They become, in essence, an administrative forum of alternative dispute resolution, with the right to appeal to the state judicial system. At their worst, they are merely revenue agencies masquerading as courts. Their sole reason for being is the funds that their municipality draws from them. If the funds disappeared, few of the cities would consider the court an important civic service. Their limits and oversight are ill-defined, and their flexibility can sometimes disguise mere arbitrariness.
Municipal courts are a substantial topic unto themselves.
There are some 200 to 300 such courts across the state, operating so independently that even obtaining an exact count is difficult. We believe they fall much closer to the worst model than to the best one. A majority of complaints about judges that come to the Administrative Office of the Courts originate with municipal courts. Justice Drowota, everyone knows city courts exist to separate drivers from their money, and a part-time judge retained on the basis of performance is likely to find that generated revenue is the main criterion by which retention is determined, even when the charter sets a term of office. That means the cities have subverted the judicial function with which they have been entrusted by the legislature to a form of debt collection.