Opinion ID: 2181640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: eighth issue: probation officers: statutory power to recommend

Text: The paramount interest of the executive in the correctional process is recognized by the statute governing the appointment of probation officers. MCLA § 771.7 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28.1137). The function of the judges is merely to recommend. The power of appointment is retained in the executive branch and vested specifically in the corrections commission. Unlike the statute governing law clerks and judicial assistants, MCLA § 771.7 makes no reference to appropriation. The phrase and who shall receive such compensation as the boards of supervisors of the several counties shall provide merely refers to the amount of salary established for the position and not to the number of such probation officers. It is analogous to a statute governing employment of state employees who receive compensation as provided by law. It follows that the court may recommend the names of as many probation officers as it feels are necessary to maintain the appropriate level of supervision and investigation, and the corrections commission may appoint as many of that number as it determines are needed in accordance with its policies and standards, whereupon such employees shall receive the compensation established by the board of supervisors for assistant probation officers. Nor does MCLA § 771.12 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1142), negate this interpretation: Sec. 12. The salary and necessary expenses of the chief probation officer and each assistant probation officer shall be paid monthly out of the treasury or treasuries of the county or counties composing the circuit within which such probation officer or officers shall act, where provision has been made by the board of supervisors of such county or counties for their payment. This statute deals with the time, the source, and the method of payment. It does not imply that the salary and necessary expenses shall not be paid where no provision is made for their payment, but only that in such cases payment would not be made monthly. That the law vests the corrections commission with plenary power to impose financial burdens upon the counties may be distressing to the appellants, but it is not novel. State-mandated expenditures are familiar to county supervisors. In Stowell, supra, we held: [T]he expenses of justice are incurred for the benefit of the State, and only charged against the counties in accordance with old usage, as a proper method of distributing the burden.