Virginia’s magistrate system was established in 1974 as part of a comprehensive statewide court reorganization, replacing the justice of the peace system. Magistrates are the first contact many individuals have with the State’s judicial system because magistrates conduct many duties for the court system. These duties include issuing arrest and search warrants, conducting bond hearings, and accepting payment and guilty pleas for specific misdemeanor offenses.

Magistrate services are available to residents and law enforcement officials in each city and county in the State, although every office is not staffed on a 24-hour-per-day, seven-day-per-week basis. In localities where offices are not staffed on a full-time basis, magistrates are available on an on-call or as-needed basis to provide required services. In calendar year 1995, magistrates issued almost 850,000 processes after receiving more than one million requests for various processes or services.

House Joint Resolutions 403 and 532, and Senate Joint Resolution 374 of the 1995 General Assembly directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to conduct an assessment of a number of different issues related to Virginia’s magistrate system. These issues include the efficacy of establishing full-time magistrate coverage statewide, the adequacy of the magistrate system’s compensation structure, and the feasibility of incorporating videoconferencing into the magistrate system on a statewide basis. Several factors cited in the study resolutions, including access to magistrate services and the retention of qualified magistrates, provided the impetus for the current study.

The current magistrate system is better structured and more uniform than the justice of the peace system which it replaced. Magistrate authority is limited to that provided by the Code of Virginia, and the court system has clear responsibility for magistrates. Moreover, magistrates are State employees whose compensation is not linked to any request for service in which they have decisionmaking authority.

While the magistrate system is clearly an improvement over the justice of the peace system and generally functions well, there are several issues which should be addressed to improve the current system. Significant findings of this report include:

• The establishment of an entirely full-time magistrate system appears neither necessary nor cost effective at this time. The workload in many offices does not warrant full-time status, and the cost to the State of staffing the system as currently structured on a full-time basis could require an additional $10 million annually.

• Additional funding should be provided to eliminate the current disparity in compensation between part-time and full-time magistrates as well as to provide a one-time adjustment for the entire magistrate compensation structure. These salary structure adjustments should help mitigate the recruitment and retention problems experienced in the magistrate system, especially for part-time magistrates.

• The magistrates’ scope of authority should not be broadened at this time to include an adjudicatory or arbitration role. A number of factors, both structural and non-structural, indicate that the magistrate system is not properly equipped at this time to assume these functions.

• The Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court (OES) needs to take a more active and participatory role in the development and application of magistrate videoconferencing to ensure that the State judicial system maximizes the potential benefits that might accrue through use of this technology, while mitigating potential problems or shortcomings.

• While the technical assistance provided by OES to the magistrate system is adequate and appropriate, OES should improve the consistency and structure of the monitoring and assistance system in place for the magistrate system.

Some Magistrate Offices Should Remain Part-time

The majority of the magistrate offices in the State are staffed to provide services on an on-call or as-needed basis. Despite concerns regarding the inappropriateness of providing services in this manner, the current hours worked and the number of transactions performed as reported by chief magistrates and magistrates in many localities do not warrant the establishment of full-time offices. In many offices, the total number of hours worked in calendar year 1995 totaled less than 1,000 hours. Moreover, the total workload in the magistrate system in calendar year 1995 was lower than in calendar year 1990.

In addition, staffing data indicates that OES has been responsive in increasing part-time magistrate positions to full-time status when warranted by workload, or at the request of chief magistrates. Furthermore, factors other than the part-time status of an office can have an impact on the extent to which services are available in a relatively timely manner.

The use of part-time offices where appropriate is a cost effective option for the State. For example, to staff each office with the number of magistrates necessary to provide seven-day-per-week, 24-hour-per-day coverage could increase the cost to the State of operating the magistrate system by almost $10 million per year. Thus, OES should continue with its current policy of maintaining part-time offices where the workload is not sufficient to warrant full-time status. In monitoring the workload of magistrates, OES should pay particular attention to the impact that recent changes to the juvenile justice laws may have on magistrate offices.

Magistrate Compensation Should Be Enhanced

One of the primary functions of any compensation and classification structure is to enable organizations to hire and retain qualified personnel. A compensation and classification structure that is not able to attract and retain personnel may lead to instability in service provision, excessive recruiting and training costs, and morale problems. This review indicates that both the hiring and retention of magistrates appears to be negatively impacted by the existing magistrate compensation structure.

