Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office

Russell D. Hauge
Prosecuting Attorney

Carol I. Maves
Office Administrator
Memorandum
Christian C. Casad TO: Commissioner Steve Bauer, Chair, Kitsap County Board of County Commissioners
Case Management Commissioner Jan Angel, Kitsap County Board of County Commissioners
Division Chief
Commissioner Josh Brown, Kitsap County Board of County Commissioners
Claire A. Bradley Nancy Buonanno-Grennan, Kitsap County Administrator
Felony
Division Chief FROM: Russell D. Hauge, Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney
REPLY TO: Adult Criminal & Administrative Divisions
Jeffrey J. Jahns
District/Municipal CC: Shawn Gabriel, Director of Administrative Services
Division Chief Charisse Dahlke, Interim Budget Manager
Stephanie Pinard, Budget Analyst
Timothy A. Drury DATE: November 17, 2008
Juvenile
Division Chief RE: Supplemental Budget Presentation, Fiscal Year 2009
2.2% “Cut” From Prosecutor’s Office General Fund Appropriation
Jacquelyn M.
Aufderheide This Office has submitted its 2009 Budget Proposal in conformance with Kitsap County’s
Civil/Child Support
Division Chief Budget Manual and the annual budget call letter. County Administrative Services (AS)
www.kitsapgov.com/pros issued a supplement to the budget call requesting that all General Fund (GF) departments
submit “scenarios” describing the consequences of a 2.2% reduction in the amount originally
requested.1 In presentations to the Citizens Budget Committee and to the Board of
Commissioners, we described the consequences of such a cut. In our final budget hearing on
Nov. 3, 2008, the Board of Commissioners requested that we resubmit our budget documents
in what AS refers to as a “Program Format.” The Board also asked that we specify and
describe the consequences of a 2.2% reduction in our requested appropriation. My staff has
prepared the documents necessary to restate our budget in program format. This supplement
2
outlines the scenario we face if cut.

1
A copy of the AS letter is attached for reference.
2
Under NO circumstances would we in any way diminish the prosecution services we provide the
cities of Bremerton, Poulsbo, Port Orchard, and Bainbridge Island. The cities pay for those services.
They represent revenue from outside the General Fund.
Adult Criminal & Administrative Divisions • 614 Division Street, MS-35 • Port Orchard, Washington 98366-4681 • (360) 337-7174 • FAX (360) 337-4949
Juvenile Criminal Division • 614 Division Street, MS-35 • Port Orchard, Washington 98366-4681 • (360) 337-5500 • FAX (360) 337-5509
Special Assault Unit • 614 Division Street, MS-35 • Port Orchard, Washington 98366-4681 • (360) 337-7148 • FAX (360) 337-7229

Bainbridge Island Municipal Court Division • 614 Division Street, MS-35 • Port Orchard, Washington 98366 • (360) 337-7174 • FAX (360) 337-4949
Bremerton Municipal Court Division • 614 Division Street, MS-35 • Port Orchard, Washington 98366 • (360) 473-2334 • FAX (360) 473-2303
Port Orchard Municipal Court Division • 614 Division Street, MS-35 • Port Orchard, Washington 98366-4681 • (360) 337-7174 • FAX (360) 337-4949
Poulsbo Municipal Court Division • 614 Division Street, MS-35 • Port Orchard, Washington 98366-4681 • (360) 337-7174 • FAX (360) 337-4949

Civil Division • 614 Division Street, MS-35A • Port Orchard, Washington 98366-4681 • (360) 337-4992 • FAX (360) 337-7083
Child Support Division • 614 Division Street, MS-35 • Port Orchard, Washington 98366-4681 • (360) 337-7020 • FAX (360) 337-5733
Prosecutor 2009 Supplemental Budget Presentation
November 18, 2008
Page 2
________________________________

2.2% of our proposed general fund budget is approximately $165,000. This sum represents at
least one full time Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) and one Legal Assistant (LA).3 If
forced to adopt this scenario, we will cut those positions from our Civil Division, General
Fund Cost Center 9086. In our presentations to the Citizens’ Budget Committee and the
Board of Commissioners, we represented that if layoffs were necessary, we would make them
in our Criminal Divisions. However, in light of information recently developed by AS
regarding revenue available from outside the General Fund, I cannot in good conscience, as
the elected Prosecutor for Kitsap County, take that course. I have determined that to choose
to maintain our level of service to civil clients while impairing our ability to respond to
criminal behavior would be a breach of my duty. This document explains that conclusion.

Since 1995 we have published a list of the categories of crime in rank order of priority.4 We
drafted and published the list to give notice to the public of where we would invest our
always scarce resources. There will never be enough in a public budget to pursue all
offenders for every offense. It’s a triage tool, developed for the situation now facing the
county.

