Reforming Magistrate District Courts in PA
This project is design to focus on ways of reforming Magistrate District Courts in Pennsylvania to make them more efficient, and to operate in accordance with the Rule of Law[1]. One of the principles of the rule of law is the independence of the judiciary. We will attempt to complete this daunting task by applying the Eightfold path to more effective problem solving (Bardach, Eugene- A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis). Very little research has been done in this subject area, but it is conspicuous that, there are fingerprints of inefficiency of these courts due to the limited powers vested in them, and the method of electing officials to adjudicate proceedings of the court. Below is an analysis of our research to reform these courts:
The Pennsylvania Judicial System is a hierarchical pyramid system with the Supreme Court at the top which comprised of 7 Judges. This is followed by the Superior
Now that we have stated the preambble of the composition of the Pennsylvania Judicial System, we like to reetirate that the main focus of this project is on the Majesterial District Courts. The outcome of the research can be made universal to all other branches of the Minor Courts since they carry the same charateristics as the majestrate court.
Define the Problem:
The main problem of the Magistrate District Courts is the method of filling vacancies of Judges in the courts. As already mentioned above, the independence of the judiciary is paramount for the rule of law to prevail. But since Judges are elected in their position to adjudicate in their various precinct, this makes it difficult for them to operate independently without falling out of favor from campaign contributors, law firms, and the electorate. Like candidates running for State and Federal offices in elections, candidates running for Magistrate judge seats must raise funds to finance their campaign. Those that contribute funds to such campaigns are the very individuals such as, litigants and lawyers who ultimately appear before the courts on which the candidates are seeking to serve.
In fact, judicial elections in Pennsylvania Franklin County
Another problem with Magistrate District Courts is that, the their Judges are not required to have tried any cases or even actually practiced law at all, let alone for any minimum number of years. This is a problem because present day Magistrate courts are face with constitutional crisis issues such as “individual mandate” clause of the Health Care Reform Bill. These types of constitutional issues need to be adjudicated by legally minded professional and not just any individual that win election for the court’s seat. The court does not need an individual that have to look the definition of a word in a dictionary to reach a decision. This makes the court less formal and dangerous. Although for the proponent of the court, it’s less costly and faster.
The PA District Magistrate Courts resembles “old toothless dog” that can bark, but never possess the instrument to bite. The Court’s limitations on the cases they decide has adverse impacts on its efficiency so much that it has become a safe haven for criminal. The court can only decide cases that involve issues of civil matters of up to $12,000, and title 18, criminal codes, and title 30 for game sports such as fishing and hunting (Vivian J. Cohick- Newville District Judge- Cumberland County-03/01/2012 class lectures).
However, the court lacks its own jail and police force to implement their sentence. If an individual is scoundrel by a deceptive person the Borough or State police will not get involve arresting the culprit. They refer the matter to the district magistrate court because the money scoundrel is not more than $12.000. The victim will have to file with the magistrate court to summon the individual to court. The cost for filing is $100, and $10.00 if the complainant choose to send the summon notice by registered mail, and $35.00 for a constable to deliver it in person.
Assemble Some Evidence:
In order to determine the credibility of the problems identified above, we visited the Agency of Open Records of Franklin County to provide us with data of citation of the Magistrate District Court of Greencastle PA. Our focus is to review the citations issued during an election year when the incumbent Judge is running for re- election. We then assemble the data in four quarters. January – March is our first quarter, April – June is the second quarter, July- September is the third quarter, and October – December 2008 is the fourth quarter. This information is provided to us in compliance of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) under Pa. C.S.A. section 1503. (http://www.co.franklin.pa.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/Front%20Page/Magisterial%20District%20Reestablishment%20Report.pdf-access- 04/18/2012).
2008 DATA AOPC DATA ON DISTRICT COURT 39-03-05- GREENCASTLE
The data collected from the AOPC for the Greencastle Magistrate District Court 39-03-05 as illustrated by the graph above revealed that the court, and both the Borough and State Police work as a team in collecting revenue for the municipalities. In the first quarter of an election year, 57% of traffic citations were issued. This is probably because the incumbent judge is waiting to see who his or her challenger is. In the second quarter, there is a slight increase of 15% in citation, which is from 57% to 72%. This is an interesting up right skewed, and the only explanation we can come up with is that either the incumbent has a weak challenger with no name recognition, or the municipality has put pressure on the law enforcement officers to help raise revenue to cover the cost of their operation due to budget constraints.
The third quarter also show a downward spiral to the left by 20%, and the only logical explanation at first is because the election is getting closer and the campaign signs are now on the road sides and in people’s front yards. However, the Editor of Eco Pilot News Paper in Greencastle Joyce F Nowell believes that Dwayne Cunningham the current district judge made his promulgation to join the race, and was endorse by the Greencastle Chamber of Commerce and many law firms in the District. As the race intensified for the opening seat, the traffic citations from law enforcement officers dropped from 72% to 25% in the third year.
