East Aurora Advertiser

Marilla Officials Consider Eliminating One Elected Judge Post



The Marilla Town Board is contemplating reducing the number of town justices from two to one. The plan is to have it start in 2022. While there are some board members who think that this is a progressive and creative way to save taxpayer dollars, others say that even having a discussion about the topic should be held off until the coronavirus pandemic is mitigated.

This reduction can happen if the board votes on a referendum to reduce the number of town justices. The reduction would take effect 30 days after a legal notice is printed in a publication. If the public wishes to challenge the referendum, 5 percent of the town’s population would need to sign a petition in order to place the measure on the ballot this fall. This is approximately 200 signatures in Marilla. 

Council Member Matthew Dolegowski says that he feels like this will be too difficult during a pandemic because residents will have to go door-to-door to present a case to keep both justices and collect the required signatures. In addition, one town justice seat is up for reelection this fall. It is currently filled by Thomas Labin.

Town of Marilla Concerned About Court Revenues in 2021 Budget

“It is also not appropriate to do this in an election year. For someone to campaign for a spot that can ultimately be taken from them is not fair,” Dolegowski said. “It feels as though it is being jammed through.”

The board has discussed making changes within the town court system for over a year, because it costs more to run the court than the system brings in. In 2018, the court budget for Marilla was nearly $93,000. This included salaries, employee insurance, the court officer and the town prosecutor. The town received over $55,000 in fines and other revenues and reported a deficit of over $37,000.

In 2019, the deficit had increased to over $53,000. 

“Anyone who is in a position of handling fiscal matters, you have to look at reality and where you can do better for the taxpayers while providing a needed service,” Supervisor Earl Gingerich, Jr. said. 

All of the court budgets in the surrounding towns – including Wales, Holland and Aurora – were operating in the red in amounts anywhere from a few thousand dollars to nearly $70,000 in 2018 and 2019. The Town of Elma is the only surrounding town that is in the black. In 2018, Elma’s courts had a $48,000 surplus. In 2019, the surplus was nearly $133,000. 

These figures were calculated using information supplied from the individual municipalities.

“Marilla is a unique place in the county,” Council Member Brian Nolan said. “There is no highway cutting through town, and no major road like Transit or Route 16, so we are naturally not going to get the amount of cases that other towns get. It is draining us and not feasible.” 

Budgeting for Town Court a Concern for Some in Marilla

In an effort to save money, the town reduced the position of the court clerk from full-time to part-time. In previous years, the position paid as much as $19.25 per hour and the job description was for 35 hours per week. The salary in 2021 is listed at $20,000, which will reduce the wages by almost half. 

The board has also voted to reduce the salary for the town justice position that is held by Labin. This would not take effect until 2022, if that position is still in place. At this time the salary is $16,196 for each justice, but for the spot held by Labin it would be reduced to $14,000 starting next January. 

“In 2019 we had 600 cases in the courts but in 2016 there were 900,” Gingerich said. “We think this is from bail reform and not as many officers working the area.” 

Justice Courts are the only courts in the state that are funded by the municipality where they serve. Just like the higher courts, they are required to operate without interference from other branches of government, like the town board, and it can be a delicate balance.

“Consistent with their home rule powers, towns and villages have substantial discretion and flexibility in how they discharge the day to day responsibilities of the court,” the NYS Justice Court Manual reads. “Town and village boards must remember, however, that this discretion has limits. They must administer their local courts consistent with principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers that all municipal officers are sworn to uphold.” 

The NYS Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics wrote an opinion in 2019 about towns looking at courts as a revenue source, and whether or not judges should sit down with town boards to explain revenue losses. 

“The proposed private meeting between the town justice and town board members, for the express purpose of explaining and justifying an apparent decrease in revenue, would undermine public confidence in the court’s integrity, impartiality, and independence,” the opinion read. “It would likely create a public impression that the justice court is a town “department” that must either meet certain revenue goals or account for its failure to do so. It could further create an impression that the town board is in a position to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment in vehicle and traffic matters or other cases where fees or fines may legally be imposed.” 

Dolegowski said that he spoke to a supreme court justice who advised against going down to one judge. Dolegowski said it would end up hurting the town financially with all of the transfers. Towns might end up billing Marilla for more money when a case needs to be transferred to another town because the judge has a conflict of interest.

“If a judge in town has a conflict of interest and cannot serve on a case, the other judge can fill in. If you go down to one, you have to go down many steps to get this service in another town. This can be an expense as well,” Dolegowski said.

Gingerich said that recusals in Marilla are rare. He said he recalls one time when both judges had to recuse themselves. He said one case went to Wales, and one to Sardinia, and neither community billed Marilla to transport the case to their courts. Gingerich said reducing to one judge is being progressive, similar to when communities began reducing from three assessors to one.

“The same arguments I hear tonight are the same ones I heard with this debate,” Gingerich said. “The town of Marilla was one of the first towns in 1998 to reduce. John Foss and I advocated it, and now it is universal.”

Dolegowski said that this idea should be tabled so that town board members can spend more time discussing this with residents. Gingerich said that a decision might be reached in February.

The next board meeting is scheduled for Feb. 11 at 7:30 p.m. in the town hall on Two Rod Road.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.