County Courts Vote to Combine Caseloads : Judiciary: Superior and municipal judges say the move will improve efficiency and save money. But at least one dissenter calls it unconstitutional.

Judges of the Ventura County municipal and superior courts have voted to consolidate their caseload, a step that could virtually eliminate the distinction between the two courts by the end of the year.

The presiding judges of the two courts tout the move as a way to increase judicial efficiency and save taxpayers’ money. But at least one judge is opposed to the idea, saying it is unconstitutional and eventually will prove more expensive.

Judge Bruce A. Clark, who presides over the Municipal Court, said Ventura County is moving now to consolidate its courts in anticipation that within a few years it will become required by state law.

“This is an opportunity to design our court the way we want it to be, rather than having someone else tell us how to do it,” Clark said.

Ventura County consolidated the administration of the two courts in 1989. As part of that move, the courts share the same clerks, interpreters and courtroom stenographers.

The judges have remained separate in their functions, however. Municipal Court judges handle the less serious criminal and civil matters, while in Superior Court the jurists preside over felony cases and civil lawsuits involving more than $25,000.

Details of how the consolidation will work have not been determined, said Judge Steven Z. Perren, who presides over the Superior Court. A committee has been organized to study the issue, he said.

Clark said civil cases in the two courts have been consolidated since September. Currently, four Superior Court judges and one Municipal Court judge handle all civil cases in the county, regardless of where the lawsuit is filed.

Perren said he would like to see the number of judges who handle civil cases increased to seven, a move that would be possible under the unified system.

Clark said the same system could be implemented for criminal cases, where a pool of judges from both courts would preside over everything from infractions to murders.

Superior Court Judge James M. McNally said he opposes the unification because the state Constitution calls for distinct municipal and superior courts.

“My problem with it is, I took an oath of office to defend the Constitution as it is now written, not as I wish it was written,” McNally said.

Only the voters can change the Constitution, McNally said.

In 1982, a statewide initiative to allow counties to consolidate courts was rejected by two-thirds of the voters.

McNally said he would be opposed to unification even if it were possible under the law. Comparing it to the medical system, where nurses perform less complicated tasks and are paid less than doctors, McNally said the Municipal Court is designed to handle minor cases quickly and for less money than it takes to deal with a death-penalty case heard in Superior Court.

He also said it would contaminate the appellate process. Currently, a Superior Court panel of judges reviews and sometimes reverses the rulings of Municipal Court jurists. That would become more difficult if everybody was on the same judicial level.

“It’s too incestuous,” McNally said. “It lends itself to good-old-boy time, where you don’t take a hard, honest look at the case.”

Clark acknowledged that the law requires separate courts, but noted that judges already can be temporarily assigned to handle cases in either court. He also said unification is encouraged by the Trial Court Efficiency and Realignment Act of 1991.

The issue of unification statewide probably will be on the ballot again in 1994, Clark said. He said unification will increase the efficiency of the court system, allowing litigants to have their cases heard more quickly than is now possible.

Both Perren and Clark said the unification would not change the salaries of Municipal Court judges, who at $90,000 a year currently make about $9,000 less than their Superior Court counterparts.

But McNally said an increase in the salaries would be “the obvious next step” for Municipal Court judges.

Several of the county’s Municipal Court judges have sought seats on the Superior Court, which some consider more prestigious and intellectually challenging.