Winners and losers in the California courthouse construction sweepstakes were announced last week as 23 projects got the green light and seven were put on hold after 20 hours of public hearings that left everyone bruised and battered.

“I feel like we're in a Jerry Lewis telethon with the numbers clicking behind us,” Justice Brad Hall said Thursday as the judicial committee he chaired hacked away at requests, some desperate, for courthouse funds. The goal was to pare down the proposals and save a mandated $390 million.

The hearings came a week after an independent audit by Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc. was critical of the state’s $6.3 billion courthouse construction program for its “lack of uniformity, transparency and accountability.”  Although Pegasus said the program had “essentially fulfilled its primary mandates,” it said, in a variety of ways, that no one was in charge of overseeing the vast array of projects. The report warned that the program cannot continue to its next phase of development operating this way.

Even before the committee finally announced its decisions, judges were whacking their own requests to try to gain favor. Fresno Superior Court cut its $103 million request to $43 million, drawing praise from committee member Robert Trentacosta that they had been “eminently reasonable.”

Others were deemed less cooperative. Assistant Presiding Judge Ira Kaufman of Plumas County on Wednesday pleaded for a new courthouse to replace his historic 1921 structure, which lacked security features and was caught in a battle with county officials that prevented any upgrades. Things were so bad, he said, one judge had to use the public restroom. “The point is, the building doesn't function,” he said.

Appellate Justice Jeffrey Johnson responded: “I think it would be hard to justify to the taxpayers of California to build a new courthouse so a judge doesn't have to use a public bathroom.” Another committee member, according to the Courthouse News Service, chuckled that he would like a new courthouse for his court, too.

Courts in the counties of Riverside, Nevada, Santa Barbara, Mendocino, Sacramento, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Tuolomne, Lake, Inyo, Imperial and El Dorado were among the winners. Los Angeles County was denied three new courthouses, although it got the nod to build a new juvenile courthouse and the country’s first mental health courthouse. Its cities of Santa Clarita and Glendale were among the losers.

The Santa Clarita rejection drew the wrath of Los Angeles Court Executive Officer John Clarke, who had refused to prioritize the six projects his county was pitching, saying they are all necessary. Pointing out that the county government had already pledged $182 million to the Santa Clarita courthouse, Clarke said, “I believe it’s bad policy to reject a county offer to provide the property. . . . We're getting to the point where this is inequitable and unfair and unbalanced.”

–Ken Broder

To Learn More:

Funding Approved for 23 California Court Projects (by Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News Service)

No New Courthouse for Santa Clarita after All (by Leon Worden, San Gabriel Valley News)

California Courts Compete for Funding (by Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News Service)

Judges Grilled Over Court Construction Costs (by Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News Service)

Disorder in the Courts over Billion-Dollar Construction Program (by Ken Broder, AllGov)

California Courthouse Capital Program Management Audit Report (Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc.) (pdf)