Ruvoldt, Application of

• Decision Date: 27 October 1982
• Citation: 187 N.J.Super. 81,453 A.2d 896
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Harold J. RUVOLDT, Jr., Prosecutor of Hudson County, For Authorization of Expenditures.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 81

187 N.J.Super. 81

453 A.2d 896

In the Matter of the Application of Harold J. RUVOLDT, Jr. Prosecutor of Hudson County, For Authorization of Expenditures.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued Oct. 5, 1982.

Decided Oct. 27, 1982.

Philip L. Halpern, Asst. Prosecutor of Hudson County, for appellant (Harold J. Ruvoldt, Jr., Prosecutor of Hudson County, attorney).

Kathleen M. Grant, Asst. County Counsel of Hudson County, for respondent (Francis P. Morley, Hudson County Counsel, attorney).

Before Judges MATTHEWS, ANTELL and FRANCIS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

MATTHEWS, P.J.A.D.

Plaintiff appeals from an order entered by the acting assignment judge, dated August 5, 1981, denying him additional funds, and from the order of the assignment judge, entered June 30, 1981, which determined that the prosecutor's power to appoint personnel is subject to the approval of the county executive, whose decision may only be overturned pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:158-7.

On June 11, 1981 the Prosecutor of Hudson County ("prosecutor") filed a petition pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:158-7 requesting first, increased appropriations for his office for new equipment, more personnel and salary raises; and second, seeking immediate and emergent relief in the form of a court order directing the county to immediately process the requested salary raises. The assignment judge of the county entered an order requiring the Hudson County Board of Freeholders ("Board") to show cause on June 29, 1981 why the relief should not be granted.

On June 17, 1981 the prosecutor moved for temporary relief pending the determination of his application. He sought by means of this motion to have the CS-6 forms setting the salaries for employees of his office processed. The assignment judge ordered on the same day that the motion be heard on short notice.

A hearing was held on the request for interim relief on June 29, 1981. The judge found that the increases must be approved by the county executive, and that if the county were to reject the increases, the prosecutor was entitled to have the judge decide if the increases are necessary. On June 30, 1981 he entered an order holding that the prosecutor has the power to fix salaries subject to approval or rejection by the county executive, whose decision can only be overturned pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:158-7. The prosecutor appeals from that portion of the judge's order. The assignment judge also ordered that the parties should appear on July 1, 1981, in order to take testimony concerning the necessity of salary increases prior to the full hearing on the prosecutor's application. The hearing was adjourned to July 7, 1981.

In the present application, filed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:158-7, the prosecutor sought additional appropriations that would give him a budget of $4,245,981.25, an increase of $1,386,687.52 over his 1980 budget. At the time of the filing of the petition, the Board of Chosen Freeholders had only appropriated $485,300 for an increase in budget.

Prior to taking office the prosecutor had a management survey of the office prepared by the Prosecutor's Supervisory Section of the Division of Criminal Justice. The survey noted that in 1980 the Hudson County Prosecutor's office ranged 21st among the 21 counties in mean and median salaries for assistant prosecutors, and 20th and 21st in mean and median salaries for investigative personnel, with a resultant high turnover of employees. There was also no regular or annual merit increment structure, nor any formal system of promotions. The survey recommended the institution of a salary and increment structure in order to encourage employees to view their jobs as a career. The Division reviewed the prosecutor's needs and his budget to come up with a figure that they both could support, and as the prosecutor's original request was higher than the Division's estimate, the prosecutor amended his figure to comport with that of the Division.

An auditor working for the Evaluation and Management Services Section of the Division of Criminal Justice expressed the opinion, which he testified was concurred in by the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice, that the figure proposed represented the minimum amount necessary for the prosecutor to perform his function.

The Division also found that, while the present number of assistant prosecutors was adequate, the investigative staff should be increased from 66 to 90 in order to create a proper ratio of support staff for the prosecutors. The Division also recommended the addition of nine more clerical personnel, increasing the total number to 74.

