Gov. Rell’s Plan For Probate Court Consolidation
by Ryan McKeen
It’s also time for reform of our probate court system. Our system is antiquated and broken. I am proposing an overhaul that will reduce the number of courts, improve services and increase the hours of operation. It will also save money. Gov. Rell, 2/4/09
Here is the link to Governor’s Bill No. 6385 “An Act Concerning Reform of the Probate Court System.”
The bill, if passed, would result in a number of significant changes to Connecticut’s Probate Court System.
M. Jodi Rell
First, each judge of probate elected for a term that begins on or after January 5, 2011shall be a member of the Connecticut State Bar for not less than 10 years. I don’t think it’s that controversial that in 2009 we should expect our judges to have been seasoned attorneys. Of course, in the politics of probate court refrom, it seems everything is controversial.
Second, the bill calls for a consolidation of Connecticut’s probate courts from the 117 courts that we currently have to 36 probate courts by January 1, 2011.
The 36 new courts will correspond to the boundaries of state senatorial districts.
Judges will be elected. Governor Rell estimates that her plan will save the State 9 million dollars per year.
Here are my questions:
1. Will new facilities have to be built to house these consolidated courts? Most existing probate courts occupy small spaces in town halls. This would leave the probate courts with either building new facilities or having judges “ride the circuit.”
2. Will running for probate court judge require a candidate to campaign across a senatorial district? Running for State Senate is a lot of work as districts are large. In 2008, state senate candidates received $125,000 in public financing. Will probate judges be able to access public funds for a campaign?
Also, will the State dedicate enough resources to effectively implement consolidation. The consolidation of small claims courts has been an epic failure to this point. Connecticut can’t afford the same to happen to its probate courts.
If nothing else, the public hearings on probate court reform will be must see TV.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Buckle up and hang on, this probate court reform is going to get very bumpy over the next few years. I don't see how the state plans on consolidating 117 courts into 36 without some type of newly built facilities, which of course cost money. Of the two dozen or so probate courts that I've been in, I can say with confidence that there are only 2 or 3 that have significant space in their current form to provide for an increase in traffic/workload. If the judges are then stuck with the alternative of having judges "ride the circuit", I believe that also causes significant problems logistically as far as staffing and facilities are concerned. When you consider these various factors, I just don't see where the savings are going to enter the system in the relatively short term(say the next 5 or 6 years), when you consider facilities, as well as other resources that will be necessary in order to make this a viable consolidation. I agree with you 100% Ryan that the public hearings on probate court reform will be must see TV.
[Reply]
March 9th, 2009 at 12:57 am
small Probate Courts should definately be consolidated. Many of these "so called Judges" are hardly ever in court during the times it is open . They leave their clerks in charge, many have no experience in Probate matters, they have this position because the judge owed them a favor. The small court judges should be ashamed of themselves for receiving such large salaries in wealth towns when they are only at the court for short hearings, maybe one or two hours a week. What other jobs pay such good salaries and you do not have to be at work. Also, if a individual runs for probate court and no one runs against the person from the other party, that should tell the legislatures in CT. that particular town has very little interest in their Probat Court. Let's begin to save money, close those
small courtsw.
[Reply]
June 10th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Reform is long overdue. I can't say that I represent a fair sampling of the system, but my personal experience with a probate judge was that she was completely lacking in knowledge of even the most basic rules of evidence and legal proceedings, not to mention the fact that she was extremely unprofessional. What were her qualifications? She was assitant town clerk. One day she's selling dog licenses and the next she is making personal and financial decisions that have significant impact on people's lives. We will benefit from having judges who are, at minimum, admitted to the bar and have a foundation in the legal principles that are necessary to judge effectively.
[Reply]
June 11th, 2009 at 2:01 am
CT Bumpkin,
Totally agree that our probate judges should be qualified attorneys. This was a long overdue move by the legislature.
[Reply]