On July 8, the Supreme Court Working Group on the Municipal Courts issued its recommendations to implement the June 2018 Report of the Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Court Operations, Fines and Fees. (See our previous editorial, "Implement Recommended Municipal Court Reform Now," 224 NLJ 2586 (Sept. 10, 2018).) The working group was comprised of 38 members from the three branches of government and representatives of other groups and entities who brought together the perspectives and experiences of the interrelated system. The working group was charged with reporting on recommendations requiring action of the executive and legislative branches of government and to identify other needed improvement to the municipal court system.

The report of the working group sets forth 17 recommendations "that focus on: (1) decoupling of sentencing practices from a municipality's need for revenue in order to enhance equal access and fairness; (2) modifying the appointment and reappointment process for Municipal Court judges to enhance judicial independence; and (3) consolidation and regionalization of the Municipal Court system to improve the efficiency of court operations and delivery of justice."

The recommendations to achieve equal access and fairness include "decoupling" sentencing practices from a municipality's need for revenue, "in other words to reduce the municipality's reliance on court fines and fees as a means of obtaining revenue;" "greater use of time payment plans that are reasonable and achievable" to increase the minimum "incarceration conversion rates" relating to incarceration for nonpayment of fines and penalties assessed; and reducing surcharges and assessments imposed by the Motor Vehicle Commission as well as the municipal courts. These recommendations would permit respect for sentences imposed and enhance their collection while respecting the financial and economic needs of offenders.

The recommendations also seek improvement in the quality of decision making and court administration by (1) encouraging that the New Jersey State Bar Association's County Judicial and Prosecutors Appointments Committee review the qualification of judges before both appointment and reappointment; (2) increasing the term of reappointment from three to five years; (3) establishment by the judiciary of an evaluation process; and (4) increasing the amount of training and court visitation programs. Recommendations are also made with respect to the appointment and reappointment of municipal prosecutors and public defenders and improved training of these officers.

The two final recommendations seek legislative action for "additional incentives to encourage municipalities to consolidate under the existing statutory framework of shared and joint courts," "to expand central Municipal Courts to all Counties" and to "consider mandating the regionalization of smaller municipal courts."

The judiciary has made many of the same recommendations over the last 50 years, and the report of the working group details some of those efforts. Significant innovations have been made in some of these areas, but more improvement is necessary to promote justice and the perception of justice on the local level. Many recommendations for reform have received no traction over the years for many reasons—the need for court revenues to fund the local budget, respect for the principle of "home rule " in New Jersey, and the desire of local officials to retain the appointment authority of municipal judges they now have. But there can be optimism that the report of the working group may receive serious review because of the cooperation of all entities and groups involved in its preparation and the success of bail reform, which followed a similar approach with strong support and encouragement of the chief justice and Supreme Court as well as the administrative director, who chaired the working group.

The municipal courts of New Jersey are the courts observed by most citizens. There were 6,177,993 filings in the municipal courts last year. Many of our colleagues practice there, and they are an integral part of our system. We believe, therefore, that the report of the working group (and a minority opinion) should be read by every attorney in the state and that attorneys with experience in municipal courts take the time to provide their comments to the administrative director of the courts, as requested, by Oct. 1, 2019.