|
ORDER IN THE COURT
Willamette Week has never been one to let the truth interfere with a good story. Your article on the new federal courthouse perpetuates that ignoble tradition ["The People's Court?" WW, Nov. 12, 1997]. Your article asserted that there was no need for a new courthouse. Your reporter obviously never worked at the old courthouse. I did. While I will miss the historical ambience, the building was badly overcrowded and functionally obsolete. Employees were crammed together in close quarters. Every available area--including the attic and storage rooms--had been cannibalized to create additional office space. For some employees, their "office" was just a table in the law library because there was no other space available. Three new judges--whose help is desperately needed--are scheduled to arrive in the next few months, yet there was no place left to put them at the old courthouse (unless you want to convert the public restrooms into judges' chambers). Sensitive files that should have been kept under lock and key had to be stored in public hallways because there was no place else to put them. The plumbing was in such poor condition that I always kept a change of clothes handy for those times when I was soaked by spray from a defective pipe. The building's infrastructure was inadequate to support modern telephone systems and computer networks. Persons with disabilities could not serve on some juries because the jury rooms were not wheelchair-accessible. The building also was a security nightmare; for instance, prisoners had to be unloaded in the street and often marched through public hallways to the courtroom. It is no answer to say that the Multnomah County courthouse also is in deplorable condition. I wholeheartedly agree. However, instead of criticizing the federal judges for taking the initiative and building a new courthouse, you should be scolding the Legislature and the voters of Oregon for neglecting the state court system. You cited figures that purport to show that the courtrooms at the federal courthouse were "used for trials" only about 25 percent of the time. That is a misleading statistic, because it ignores the many motion hearings, scheduling and settlement conferences, sentencings, arraignments, and other activities that take place in each courtroom. It is those proceedings, not trials, that account for the majority of courtroom usage. You suggested that the shortage of courtroom space was caused by the judges' refusal to share a courtroom at the old courthouse. In actuality, I know of one courtroom (#72) that was shared by four judges. Other courtrooms were routinely shared with visiting judges or borrowed by judges when their own courtroom was too small to handle a particular proceeding. In all the time that I worked for the federal court, I never heard of a single instance in which a judge refused a request to use his or her courtroom (unless it already was reserved for another proceeding). I also am baffled by your references to the "majestic" size of the new courtrooms. With the exception of the "ceremonial" courtroom, which is used to accommodate large crowds, the courtrooms at the new courthouse are mostly smaller than many of the courtrooms at the old courthouse and seat fewer spectators. Your article insinuates that the judges deliberately overestimated the caseload in order to justify construction of a new courthouse. That is nonsense. The prediction of future caseloads years in advance is just that: a prediction, no different than attempting to predict the weather or the economy. The recent drop in the caseload can be attributed almost entirely to a 1996 law that severely limits lawsuits filed by prisoners, something that could not have been predicted five years earlier when the courthouse was being designed. By contrast, there has been a large increase in some other categories of cases, such as employment law, thanks to new laws (such as the ADA and the Family Medical Leave Act) that were enacted by Congress. In addition, the number of lawyers in Oregon continues to increase by leaps and bounds, which virtually ensures a parallel increase in the number of lawsuits that will be filed in future years. "Senior judges" came in for special criticism in your article. These are judges, typically in their late 60s or 70s, who have worked enough years that they could retire with a full pension. Instead, these judges have voluntarily chosen to continue working so the federal judiciary does not grind to a halt due to the failure of the president and Congress to timely fill vacant judicial positions (which, at last count, had reached 100 nationwide, including two longstanding vacancies in Oregon). You are right about one thing: It is rather extraordinary for someone who could be sitting on a beach in Hawaii collecting a pension to voluntarily continue working (even though they receive no additional compensation for coming to work every day). You should thank the senior judges for their