to address certain significant elements of Judge Lawlor’s overall proposal. The draft, dated January 5, addresses the future of probate employee and retiree health care benefits, the establishment of additional regional children’s probate courts, and expanding responsibilities of the centralized probate court administrator’s office.

While both Judge Hall here in Newtown and Judge Lightfoot agree that their court employees, and they themselves, should be responsible for part or all of their own health benefits, the pair are both adamantly against the expansion of children’s specialty courts, and the extension of additional powers to the statewide administrator’s department.

‘Huge Expenses’

“I don’t like the idea of giving the centralized probate court administrator’s office more money or more power,” Judge Hall said. “To date, that office has not produced a cost analysis for the only pilot children’s court. They’re proposing the creation of six more children’s courts but we don’t even know how much was spent from the administrator’s office to create this first pilot.”

If one adds the potential costs to fund the expanded children’s courts to the bricks and mortar that will be required under the proposal for new and expanded regional probate facilities, the probate restructuring proposal could end up costing millions more than the system is spending now, Judge Lightfoot said.

“If you’re talking about consolidating judges and clerks, you’ll have to build or lease new court space for them to operate,” he said. “It’s likely to add huge expenses to the judicial system’s budget. In fact, some think it will not only erase the savings affected by all the other proposed changes, but will add significantly to the financial operations overall.”

Having administered numerous local children’s matters during her tenure, Judge Hall has testified that these types of cases are extremely time consuming and typically afford little or no financial return. Judge Lightfoot agreed, suggesting that instead of expanding the probate court’s role in these matters, children’s cases might be better served in the Superior Court venues.

“Early on I suggested [to Judge Lawlor] that we might spin this particular area of emphasis off. There is already an established juvenile court system, so maybe there’s a good argument to put these additional responsibilities into the hands of Superior Court judges, or specialty dockets within that court system.”

Judge Lightfoot said he is part of a growing contingent of probate professionals who suspect the state’s judicial hierarchy is moving inappropriately in reaction to projected future operating deficits.

“Judge Lawlor is required by statute to operate the probate system at a break-even status or with a surplus,” Judge Lightfoot said. “But I think he’s responded to deficit projections by assuming the entire system is broken.”

Not only has the probate system amassed a significant financial surplus in recent years, Judge Lightfoot explained, its rulings are better than 99 percent bulletproof.

“Of the 80,000 decrees our probate courts have administered over the years, fewer than 100 have ever been appealed. It’s a simple fact that 99 percent of the rulings are acceptable to all parties,” he said. “From a financial standpoint, over the last 15 to 20 years our system has worked effectively enough to amass a [cumulative] $30 million surplus. And we are still holding on to $17 million of that surplus today.”

Judge Lightfoot said this year’s projected $300,000 to $600,000 deficit is the first the probate system has faced in some time. But as Judge Hall has said in previous interviews, the proposed restructuring of the entire system takes matters to the extreme.

“They’re too willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater,” she said.

Judge Lightfoot said some probate justices have opined that Connecticut’s judicial leadership is failing to explore the many alternatives to completely overhauling the system.

“If I were [Chief] Justice Sullivan, I would have said ‘thanks for your hard work on this proposal Judge Lawlor, but I want to make sure there are no other ways to address this deficit.’ I have a feeling Justice Sullivan was never presented with alternatives,” Judge Lightfoot said. “I’ve learned from 30 years in business that their concerns are not hard to fix. A number of my colleagues believe as I do, that it’s just a matter of applying effective management tools.”