December 11, 2009

PROBATE CHANGE HAS BEEN CONTENTIOUS, BUT SUCCESSFUL

Somehow, some way, a state agency got a successful reform that maintains services, stays user-friendly, and saves taxpayers millions of dollars a year. Management voluntarily reduced their number by more than half. Increased use of technology, centralized accounting and budgeting, and enhanced professionalism will bring the "effective and efficient" cliche to realization.

It's the probate courts -- that colonial leftover designed to oversee the devise of the family farm. After three centuries, these courts' duties have changed dramatically, user fees stopped covering costs, and courts need not be in walking distance. Let me explain:

Over the years family estates changed from a simple real estate transfer to complicated estate plans involving at times sophisticated trusts and investments. Adoptions and terminations of parental rights cases increased -- and became more complicated. More families needed conservatorships or guardianships for not only their elderly members, but also their mentally and physically challenged members who needed full-time professional assistance. More cases involve indigents. There's public criticism about mishandled cases.

Half a decade ago, both the presiding Probate Court Administrator James Lawlor, and Chief Justice William Sullivan foresaw that by 2012 user fees would not cover costs; the courts would be bankrupt. But their warnings were stubbornly ignored because either "it's not happening right now" or "but we've always done it this way." Ah! Connecticut: the land of steady habits.

Then the real estate bubble burst. As values plummeted, so did fees. The new probate administrator, Paul Knierim, reported to the new chief justice, Chase Rogers, that the bankruptcy date had moved to early 2010, in our current budget cycle. In January 2009 the probate judges embraced reform. In February, Gov. Rell included reform in her budget address, suggesting not only streamlining, but also increased professionalism. The 300-plus year status quo was challenged.

Legislative attention focused on cost cutting. Foremost was consolidating administration and technology-based efficiencies; it was all about better productivity. The state-wide (but not district specific) increases in caseload demanded that courts be opened to the public 40 hours a week. The increase in the legal complexity of cases prompted Gov. Rell to insist rightfully that, like superior court judges, future probate court judges be attorneys. Health insurance and pension eligibility were changed both to lower costs and raise professionalism.

But what about reducing the number of courts? Past efforts at voluntary consolidations had been spectacularly unsuccessful -- only a handful of districts. The legislative resistance to Gov. Rell's proposal, to go from 117 to 36 courts based on state senate districts, was pandemic. (It was also impractical: senate districts divide towns, and change every 10 years.) So we sat down with the probate administrator and the governor's budget chief and crunched numbers. The numbers supported 50 courts, give or take a few. We went with it, adding details regarding population, the availability of facilities, and geographic access. But no map. Prudence dictated that we avoid complicating the core reforms with the contentiousness specific redistricting would bring. It worked: the bill passed the House of Representatives 126-19, and the Senate 29-7.

We asked the probate judges themselves to draw a map and give it to a bi-partisan commission to complete redistricting after full public disclosure and hearing. As predicted, there was contentiousness, but there also was a successful conclusion. With minor changes, the recommendation passed the House 134-7 and the Senate 33-2, and was signed by Gov. Rell. It will be fully realized when only 54 probate judges instead of 117 are elected in November 2010, and take office in January, 2011.

It will save money. Our non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis reported direct savings of $4 million in fiscal year 2011 and $7 million a year every year after. There will also be savings from closing 60-plus courthouses. Judges remain elected, user-friendly, and conveniently located, while becoming more professional.

Optimist that I am, I hope that these reforms might be extended. Our sprawling, bureaucratic, and too-often technophobic state government is overdue for 21st century reorganization to increase productivity and reduce taxpayer costs. The vastly expensive and unnecessarily duplicative municipal administration of services must change to regional administration to save property taxpayers' money. Overcoming the reluctance of both elected officials and the public to embrace change will be difficult. But as I have learned in the multi-year effort to reform the probate courts, it can be done.

State Representative Bob Godfrey represents part of Danbury. He led the group which wrote the probate reform bill, and chaired the Probate Redistricting Commission.