Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee

Connecticut Sheriffs System
Chapter V

Chapter Five
Options

The primary responsibilities of sheriffs in Connecticut are transporting prisoners, providing security at courthouses, and serving legal papers.  The sheriffs system is organized geographically according to the lines of the state's eight counties.

The answer to the question of which structure is the best one for delivering the services currently provided by sheriffs encompasses a variety of factors.  Depending on the importance one attributes to specific elements, different alternatives will seem more appropriate.

This chapter describes approaches that could be used in the future to carry out the functions of the sheriffs.  Included as an option is continuation of the current system with modifications.  The goal of all of the proposals is greater professionalism and clearer organizational control.  In the end, the options represent philosophical differences, not right or wrong choices.

Recent proposals

Several different plans for restructuring the sheriffs system were proposed by the governor and by legislators during 1999.  The plans varied in scope and content, but each called for amending the state constitution to eliminate the office of high sheriff.[1]

Under two of the plans, courthouse security and service of process would be placed under the Judicial Branch.  Prisoner transportation would become the responsibility of the Department of Correction.

Another proposal would transfer existing special deputy sheriffs to the Judicial Department and make them state employees.  The chief court administrator would fill vacancies as they occurred.  New hires would be subject to criminal background checks, and no convicted felon could be hired.

  Existing deputy sheriffs would be sworn in as "Judicial Enforcement Officers."  They would function as private contractors with exclusive authority to provide fee-for-service legal execution and service of process.  They would be subject to background checks, could not have been convicted of a felony, and would have to re-register every two years.

Under this plan, during the transition until the constitution was changed, two of the current high sheriffs -- one from each party -- would be designated nonpartisan, unclassified assistants to the chief court administrator.  They would be responsible for general management of all of the functions being transferred to the Judicial Department.

Scenarios

The functions performed by sheriffs in Connecticut can be grouped into five categories -- general security of court buildings, custody of prisoners in courthouse lock-ups (cell blocks), transportation of prisoners to and from courthouses, service of process, and a mix of tasks that primarily involve assisting others with their responsibilities.  In examining options for these services in the future, it is useful to consider the alternatives from several levels.

The first question is whether one entity should continue to provide all of the services, or whether it would be better to split up the functions among different agencies?  If the latter, which functions need to stay together?  Additionally, which agencies would best be able to carry out the required functions?

As shown in Figure V-1, the current sheriffs system involves functions performed by special deputy sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, and sheriffs in general.  Special deputies perform three of the functions -- court security, court lock-ups, and prisoner transportation.  The elected, high sheriffs and deputy sheriffs perform service of process; both generally also are authorized to perform the various assistance tasks.

The court security function relates to court facilities.  It includes the operation of metal detectors and the maintenance of safety within courtrooms and parking areas. The first consideration is whether responsibility for it should be removed from the statutory control of the sheriffs.  If so, then where?  The most realistic agencies would be the Judicial Department, the Department of Correction, or the Department of Public Safety.

Assignment of the function to a single authority, rather than being overseen by eight different administrators, would permit a more even distribution of work and establishment of consistent operational policies statewide.  The program review committee recommends the Judicial Department be designated the entity responsible for the general courthouse security function.

The Judicial Department already oversees all other aspects of courthouse operations, including, most importantly, setting the level of activity within each facility.  Giving the department responsibility for court security will mean it has both the goal and the authority to ensure the safety of those working at and visiting the courts. This choice would also alleviate current conflicts with departmental efforts to ensure all who have contact with the courts are provided with a customer-oriented place to transact business

The next question concerns whether the lock-up function (i.e., oversight of the cell block area and the prisoners held there) should be grouped with the general court security function or prisoner transportation.  The decision is probably best answered by looking at the current system.  Special deputies who work as transit staff are most likely to work in the cell block area when they are not on the road.  These workers are familiar with the prisoners they bring to the courthouse, and there is a custodial role in both functions.  The program review committee recommends the cell-block function be grouped with the prisoner transportation function, regardless of the agency selected to perform prisoner transportation.

The next question is whether to keep all of the court-related functions currently performed by sheriffs together or whether to assign prisoner transportation elsewhere.  Based on the earlier recommendation, keeping the functions together would mean placing prisoner transportation within the Judicial Department. The primary rationale for maintaining all operations in one agency is to facilitate establishment of uniform qualifications and operating procedures.  It also would provide flexibility for moving personnel across functional areas and physical locations when workloads fluctuate among courthouses.

The principal advantage of separating the security and transportation functions is to optimize the use of personnel with specialized training and skills within the functions they are most familiar with.  If the Department of Correction were selected to handle transportation, the potential also exists for cost savings from a more efficient deployment of personnel as they merge this added duty to their existing transportation function.  In addition, conditions for prisoners could be improved.  (Currently, some prisoners must rise as early as 3:00 a.m. in order to reach court for a mid-morning appearance, and they may not return to their over-night destination until late evening, only to repeat the schedule the next day if an additional court appearance is required.)