This list was first developed with the assistance of a group of citizens I chose as
representative Kitsap County. It was reviewed and refreshed in 2003 with the help of another
citizens’ group, this one assembled by Leadership Kitsap. The first category on the list—
“Violent crime against children, including sexual assaults and domestic violence (DV)”—
receives our closest attention and will as long as we are able to do our jobs. At the bottom of
the list at number 14 is “Prosecution of traffic infractions.”

3
Personnel are all we have left to “cut.” We provide professional services—our people are our
product. We might be able to find something to cut in our budget for supplies and equipment.
However, we trimmed what fat we might have had there long ago. If we are to cut, layoffs are the only
way to get to the mark set by the Board of Commissioners.
4
The priorities are published in the Prosecutor’s Office Mission Statement and Standards and
Guidelines. This publication is available on the County’s website in the Prosecuting Attorney’s
section.
Prosecutor 2009 Supplemental Budget Presentation
November 18, 2008
Page 3
________________________________

We are now effectively addressing the first ten items on the list. Tenth is “[Prosecution of]
Major traffic offenses not a function of drug or alcohol abuse.” We are not doing everything
we could with Category Ten offenses, but our approach works. The vast majority of the
crimes in category ten are the different varieties of driving with a suspended license (DWLS).
We have never been allocated the resources to prosecute all DWLS allegations. Absent
aggravating circumstances, we handle these crimes with bail forfeitures, diversion
agreements or some other alternative. We devote very few attorney hours to categories 11
through 14.

Our current budget submission—the submission without a 2.2% cut—asks for no increases in
personnel and preserves the status quo. As explained to the Citizens’ Budget Committee and
the Board of Commissioners, a cut of 2.2% would impair our ability to prosecute the next
level of crimes: “Economic crime (Priority proportional to adverse economic impact: the
greater the impact—whether on an individual, individuals or business interest, the greater our
devotion of resources to seeking sanctions).” This category covers all kinds of theft other
than robbery or burglary. Included are major shoplifting rings, embezzlement, and identity
theft. With one less legal assistant to manage the records and files and one less attorney to
charge and prosecute the cases, we would not be able maintain our standards of practice in
this category.

We have already had to make some money-based compromises in the property crime
category. We refer simple bad-check cases to a diversion service that focuses on restitution.
First-time, minor felony property offenders also get a shot a making things right through
diversion contracts. In both kinds of cases, our alternatives allow us to exercise significant
control over the offender and the outcome. However, in both cases we forego formal
prosecution because our resources are short. Serious property offenders, like identity thieves,
now get our full attention. But full attention requires a full complement of lawyers and
Prosecutor 2009 Supplemental Budget Presentation
November 18, 2008
Page 4
________________________________
support staff.5 Someone has to build and keep track of the criminal files. Someone has to
read the reports and determine whether and what to charge. All members of this office work
very hard. They cannot do any more with any less.

Simply slowing the pace of prosecution solves nothing. Washington’s Court Rules require
that we either charge or release an in-custody offender within 72 hours. Once charged, we
have 60 to 90 days to bring the case to trial. Imagine that the detectives in the Sheriff’s
Office devote the time and energy to break up an identity theft operation. They arrest the
suspects and take them to jail. Often these criminals have long records and few, if any, ties to
our community. If released, we are likely to never see them again. Now imagine our office
short of resources and simply unable to review the reports in time to make a charging
decision. Three days after the arrest, the Judge asks if we are ready. We have to say no, and
the defendant walks away. Or perhaps we have found the resources to charge, and the
defendant stays in jail; or against all odds the defendant can be found when we get our act
together. On the 60th day after charging (the 90th day if the defendant is not in custody), the
Judge will ask us the next critical question: are we ready for trial? If we are not ready to
go—we have not arranged for the witnesses, the production of evidence, or there is some
other shortfall—the case will in all likelihood be dismissed with prejudice. This means the
defendant walks, and we cannot file another charge. The case is over. Our Supreme Court is
very clear: Lack of resources does not justify delay in criminal proceedings.

We were prepared to undertake that course if necessary. The alternative to laying off
6
Criminal Division staff is to lay off Civil Division staff. Cutting the budget of our Civil
Division, Cost Center 9086, would reduce the impact of the Prosecutor’s Office on the

5
We have been short a lawyer for approximately three months as a result of the hiring freeze. We
have been able to maintain our standard of performance because we plan for a single absence at any
one time. Within the last week, another attorney has left for extended maternity leave. When she
returns in 8-12 weeks, another attorney in the Criminal Divisions will leave for the birth of her child.
If our vacant position remains unfilled, we will actually be short two lawyers well into the spring or
summer of 2009. And by then I’m sure we will have another absence to deal with.
Prosecutor 2009 Supplemental Budget Presentation
November 18, 2008
Page 5
________________________________
General Fund. But at the time of our budget presentations we assumed that a lay-off in the
Civil Division would actually increase the size of the potential General Fund deficit. We are
obligated to provide services to the County’s departments, and those services are necessary.
If we fail to provide legal counsel and representation, the County department will have to buy
legal services on the open market at a price far beyond cost of our Civil Division lawyers and
staff. We could slow the pace of our services by extending deadlines or putting off meetings.
But time is money. A legal problem not addressed can quickly turn into dollars owed. And
we presumed those dollars would come from the General Fund.

