RICo Needs a New Courthouse ... and a Referendum

I firmly believe Rock Island County needs a new courthouse. I held that view since long before my retirement in 2000.

On March 21, 2013, I wrote, “The once spacious offices are now chopped, cramped and crowded. And the rotunda is a major fire or murder waiting to happen. The two traffic courts -- never contemplated in 1897 -- now handle 30,000 cases per year.”

Two weeks later, I wrote, “It can’t be remodeled, reconfigured, or chopped further to provide the county with safe, adequate courtrooms, chambers, jury rooms and related facilities.There is no room!”

But as much as I believe a new courthouse is an absolute necessity, I cannot agree with the steps proposed to get the job done. The Public Building Commission came into existence under a resolution adopted by the Rock Island County Board on Oct. 1, 1981 for “the sole purpose of such Public Building Commission ... to provide a good and sufficient jail.”

On June 17, the commission adopted a resolution approving a site be acquired and improved  for a Justice Center Annex to be leased to the county.

In his complaint, special prosecutor Charles Zaler, pleads regarding the commission’s recent proposal:

“6. The Commission does not plan to construct ... any additional jail cells other than possible temporary holding cells ... for prisoners  who are brought to court.

“7. The June 17, 2015 resolution and the plans of the Commission for the construction of new court facilities expand the purpose of the Commission beyond the ‘sole purpose ... of providing a good and sufficient jail,’ as provided in the 1981 County Board resolution creating the public building commission.

“8. That there is a statutory procedure for a county board to expand the purpose of a public building commission .... ‘The purpose of a public building commission created by the county board  ... may not be expanded until the question of expanding the purpose of the ... commission has been submitted to the electors ... at a regular election  and approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question.’

“9. No referendum to expand the purpose of the Commission from one of ‘providing a good and sufficient jail’ to one of a ‘Justice Center annex project’ has been submitted to or approved by the voters”

Mike Halprin, who defended the commission, denied the 2015 “resolution and the plans of the Commission for the construction of new court facilities expand the purpose of the Commission beyond the ‘sole purpose ... of providing a good and sufficient jail,’ as provided in the 1981 County Board resolution creating the public building commission.” He admits that there has been no referendum, but “affirmatively states” that “no such referendum is needed as there is no expansion of the commission’s purpose.”

He argues, “What is being proposed is not a traditional ‘courthouse’ but instead a ‘jail annex’ to facilitate and provide secure transfer of prisoners to and from court. Proposed are courtrooms, supporting ancillary offices, transport corridors, and holding cells.

“General government offices, like the County Board, Recorder, County Clerk, Treasurer, etc., are not part of the project. ... in the 1960s it was easy to decouple general government from the courts; but the courts and the jail are forever linked because of interrelated functions.”

The argument simply put is this: We are not building a traditional courthouse; we are merely adding jail-related courtrooms. Because the jail and those courtrooms are functionally linked, new courtrooms can reasonably be viewed as a “jail.”

As much as I would like to agree, I cannot. John Q. Citizen was told in 1981 the commission was created for the sole purpose of providing a jail. When a commission is created for a sole purpose it is created for a “limited purpose.”

The law says,  “The purpose of a ... commission created by the county board may not be expanded until the question of expanding the purpose ... has been submitted to the electors...  and approved.”

The legislature has power to allow counties to use a commission. The legislature did not require  a referendum when this commission was set up in 1981. At that time, it gave the county two choices: set up a commission to be used whenever necessary, or set up a commission for the limited purpose of doing one or a limited number of projects.

The county board chose to set up the commission for the purpose of a jail. Any  reasonable citizen would not have imagined that anything more than a jail was being authorized.

For the ordinary citizen, a jail and a courthouse are two very different things. Nobody would have dreamed the 1981 resolution authorized the commission to build a new courthouse.

To argue that the courtrooms to be built are an “integral part of the jail” is disingenuous. They are going to be used primarily for civil cases: suits for money damages, injunctions, marriage dissolution, adoptions, eminent domain, etc. None of these things have anything to do with jails.

There are already three criminal courtrooms in the Justice Center, which were completed in 2001, with a jury assembly room, and offices.

The discussion may seem academic. But it isn’t. In 1981, the county board approved the commission’s proposal to spend $4.1 million to build the new jail. Twenty years later, by stretching the original resolution, the Justice Center was built, costing $13 million more.

Now in 2016, stretching again, a new jail annex is to be built for an additional $21 million. The commission will issue bonds to pay for the project. The county will rent the facility, and the taxpayers will have the honor of paying the additional $21 million.

What started out as a $4 million dollar jail has become a $38 million jail, plus Justice Center, plus annex. While I believe it would be money well-spent, I believe a referendum is required.

I regretfully dissent.



Posted: Friday, January 15, 2016 12:00 am | Updated: 12:00 am, Fri Jan 15, 2016. QCOnline.com
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2016
John Donald O'Shea