Fw: Court assistance officer

["Sam and Debbie Duncan" <sduncan@turbonet.com>]

----------
> From: 
> To: 
> Subject: Fw: Court assistance reporter 
> Date: Thursday, July 20, 2000 4:53 AM
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> > From: Sam and Debbie Duncan <sduncan@turbonet.com>
> > 
> > > 
> > > Dear Visionaries:
> > >    The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) receives, on a regular
> basis,
> > > requests for funding. Nearly all these ideas are really , very good
> ideas
> > > and the proponents would be carrying out what ever it is right now,
> > except
> > > for the want of funding. Most all proposals are, of course,
accompanied
> > by
> > > concerned individuals making impassioned pleas advocating for some
> > > disenfranchised group or low income or otherwise disadvantaged
groups.
> It
> > > is expected that these pleas will be accompanied by the admonition of
> > > course that if you don't give us money you will get a wart on your
nose
> > and
> > > we wont vote for you. 
> > >    The advocates for the court assistance program are no less
> passionate,
> > > nor above misrepresenting the data to prove their point publicly.
> > >    About a year ago the Law school and the District court as we
(BOCC)
> > > understand it got a grant from Health and Welfare to conduct a PILOT
> > > project to aid people in their access to the courts and maybe help
> > > individuals that chose not to use a lawyer to represent them in
court,
> > fill
> > > out the necessary paperwork. This office would be offering no legal
> > advice.
> > > The Court assistance officer would be available to provide referrals
to
> > > attorneys or mediators as appropriate if the person could be
dissuaded
> > form
> > > representing themselves in court.  The emphasis of the Office was to
be
> > in
> > > the arena of family law, those wanting divorces, or seeking some sort
> of
> > > relief in child support matters for one side or the other, and other
> > family
> > > law issues. If the person could not be so dissuaded then they would
get
> > the
> > > help in filling in the blanks on the forms. But no legal advice.
Being
> a
> > > Pilot project for the State, not all counties were "offered the
> > opportunity
> > > to participate in funding the project". The Supreme Court and the
lucky
> > > counties chosen  would split equally 2/3s ($10,000 a piece) of the
bill
> > and
> > > the U of I law school would pick up 1/3 of the tab ( about $3000).
> > > Moreover, the lucky county would get to provide office space, fax,
> phone,
> > > internet connections, general office supply support and massive
copying
> > > costs. Six months later the BOCC was presented with a project report
> > which
> > > clearly stated that the program while minimally successful served
> mostly
> > > "those that did not want to pay a lawyer", their words not ours. Like
> all
> > > new programs, if only we had some more time maybe it would pan out.
Not
> > all
> > > counties used a lawyer for this office, some used lay persons for the
> > > clerks office, for less money out of pocket and seemed to enjoy the
> same
> > > success as those counties using lawyers. It is noteworthy that the
> other
> > > counties do not have a law school which is probably the reason for
not
> > > having an attorney, and will certainly prevent them from ever
obtaining
> > the
> > > status of "flagship office".  
> > >    The BOCC again acquiesced to provide another $10,000 to continue
the
> > > PILOT project for another six months. 
> > >     Now comes the participants to imply that somehow Latah County is
> > > politically obligated to continue a project of The Law school and the
> > > Supreme Court. Furthermore, we are told to expect the "matching
> funding"
> > to
> > > dry up and the County will be shouldering the entire burden for the
> > program
> > > with no oversight in the operation, just provide the money, phones,
> > > offices, fax, new office equipment as may be wanted, copying etc. 
> > >    This is a new ballgame now. If these are the new rules then the
> Court
> > > Assistance program will have to compete on its own merits with the
> needs
> > of
> > > other advocacy groups. It is certainly, a good idea but not greater
> than
> > > the Community Action Center, or The Palouse Alternatives to Violence,
> or
> > > the Sojourners, or Coast which needs lots of help from all of us to
> > provide
> > > the transportation needs of the elderly and others in need. or the
> Senior
> > > meal sites, and the list goes on. In fact, one has to question if one
> of
> > > these groups would not be better equipped to provide this service. 
> > >    It is interesting to note,  that we were informed that to continue
> the
> > > project we must accept clients from a 5 county region, and in fact
from
> > > anywhere in the State if a person so desired to access this office in
> > Latah
> > > County because the Supreme Court was paying a portion of the cost,
with
> > no
> > > funding by the other counties to be served to offset the money
expended
> > by
> > > Latah County. Latah county has a meager budget, about 1/4 of the
budget
> > of
> > > the City of Moscow and only a slight fraction of the University.
> > Certainly,
> > > the brain child of the University, could be housed in the University
> with
> > > their massive physical plant.  We are told that we are the "flagship"
> > > because law students can come down an intern and help people fill out
> > > forms. The could help at the law school as well.
> > >    While we think it is a good program, the devil is in the details.
> Over
> > > and over in my mind is the line form the song that goes" Why does the
> fat
> > > man do the dancing and thin man pay the band"?. As  a Board, we
concur
> > that
> > > the program has merits, but as presented is not equitable. Being a
> fiscal
> > > conservative I truly believe that if we are to invest your money in
> this
> > > program some other equally or more important program has to suffer.
> They
> > > have data , they a publication, We are a public body and we seek
> > solutions
> > > from the interested public. Is there a workable solution that is a
> > prudent
> > > expenditure of the tax money of Latah. Should the county be funding
> > divorce
> > > problems, and other myriad family problems, really? Is the government
> > > really responsible? The BOCC is committed to finding a workable,
> > equitable
> > > solution and will listen to any and all input on this issue. 
> > >  Sam Duncan, County Commissioner, District 3
> > >       sduncan@turbonet.com