Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
That is not what has been going on at all. He vetoed a bill in 2009 that would have provided caseload relief without a budget increase. When the General Assembly increased funding to the public defenders office last year, the governors office withheld the funds, then cut their budget this year. For next year, he once again withheld funds approved by the general assembly. The legislature is approving these monies, he used his line-item veto. So yeah. His fault.Esquire wrote:That's probably the most amusing play for public attention I've seen in recent years. Many points to Director Barret for style, but minus a few for pandering to the political-theatre crowd - Governor Nixon has been dealing with an extremely uncooperative state legislature and a massive economic downturn for the whole relevant time period; it's not his fault that there aren't enough funds in the state treasury for adequate public defenders.
"Tough on crime"'On a slight technical tangent, if the above have unfavorable answers, I wonder what Governor Nixon's reasons for vetoing the bills in question were. Any thoughts? I'm having trouble imagining who would base campaign contributions on these issues....
Many private prison contracts guarantee a certain percentage of the prison population to be filled, with stiff penalties if prisoner count is too low.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well, to maximize my cynicism, there are private prisons and prison-services companies, both of which benefit from more prisoners. They also like to make generous campaign contributions. I dont know how many private prisons you have in your state, but there is a very large prison services company based in St. Louis...
Yep. I didnt want to say anything until I checked, but there is at least 1 and possibly 2 such prisons operating in the state as of 2009, possibly more now...Terralthra wrote:Many private prison contracts guarantee a certain percentage of the prison population to be filled, with stiff penalties if prisoner count is too low.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well, to maximize my cynicism, there are private prisons and prison-services companies, both of which benefit from more prisoners. They also like to make generous campaign contributions. I dont know how many private prisons you have in your state, but there is a very large prison services company based in St. Louis...
I did post the link. It is to a PDF, I am afraid that is what was up because it is a scan of an actual court document. Do you not have a PDF reader?Zixinus wrote:Can someone give a text link to the letter? The site does not magnify well to easily read it.
Are you clicking on the image or the actual link above it? Because I had the same problem at first when I did the former.Zixinus wrote:Can someone give a text link to the letter? The site does not magnify well to easily read it.
No, no, no.So this is the real world equivalent of Sim City 2000 DPW director going:
So not only does this guy have a legal recurse to do something about it, he is legally allowed to do it to the governor because he's a lawyer too![...] To avoid having to close one or more offices, the remaining option is to consider the use of Section 600.042.5, which gives the Director of the Public Defender System the authority to "[d]elegate the legal representation of any person to any member of the state bar of Missouri."
As of yet, I have not utilised this provision because it is my sincere belief that it is wrong to reassign an obligation placed on the state by the 6th and 14th Amendments to private attorneys who have in no way contributed to the current crisis. However, given the extraodrinary circumstances that compel me to entertain any and all avenues for relief, it strikes me that I should begin with the one attorney in the state who not only created this problem, but is in an unique position to address it.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 600.042.5 and as Director of Missouri State Public Defender System tasked with carrying out the State's obligation to ensure that poor people who face incarceration are afforded competent counsel in their defense, I hereby appoint you, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Bar No. 29603, to enter your appearance as counsel of record in the attached case.
Probably a statement to the effect of "Hey look, our budget was better than we expected this year. Let's give money back to the Public Defender's office like we were always planning on doing."I have to wonder if Gov. Nixon will try and get out of it.
It's my understanding that refusal to cooperate with delegation by the Director of Public Defenders can result in disbarment.St. Louis Today wrote:Nixon says public defender maneuver not legal
By Kurt Erickson St. Louis Post-Dispatch Aug 4, 2016 (27)
JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Jay Nixon signaled Thursday he will fight an unprecedented move to make him a public defender.
In his first statement about being appointed Tuesday to defend a man suspected of assault, the state’s two-term chief executive said the maneuver by Missouri’s top public defender is not legal.
“It is well established that the public defender does not have the legal authority to appoint private counsel,” said Nixon spokesman Scott Holste.
Frustrated with low funding levels from the state, Michael Barrett, the director of Missouri’s Public Defender Commission, said he was using his power Tuesday to draft Nixon to represent a poor person in Cole County.
In making the move, Barrett relied on a state statute that allows him to “delegate the legal representation of any person to any member of the state bar of Missouri.”
Nixon, a former attorney general, said he supports indigent criminals having legal representation, but that Barrett cannot appoint a private attorney without the consent of the attorney.
Holste also said there has been a 15 percent increase in funding at the agency while other departments under Nixon’s control have had to tighten their belts.
The maneuver by Barrett and the response from Nixon put the state in uncharted waters.
Retired prosecutor Riley Bock of New Madrid, who is chairman of the public defender commission, said he is not sure how Nixon can argue against what the statute says.
But, he said Barrett’s move was a way to send a loud message to Nixon that the funding problems need to be addressed.
The system’s caseload has gone up 12 percent over the past year to about 82,000 cases, with each lawyer having to handle 125 to more than 200 cases at a time.
“It’s been within the governor’s power to resolve this problem and he’s just chosen not to,” said Bock, who became chairman in July. “I think this is important to the Missouri judicial system.”
Another commission member, St. Louis attorney Douglas Copeland, said the agency has tried for years to persuade Nixon to adequately fund the system.
“We’ve done everything we could. I don’t really understand why the governor has acted the way he’s acted,” Copeland said. “I’m just worried about the whole system crumbling.”
Barrett and Nixon are not strangers. After serving in former New York Gov. David Paterson’s administration, Barrett and his wife moved to Missouri in 2011, where he took a job as deputy general counsel in Nixon’s office.
Barrett was sworn into office as director of the public defender system in May 2015.
But, he quickly clashed with his former boss. Despite a 2014 study that found the agency needed 270 additional attorneys, Nixon in June cut all but $1 million of a $4.5 million increase for the system.
Naming Nixon as a public defender is not the only attempt by Barrett to recover the money Nixon is withholding. The commission last month filed a lawsuit seeking to force Nixon to release the money. An initial hearing on that case is set for Monday.
If the guy was willing to do that, he would have done that before the director decided on the publicity stunt.Probably a statement to the effect of "Hey look, our budget was better than we expected this year. Let's give money back to the Public Defender's office like we were always planning on doing."
Zixinus wrote: If the guy was willing to do that, he would have done that before the director decided on the publicity stunt.
Does Missouri have a two term limit? He may want to work once he's done being Gov.Broomstick wrote:What does Nixon care if he's disbarred? He's working as a governor, not an attorney.
This is just another "small government" asshole refusing to pay for the consequences of his actions. Must be nice to be privileged!
Don't need a law degree to be a lobbyist. What a cunt. Definitely lives up to the "Nixon" name.Lost Soal wrote:Does Missouri have a two term limit? He may want to work once he's done being Gov.Broomstick wrote:What does Nixon care if he's disbarred? He's working as a governor, not an attorney.
This is just another "small government" asshole refusing to pay for the consequences of his actions. Must be nice to be privileged!
