Public defender system out of control

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The Georgia Legislature created a new statewide public defender system in 2003 to fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide an adequate criminal defense for indigents. However, there is a raging ideological debate between advocates and taxpayers over the meaning of an “adequate defense” that dramatically impacts the policy, structure and funding of the system.

Unfortunately, the Public Defenders’ Council has used its budget to usurp the policy-making authority of the Legislature by driving up the system’s costs and providing the best defense that money can buy. This limits the system’s availability and effectiveness and makes death penalty cases like Brian Nichols’ prohibitively expensive.

Since its inception, the state’s contribution has risen from 10 percent to approximately 40 percent of the total costs. Total expenditures for indigent defense in Georgia have reached $107 million, almost double the amount spent in 2000.

The recent downsizing of staff is not indicative of the failure of the Legislature to fund a system. To the contrary, it is evidence that the advocates have overbuilt a system which does more than required by the statutes.

The Council has built a system around the concept of maximizing the expenditure of available money rather than creating one that efficiently delivers the services called for by the Legislature. After perennially busting its budget, the Council manufactures a crisis and returns to the Legislature with threats of dire consequences if it does not receive additional funds. This strategy has the effect of forcing elected officials to increase funding or face a complete loss of a public service. It has resulted in a dramatic budget growth as compared with other state agencies.

Since 2005, state funds to the Council have increased 36 percent. In comparison, state funds to the Department of Human Resources increased 23 percent.

During the last legislative session, the Senate conducted a “zero-base budget” to determine the level of funding required for the system based upon what is mandated by statute. Even after repeated requests for the Council to produce a ground-up budget to justify their spending, they still refuse to do so, choosing instead only to criticize the Legislature without offering any alternative.

The Council and its staff have consistently misinformed the Legislature and the governor’s office.

Although they now acknowledge their mistake, the Council made a decision to declare a conflict of interest in a massive number of cases and outsource those cases to private attorneys, who bill the state by the hour for their services.

In fiscal year 2008, the Council came to the General Assembly with a midyear budgetary shortfall of $3.6 million. The Council very publicly insisted that this was due to the more than 9,045 pipeline “conflict” cases. While the Council was successful in convincing the executive branch and House of Representatives that these funds were needed, the Senate insisted on verification. Such requests went unanswered.

Read the entire story