In 1974, the Advisory Commission on Judicial Article Implementation requested a detailed study of the costs of the unified court system. The Resources Planning Corporation of Washington, D. C. conducted a financial study using data produced by a county court system fiscal study conducted earlier by Ernst and Ernst, a national accounting firm. The results of this study were incorporated into the final Report of the Commission. Subsequent fiscal studies were made by the Department of Court Management and reviewed by experts from American University.
The Implementation Commission Report projected total Fiscal Year (FY) 1977-1978 expenditures for the Unified Judicial System to by $20,722,277. The total projected revenues for the courts were projected to be $16,897,907. This number came from the projected revenues or less earmarked funds of $11,095,079, plus the $5,202,031 already in the General Fund for the courts. The net additional required state contribution to implement the unified judicial system was projected to be $13,897,907. These numbers were considered very conservative based on the fact that they were based on 1973 caseloads and it was projected that caseloads would increase 7% in civil cases and 16.4% in criminal cases from 1973 to 1977. Therefore, the fiscal foundation of the unified court system was based on the assumption that it would save money, and possibly, produce more than was needed.
In late 1975, Heflin informed Senator Torbert that he may not run for reelection. At the same time, Torbert was considering running for Lt. Governor. Heflin later called Torbert and told him that he was not going to run for reelection, and if Toirbert wanted to run, he needed to make a decision. Torbert spent 2 days in his office in Montgomery thinking about what he wanted to do and decided to run. Looking back he said that if he had had more time to think about it and knew all of the problems, he may not have run. However, he did run. He had 1 opponent in the Democratic primary and 1 in the General Election. Throughout 1976 he ran for office and was elected to succeed Heflin. Therefore, after having played a major role in getting the Implementation Act adopted in the Legislature, Torbert became directly responsible, as Chief Justice, for the implementation of the Judicial Article.
Not long after assuming office in 1977, Torbert realized he had not idea of all the things that needed to be done. One of these things was the budget crisis. In 1976, the Legislature adopted a General Appropriation Act for 1976-1977. Included was an appropriation of $9,875,000 for the operation of the unified court system. This appropriation, along with the projected $11,095,079 court revenues, meant that the system would have a total budget of $20,970,079, which was a little more than the Report of the Implementation Commission had projected for expenditures in 1976-1977. As a result of some general concern about the costs of the new system, confidence or lack there of in the revenue projections, and lingering opposition to the unified court system and its operation, including the retirement and salary systems, the Legislature included a restrictive provision in the 1976-1977 appropriations bill. This provision meant that the court system was limited to allocation of appropriated funds based on actual revenues generated by the courts.
In early 1977, Chief Justice Torbert became aware that revenues were not coming in at the projected rate. Simultaneously, he was in the process of preparing the budget for 1977-1978. He was assured that the revenues would be coming in. That did not happen. On May 20, 1977, Torbert wrote a letter to the court system personnel stating that the production of court revenues has lagged substantially and the State Budget Officer would not allot funds until revenues equaled expenditures. The letter also said that the problem had to be resolved and if it was not resolved then the trial courts would not open for trying any type of court case, civil or criminal. For the new judicial system to survive, the Chief Justice had to find some kind of relief. The problems were looking even worse for the upcoming 1977-1978 budget. In a memorandum to the Chief Justice from the Department of Court Management dated May 26, 1977, he was informed that a survey of county-by-county court costs using mostly 1973-1974 data showed costs of $15,361,669.75, exclusive of state level court costs. Given that this figure was based on 1973-1974 data, this number was substantially lower than the expenditures projected for 1977-1978 when the Unified Court System was to be fully implemented. The combination of overstated revenue projections and understated expenditure projections, coupled with the legislative provision that expenditures could not exceed revenues, created a true crisis for the new judicial system and for the new Chief Justice.