However, until the day of our budget hearing, we misunderstood the economics of our budget
situation. We found out that morning that we actually generate over $900,000.00 of potential
revenue for the General Fund—far more than necessary to cover the required 2.2% cut. This
sum represents the value of the civil legal services we provide to agencies that get their
operating money from sources other the County General Fund. There is a fair and simple
way to charge and collect what should be the fees for our services. To date, the Board of
Commissioners has chosen not to pursue it.

The County’s General Fund is supported almost entirely by sales tax and property tax. That
is why our financial situation is so precarious. Property taxes are capped at a level less than
necessary to keep up with inflation, and sales taxes fluctuate with the health of the economy.
The services most visible and important to the public—public safety, land use, and
management of local government finance—rely almost solely on the General Fund. Any
revenue from a source other than County’s portion of sales and property taxes supports the
delivery of those most visible and important services.

Our Civil Division, the lawyers and staff who handle all the legal issues generated by the
operation of government, can add almost a million dollars to the General Fund. A system

6
Our Child Support Unit is funded entirely by the State of Washington. A cut there would not impact
the County General Fund.
Prosecutor 2009 Supplemental Budget Presentation
November 18, 2008
Page 6
________________________________
developed by County Administrative Services, currently used to fund other County
departments, would generate the revenue. Using actual demand as the measure, the model
apportions the cost of Civil Division, now wholly supported by the General Fund, to the users
of the service. Some of our clients rely on the General Fund just like us. However, many are
many Non-General Fund Departments, primarily supported by revenue from other sources.
We would ask the Non-General Fund Departments to pay for their fair share of the Civil
Division. They would use their revenue to reimburse the General Fund for services rendered.

It is a system very similar to our contracts with Bremerton, Bainbridge Island, Poulsbo, and
Port Orchard. The cities have their own revenue streams. We charge and prosecute crimes in
their municipal courts. The cities write checks to the County covering the costs of those
services. Those checks are deposited in the County General Fund, and the money is available
for the use of all County departments. Moreover, the County now uses the same system to
fund its Information Services department—the provider of our computers and networking.
Information Services (IS) supports its budget through what are referred to as interfund
transfers. Each of the departments using IS, whether supported by the General Fund or some
other source, has a line item in its budget representing the cost of its services. The line item
is a charge against the budget of the user department and represents revenue for IS.

In our system, there would be no charge to General Fund departments. The cost of the
services we provide to them would remain a line item in our budget. An interfund transfer
from one General Fund department to another is a wash. It is no more than transferring
money from one pocket to another. And we are not talking about an accounting trick. The
object is to grow the General Fund, not change the budget work sheets.

We are worth the charges that would be levied. As has been discussed, we do necessary
work. Timely, solid legal advice facilitates delivery of services and saves money. And we
would pass on only the cost of the services. If the Non-General Fund Departments had to
purchase services on the open market, the cost would be far greater. According to the budget
Prosecutor 2009 Supplemental Budget Presentation
November 18, 2008
Page 7
________________________________
spreadsheets shared with me, the charge would not greatly impact the efficiency of any
department. If it’s too much, we can do without the entire amount. All we need is
permission to pass on just less than 20% of the cost of our work—the revenue needed to
offset the 2.2% cut to our operations. Anything more than our 2.2% would in any event go
into the General Fund for the use of all County departments. We are not asking for a budget
increase. The money could be spent on things like Sheriff’s Deputies and Juvenile Probation
Officers.

To collect this revenue, what’s needed is a straightforward resolution by the Board of

Commissioners. However, my understanding is that the Board has thus far decided to not
pursue this funding source. Rather than allow us to generate almost a million dollars for the
General Fund, the Prosecutor’s Office is asked to cut.

The current situation is this: The County’s General Fund, precarious and necessary for
essential services, is subsidizing operations funded from other sources. If there is a need for
that subsidy, it does not justify erosion of our ability to respond to crimes. We can’t slow
down our criminal practice; we can cut back on civil services—and should if we’re not being
paid. We can take longer to respond to work requests, and phone calls can go unanswered for
longer periods. Moreover, civil legal services are available from other sources. Criminal
prosecution is the sole province of the county’s elected prosecutor. If the County chooses to
forego revenue that’s readily available, I choose to maintain our ability to do what only we
can do: hold criminal offenders accountable to the people of Washington and Kitsap County.