warren county courthosue.jpg

The Warren County Courthouse is in Belvidere.

(Express-Times File Photo )

Inspired by the ongoing dispute over Courtroom 2 in the Warren County Courthouse, state Sen. Michael Doherty has introduced a proposal to he says will prevent future courtroom facility disputes.

As Warren County and the state judiciary continue to squabble over who should foot the bill to fix a courtroom declared by a judge to be unconstitutional, one state lawmaker has proposed legislation to give counties the final say in courthouse expenditures.

Sen. Michael Doherty said he plans to introduce a bill that would give county officials final authority on costs related to courtrooms, judges' chambers, equipment and supplies. The bill would also give the county's elected officials the power to determine whether courtroom facilities are "suitable" according to the terms of the law.

Such changes would "prevent the spendthrift state judiciary from wasting county taxpayer dollars in these kinds of disputes," said Doherty, R-Warren/Hunterdon.

The senator's proposal (S-1901) comes in the midst of a years-long dispute that began shortly after a $5.8 million renovation of the Warren County Courthouse in Belvidere was completed in February 2012 at the request of court officials.

Included in the project was a new Courtroom 2, meant to hold criminal hearings and trials, as well as an elevator that runs between basement holding cells and the courtroom.

Soon after the renovations were complete, Superior Court Judge Ann Bartlett ruled that a 6-inch-wide support pillar in the courtroom, which blocks the defense table's line of sight to the jury box and witness stand, made trials held there unconstitutional.

Since then, several parties involved -- including county freeholders, the public defender's office, county prosecutor and judiciary -- have not been able to agree on a solution or who should pay for corrective measures.

Warren County freeholders in January filed a lawsuit against the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts and numerous judicial officials in an effort to compel the judiciary to finance the fix. The lawsuit is making its way through the court system.

Like freeholders, Doherty said the cost of revamping the courthouse -- estimated to be between $500,000 and $1 million -- shouldn't be a burden that falls on the shoulders of county taxpayers.

"State court officials want county taxpayers to pay for whatever the cost is to make the courtroom usable, but that certainly wouldn't be fair or wise," he said in a statement.

Current state law dictates that a dispute between the county and state judiciary concerning courtroom facilities may be turned over to an arbitrator.

But the law also allows the New Jersey Supreme Court to overturn the arbitrator's decision if it determines the ruling didn't "balance the needs and interest of the county and judiciary in a fair manner."

In his bill, Doherty wrote that he believes the rule "in effect allows the New Jersey Supreme Court to improperly make decisions about county spending."

Such decisions, he added, "must be the sole responsibility of county elected officials fulfilling their responsibilities to taxpayers."

Freeholder Director Edward Smith agreed.

"Where is the balancing power for the benefit of the taxpayers if one party has an upper hand in a discrepancy over the costs?" he said.

A state judiciary spokeswoman on Friday declined comment and said the office had not yet reviewed Doherty's proposal.