Sumpter first to approve District Court Funding Agreement

At its regular meeting on Aug. 13, the Sumpter Township Board of Trustees unanimously approved signing of the new, eight-page 34th District Court Funding Unit Agreement.
Van Buren Township Board of Trustees was scheduled to discuss the agreement Aug. 19 at its work/study session and approve it at the board’s regular meeting on Aug. 20.
Huron Township passed the agreement unanimously at its Aug. 14 meeting. The City of Belleville will consider the agreement at its Sept. 3 meeting and the City of Romulus has yet to place the item on a published agenda.
The 34th District Court includes the “political subdivisions” of Sumpter, Van Buren, Huron Township, the City of Belleville and the City of Romulus. These political subdivisions currently participate in the distributions of fines and costs assessed by the court, according to the agreement entered into on Aug. 25, 1998.
This 2019 agreement will replace the 1998 agreement.
“It basically puts into writing what we were doing,” said 34th District Court Chief Judge Tina Brooks Green, adding it just incorporated the oral agreements they had made over the years, “so everyone’s on the same page.”
Judge Green said the state court administrator wanted it in writing and once everyone signs it, it will be in place.
She said some things will be a benefit to Romulus and a detriment to the communities. Some things will be a benefit to the communities and a detriment to Romulus.
“This will settle everything, not that anyone did anything intentionally,” Judge Green said, referring to the disagreement earlier this year.
At its board meeting, Sumpter Township attorney Rob Young said in about 2016, the court undertook the building of a new court building. Romulus had the obligation to fund everything and issued a $17 million bond to fund the building. The court put fees on tickets and misdemeanors and the money was set aside to pay for the building.
After a disagreement between the court and Romulus, which is the host community, earlier this spring, over disbursement of the money, the court alerted the communities that under the standing agreement, sums of money were owed to the communities. After a meeting with community leaders, the judges referred the issue to the Michigan Supreme Court’s State Court Administrative Office, and requested a review of the court’s disbursements.
On Aug. 5, following a limited audit, Regional Administrator Paul J. Paruk sent a letter to the court and the communities involved with a recommendation.
He said his office reviewed the funding unit agreement dated Aug. 25, 1998, a Memorandum of Understanding dated July 2016, a Memorandum of Understanding dated August 2017, the 34th District Court’s bank statements, checks, monthly and year-to-date spreadsheets, and Judicial Information Services Court Detail Reports and Court Summary Reports for the fiscal years 2015 through 2018 and fiscal year 2019 through March, 2019.
“Since the time of the original agreement in 1998, the Court reported oral agreements between the Court and the communities that were never reduced to writing,” Paruk wrote. “These agreements included the closing of the violation or ticket bureaus in each community, the addition of a Funding Unit Fee, probation oversight fees and a court processing fee.
“Two methods were used to determine the distributions to the five communities. In the first method, calculations included the following assumptions: 1) If a ticket was paid within 14 days, the political subdivision receives 1/3 of the local ordinance fines and costs; 2) The political subdivisions do not receive 1/3 of probation oversight fees; 3) The political subdivision receives 1/3 of the Funding Unit Fee; and 4) There is no authority to apply a processing fee that reduces the distributions to the political subdivisions.
“In the second method, calculations included the following assumptions: 1) Local ordinance fines and cost paid within 14 days are distributed 100% to the political subdivisions; 2) The political subdivisions do not receive 1/3 of probation oversight fees; 3) The political subdivisions receive 1/3 of the Funding Unit Fee; and 4) Distributions to the political subdivisions are not reduced by processing fees.
“Under Method 1, there is an overpayment to Belleville, Huron Township, Sumpter Township, and Van Buren Township, and an underpayment to Romulus. Under Method 2, there is an underpayment to Belleville, Huron Township, Sumpter Township, and Van Buren Township, with an overpayment to Romulus.
“In my initial meeting with representatives from the communities, it became apparent there were differing interpretations of how disbursement by the Court should have been made pursuant to the agreement and how funds could be used. This was based, in part, on their interpretation of the 1998 Agreement and their understanding of whether the agreement has been orally modified over the years. A discussion took place regarding whether any alleged oral agreements would be binding and enforceable.
“I would like to stress to the representatives the importance of coming to a consensus on these issues. Recently a district court and the three political subdivisions that it serves disputed how disbursements by the court should have been made. Their dispute wound its way through the court system from the trial court, to the Court of Appeals, and ultimately ended up before the Michigan Supreme Court. After five years of extensive and costly litigation, the parties ultimately settled the case with an agreement whose terms were similar to those in pre-lawsuit discussions.
“I see a number of similarities between that case and the issues presently discussed. Each representative here must decide if their respective communities are willing and able to undertake years of costly and protracted litigation, lost time, and a risk a final court decision that may be vastly different than what the parties intended.
“There are many other issues that exist whose outcomes may be difficult to predict. In light of this it is my strong recommendation that the representatives continue their work on a joint resolution to this matter.
“It is an opportunity to fashion an outcome that meets your needs and not risk an alternative that is lengthy, costly and unpredictable. If I can be of any assistance in helping the communities further understand these issues or help to resolve these matters, please feel free to contact me,” Paruk concluded.
Sumpter attorney Young said under the new agreement there will be regular meetings twice a year to discuss court matters and the disbursement of money is spelled out, which he thinks is a good thing.
The agreement waives any claims any of the participants may have against any of the other participants.
He said all of the communities tentatively agreed to the new agreement and now are bringing it to their agendas for approval.