Issue of the Month: Probate Court of Kent County

Last month I presented the 17th District Court of Kent County. The Kent County Probate Court occupies the same building, but in different courtrooms and with different judges. The Probate Court is a court of statutory jurisdiction concerned with the protection of incapacitated or mentally ill individuals and their assets, and the proper transfer of assets at death. Protection of incapacitated adults involve guardianships, guardianships of minors, and guardianships for persons with developmental disabilities. If a guardian is appointed, the Court must monitor the guardianship, making sure the guardian is performing in the best interests of the individual being protected. The Probate Court also hears petitions for Protective Orders, civil actions where a person or party is suing a trust or estate, and gets involved in minor issues such as change of name and handling the disposition of an estate where there is no will. There are currently four Probate Court judges in Kent County. The work of the Probate Court has grown by nearly 30 percent in the past five years. Most of this increase is because of an increase in need for appointment of guardians. The growing aging population is causing some of this increase, but also an increasing workload addressing mental commitment cases. The Probate Court has nearly 1200 minors under guardianship. Guardians are either paid through the private assets of the protected person, or in the case of indigent persons, the state pays $45/month for guardianship services. During the summer of 2011 our Probate Court was audited along with Wayne, Saginaw, and Ingham Probate Courts to assess the effectiveness of Probate Courts. The Kent County Probate Court showed favorable results in comparison with the other counties.

Issue of the Month: 17th Circuit Court of Kent County

The Kent County 17th Circuit Court is, like all Michigan Circuit Courts, the trial court of general jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction in all civil matters over $25,000, all criminal cases where the offense is a serious misdemeanor or felony, all domestic relations cases, and all child abuse, neglect, and delinquency cases. There are currently 13 judges sitting on the 17th Circuit Court, and 225 FTEs employees doing the work of the Court. There are 10 Circuit Court judges, and 3 Family Court judges within the 17th Circuit Court. The work is divided organizationally between three areas: (1) Administration and Adjudication Services with 105 employees performing the administrative work of the Court and headed by a Court Administrator; (2) Circuit Court Services with 23 employees providing alternatives to incarceration for appropriate defendants; and (3) nearly 100 employees working in the Friend of the Court section managing the huge child support and parenting issues. This represents over $25 million of cost borne by county taxpayers — very little of which actually benefits any particular taxpayer personally. Our County does a fairly good job of developing alternatives to traditional justice and punishment system and relies on a broad range of alternatives for both adult and juvenile offenders so they don’t have to spend much time in jail. An additional function of the Circuit Court is the provision of the Office of Community Corrections which seeks to limit state prison commitments for County offenders, and prevents local jail overcrowding through a system of Jail Bed Allocations to each judge. The Circuit Court makes improvements every year in how it selects jurors and how they are treated during their time of duty. I’ll cover the Probate Court next month.

Issue of the Month: County Prosecutor’s Office

The County Prosecutor’s office provides prosecutor services on behalf of all citizens of Kent County in the 17th Circuit Court, and District Courts 61, 62A, 62B, 63, and 59 located in the main cities and townships of the County. Seventeen law enforcement agencies in these localities submit charges and warrants to the Office. These are fielded by 3 Assistants 24 hours per day to ensure immediate charges can be filed, and perpetrators put in jail. There are 33 attorneys, plus the elected County Prosecutor, Bill Forsyth, to handle these cases. In the past year there were over 9,000 warrants authorized. The highest number of charges were for controlled substances (1800), and the next highest group, each with over 1300 cases, were larceny and retail fraud, OUIL/OWVI, and Domestic Violence. The number of homicides dropped dramatically from a year ago to 9 this year and 25 the year before. The Prosecutor’s Office is split into four main functions (1) Criminal Division which handles all criminal cases, (2) Appellate Division handling appeals on previous convictions, and (3) Family Law Division handling such things as paternity cases, and child support; and (4) Juvenile Division handling all delinquency, neglect, and mental incompetency hearings. The Prosecutor’s office operates with a budget of nearly $8 million, and has less attorneys and funds compared to other similar sized counties throughout Michigan. Even with the somewhat limited number of attorneys and funds, our Prosecutor’s Office is one of the more effective counties in the State with 98 convictions per attorney, compared to a low of 36 per attorney in Ingham County, 78 in Macomb, and 61 in Kalamazoo County. Next month a review of the individual courts will be provided.

