Judge and court officials press council to restore staff and pay increases; council approves limited amendments, schedules follow-up

Judge Kathleen Galen and court staff detailed a series of staffing and operational requests for the 38th District Court during a May 13 Eastpointe City Council special meeting, arguing reductions made during and after the COVID period risked undermining court operations.

The court requested two full‑time union clerks to replace grant‑funded part‑time positions that expire Dec. 31, a magistrate hourly rate restoration to $104,000 annualized, and retention of a $20 hourly cap for part‑time clerks. Magistrate Mark McCoskey and Judge Galen provided budget comparisons and operational data to support the requests; Finance Director Randy Blum supplied administration’s fiscal analysis. Council approved a package of smaller operating increases but excluded the court’s largest staffing and wage items and set a follow‑up special meeting for May 20.

Galen said the court must preserve operational independence. “It’s clear the funding unit cannot intrude on the court’s operation through a budget,” she told council, citing Supreme Court administrative guidance that “the court shall propose a budget for approval by funding, not the other way around.” McCoskey outlined 11 disputed line items and warned that a grant that currently funds six part‑time workers will end Dec. 31, leaving a staffing gap unless the council acts. He also provided figures on caseload increases and year‑to‑date receipts.

Blum responded with a multi‑year financial context, noting that court revenues climbed and fell after COVID and that, excluding COVID anomaly years, the city’s share of court revenues has declined since earlier highs. “The revenues have been on a steady decline if you exclude the COVID years,” Blum said, and he warned that adding two full‑time positions would increase the funding unit’s cost by more than the clerk salaries alone because of fringe benefits.

Key disputed line items the court seeks to restore or increase (court requests vs. city proposals as discussed): two full‑time clerks (court cost per clerk including benefits shown as $62,781), a magistrate position at $104,000 (the budget packet listed $55,000; an interim number of $70,000 was shown in a staff worksheet), part‑time wages retained at $20/hour instead of a proposed $18, overtime at $20,000 instead of $3,000, office supplies increased to $25,000 from a proposed $19,000, and telecommunications increased to $28,500 from the proposed $23,100. The court also asked for $5,000 to replace worn staff chairs and roughly $1,000 for training/certification the city did not include.

Council deliberations produced an amended motion to approve a set of the court’s requested non‑staffing items but to exclude the largest staffing and wage requests (items 1, 2 and 10 in the court packet). The roll call on the amendment recorded: Mayor Michael Kleinfeld — Yes; Council member Curley — Yes; Council member Stradley — Yes; Council member Baker — No; Council member DeMonaco — Yes. The motion carried.

Council also voted to schedule a special meeting for 6 p.m. Tuesday, May 20 to continue discussion on the remaining court budget items and to allow staff and council time to review materials supplied that day.

What remained unsettled at the session were the two clerk positions and the magistrate pay level. Judge Galen emphasized that the court expects to lose six grant‑funded part‑time staff and a visiting judge at the end of the year and asked council to consider the long‑term consequence for case processing and public service. Blum told council that, if all of the court’s requests were approved as proposed, the city’s general fund could move from a modest surplus to a projected deficit (Blum estimated roughly a $150,000 deficit, noting benefit costs and other variables).

Council members said they wanted more time to reconcile the court’s packet with the city’s accounting and the wage study before taking final action on the largest staffing and compensation items. The special meeting on May 20 will revisit magistrate compensation, the court‑administrator salary range and the request to convert grant staff to city payroll. The meeting record shows the council approved a number of the court’s smaller operational requests but deferred decisions that would materially increase the city’s staffing costs.

Ending: The council’s decision to approve selected operating items while tabling major staffing increases leaves the court with partial funding for near‑term needs and a scheduled follow‑up meeting to resolve the remaining budget disputes. The court emphasized it will continue to press for restored staffing once the parties have time to review the supplemental materials exchanged at the May 13 meeting.