Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courts And Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court offices urge funding for interpreters, law‑clerk and digital discovery; DA seeks diversion staff
Summary
Judicial and public‑safety staff told supervisors that interpreter and court‑mandated services have spiked, the Register in Probate and judge recommended a full‑time law clerk to meet Supreme Court rules, and the district attorney proposed a digital evidence subscription and an additional diversion worker to save staff time and expand alternatives to conviction.
Multiple presenters at the April 3 Committee of the Whole flagged growing cost pressure from court‑related mandated services and proposed targeted investments.
Judge Nordstrand and Rebecca (Register in Probate and Clerk of Juvenile Court) said their office has long relied on part‑time or student law clerks and that Wisconsin Supreme Court guidance (referred to in the meeting as Rule 68) recommends one full‑time law clerk per branch; they asked the county to consider funding one full‑time, bar‑admitted law clerk (estimated as a roughly $100,000 swing from current part‑time/student budgets) to support legal research and complex decision drafting.
Christy Severson, Clerk of Courts, described interpreter expenses that more than doubled from 2023 to 2024 and reported more than 245 cases that will need interpreters in the months ahead. She said some federal or state reimbursement could materialize if the legislature increases court funding, but that outcome is uncertain. Supervisors asked whether hiring a county‑employed interpreter would be feasible; Christy and others said it requires further vetting because the state court system sets certification and use rules.
District Attorney Carl Anderson outlined a recurring operational burden: legal assistants spend substantial time downloading long body‑camera and other digital evidence. He described two commercial options (including an Axon‑linked service) that would automate evidence transfer and estimated an annual subscription in the neighborhood of $18,000; Anderson said he will not request funds until integration with local body‑camera systems is confirmed, but he argued the subscription could save staff time and postage costs. He also requested an additional diversion worker to keep diversion caseloads at manageable levels and reduce pressure on criminal dockets.
Supervisors asked both practical and legal questions about hiring in‑house interpreters, the potential for shared services with neighboring counties, and the timeline for state support. The board asked administration and clerk staff to investigate certification, conflict‑of‑interest issues, and precise cost estimates before formal inclusion in the 2026 budget.
