Court officials say budget stalemate is delaying safety upgrades, staff hires at Jackson County courts

Beverly Newman, court administrator for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, told the Jackson County Legislature on May 15 that a dispute over the 2025 county budget has stalled court spending and delayed “critical safety concerns” and staffing requested for next year.

Newman said the court submitted its budget “consistent with” what she described as “the requirements of the charter” and with “section 5 0.64, revised Missouri statutes,” and that the court is operating under the 2024 budget while the new appropriation ordinance remains unapproved. “It has been and will continue to be the court's practice to manage our resources very conservatively,” Newman said.

The court administrator said several new decision items in the 2025 request are being held up by the delay. Those items include two additional full‑time equivalents for the civil process department that Newman said are needed so “we have 2 people at each of the evictions and high risk service circumstances,” procurement of civil process vehicles to avoid employees using personal cars for high‑risk service, safety work at entry points at the Eastern Jackson County Courthouse (including a sally port for family court), cyber‑security measures, replacement of more than 20‑year‑old beds in one county facility, and program expansions in family court services to meet medical needs of youth in custody.

Newman also told legislators that some court contracts have expired and cited one example affecting law enforcement supervised visitation, exchanges and supervision in the Family Court Resource Center. She said that every day of delay makes it “a challenge to get those [procurements] through” and stressed staff concerns about merit increases and job security, saying staff had asked whether there would be layoffs if no budget is approved.

Legislator Smith pressed the court on the county's written guidance for spending during the interim. Newman said guidance to the court had come through the county's chief financial officer and was, in her case, a verbal communication. Smith criticized that approach and said inconsistent written guidance from the county executive’s office had left departments with different understandings of permitted spending, especially for safety‑related needs.

A representative of the county executive's office, Mr. Clifford, responded during the meeting that the administration “has never provided any guidance to the prosecuting attorney's office that limited their ability to do their work” and denied instructing any department not to spend funds that the county executive's office spent. Legislator Barca countered that the executive’s office had not proactively solved budget matters and called the delay “getting a little ridiculous.” Legislator Franklin, the budget chair, said the parties were working and that officials were “still shooting for” having something soon.

During Newman’s presentation, lawmakers asked whether discussing specific security vulnerabilities should occur in closed session. Newman said she could speak only generally in public because of the vulnerability risks and requested a closed session if legislators wanted “specific questions about how the court would specifically implement any of the safety issues that we're discussing.”

No formal action was taken at the meeting on the court's budget request; the county legislature did not receive an appropriation ordinance from the county executive and scheduled a follow‑up legislative meeting for May 16 at 10 a.m.

The court’s presentation also noted an ongoing administrative transition that was included in the 2025 budget request: shifting the office of guardian ad litem toward the court‑appointed special advocate program. Newman said that transition had been discussed previously and is part of the 2025 request but did not announce any change that has been implemented.