loyal service, not skewer them as you did. Your comparison between the federal and Multnomah County courts is misleading at best. You claim that the "average caseload" of a state judge is 2,454 cases, compared to 508 cases for the average federal judge. I have no idea where you obtained those numbers (since you didn't disclose your source), but I would wager that those statistics have been inflated by including thousands of traffic citations, uncontested evictions, small claims cases and similar proceedings that require little or no judicial time. It is disingenuous to compare traffic citations with complex anti-trust, patent or securities cases that can take weeks or even months to try. State court judges earn every penny of their salary, but they don't work five times as hard as a federal judge as your story falsely implied. You complain that federal judges are overpaid. In reality, the salary of federal judges is less than the annual income of many of the lawyers who appear in their courtrooms. Before being appointed to the court, many federal judges were prominent trial lawyers or senior partners in law firms. Their salaries as judges are considerably less than what they would be earning in private practice (and without having to worry about death threats against their families). Besides, do we really want a judge with pressing financial problems deciding million-dollar cases? The recent arrest of a Portland police officer underscores the dangers inherent in such circumstances. We are in agreement on one point: The new courthouse contains more square footage than is required to meet the immediate needs of the federal court. In the long run, however, the court will need that additional space. A high-rise is not like a single-family residence, where you can just add on a spare bedroom anytime you want. It is far cheaper to incorporate that space into the original design than to add additional space later. You have a right to report the news as you see it. However, you do a disservice to the people of Oregon--and to journalism as a profession--when you allow the truth to be subordinated to your personal biases or your desire for a more interesting story. It is the dedication to truth that distinguishes a journalist from an entertainer, and a serious newspaper from a tabloid. Jackie Sanders, Southwest Custer Drive Bob Young responds:
1. Despite Sanders' claims that the old courthouse had problems with storage space, plumbing and telephone systems, those problems were never cited as justifications for the new courthouse when the federal judiciary asked Congress for $133 million in 1993. Nor were they cited as problems in my interviews with federal judges, government officials, prosecutors and public defenders. 2. Non-trial activities--like motion hearings--do not account for the majority of courtroom usage as Sanders claims. According to a 1997 congressional investigation, courtrooms were used, on average, 69 days a year for both non-trial and trial activities. Moreover, investigators stressed that many non-trial proceedings didn't need to be held in courtrooms--they could be conducted in conference rooms, judges' chambers, or by video or telephone conference. 3. Although some judges did share courtrooms in the old courthouse, as Sanders contends, federal judiciary policy still calls for one courtroom for each active judge and any senior judge who carries 25 percent of a full caseload. Sharing is not mandated; it is not encouraged; and it is not reflected in the new courthouse, which was designed to provide a courtroom for each judge. 4. Contrary to Sanders' assertion, courtrooms at the new courthouse are substantially larger than those at the old building (2,400 square feet to 1,912 square feet on average). 5. Sanders says the drop in local federal caseloads can be attributed to a 1996 law. But, in fact, caseloads were far below what judges had predicted in every year from 1993 through 1996. More important, in 1994, Senate investigators warned that they had "serious doubts" about the "reasonableness of the projections," which were not based on sound logic and were prone to exaggeration. 6. Sanders says she'd wager that county caseload statistics were inflated by traffic cases--and she'd lose that bet. In analyzing Multnomah County caseload data--obtained from the state court administrator--we did not count the tens of thousands of traffic violations processed by the court in 1997.
PAUL IS (STILL) DEAD
Re: your story on Nick Bunick, who claims to be the reincarnated Apostle Paul ["St. Nick," WW, Dec. 23, 1997]: I've been hesitant to speak about this until now, but it's been revealed to me that I myself am the reincarnation of Gamaliel, the great first-century rabbi who tutored Saul of Tarsus (who later became the Apostle Paul). And all I can say is this: I knew the Apostle Paul. The Apostle Paul was a friend of mine. And you, Mr. Bunick, are no Apostle Paul. (The Rev.) Gary L. Davis, Lake Oswego United Church of Christ |