Two positions were available to Chief Justice Torbert and the judicial system. The first positions was to contest the legislative appropriations provision and the entire funding issue on constitutional and legal grounds. Meaning that neither the Implementation Act nor the Judicial Article included limitation of expenditures to revenues produced. According to the Alabama Constitution of 1901, the entire unified judicial system was to be provided with adequate and reasonable financing. The constitution also required that the Legislature is to be the one making the adequate and reasonable finances available to the entire unified judicial system. The judicial system had to operate because another requirement of the constitution provided for speedy trials and due process. If the judicial system were to stop operating this would not happen. Finally, the argument could be made that to base funding of the judicial system on a standard of self-support was "Cash Register Justice" and a violation of U.S. Supreme Court rulings which held that judges cannot have a pecuniary interest in the fines imposed in the system.
The second position available to Chief Justice Torbert was to go the political route. This meant going to the Governor and the Legislature, admitting that mistakes were made, and that the projections were inaccurate. This position was a difficult one for several reasons, such as the raising of the self-supporting issue with the Legislature, especially with the legislators who opposed the Article on financial grounds. Additionally, this raised questions of Heflin's and Torbert's roles in getting the Implementation Act passed, partially on the issue of self-financing. This could also raise raise issues between the creator, Heflin, and the implementor, Torbert, of the unified judicial system.
Chief Justice Torbert decided to attempt to address the budget crisis as a co-equal branch of government, asking both the Governor and the Legislature to help resolve the crisis. Torbert believed the Governor had the responsibility to recommend a sufficient budget for the judicial branch and the responsibility of the Legislature to adopt the budget. Meanwhile, the nation took an interest in the budget crisis making it a major media topic. On May 30, 1977 Torbert ordered that court personnel prepare to reduce services and close office. Therefore, they were ready for some kind of resolution to the budget crisis.
Torbert met with Governor George Wallace to advise him of the crisis situation and ask for his support in finding a solution. Torbert knew that Governor Wallace never supported or opposed the unified judicial system. Torbert met with the Governor about the same time the national media picked up the story about the courts having to close in Alabama. Torbert had to make a strategy to get a legislative remedy to the crisis. Part of this strategy included getting the Governor's support. Torbert knew that Governor Wallace, who was strong on law and order and also an attorney and former judge, had to realize that if the courts closed and the criminals did not have access to a speedy trial, then the ones that were guilty and would have been convicted, would be walking the streets. As soon as that possibility became a part of the public and media discussion, the focus turned to Governor Wallace to do something about the issue. Due to this, Torbert thought that Governor Wallace would do something soon. Torbert was correct. At the end of the year, the Governor allocated more than $400,000 of his discretionary revenue sharing funds to the judiciary.
A ruling from the Attorney General's office that removed the appropriation's restriction limiting state court expenditures to revenue produced resolved the immediate budget crisis. The 1977 First Special Session of the Legislature removed the limitation provision from the 1976-1977 Appropriations Act and subsequently the provision from the 1977-1978 Appropriations Act. These actions resolved the immediate budget crisis by allowing the courts to expend existing appropriations. But, they did not address the substantial shortfall in projected revenues and the underestimated expenditures. These were later addressed through supplemental appropriations, the special allocation by Governor Wallace from revenue sharing funds, and in the regular legislative budgeting process.
In the Summer 1977, Torbert employed the national accounting firm of Arthur Young and Company to figure out the reasons for the inaccurate projections in revenues and expenditures. On August 19, 1977 the Company issued a report concluding that the original revenue projections were incorrect for the following reasons: 1.) the case load data were insufficient to make projections; 2.) the methods used to project growth trend data failed to distinguish between criminal and civil cases, thus over estimated growth; and 3.) incorrect calculations of fines and forfeitures were made because the fine factor used did not apply to the new fee schedule. The report did conclude that the fee schedule projections were accurate and did not impact the accuracy of the projections.
Based on this report, Torbert directed the Department of Court Management to restructure its financial reporting system in line with recommendations of the Arthur Young report and establish cost monitoring methods and budget controls. Both the Permanent Study Commission and the Department of Court Management were restructured. The Department of Court Management and the Alabama Office of Courts were consolidated into the Alabama Office of Courts. Allen L. Tapley was appointed Administrative Director of Courts. The immediate budget crisis was resolved through, at least in part, the political processes.