Hiring and retaining personnel in part-time magistrate positions is difficult due in part to inadequate compensation relative to full-time magistrate positions. Turnover in part-time magistrate positions is significantly higher than that for full-time positions. Chart: Magistrate Turnover. Analysis conducted for this study determined that magistrates classified as part-time issue relatively the same number of processes per hour as full-time, class V magistrates. Yet, the compensation for part-time magistrates is not equal on a proportional basis to the compensation provided a class V magistrate. To eliminate this salary disparity, a salary adjustment at a cost to the State of about $700,000 is warranted for part-time magistrates.

In addition, the entire magistrate compensation structure requires a one time adjustment to make the magistrate compensation structure more uniform with that of pay grade 10 hearing officers in the executive branch. A one-time adjustment of about five percent would make the compensation structure of magistrates more comparable to the compensation structure of hearing officers. The cost to the State of this adjustment is estimated to be slightly more than $600,000.

Magistrate Authority Should Not Be Expanded at This Time

The mandate for this study directed JLARC to review the potential for expanding the duties of magistrates. Therefore, a potential adjudicatory and arbitration role for magistrates in areas currently within the purview of the general district courts was reviewed. A justification often given for expanding the scope of authority of magistrates is the number of additional duties that have been assigned to the magistrate system since its establishment in 1974. However,these additional duties have generally been consistent with magistrates’ initial scope of authority or have tended to be more administrative in nature.

It has been the policy of the State that the judiciary be staffed with judges who are full-time and licensed to practice law. Furthermore, a number of chief magistrates and judges reported that they do not support magistrate involvement in this area. There are also a number of structural impediments to magistrate involvement in these areas, including the lack of administrative support staff and inadequate physical facilities for judicial proceedings. Therefore, expansion of magistrate duties to include an adjudicatory and arbitration role does not appear appropriate at this time.

Magistrate Videoconferencing Holds Promise If Properly Managed

Videoconferencing is currently in use or is planned for use by magistrate offices in six judicial districts. The use of video technology for appearances before a magistrate has become the subject of substantial interest as rapid advances in technology have made this technology less expensive and easier to install and use. Moreover, the potential exists for accruing significant benefits from the use of this technology. However, a number of obstacles will need to be addressed before videoconferencing can be effectively deployed statewide.

Potential Benefits of Videoconferencing. JLARC staff identified a number of potential benefits that might be attributable to the use of videoconferencing. These benefits include improved access to magistrate services, potential reductions in the number of magistrates, and improved manageability of the magistrate system. Many of the chief magistrates across the State support videoconferencing because of the potential to achieve these benefits.

Potential Obstacles to Implementing Videoconferencing. At the same time, there are a number of obstacles that could hinder the uniform application of this technology. First, the potential cost of acquiring the necessary videoconferencing hardware statewide is estimated to be at least $2.5 million. There is currently no source of funding, either State or local, for such costs. In addition, there may be mixed acceptance of the technology, raising questions about the willingness of all judges and law enforcement officials to support and use videoconferencing systems.

Judicial System’s Role in Developing Videoconferencing Technology Should Be Enhanced. Despite the potential benefits to the magistrate system, law enforcement officials, citizens, and the State’s judicial system, there has been relatively little, if any, active participation by the State judicial system in planning and developing magistrate videoconferencing. As a result, this technology has been implemented on an almost ad-hoc, office-by-office basis. Application of this technology in this manner could inhibit any future statewide compatibility of the systems as well as any future interfaces with the State’s court system. To better ensure that the full potential of these systems is realized, OES should assume a more active role in the development and application of videoconferencing technology in the magistrate system. Specifically, OES should conduct formal evaluations of the magistrate videoconferencing systems currently in operation in Virginia, and develop a proposal for formal pilot projects involving this technology. The establishment of full-time regional offices in the judicial districts should also be linked to the use of magistrate videoconferencing.

Oversight and Monitoring Requires Enhancement OES technical assistance is designed to offer advice on methods for improving magistrate services as well as assisting chief magistrates in analyzing and solving management and procedural problems. Chief magistrates and magistrates are generally satisfied with the routine technical assistance provided by OES staff. However, OES needs to enhance its administration of monitoring visits and oversight of the magistrate system. Additional structural and reporting requirements should be developed and implemented in order to better promote consistency and effectiveness in the delivery of magistrate services.