Sen. Boots has introduced SB 54, an interesting bill about paying for mandate attorneys. From time to time, Judges will issue mandates – for example telling boards of county commissioners and county councils that the County needs to pay court staff more than other county employees. Often times this will lead to a legal fight between the county government and the judge. Adding insult to injury when the Supreme Court upholds the prerogatives of its fellow judges over a competing branch of government is the fact that the county then has to foot the bill for the court’s private attorney.
Sen. Boots would change the second part of the equation. Instead of allowing the court to hire a private attorney to defend the mandate action, with the huge legal expenses that can sometimes entail, the Attorney General’s office would provide legal services to the court — in the same way the Attorney General defends judges and prosecutors when they get sued in their official capacities.
Having worked with local government for years and having served on the county council—when the threat of the judge mandating his office be treated diffently than other county offices–this whole area is one that simply does not seem consistent with public policy. Frankly seems to wipe out the separation of power provisions giving the judical legislative and administrative authority. In the situation I was involved in (as would expect with others as well) meant that other salaries and services had to be cut in order to provide the “mandated” salaries.