CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- As news spread this week that the West Virginia Supreme Court had eliminated the position of juvenile referee, some judges and others questioned what that will mean for teenagers in the criminal justice system.

Kanawha, Cabell and Wayne counties have juvenile referees. The referees handle juvenile offenders' first contact with the court system, which can range from preliminary hearings and setting bond to arraignments and detention hearings.

Steve Canterbury, administrative director of the Supreme Court, said the decision, reached last month at an administrative meeting, was not meant to be a negative commentary on the work of the three individuals who hold the position.

"The feeling was that, in other counties, [juvenile referees' workload is] handled by magistrates and then by circuit judges," he said. "It was just a feeling that this was a position that was unneeded."

Juvenile referees are holdovers from before 1974's Judicial Reform Amendment, which reworked the state's court system, including converting justices of the peace into magistrates.

The justices reconsidered the juvenile referee position after another circuit asked to have one, Canterbury said, and that would have opened the door for more requests from other counties. So the justices decided to do away with the position altogether as of Sept. 1, he said. The move will save $219,000, he said.

Judge John Yoder, one of five judges in the 23rd Judicial Circuit, which serves Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan counties, confirmed earlier this week that the request came from his circuit.

"The judges in our circuit have a much heavier caseload than other judges across the state, due to population growth in this area," said Yoder, who plans to run for the Supreme Court in 2010. "One of the ways that we looked to handle the heavy juvenile case workload was to get in a juvenile referee to assist."

Cabell Circuit Judge Al Ferguson said that under state law, the authority to hire and fire juvenile referees lies with circuit judges, not the Supreme Court.

"It's a system that's not broken, and there's no need to change it," Ferguson said.

He also took issue with the timing of the decision, which came after the Supreme Court's budget for this fiscal year had already been set.

"[T]he juvenile referees are already in the budget. They've been funded for years," he said. "To me, if [the justices] want to correct the situation, then they need to go to the Legislature" and have state law changed, he said.

Canterbury said that under state law, the Supreme Court funds juvenile referees, which gives the justices the final say.

"If they choose not to fund the position," he said, "then there is no position."

Justices can't change budget items set by state law, such as salaries for judges and magistrates, Canterbury said, but they can alter specific items as they see fit.

About $90 million of the Supreme Court's $117 million budget is nondiscretionary spending, he said.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- As news spread this week that the West Virginia Supreme Court had eliminated the position of juvenile referee, some judges and others questioned what that will mean for teenagers in the criminal justice system.

Kanawha, Cabell and Wayne counties have juvenile referees. The referees handle juvenile offenders' first contact with the court system, which can range from preliminary hearings and setting bond to arraignments and detention hearings.

Steve Canterbury, administrative director of the Supreme Court, said the decision, reached last month at an administrative meeting, was not meant to be a negative commentary on the work of the three individuals who hold the position.

"The feeling was that, in other counties, [juvenile referees' workload is] handled by magistrates and then by circuit judges," he said. "It was just a feeling that this was a position that was unneeded."

Juvenile referees are holdovers from before 1974's Judicial Reform Amendment, which reworked the state's court system, including converting justices of the peace into magistrates.

The justices reconsidered the juvenile referee position after another circuit asked to have one, Canterbury said, and that would have opened the door for more requests from other counties. So the justices decided to do away with the position altogether as of Sept. 1, he said. The move will save $219,000, he said.

Judge John Yoder, one of five judges in the 23rd Judicial Circuit, which serves Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan counties, confirmed earlier this week that the request came from his circuit.

"The judges in our circuit have a much heavier caseload than other judges across the state, due to population growth in this area," said Yoder, who plans to run for the Supreme Court in 2010. "One of the ways that we looked to handle the heavy juvenile case workload was to get in a juvenile referee to assist."

Cabell Circuit Judge Al Ferguson said that under state law, the authority to hire and fire juvenile referees lies with circuit judges, not the Supreme Court.

"It's a system that's not broken, and there's no need to change it," Ferguson said.

He also took issue with the timing of the decision, which came after the Supreme Court's budget for this fiscal year had already been set.

"[T]he juvenile referees are already in the budget. They've been funded for years," he said. "To me, if [the justices] want to correct the situation, then they need to go to the Legislature" and have state law changed, he said.

Canterbury said that under state law, the Supreme Court funds juvenile referees, which gives the justices the final say.

"If they choose not to fund the position," he said, "then there is no position."

Justices can't change budget items set by state law, such as salaries for judges and magistrates, Canterbury said, but they can alter specific items as they see fit.

About $90 million of the Supreme Court's $117 million budget is nondiscretionary spending, he said.

Dealing with young offenders

Kanawha Chief Circuit Judge Jim Stucky said the circuit's seven judges have voted to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision.

"The juvenile referee position in Kanawha County allows us to have consistency when dealing with the hundreds of juveniles that come through our system a year in a confidential setting," he said.

Without a juvenile referee, the judges and magistrates will take up the extra duties, Stucky said, but he questioned the message sent by the cuts.

"What more serious population do we deal with than juvenile offenders, who have the potential of turning into adult criminals?" he said.

Kanawha County Commission President Kent Carper, a former prosecutor and police chief, echoed Stucky's concerns.

"This will hurt law enforcement. This will hurt public safety. This will make Kanawha County a more dangerous place," he said, adding that Kanawha County deals with some serious crimes committed by juveniles. "It's not just the size, it's the interstate, it's the more urban-type crime."

Instead of dealing with a dedicated official, police will have to wait around for an available magistrate or judge, he said.

The Rev. Matthew Watts, a longtime critic of the state's juvenile justice system, called the decision a step in the wrong direction.

Watts constantly discourages youths from joining the ranks of what he calls the "infamous 600": the 600 kids in Kanawha County who drop out of school each year; the 600 juvenile offenders who appear before juvenile probation officials; and the 600 Kanawha County felons serving sentences in the state's prisons.

One of the best ways to prevent crime, which leads to prison overcrowding and massive expense, he said, is to stop juveniles who might have gotten off track from becoming criminals as adults.

Wayne Circuit Judge Darrell Pratt said that giving each county a juvenile referee would be prohibitively expensive.

If the position is going to continue to exist, he said, the Supreme Court needs to establish criteria for deciding which counties would qualify for a juvenile referee, Pratt said.

"If Wayne County is still entitled to one," he said, "then there's a lot of circuits out there that would be entitled to one."

Since the cuts became public, Supreme Court justices have received several letters asking them to reconsider, according to Canterbury. He doesn't think it will matter.

"Frankly," he said, "I don't think that the court is going to change its mind."

Reach Andrew Clevenger at acleven...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1723.