What airlines, hotels and booking websites do with add-on "bag charges," "resort fees," etc., can look downright transparent when compared with what many folks face when they appear in a New Jersey municipal court.

A new report details how, in one extreme example, a $130 citation for failing to get a car inspected turns into a $1,538 tab for "Dan," an unfortunate fictional driver who ultimately has his license suspended after he couldn't pay the initial fine.

The damning municipal-court report came from a panel set up by the state Supreme Court, and the Administrative Office of the Courts, which are ultimately responsible for all courts in New Jersey. The assessment represents a laudable level of self-examination that is usually missing from trade groups with whom consumers often have beefs. You don't see the Air Transport Association banging the drum for laws requiring that the first fare price you see on the web to be the final price you pay.

Reforming the justice system at the level where most people interact with it first ought to be a priority. These courts deal with traffic offenses, ordinance violations and non-indictable law-breaking like criminal mischief.

While praising all of the competent municipal judges that local governing bodies appoint, the committee said it was "profoundly concerned with the excessive imposition of financial obligations on certain (read "poor") defendants." The report also questions the high number of stand-alone, low-activity local courts in the Garden State, and suggests changes in how their judges are appointed and evaluated.

The way that fines and fees are assessed in these 515 courts is reminiscent of the unfairness that led to wide-scale, pioneering bail reform in New Jersey two years ago. There's a similar disregard of one's ability to pay going on. Some of these courts issue excessive bench warrants and contempt-of-court citations for minor infractions. Some apply local fees on top of a growing list of state-imposed surcharges. These fund many good initiatives like police body armor but, taken together, the amounts can be staggering.

In South Jersey, many towns are already in shared-court or joint-court arrangements. Salem County in particular deserves credit, since at least 12 of its towns are in a combined court program. Red flags go up, however, for Burlington County. Local courts there imposed $1.1 million in contempt-of-court fines in 2016, the most in all 21 counties. Camden County, in both 2016 and 2017, had the highest average per-defendant contempt fines, at $152 and $133 respectively.

In 2016, an Asbury Park Press investigative article labeled the municipal courts as a "cash machine." Have these revenues have been maximized to keep feeding the kitty after the late, but not lamented, automated red-light ticketing systems that minted cash were dropped in New Jersey? If so, the "Catch 22" faced by alleged violators goes on. The money just goes into a different account.

The bright spot is that many of the court panel's 49 recommendations are already in the Trenton hopper as pending legislation. It's sensible to use "electronic" appearances instead of live ones in front of a judge for minor infractions. This would to lead to fewer failure-to-appear warrants and follow-up contempt citations. The trend toward multi-town courts must be encouraged, even if countywide ones might be too inconvenient for summons receivers. Also, the size of the revenue stream a judge can generate is not a valid factor for appointment or reappointment.

New Jersey has made its bail system more fair. It has shut down automated ticketing that too often ripped off drivers. Reforming municipal courts is the next big lift to make our judicial system more efficient and more equitable.

Send a letter to the editor of South Jersey Times at sjletters@njadvancemedia.com

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook