4120

VETOES

cross purposes with the intent of the General Assembly, as
expressed in Fiscal Year 1985 budget language, to reduce the need
for general fund support. As recently as May 23, 1984, my
Secretary of Budget and Fiscal Planning informed me that, even
including anticipated collections of criminal court costs, the
Clerks are projected to incur approximately a $1 million
deficiency in Fiscal Year 1985. This bill is expected to
increase that deficiency by an estimated $872,000.

During the last session, major legislation affecting the
fiscal operations of the Clerks of Court was reviewed, often
without joint referral, by no fewer than five different
committees making a comprehensive and coordinated approach
difficult. For example, during deliberations on the Fiscal Year
1985 State Operating Budget, the supplementary general fund
appropriation for the Clerks Office was reduced by $1.75 million
(1/3 of the projected general fund support), while the Clerks
Office was requested through budget language to "reduce their
cost of operation annually during a three year period in order to
avoid the need for general fund support after fiscal year 1987."
Concurrently, House Bill 1421 passed which, as indicated above,
would significantly reduce judicial revenues available to the
Clerks. Additionally, Senate Bill 1007 failed to pass which
would have permitted the uniform retention by the Clerks of 5% of
the recordation tax and other fees, emoluments, penalties, and
other public monies that they collect in all counties and
Baltimore City -- a current practice in all but the six largest
jurisdictions in the State. If Senate Bill 1007 had passed the
General Assembly, the savings to the State would have
counterbalanced the proposed loss resulting form the enactment of
House Bill 1421.

With these concerns in mind I was pleased to learn that the
Legislative Policy Committee will be establishing a Joint
Legislative and Executive Task Force to comprehensively examine
measures aimed at alleviating fiscal and administrative problems
confronting the Clerks offices. At the same time, the Task Force
can evaluate the need for ensuring uniformity in the billing and
collecting of criminal court costs and other fees throughout the
State. It can also assess the concern of State's Attorneys that
their prosecutorial decisions are sometimes premised on the
amount of court costs associated with a particular course of
action.

By way of a separate letter, I will ask that the proposal
contained in House Bill 1421, State assumption of criminal court
costs where a defendant is acquitted or indigent, be included as
a topic for consideration by the Task Force. Perhaps this
particular proposal, or some other alternative such as a
cost-sharing mechanism, could be implemented; but this matter
should be reviewed within a comprehensive framework providing for
a full analysis of all pertinent issues and concerns.

I note in closing that many local governments have requested