For the past two months, my
colleagues on the Plainfield City Council have failed to grant the 4-vote
majority needed to approve the outsourcing of municipal court fines owed to the
city by individuals who have been found guilty of violating the law.
As of the
writing of this blog post, those overdue fines total over $784,000, or roughly 6
tax points. A tax point is the value of a penny, which means that for every
penny collected per $100 of assessed valuation, the city collects over $125,000.
In these very lean economic times, with the severe financial hardship facing
many a property owner as a result of the burden of ever rising property taxes,
the city of Plainfield owes it to every tax payer to maximize every possible
source of revenue. By so doing, the weight of an unbearable tax burden is
reduced for everyone.
In business, smart planning aimed
at collecting what is owed increases cash flow and reduces the need to borrow
or to liquidate assets to fund day-to-day operations. Similarly, in municipal
government, the more revenue that is generated, the lesser the need to raise
property taxes. Hence, the refusal on the part of the city council to grant the
4 votes needed to outsource the collection of municipal court fines is very
puzzling.
A few years ago, the New Jersey
state legislature created the legislation that empowers municipalities to enter
into third party collector agreements. Third parties are allowed, as an
incentive, to collect up to 22% over and above the fines that are outstanding
and must turn over to the municipality 100% of the original fine levied against
individuals who have been found guilty of a violation, thus leaving the
municipality whole.
You might ask why I am so
supportive of the idea of outsourcing this function. The answer is simple: 1) Every
dollar in fines that is not collected is an extra dollar that has to be paid by
property owners; 2) Exhaustive efforts are made by the court system to collect
the fines owed, in many cases without success; 3) A fine is a debt that is owed
to society and it must be paid; it is not a burden to be placed on the shoulders of
the innocent.
Judge Joan Robinson Gross, who
heads up the Plainfield Municipal Court, is the consummate professional; she is
known to be impartial, apolitical, thorough, and fully dedicated to the
effectiveness and efficiency of our local municipal court. She always tries to
provide information upon which informed decisions can be based. Given much of
the commentary generated in the wake of the council’s failure to act on the
proposed outsourcing legislation, the following information was recently
provided by Judge Gross to a member of the administration:
“Upon my return from vacation on this date, Court
Administrator Susan Sanchez and I had a "briefing meeting" meant to
update me on various issues that arose during that time. I understand from her
that the City Council is reluctant to approve collection of fines by an outside
agency. While I offer no opinion as to the ultimate decision of the Council
respecting the Council's independent review of matters effecting the City, I
want to make sure that all factors were presented for consideration. They
follow:
1.
The Court has followed all
procedures in house towards the collection of fines that were allowed time
payments. In fact, no debt may be turned over for collection unless the court
has made all possible efforts first. If a defendant has not honored the
contract of partial payments, notices are sent. It is only after a defendant
has failed to respond to the Court's "collection" notice or notices
either by bringing the contract current or arranging an extension that a bench
warrant for their arrest is issued.
2.
Bench warrants for failure to pay
fines essentially means that a person is arrested and required to post bail,
money which often would have been better used by paying the fine. If a third
party has posted the bail, the court cannot use that bail money to satisfy the
fine unless the third party, the surety, has signed a bail waiver turning the
money over to pay the fine. Too often, once bail has been posted, the defendant
is released and still doesn't pay the fine.
3.
A fine and any accompanying
financial penalties flow only from a guilty plea or conviction for an offense
whether criminal, traffic or city ordinance charges. Unlike another debt that
may require collection efforts, a fine is a sentence and until that fine is
paid, the defendant has not "suffered" the sentence. After all, if a
defendant was sentenced to a jail term, the sentence would be served. Those who
do not pay the financial sentence, unless modified by the court, have not paid
their debt to society in every sense of the word.
4.
Modifications of the original
financial sentence are allowed. If the Judge makes a finding that the
defendant's failure to pay is more refusal to pay than inability to pay, the
defendant may be ordered to jail and pay the fine in jail time worth about
$50.00 per day. Community service may be served in lieu of payment of the fine.
In extraordinary matters (related more to documented serious health problems), the
entire amount owed may be suspended. In these scenarios, neither the City, the
County or the State benefit from fines and penalties originally imposed.
Of course, if you are in need of any other information, feel
free to contact Susan or myself.”
Each member of the governing body
has a fiduciary responsibility to safeguard the public purse, and collectively
we must always choose the greater good over the perceived discomfort of
the guilty few. If, as has been quoted, “service is the rent we must pay for this room on earth,”
then fines are a mere debt to society that guilty parties must pay. I urge all
of my colleagues to read what the judge had to say and use it to come to the
right decision for the people of Plainfield. Let us all be advocates for the
tax payers and not be the voices for those who have been found guilty of
breaking the law. I submit to you that the outsourcing of the collection of
municipal court fines is a no-brainer.
Regards,
Adrian
