Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fourth Judge Courthouse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Circuit court requests fourth judgeship; commissioners discuss renovating courthouse and using fund balance for initial costs
Summary
Circuit Court officials said a request for a fourth judge is pending in Annapolis; commissioners discussed using fund balance and vacant positions to cover one-time courthouse renovations and furniture if and when the judge is authorized.
The St. Mary's County Circuit Court reported on March 4 that the county’s request for a fourth judge is under consideration in the Maryland General Assembly and that local officials are preparing budget and facilities plans should the position be authorized.
Court administrators said the judicial nominating commission will interview candidates for the currently vacant third judge on April 8 and send names to the governor; the fourth-judge request is a separate legislative item. The circuit court noted cases are often scheduled many months ahead, senior judges are filling gaps now, and the judiciary has argued the county’s criminal jury-trial workload rose substantially since 2019.
Why it matters: If the legislature authorizes a fourth judge, the county would need to provide local funding for courtroom furniture, renovations and recurring staff (an administrative assistant and a bailiff). The court’s presentation estimated about $171,000 for courthouse renovations (an estimate from the county’s architect/contractor), and a furniture request of approximately $11,000 tied to provisioning a new judge’s chambers. The court said two currently vacant administrative positions were intentionally held open to potentially cover renovation costs from salary savings.
Commissioners discussed funding paths. Several said they would be willing to use fund balance to pay one-time renovation and furniture costs and to use salary savings from currently vacant positions to cover partial-year personnel costs if the judge start date required it. Commissioners cautioned against budgeting full recurring personnel costs until the legislature sets an effective date for an authorized new judge. The board asked court staff to remain flexible and return with timing and cost specifics once the legislature’s action is clear.
Ending: Court staff and commissioners agreed to monitor the legislative outcome and to retain flexibility—using fund balance for one-time costs if needed and incorporating recurring costs in future budgets only after an appointment date is known.
