Two top state court officials say they oppose Gov. Deval Patrick’s “radical proposal” to wrest control of the probation department and warn that budget cuts proposed by the governor would lead to system-wide furlough days and court relocations.           

Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and Robert Mulligan, the chief justice for administration and budget, said they would oppose Patrick’s proposal to remove probation from judicial control and place it in the executive branch. The two judges said any problems with probation can be addressed by giving the judiciary more control over the probation department.

“The current criticisms of some aspects of probation should be addressed with the restoration of full judicial authority over probation, and not by the drastic proposal to remove probation from the judicial branch entirely, a move that is inconsistent with current best thinking on sentencing and corrections,” the two judges said in a statement distributed to court employees.           

Patrick and his aides, by contrast, say most states operate probation and parole departments within the executive branch. At a press conference earlier this week, Patrick also said he was concerned about the Legislature using probation as a patronage haven. “I have a concern about the accountability and the transparency of that agency,” he added.       

The probation department accounts for a third of the judiciary’s employees but, thanks to the Legislature, it operates with an enormous amount of independence. John J. O’Brien, commissioner of probation, has no set term and is not subject to dismissal by court officials. O’Brien also makes all hiring and firing decisions at the agency, and the Legislature has explicitly barred court officials from moving funds appropriated for probation to other departments.

CommonWealth has reported that the Court Management Advisory Board, a group of businesspeople working on a broad review of the trial court system, believes probation spending is out of whack compared to the rest of the court system. They say the caseload at probation increased 2 percent between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2008, while spending went up 17 percent. The number of probation employees increased 10 percent between July 2005 and July 2008, rising from 2,005 to 2,200.           

O’Brien, in an email exchange, vigorously defended spending at his agency and suggested it might be understaffed. He said spending has increased in recent years because $2 million was approved for the electronic monitoring of offenders using a global positioning system.            

Marshall and Mulligan said Patrick’s proposal to cut $16 million from the court’s $414 million budget request (not including probation) would force the court system to shut down periodically. Marshall, in a prior interview with CommonWealth, said such actions were not acceptable.

“Whether to keep the judicial branch functioning is not a choice; it’s a constitutional mandate,” she said.