The Division also estimated that the prosecutor needed ten replacement and five new cars with radios and sirens, at a cost of about $125,000; word processing equipment, at a cost of about $40,000; about $15,000 worth of dictation equipment; rearrangement of and equipment to automate the record room; a radio system, at a cost of $75,000; PROMIS/GAVEL, a computerized program of the prosecutor's office and courts regarding management, at a cost of about $12,000 for a match of federal funds that would enable Hudson County to receive $125,000 worth of equipment; $11,000 for office equipment for the new personnel requested, and electronic surveillance equipment at a cost of $5,900. These recommendations totalled $307,900.

In order to determine what fiscal problems would be caused should the prosecutor's request be implemented, Edward F. Clark, the Hudson County Executive, also testified. Clark said that Hudson County has an ever-increasing problem staying within the limits of CAP, and that the county arrived at the figure by which it increased the prosecutor's budget for primarily economic reasons.

The acting assignment judge noted in his opinion that it was his intent to resolve the dispute within the prosecutor's existing appropriations, if possible, or at least to maintain a "sensitivity to the Freeholders' overall CAP problem while insuring that the prosecutor can meet the demands of the criminal business of the county."

The judge agreed that the existing salary structure was unjust and unfair, and so he adopted the salary schedule for 1981-82 which he felt was fair. He ordered that the prosecutor's goal of rough statewide parity of salaries with the state salary averages should be met over two years.

However, although the judge believed that the prosecutor demonstrated that new equipment and additional personnel were desirable, he did not find that they were necessary in the sense of being "reasonably required." He rejected the request on three bases: failure to show need in light of public resistance to increased governmental expenditures, as reflected by the CAP laws; that the Hudson County Prosecutor's office had been able to meet the county's needs, and that the unification of the criminal justice system through communications equipment (e.g., PROMIS/GAVEL, word processing) is a state, not a county responsibility.

The prosecutor maintains that the trial judge erred in his determination of appellant's application for funds in excess of those appropriated by the Board of Freeholders in that he considered the request in light of the limited resources of the county government, as aggravated by the CAP law limits on increased expenditures, N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.2, and increased tax levies, N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.4. We agree that the judge should have limited his inquiry to whether the increased appropriations were reasonably necessary. Since the inability of the county to appropriate the extra money while staying within its CAP limitations was a major basis of the decision, we find the error was prejudicial.

The assignment judge has the power, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:158-7, to increase appropriations made for the prosecutor by the county board of freeholders:

All necessary expenses incurred by the prosecutor for each county in the detection, arrest, indictment and conviction of offenders against the laws shall, upon being certified to by the prosecutor and approved, under his hand, by a judge of the superior court or of the county court for such county, be paid by the board of chosen freeholders of such county. The amount or amounts to be expended shall not exceed the amount fixed by the board of chosen freeholders in its regular or emergency appropriation, unless such expenditure is specifically authorized by order of the assignment judge of the superior court for such county. [Emphasis supplied]

The leading case interpreting this section is In re Bigley Application, 55 N.J. 53, 259 A.2d 213 (1969). When the prosecutor of a county applies for funding in excess of appropriations, "the judicial officer is called upon to make his own original evaluation of the prosecutor's request." Id. at 57, 259 A.2d 213. The judge therefore does not act as a judicial, but as a legislative agent. Id. In exercising this delegated legislative function, the judge is not required to pass upon whether the actions of the board were reasonable or not, but rather is to decide how much money the prosecutor ought to have in order to function effectively. Id. at 57, 259 A.2d 213. The authority of the assignment judge as to excess appropriations is final and conclusive. Id. at 59, 259 A.2d 213.

The point of conflict in this case is the question of the impact of N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.2 and N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.4 upon the power to increase appropriations. The latter provides: "In the preparation of its budget, a county may not increase the county tax levy to be apportioned among its constituent municipalities in excess of 5% of the previous year's county tax levy." A 5% limit is also placed upon increases in final appropriations, N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.2. Any additional funds ordered by the assignment judge must be provided for without pushing the entire budget over the CAP limitation. The only exception to this limit which might possibly have applied, N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.4...