Issue of the Month: Community Park Study Results

One year ago I reported the formation of a multi-governmental study of parks and recreational assets in Kent County. This study has just been completed. The report details 28 specific findings that describe the current state of Kent County parks and compares them with four nationally recognized parks and recreation systems. There are six key conclusions: (1) parks and recreation in Kent County can be described as ‘good’ but not ‘great’, (2) although all parties agree parks and recreation are vital to a high quality of life, there is no shared vision of what constitutes a ‘great’ park system, (3) over the past years all parks and recreation areas have suffered significant budget reductions — even though some communities have dedicated millages for parks, (4) Kent County parks and recreation agencies are relatively efficient, (5) there are some good examples of existing parks and recreation collaboration in Kent County, and (6) unless there is a better collaborative governance structure and new funding sources any attempts at improvements will only yield minor efficiencies or enhancements in quality of life. Thus, the report makes a strong recommendation for the formation of a Kent Communities Park and Recreation Authority and, recommends the first efforts of this Authority be implementation of some specific, high value improvement projects that benefit parks and recreation services in all jurisdictions in the County. Unless something bold and significant is accomplished, our county parks and recreation will continue to be only ‘good’ and not the ‘great’ that many in our area recommend in order for us to become a vibrant and economically growing community. This recommendation is being reviewed with all Kent County jurisdictions for feedback.

Unintended Consequences of ballot proposals

I want to offer my suggestions of a vote on the six ballot proposals facing Michigan voters this year.  I am concerned by the strong presence of personal agendas in the proposals, and the fact five of the proposals make permanent constitutional changes based on these personal agendas.  These proposals have been put together to preserve a way of doing business for a particular special interest, or preserving personal financial monopolies.  They do not represent what is best for all the citizens of Michigan.  If these proposals pass, citizens will forfeit their ability to elect representatives to make these tough choices.  Decisions that are meant to be made by our elected representatives will become embedded into our state constitution.  They will no longer be the responsibility of our democratically elected representatives.  If we are unsatisfied with the decisions of our elected representatives we can and should vote them out of office, not take the decision making ability away from them.

Thus, I plan to vote ‘no’ on proposals #2 through #6 since, if these pass, they short circuit the individual voter’s ability to hold their representatives responsible for managing the state’s finances.  I will vote ‘yes’ on proposal #1 since that gives the governor the ability to intervene when a publicly financed entity is financially unable to meet its obligations to use public funds in accordance with their intended purposes.   I would encourage everyone’s close consideration of the unintended consequences of these proposals.  Although the ads make them sound good, they are dangerous for Michigan’s future growth and prosperity.

Issue of the Month: John Ball Zoo

During the past several years the county has partnered with the John Ball Zoological Society in operation of the John Ball Zoo through two structures—the county owns and funds the operations, and the Zoological Society provides fund raising for new projects. A study completed in early 2011 found this business model was not consistent with zoo industry accepted best practices and was not an efficient model for a sustainable long-term future. Many of our private local Foundation funding entities concurred with this finding. The Zoo Society and County agreed to form a Transition Committee in mid-2011 to develop a new non-profit entity with responsibility for both functions. This Transition Committee designed a new non-profit governance structure with a new Board and management structure. Even though the Zoo Society was active in the Transition Committee work and formation of the final governance structure, concerns have recently been expressed by the Zoo Society members that this direction is wrong. There is a feeling the work expended on behalf of the zoo by the Society has not been sufficiently recognized. This is causing delay in implementation of the new structure, and consequently delay in pursuing a new method of providing the community a quality zoo with a sustainable future. The County Commission Chair has recently communicated the intent of the County Commission to move forward with the recommended changes, and invited the Society members to continue their involvement by serving as board members of the new non-profit. It is unfortunate there is continued dissension about this direction since we started out with mutual intent to find the best possible sustainable operational model for this community asset.

Issue of the Month: Cooperation, Collaboration and Consolidation

The County Commission’s Community Collaboration Work Group recently heard the first part of our consultant’s review of intergovernmental collaboration efforts throughout the country. This first report concentrated on looking at our own county’s past efforts in creating collaborative arrangements, and identified issues facing our county in the future. Based on discussions with local officials and research of media reports, the Upjohn Institute concluded the following:

1. Government units in Kent County have an impressive history of working together in the past. These past successful partnerships will make future collaborative efforts more likely.
2. The type of services that work best for collaborative efforts are those that require large capital investments or are so costly as to inhibit an individual unit from implementing.
3. There are some structural barriers to future collaborations in our county, however, such as differences in service provision standards and costs for different units of local government.
4. There are strong beliefs that certain core services such as fire or police, must be provided locally in order to preserve local government autonomy and accountability.
5. There doesn’t seem to be a unified vision or strategy among Kent County units of government on how to address major challenging issues such as urban sprawl, local government service inefficiencies, and inequities in household income and housing values between the inner ring of cities and townships and villages that affect each government’s finances.

Thus, although this first report concludes that more successful collaborative efforts will be forthcoming, there is a sense that “without a community-wide dialogue to discuss both a regional vision and comprehensive strategy” about some very critical issues affecting the entire region, “the long-term future of the county’s inner cities is uncertain.” The second report examining impact of other area’s governmental consolidation efforts on these issues will be later.