Finally, the fourth quarter which is the quarter when elections are held, the down ward slop of citations continued to 12%, and interestingly, all of the citations issues during the fourth quarter are from motorists from out of state. Therefore, this data clearly reveals how the method of filling vacancies to the office of magistrate judges by elections will tampered with the independent of the judiciary which is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, and the bed rock of the American Constitution.
Furthermore, we have also cited earlier that, like candidates running for State and Federal offices in elections, candidates running for Magistrate judge must raise funds to finance their campaign. This has created biasness, and made the Magistrate Judges corrupt as they try to please possible donors that are state prison contractors, and juvenile detention contractors. It has become an open secret that Magistrate District Judges are on prison contractors’ pay rolls to aid in sending defendants to county jails by setting up high bail fee. The boroughs lack prison cells, and only have a small room as holding, and setting up high bail fee will facilitate the possibility of sending more people to the county jail while awaiting trial.
A case in point is the “kids for cash” scandal in Luzerne County in which two judges took bribes from the owners of juvenile detention centers in exchange for sentencing minors to terms in those facilities. Some of the victims or survivals reported that they were coheres to sign waivers for not getting state legal aid. They will therefore appear before the Magistrate like a sheep led for slaughter, and they will look with imploring eyes as they are sentence and taking away to those corrupt facilities. One of the boy committed suicide after his release due to the dismal state of the facility, and spending his entire childhood life behind walls.
Another problem on processing civil law suit that involves funds not exceeding $12.000 is the lack of enforcement mechanism other than property seizure, and throwing out tenant’s property, changing the locks of apartment to denied access. A respondent we interviewed shares her personal experience from this process with us. She had a transmission problem on her vehicle and a scrupulous self- employed mechanic/ handy man promised to get her a used car transmission for $600.00. The mechanic took the money and absconded, and she decided to call the state and borough office to report the matter. Both the borough and state police referred her to the district court because the money scoundrel was not enough to press criminal charges. The district court found the mechanic guilty in absentia because he didn’t showed up for the hearing.
The next step is to file for an order of execution which is $285 for the judgment to be certified by the judge to issue promulgation for the sale of the property owned by the mechanic to recover the lady’s money. In this case, after spending all that money, the defendant who was staying in a weekly rate motel disappeared. He has no job for his wages to be garnish, and whenever she spots him around town and call the police, they will advise her to contact the district court again. Therefore, the system is ineffective and is not different from the criminal who took away the woman’s money. She became angry and decided to follow the second option through the prothonotary. The prothonotary requires a $150.00 filing fee, and $35.00 constable fee to initiate protocol for selling the mechanic’s property, in this case there is none.
Construct the Alternatives:
There are certain alternatives that can be implemented to restore public confidence of Pennsylvania Magistrate District Courts. Firstly, the filling of vacancies of judges has to be done by appointment through the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for a two year term and limited to two terms. The appointee must be a retired trial attorney who has to be going through rigorous screening by borough councilors open to the public. This will allow the public to understand what spectrum the prospective law belongs. For example if he proponent of natural law of legal positivist.
This is important because trial attorneys have gone through law school with many years of legal experience with strong legal ethics. This will enhance the independence of the judiciary, because the Supreme only performs the ceremonial duty of nominating the prospective judge. The court will function properly even during election year, and cannot be manipulated by corrupt co- operations, prison and juvenile contractors.
The State of Mary Land which shear common border with Pennsylvania appoints their Magistrate through the U.S. District Court for District of Maryland for a 2 four year term (http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/39fed/04usmag/html/usmag.html-accessed 04/21/2012).
Another alternative to be taken into consideration is building prison facilities for the magistrate courts to facilitate the apprehension of repeated embezzlement offenders such as the individuals that will target people with the intension squandering money less than $12,000. It’s also necessary for the court to hire its own constable to serve summons and arrest culprits. The contract for food services at the magistrate must also be executed by the same contractor that serves food at the school districts.
Select the Criteria:
After setting up the above stated criteria, it’s time to get this in the agenda setting of both State houses of the Congress. We will approach Senator Lisa Baker, R- Lehman Township who sponsored the “kids for cash” bill until it became a law on April 10, 2012 to put out reforms on the agenda. This will be the first step towards a policy formulation towards reforming the district courts. Then we can organize a concerned citizen forum and appoint formidable women who have been adversely impacted by the “Kids for cash” to championed the reforms in the form of interest and lobby groups. We would appoint Sandy Fonzo, whose son was locked up for a minor offence and subsequently killed himself to head the pressure group. This is important because she already have name recognition in her relentless effort to influence the passage the “kids for cash” bill into law.
