Court reorganization, Beacon Hill’s legislative response to the hiring scandal at the state probation department, is noteworthy not only for the reforms it introduces – a new professional court administrator, tests for court and probation officers, details on who recommended a job candidate, and disclosure of whether a candidate has relatives elsewhere in state government – but also for the politics that produced it. Here are some of the winners and losers under court reform.
Big Winner — House Speaker Robert DeLeo, one of many lawmakers who placed friends and supporters (and a godson) at probation, managed to emerge from the scandal with the mantle of a reformer. He not only kept the probation department where he wanted it — in the judiciary — but immunized himself from criticism by landing the support of Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Roderick Ireland. At the time he unveiled his bill in April, DeLeo said he couldn’t recall another time when the Legislature and the court system had collaborated on legislation so closely.
Winner/Loser — SJC Chief Justice Roderick Ireland joined forces with DeLeo and beat back the attempt by Gov. Deval Patrick to move probation from the judicial to the executive branch. But he didn’t gain much else. His close collaboration with DeLeo on court reform didn’t carry over into the budget process, where the court system took a $43 million hit. The courts are now going through a painful consolidation process as they try to cope with what a spokeswoman calls “a drastic cut for an already underfunded branch.”
Big Loser – It was something of a long-shot to begin with, but Gov. Patrick got nowhere with his proposal to move probation into the executive branch. He was outflanked by DeLeo and undone by Ireland, the judge he appointed to head the SJC. Patrick signed the legislation into law last Friday but not without sending a letter to legislative leaders saying his position was the right one. He also took a swipe at Ireland, saying he is curious to see how the judicial branch will square its appeal to him to hold down staffing needs by not appointing new judges and clerks with the law’s creation of eight new administrative court positions. (Court officials say the bill creates a new Office of Court Management headed by a professional administrator, but the other positions cited by the governor already exist.)
Loser – The new law calls for Robert Mulligan, the court system’s chief justice for administration and management, to relinquish most of his management responsibilities to a new professional court administrator. Court officials say Mulligan will assume the title of chief justice of the trial court, overseeing judicial policy and education. (No word on whether his $140,000 salary will be cut.) No one has publicly said Mulligan wasn’t doing his job properly, but that’s the takeaway from the shift in responsibilities. Sources say Mulligan and many other judges fought internally against the hiring of a professional administrator, but in the end they went along with the proposal because too many groups were in favor of it. (Indeed, various court reorganization studies over the years have called for the hiring of a professional administrator, but the courts – and Mulligan – never followed through.) Mulligan’s support within the court system isn’t that strong. When he was reappointed to his current five-year term in 2008 by the Supreme Judicial Court, the vote was 4-3. Ireland, who was not chief justice at the time, was one of the three justices who voted against rehiring him.
Winner – The cult of Corbett continues to grow. Court officials fended off calls for more drastic reform at probation by saying Ronald Corbett, who took over the commissioner’s job from John J. O’Brien, was putting everything in order. Some court sources are now pushing Corbett for the professional court administrator’s job. Corbett and Mulligan get along well, so it might make for a smooth transition.
