They are expending a budget as we speak. Public money is being spent. It is not in any way a bad idea to ask how the Regional Counsel offices, run by governor-appointed public officials, are doing. But there haven't been any news stories that I've found, save one.
First, lets revisit the email sent by the 5th Regional Counsel to employees after the ruling in the FACDL quo warranto action (it was first posted here):
No matter waht you hear, a stay has been issued. In the 5th, 7th & 18th Circuits I have already spoken to the Chief Judges and we are proceeding as is and as planned. I am sure the same applies in the 9th until further notice. The enclosed email is from the State advising me to continue. Until there is another order we are proceeding as planned everywhere, sorry for the confusion but personally I can tell you that I think this will be resolved by the legislature if not by the Courts. While obviously I cannot gaurantee anything I believe we will be here for the long haul.
So what are we to make of this lone news story about what is happening?:
DAYTONA BEACH -- A new state-run office created to save public money while providing attorneys for poor people charged with crimes was supposed to be up and running already, but a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality and resistance by local governments to help pay has brought delays.
Jeffrey Deen, the Orlando-area lawyer who was appointed by Gov. Charlie Crist in August as criminal conflict and civil regional counsel for the local court district, said the process has been stalled by conflict but is working locally.
My only point is that this is all confusing, and frustrating. We need to start with answering the question, has the lawsuit delayed the start date for the RCs to perform their responsibilities, or hasn't it? The courts need to know how to approach this in the near term.
Incidentally, and as usual, the story linked above does not mention dependency cases at all, only the criminal side.
1 comment:
It is funny that you ran this commentary today, we were just discussing the "alleged stay" at lunch. I, agree, it is all pretty confusing. I have heard the stay was automatic, I heard someone called the Supreme Court and was told no motion for a stay was made, and apparently, a stay would have to requested in the lower court. Some judges are appointing regional counsels, who are not in court, and some judges are appointing by the wheel. So it seems that confusion reigns supeme on the issue and no one is providing any answers. Guess we will just have to wait and see.
Post a Comment