Court hires 130 officers, seeks $5.2m to pay them

The Massachusetts trial court has hired 130 security officers in recent weeks and is asking for $5.2 million from state lawmakers to pay for the jobs, long considered patronage posts.

Robert A. Mulligan, the trial court's chief justice for administration and management, said the officers are desperately needed to beef up security in courthouses around the state. But Mulligan acknowledged that state legislators and other politicians took a keen interest in the hiring process: Nearly half of the 1,300 applicants for the positions were armed with recommendations from state lawmakers, judges, or federal legislators.

Mulligan's chief of staff, Robert P. Panneton, said that House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini provided many of the references, and he insisted that the hiring decisions were based on merit. A spokesman for Finneran refused to comment yesterday, and Travaglini could not be reached for comment.

''We always get references from legislators, judges, congressmen," Panneton said. ''This time we got probably about 500 references. But that wasn't the determining factor. We hired on merit. We gave the same weight and consideration to all the references."

Mulligan has hired the added officers without having the $5.2 million in hand. But the chief justice said he is confident that even though only the House has approved the extra money so far, the Senate and Governor Mitt Romney will sign off on it when the final budget is approved at the end of the month.

The added hires, made as the state is still struggling to emerge from its three-year fiscal crisis, would add to the 1,000 court officers in the trial court system. The new officers, who will make a starting salary of $38,000, began training this week, but trial court administrators still haven't determined how many positions will be added to each courthouse.

The hirings have raised eyebrows among advocates who have been pushing for changes in the court system. Pamela Wilmot, who heads Common Cause of Massachusetts, said the Bay State's system is expensive and inefficient, in large part because legislators here have far more power over the judiciary than in other states.

''Legislative influence on the staffing of the judiciary is nothing new, and it's certainly problematic," Wilmot said. ''There has been increased money and staffing put into the judiciary through the 1990s that didn't result in any increased productivity."

Advocates of judicial reform say they will paying close attention to where the officers end up. In March 2003, a report by a blue-ribbon panel chaired by the Rev. J. Donald Monan, Boston College chancellor, found that many court-related budget items ''become the subject of individual lobbying and sometimes even backroom deals." When that lobbying influences the distribution of resources, the panel concluded, the result is ''gross inequities within the system and varying levels of service within the system."

The report pointed out that from 1994 to 2002, caseloads across the system remained flat while costs increased by 79 percent, even after layoffs of more than 700 employees in 2002.

Stephen Adams of the Pioneer Institute, a public policy think tank that has been active in judicial reform efforts, said an overhaul of the courts' management is needed before the addition of so many jobs. Among other changes, Adams and other advocates say, the courts need a systemwide way to measure caseload and clear chain of command, with the Supreme Judicial Court, not the Legislature, at the top.

''The jobs are allocated today on the basis of politics," Adams said. ''All the security officers will be in Suffolk County, and all the need will be in Springfield."

Alan Jay Rom, executive director of the Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, agreed that court assignments are crucial. ''Follow the people; find out where they're going to," Rom said. ''Are they going to Springfield or other areas in great need of resources, or are they going to the Boston Municipal Court and the other courts that don't need them?"

Mulligan says the need for more officers is unassailable, arguing that the elimination of nearly 300 security jobs during the fiscal crisis of the past three years has compromised courthouse safety.

''The primary responsibility of someone in my position is to make sure people who work in the courts and people who come to the courts are safe and secure," Mulligan said. ''We have not been able to guarantee the security and safety given the present number of court officers in the system."

In recent months, Mulligan said, a defendant charged the bench during a sentencing hearing, and another attacked a prosecutor, landing a few blows before being subdued by court officers. He suggested a shortage of officers contributed to those incidents.

''The mere presence of a sufficient number of court officers deters conduct by people who may be emotional," he said. ''When you don't have an adequate number, there's more of an inclination to act out."

In addition to courtroom security, the court officers Mulligan hired are responsible for checking in juries, bringing prisoners back and forth from the courthouse lockup, and staffing the lockup. They do not carry firearms. Many of the new officers have a background in criminal justice, but it is not a requirement for being hired.

Even though Mulligan asserts that Romney supports spending $5.2 million to bolster courthouse security, Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said the governor has made no promises. Last year, Romney urged lawmakers to centralize management of the state's judiciary, close eight courthouses, and strip the Legislature of the power to create court positions for their friends and allies. The Legislature ignored many of his recommendations.

This year, some say Mulligan is taking a gamble. ''They're hiring in anticipation of a budget outcome? That's surprising," said Michael J. Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

Sean Murphy can be reached at smurphy@globe.com.