Original Article High court weighs less JP oversight Some fear return of corruption Pat Flannery The Arizona Republic Mar. 13, 2006 12:00 AM The Arizona Supreme Court might relax some of the stringent administrative controls it placed on Maricopa County's justices of the peace, a move critics say could return the "people's court" to the old days of corruption and mismanagement. Reforms over the past four years have saved taxpayers money, ensured that cases are heard on time and made the courts more people-friendly, according to Judge Colin Campbell of Maricopa County Superior Court. They also helped end headlines about clerks stealing court money and justices soliciting bribes or sex. The justice courts are the ones most Arizonans are likely to have experience with, because they handle small claims, traffic offenses, evictions, domestic cases and marriages. Elected justices of the peace fought most of the recent reforms, saying the changes left them powerless in their own offices. They want the Legislature and Arizona Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to restore some of their administrative powers, such as budgeting and the hiring and firing of key employees. "The things they did to us, they didn't do to everybody else" in other counties, Presiding Maricopa County Justice of the Peace Quentin Tolby said. "I have no control over my staff, . . . (and) I can't even go out and tell my chief clerk to do anything." McGregor is considering the justices' complaints but dismissed her critics' fears that she was dismantling justice court reform. "All the upset is, I think, premature," McGregor said in an interview. She added that it could be weeks before she decides what to do. Maricopa County's justices of the peace have been lobbying for two years to regain control over their courts, which was gradually taken away by the Arizona Supreme Court and the Superior Courts after more than a decade of management and integrity problems that were blamed on decentralized administration. House Appropriations Chairman Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, has led the legislative charge to return some powers to the justice courts. Pearce is a former justice of the peace. His brother, Lester, is north Mesa justice of the peace and former presiding justice. Pearce declined requests to discuss his latest legislation, which would let justices of the peace appoint their own clerks and deputy clerks, take control of daily operations in their courts and restore some of their budgetary powers - duties all performed now by central administrators reporting to Superior Court. McGregor believes any legislative bill on the topic is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, because the state Constitution grants the Supreme Court "administrative supervision over all the courts of the state." But in the interest of finding common ground with justices of the peace, she said she was willing to discuss Pearce's ideas. If they have merit, she said, she would put them into effect through administrative orders from her court, rather than through legislation. If Pearce's proposal "doesn't upset the administration of the courts, it's something we should consider," McGregor said. "That doesn't make it impossible to have a well-administered system." Her willingness to discuss returning any administrative duties to the justice courts has triggered strong reaction from some members of the judicial community, including Campbell, who think it will open the door to undoing other reforms. McGregor considers her critics' fears overblown, saying she is committed to recent improvements, among them improved training for justices of the peace, stricter financial controls and full automation to track cases. Campbell thinks even minor concessions will give justice courts more autonomy, steering them from their current path. He said the justice courts now are more efficient and professional than they have ever been, improving public confidence. He attributes the gains to tight-fisted, centralized administrative control. Robin Blye, 30, of Phoenix, whose misdemeanor DUI charge is being handled by the Central Phoenix Justice Court, said her recent experiences lead her to believe the court is well run. She said the staff is professional, the justice hearing her case is fair, and "whatever information I need, they're sure to see that I have it. "All in all, it's pretty fast-moving." Campbell suggested that if Pearce's ideas are put into effect, that kind of professionalism will disappear. He warned in a memo to the Supreme Court that justices of the peace would be empowered to "take apart the administrative reforms, and halt new ones . . . (and) adopt their own individual policies and procedures." "Progress has been made, but justice court reform is not over and must not be turned back," he said in an interview. "To stop reform efforts now would set the clock back to 1993 and would not be in the public interest." His memo to the high court also urged it not to cave under political pressure, suggesting that Pearce was forcing talks with the Supreme Court by threatening as a lawmaker to tamper with its budget. "Inasmuch as Rep. Russell Pearce is the chief advocate for the small but vocal group of JPs who oppose reform, and Rep. Pearce chairs appropriations, the public perception that will be created by this abrupt 180-degree change in policy is that public interest reform of the courts may be traded for dollars in the budget," Campbell wrote. McGregor dismissed that assertion, saying people assumed the worst. The Supreme Court has had a rational conversation with Pearce and other lawmakers about its budget that was unrelated to the justice court debate, she said. The Supreme Court wants to protect its appropriation, but she said there is no link between issues.