There are good arguments for both consolidation and for separation.  In the end, the selection of one agency over another is a philosophical decision, guided by the weight each person gives to the elements for and against the options.  The program review committee recommends the Department of Correction take over responsibility for the transportation of prisoners to court (and their custody within the court lock-ups).

The next area to examine is service of process.  Key considerations are whether to subdivide categories of the work and who should be authorized to perform it.  The latter could be deputy sheriffs, employees of the state, individuals who are appointed by or register with a state agency, or a combination of these categories. Important factors to consider are the professionalism of the servers, the convenience afforded users, and the costs of each option.

The nature of the activities involved in process serving -- locating people and places within set times -- require flexibility.  If employees of the state were used to serve process, the state would receive the fees collected by them and would save approximately $1 million a year state agencies spend for service of process work.  However, the administering agency would have to ensure these employees have access to timely clerical services and automobiles as well as a flexible work schedule that includes evening and weekend hours.

If deputy sheriffs or registered individuals handle service of process, at most the state would need only a small regulatory unit to assess qualifications, verify compliance with training requirements, and maintain a roster of authorized process servers.  The marketplace will economically reward those who perform well and avoid those who perform poorly.

The program review committee recommends Connecticut offer a registration option that, at a minimum, would allow qualified individuals to serve original summonses and complaints as well as post-judgment documents on a statewide basis.  These tasks are handled by a number of different parties nationally and in some instances even within Connecticut. Technological advances in electronic communications in the 21st century will increase the demand for flexibility, and competitive service will become increasingly important.

The program review committee recommends state oversight of process servers be given to the Judicial Department.  It is anticipated a system would be established within the department to authorize individuals who meet specific criteria to serve process statewide.  Giving this responsibility to the Judicial Department complements their other duties with respect to the creation and disposition of the legal work service of process relates to.  It also is in line with the role county courts in many other states play, where judges appoint individuals to serve process.

In terms of the "other" enforcement and assistance sheriffs are statutorily authorized to provide, some duties could remain the responsibility of the high sheriffs as long as they are constitutional officers.  However, in most cases, the functions are rarely if ever performed by sheriffs.  Indeed, many of the statutes allow other methods of carrying out the function or the other party involved in the activity could be given sole responsibility for the task (e.g., distributing notices from the secretary of the state to legislators regarding a special session, removing cancelled registration plates from motor vehicles in parking areas, or assisting animal and agriculture authorities with eradication of bovine tuberculosis).  The program review committee recommends statutes authorizing sheriffs to assist other parties with specific duties be revised to eliminate the references to sheriffs.

Comparison of Alternatives

Tables V-1A through V-1D summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the most feasible approaches for obtaining the services currently provided by sheriffs.  Also included for each alternative is the estimated cost.  In some cases, other considerations that might affect implementation of the option are also described.

Appendix E contains the detailed calculations used to determine the full-time equivalent staffing and cost estimates.  All of  the tables are based on the following assumptions:

·       there are 52 court locations and 253 courtrooms to secure;

·       there are 248 court days per year;

·       the number of personnel needed for general court security will be the same regardless of the agency responsible for the function, but due to current differences in the benefits packages related to paid time off, the FTE for the sheriffs is lower;

·       the number of FTE personnel needed for prisoner transportation will vary depending on the agency responsible for the function; and

·       24-hour lock-up facilities are operated in Hartford and New Haven. 

The administrative staff required for each function will be affected by whether the function is to be operated separately from the other functions.  Although some efficiencies in accounting and payroll staff may be feasible, new positions may be needed to coordinate activities transferred to a new agency.  Savings from existing General Fund positions are likely to be small as the personnel currently in the jobs may obtain positions with other state agencies, or if laid off, would be eligible for unemployment.

An important factor to consider in making changes to the sheriffs system is the collective bargaining contract due to be negotiated with the special deputy sheriffs in 2000.  Regardless of who operates the system, the salary and benefits package for special deputies are likely to increase.  However, depending on the effective date and the nature of the changes to the system, the party responsible for negotiations might have to be changed or the timing of modifications to the system might have to be delayed.

For example, if special deputies were transferred to the Judicial Branch before the contract is settled, responsibility for negotiations would also transfer because the Office of Labor Relations only handles that function for the executive branch.  If the time frame for changes occurs after an agreement is reached through negotiations or arbitration, then provisions of the contract might restrict some actions of the agency receiving the workers.  The program review committee recommends if changes are to be made in the administration of the courthouse security and prisoner transportation functions, the changes should become effective as early in fiscal year 2001 as possible. 

