Opinion ID: 2189625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: court funding; funding disputes between courts and local funding units; submission of budgets

Text: I This Administrative Order applies to all trial courts as defined in MCR 8.110(A). II A court shall submit its proposed and appropriated annual budget or any supplements thereto to the State Court Administrator at the time of its submission to or receipt from the local funding unit or units. III If, after the local funding unit or units have made their appropriations, a court concludes that the funds provided for its operations by its local funding unit or units are insufficient to enable the court to properly perform its duties and that legal action is necessary, the procedures set forth in this order shall be followed. 1. Legal action may be commenced 30 days after the court has notified the State Court Administrator that a dispute exists regarding court funding that the court and the local funding unit or units have been unable to resolve. The notice must be accompanied by a written communication indicating that the chief judge of the court has approved the commencement of legal proceedings. With the notice, the court must supply the State Court Administrator with all facts relevant to the funding dispute. The State Court Administrator may extend this period for an additional 30 days. 2. During the waiting period provided in paragraph 1, the State Court Administrator shall attempt to aid the court and the involved local funding unit or units to resolve the dispute. 3. If, after the procedure provided in paragraph 2 has been followed, the court concludes that a civil action to compel funding is necessary, the State Court Administrator shall assign a disinterested judge to preside over the action. The procedures provided in this Administrative Order do not apply to any portion of a court's budget that is funded by the state. RILEY, J. ( dissenting ). These cases were consolidated to enable this Court to decide whether an administrative order may be used by a trial court in the exercise of its inherent power to compel reasonable and necessary appropriations for court operations; whether the circuit judge may employ outside counsel to defend the court's interest in these proceedings; and, whether counsel's fees were reasonable and necessary. These cases evidence the continuing struggle between the legislative and judicial branches of government in their conscientious efforts to carry out the duties delegated to them under the Michigan Constitution. The purpose of this opinion is to set forth principled procedures to resolve, as fairly and expeditiously as possible, those conflicts which necessarily arise when the legislative branch refuses to approve funding requested by the judicial branch for reasonable and necessary court operations. In addressing these issues, one is reminded that the genius of our forefathers was the creation of a tripartite form of government; three independent branches of government dependent on each other for the survival of the whole; three independent branches of government which recognize that their exclusive powers must not be exercised to weaken another branch, lest it lead to the destruction of the whole. It is our continuing faith in this legacy that has enabled our republic to endure, and it is my faith in the vitality of that delicate balance of power implicit in this legacy that I would reaffirm today. [1] I