Walworth Village Board continues along path to form second municipal court

By Anne Trautner

Assistant Editor

The Walworth Village Board continues spending money as it goes forward with creating a second branch of the municipal court, a decision the board made on Jan. 13, even though the new court may run pretrial negotiations in the same manner as the current branch.

The new judge may require that a lawyer, rather than police, conduct pretrial conferences for the municipality, Village Board President David Rasmussen acknowledged.

That’s exactly what Municipal Judge John “Jay” Peterson ordered in November. The order was one of the catalysts that caused the board to call for Peterson’s resignation in December, even though the village’s legal counsel recommended the procedure. The board also was unhappy about Peterson’s handling of indigency cases.

“There are no allegations of wrongdoing on behalf of the court or myself,” said Peterson, who was re-elected to a four-year term in April 2011. “The money [from fines] is received and accounted for. The citations are all being properly processed and dispositions are being sent to the DMV on time. And the court is operating within the boundaries set by Wisconsin statutes.”

Cost of new court

So far, the village board has spent about $500 on preliminary work for the village attorney to draw up a new ordinance to create a second branch of municipal court, said Donna Schut, clerk treasurer for the village. The final cost of creating a new ordinance will be about $1,500, Rasmussen projected.

Municipal court handles offenses such as traffic violations, first-time OWIs and juvenile matters. Milwaukee has the only municipal court with more than one branch in the state.

The board has not yet decided how much taxpayers will spend on the new judge’s salary. Rasmussen estimated that it would be similar to Peterson’s salary, which is $7,200 per year. Peterson will be paid regardless of how many cases come through his court.

The village also pays for Peterson’s required training of four credits each year. The village would likely pick up the tab for the new judge’s education as well, Schut said.

It will likely cost another $4,000 for a computer program and software, Peterson said. He feels that the two courts won’t be able to share a program because of confidentiality.

The cost of a court clerk will remain about the same because the two clerks would be paid hourly and share the workload, Peterson said.

Rasmussen said that he thinks the new court will pay for itself because he thinks another judge will collect more money from fines than Peterson has.

Pretrial conferences

At a special meeting Monday night, board members discussed their concerns with having an attorney handle pretrial conferences. Until November when Peterson ordered the new procedure, police had handled pretrial negotiations for the village.

If the new judge requires that an attorney, rather than police, handles pretrial conferences, it will cost about $5,000 a year, Peterson estimated. Village Trustee Kent Johnson said that procedure will cost $15,000 to $20,000.

To cover the added expense, Peterson suggested that court costs in citations be increased from $28 to $38.

Board trustees said Monday they were unhappy that Peterson had made the order for an attorney to handle pretrial conferences without first coming to them.

“It would be the kind of thing you would hope the general services committee would know in advance,” Rasmussen said.

Rasmussen said that people would rather meet with police than with an attorney.

“They don’t want to bring a lawyer into it,” Rasmussen said. “Oftentimes people feel they are going to have a better hearing talking to an officer. You’re sort of cutting off that avenue of potential communication to the police department with citizenry.”

In December, at the request of the village board, the village counsel advised, “It is a safer option to have an attorney [rather than police] handle pre-trial conferences.”

Rasmussen said that Peterson appeared vindictive when he ordered that police no longer handle pretrial negotiations, but that the board was not being vindictive by forming a second court.

“When someone won’t talk to you at all, they won’t consider changes and they won’t listen to you, it’s not vindictive, it’s a solution,” Rasmussen said. “It’s not a personal thing to me. Nobody said you cheated or stole. We have a difference of opinion on how the court should be run.”

Indigence

Village Trustee Leroy Nordmeyer said that word around town is that people can get out of paying their fines by simply telling Peterson they don’t have the money.

“I have people come and say, ‘Is it true all I have to do is tell him I can’t afford to pay my speeding ticket?’  That’s like giving them a license to speed,” Nordmeyer said. “How do I respond to someone who says that to me?”

People are required to pay their fines, Peterson said. Before Peterson can issue a warrant for arrest, he has to determine if a person is indigent, or has the ability to pay, he said.

A good cause/indigency hearing is held when someone does not pay a fee for 60 days after the initial negotiations with the village attorney. About $25,000 of the court’s $200,000 outstanding fines are from indigency cases, Peterson said.

“The definition of them having the ability to pay, it’s not as arbitrary as you might think,” Peterson said.

In order to be found indigent, a person must receive governmental assistance or be under the poverty level, Peterson said. If someone meets those criteria, they must be found indigent, regardless of how they spend their money, he said.

If a person is found indigent, the fine is still owed, Peterson said.

“I have them come back,” Peterson said. “If their financial situation changes, I always have them come back. It’s not that their fine goes away.”

If someone does not pay a traffic fine, the driver’s license can be suspended and points can be taken off the license. However, a person does not go to jail for not paying a fine if found unable to pay, Peterson said.

“You don’t throw people in jail for owing other people money,” Peterson said. “That is not how the process works. You put people in jail for not complying with the order of the judge.”

Rasmussen said that he thinks many of the people lie to Peterson about their financial situations. Instead of taking people at their word, Peterson should require people to sign an affidavit, Rasmussen said.

“An affidavit is proof. You have someone swearing under oath that they are indigent, that they can’t afford to pay. That puts them under a lot of pressure,” Rasmussen said. “They are committing a crime if they lie under oath.  That’s tougher on them…and he hasn’t done that.”