Project the Outcomes:
After successfully getting the reform proposal on the agenda of the Pennsylvania Congress, discussions will prevail to determine the best course of action. This is usually a conflictive and competitive political process for both the Republicans and Democrats in the Congress. Fortunately for these proposals, there will be less opposition from both parties due to the fresh memories of the “kids for cash” programs and the total prohibition for the magistrate district courts to discuss cases involving juveniles. This will also gain the support of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) who are advocating for free and fair trials. These reforms will also gain the support of associations such as Pennsylvania Local Lawyer Referral Services, Pennsylvania Association for Justice and Pennsylvania Association of Bond Lawyers. These associations have advocated in the past to increase the powers of the magistrate district courts, and the appointment for legal educated minded judges that can execute judgments impartially.
Confront the Trade-offs
Nevertheless, we do not expect a clean sweep of the reforms without compromise from the State Senators to the extreme right who would like to preserve the court’s status quo. However, they will be reminded of the reality that we live in a dynamic world and the United States was founded on the basis fundamentals of the rule of law. The system of putting square pegs in a round hole in the first level of the judiciary branch is disastrous and can be costly for the state in compensations for judicial liabilities and Constitutional crisis. The only acceptable tradeoffs would be to allow judges that are serving their current terms to complete those terms.
What we think would be a possible trade - offs is the appointment of Judges which can be assign to the Governor as a ceremonial function, instead of the Supreme Court. This compromise will prompt the governor to support the reforms which will be a green light for a policy implementation in reforming the archaic magistrate courts. This move will also make the critics of none politicizing the district court to throw fists because the magistrate courts are designed to be free of politics. However, the very fact that they were created with the intent of having elected judges defeats the purpose of its unanimity for having any political affiliation. Another trade – off is the return juvenile to magistrate District Courts, and the appointment of permanent legal aids to represent citizens for all crimes in all cases at the magisterial level.
Decide:
At this juncture, we have to decide how our reform proposals can be promulgated to the citizens. We have to decide what media to use in familiarize the citizens of the intended policy reforms. Is it going to be a print, radio or electronic media? Before we embark on broadcasting our propaganda to foster support, we need to survey to determine the media that can be effective to our campaign. We will sample, Greencastle, Chambersburg, Bedford and Somerset Counties. These surveys are done by face- to – face and we will target our respondents as they leave grocery stores and fast food restaurants. Our target stores are the dollar store, McDonalds and Apple bees. The following questions will be included in the survey, Media preference, exercise of franchises in local elections and citations for traffic violation.
The charts below reveals that, 27% of the people 73 people we interviewed in rural Pennsylvania read their local newspapers for current events, 6% listened to CNN, 15% use the internet and 25% listen to their local FM radio station for news and music. On exercising their franchise during local elections, 27% Franklin County respondents have voted during local government elections, 4% in Somerset and 6% in Bedford. Finally, 13% of Franklin County has appeared before the magistrate district courts in their area, 4% in Somerset County, and 6% in Bedford County.After reviewing this data, it’s evedient that we may have to use the Local News papers of every municipality, and FM Radio stations to persuade residents to call their state representatives to vote in support of the reform policy. It’s also evedient that Franklin County residents has more life experiences with the magistrate district court, and can relate easily to problems of magistrate courts. Somerset and Bedford counties are more rual than Franklin, and must rural municipalities do not have their own police force. They rely solely on State Police for protection, and therefore are less likely to get traffic citation since they only drive in rural routes and the State Police are on main interstate 70 and the turnpikes.
Tell Your Story:
In the final process of applying the Eightfold path to more effective problem solving of Bardach Eugene in reforming the magistrate district courts in Pennsylvania, we will try to determine the media that we can use as our mouth piece to help spread the message. We will use all of the Local FM Radio Stations that operate under Section C of non – profit organization, including National Public Radio (NPR) to attract both liberals that are educated, and working men who may not have voted in the past but have appeared before the court.
The editors of all Local Newspapers will be invited to attend every town hall or rallies organized by proponents of the reforms to gain free press coverage. Our findings will be utilized to ascertain the need for reforms, by citing the problems and the positive outcomes in the first quarter after they start implementing the policies.
We can also request phone numbers from local party offices and ask volunteers to place calls to all voters in Pennsylvania and ask them to call their State representatives to vote in favor of reforms. This is the time we can present all the vises of the policy reforms, and also asked individuals to sign a memorandum in favor of the reforms, and then we will send these copies to both the Pennsylvania Secretary of State and the governor’s office.
In a nut shell, this strategies will effectively produce a formidable policy on the agenda of Pennsylvania Congress, and give a new and efficient face to the magistrate courts that will possess an iron arm to deal with local problems in their precinct as they arise to the satisfaction of all involve to reduce appeals from the decisions they arrived at.
Gershon Bai-Lama Bangura
All rights@ reserved.
[1] Refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.