Modifications to Sheriffs System

Currently, a large number of entities are involved in the operation of the sheriffs system.  As shown in Figure V-2, an advisory board, constitutional officials, and informal organizations all have roles in the system.  Multiple entities exert authority over several of the participants in the process, in particular the staff in the Office of the County Sheriffs and the appointed sheriffs (i.e., special deputy sheriffs and deputy sheriffs).  This type of structure produces unclear lines of authority and can result in conflicting or nonexistent policies.

Source: LPR&IC

As shown in Table V-2, under the current system, responsibility for specific tasks is often shared.  In practice, the informal Council of the High Sheriffs makes more decisions than the statutorily created Sheriffs' Advisory Board, even in areas that would seem to be within the jurisdiction of the board.  For example, the council is discussing whether a change should be made in the policy regarding the appointment of individuals with felony convictions.  No discussions have been held with the board nor are any planned.  Similarly, discussions about changing the recruitment process for special deputy sheriffs have only occurred at council meetings.  Yet, the board is the entity statutorily responsible for establishing qualifications for courthouse security personnel.

Although the council is composed of the eight elected high sheriffs, its role in the system is troubling.  It has no statutorily designated authority as a group, nor do the individual high sheriffs have the power singularly or collectively to impose policies on one another.  In addition, none of the other entities concerned with the operation of the state's court system have representation on or input into the work of the council.  Furthermore, its work adds considerably to the workload of the staff in the Office of the County Sheriffs.

 If the sheriffs continue to perform the duties they are currently responsible for, the  program review committee believes it is essential changes be made in the current organizational structure.  Specifically, the program review committee recommends:

·       the role of the Sheriffs' Advisory Board should be revised to reflect its name (i.e., provide advice), or it should be eliminated;

·       authority over all aspects of the special deputy sheriffs and the Office of the County Sheriffs should be given to a statutorily established executive branch entity called the Sheriffs Department;

·       the newly created Sheriffs Department should have a permanent central administrative staff and a specific number of special deputy sheriffs per region; and

·       the Sheriffs Department should be run by a statutory Council of Sheriffs, composed of the eight high sheriffs, and actions of the council would require an affirmative vote by a majority of the total membership, not just those present.  (Designees would not be authorized to vote.)

Qualifications

Regarding the selection of individuals for appointment as deputy or special deputy sheriffs, as discussed in Chapter Three, changes have been made to the system in the past few years.  Qualifications and physical fitness standards for special deputies are now consistent statewide.  However, the requirements are general in nature, and the training for new appointees is less rigorous than that given for other related state jobs.  As shown in Table V-3, the amount of classroom training is far below that of law enforcement officers, and it is one-third less than that received by correctional officers. 

Requirements for deputy sheriffs continue to vary, depending on the particular high sheriff making the appointment.  Although all recent appointees attended a two-week centralized training program, on-the-job training differs considerably.  Most new appointees are assigned to ride with another experienced deputy sheriff; however, the length of this requirement ranges from one week to 30 days or more.  Similarly, subsequent work under the supervision of another deputy can last from eight days to six months.

Whether the sheriffs or another agency is responsible for these workers, the program review committee believes more detailed qualifications and training should be required of those performing courthouse security and prisoner transportation functions.

The program review committee recommends minimum standards for court security and prisoner transportation workers should be:

·       21 years of age;

·       U.S. citizen or lawful resident of the country;

·       high school graduate (or its equivalent);

·       possess and retain a Connecticut motor vehicle operator’s license;

·       have no felony convictions; and

·       be a resident of the state by the time training is completed.

Applicants who achieve a score of at least 70 on a written exam that parallels the scope of the test given by DAS for correctional officers will be placed on a ranked list.  New hires must be selected from the list based on the rankings from the exam.  Prior to being admitted for training, those on the list must pass a medical exam that includes a drug screening and a physical fitness test.  They also must undergo a thorough background check, including a criminal history and fingerprint check, an employment history, and a character reference check.

The training program for courthouse security and prisoner transport workers shall include at least 200 hours of classroom work and 120 hours of on-the job training.  Individuals chosen to attend training will be given a conditional appointment, dependent upon successful completion of both components of training.

The cost of the increased training requirement will vary depending on the entity providing the training.  For example, if the sheriffs are still operating the system, the training cost is estimated to increase about $1,400 per new employee.[2]

Regardless of the entity overseeing the service of process function, the program review committee believes the standards for process servers also should be uniform statewide.  The program review committee recommends the minimum criteria for those who serve process shall be:

·       21 years of age;

·       U.S. citizen or lawful resident of the country;

·       high school graduate (or its equivalent);

·       possess and retain a Connecticut motor vehicle operator’s license;

·       have no felony convictions; and

·       resident of Connecticut.

In addition, the person must post a $10,000 bond and maintain $300,000 in liability insurance.

Return to Year 1999 Studies

Return to Table of Contents