Kevin Chernosky

Independent Study Paper/ Writing Requirement

Professor Sinsheimer

Transitional Snapshot: The Reorganization of the City of Pittsburgh Housing Court

“Like erstwhile steel mills, sandwiches laden with cole slaw and fries or the Monongahela Incline, Magistrates Court is unique to Pittsburgh, a quirky institution that is unheard of in other parts of the state.”[1]

I. Introduction

After the census of 2000, one thing was certain, Allegheny County was shrinking and the drop in population meant a lessening of lower court judicial officers.[2] One of the Courts that came under fire in the debates over what to do in the wake of looming District restructuring was the City of Pittsburgh’s Magistrates Court. Magistrates Court is comprised of City Court, Housing Court, and Traffic Court.[3] Some who say Magistrates Court “duplicates what is already available through district justices and the state system,” criticized the Court for what they apparently consider its inherent inefficiency and called for a change.[4]

Although the opening quote may suggest that the Pittsburgh Magistrates Court is antiquated or superfluous, a brief look at the City’s Housing Court reveals that “unheard of” does not always translate into inefficient and certainly does not correlate with inept. The City of Pittsburgh Magistrates Court has been an extremely effective forum for the resolution of everything from traffic and housing code violations to criminal matters short of homicide.[5] Magistrates court has been described by some as a “model of efficiency”.[6]

It is the Purpose of this paper to reign in all existing information on the history and procedure of Housing Court, trace the recent debates leading up to the proposed realignment of the Housing Court, present the current situation within which the Housing Court is operating, and appraise the proposals for future orientation or composition of the housing Court.

With this in mind, Part II will analyze the history and procedures of the Pittsburgh Housing Court, Part III will address developments over the last few years that planted the seeds of reorganization as well as some of the most recent occurrences, Part IV will confine itself to an assessment of current operating models that the Housing Court is working under and the likely outcome of the situation. A final section, Part V, will list predictions and conclusions garnered through the research.

II. History and Procedure

The City of Pittsburgh Housing Court was very much the product of citizens attempting to maintain the integrity of their neighborhoods. In 1967, a private citizen’s group called Citizens Against Slum Housing (CASH) lobbied Pittsburgh City Council to “convene public hearings on slum housing conditions within the city.”[7] Within a year the necessary legislation was passed and a Magistrate appointed, giving birth to what we know as the Housing Court.[8] The court has been the venue for the prosecution of neighborhood level nuisances that affect the quality of life, health, and welfare of city residents.[9]

Housing Court was established to be a kind of “one stop shop”[10] for enforcement of city code violations. Prior to its establishment, housing matters “took place in a smattering of District Justices’ office around Pittsburgh.”[11] Consistency was difficult because one justice’s view of what was an extreme violation or an appropriate punishment could differ markedly from another’s. Housing Court was set up in the system of Magistrates Courts, a “specialized court distinct from the county-wide [District Justice] system.”[12] Magistrates Court is comprised of “six magistrates, (all lawyers) who are appointed by the Mayor, subject to City Council confirmation, to four year terms.”[13] One of these magistrates is specifically assigned to Housing Court whose function is to deal with violation in the housing codes and standards within the city of Pittsburgh. This allows one Magistrate to become familiar with both the procedures unique to the housing court, and some of its frequent offenders.[14]

The Housing Court’s jurisdiction extends to all code violations within the city of Pittsburgh. It is the primary venue for adjudication of local ordinance violations arising from the City of Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, and violations from within the city limits arising from the Allegheny County Health Department Rules and Regulations, Article VI, “Rooms and Rooming Houses.[15] The Court is part of the State’s Unified Judicial System and “the Commonwealth’s minor judiciary system.”[16] Appeals are taken to the Common Pleas Court de novo.[17]

Procedurally, Housing Court cases are instituted either by one of eight inspection agencies within the City of Pittsburgh who file complaints or through a recent city ordinance that allows private citizens to file using the new ‘private right of action.’[18] Each agency, in turn, has their own, internal complaint and inspections systems to cite violations prior to resorting to Housing Court for non-compliance. The eight agencies that are able to initiate complaints with Housing Court are the:

Allegheny County Health Department, City of Pittsburgh Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Building Inspection, Bureau of Fire, and Emergency Medical Services, and Alarm Permits Accounts, City of Pittsburgh Department of Public Works, as well as its Environmental Services Divisions – Refuse, Animal Control, and Rodent Control, and City of Pittsburgh Department of Finance . . .[19]

The very nature of these agencies seems to highlight the purpose of Housing Court as playing an integral role in the rebuilding and upkeep of local Pittsburgh neighborhoods.

It is perhaps most efficient to describe and explain the new “Private right of action” before going into the procedure involved in a ‘typical case’, because little data is available on it. Private rights of action generally extend the power to file suit in housing courts beyond the agency context and into the hands of private citizens who then have the right to bring suit for failure to comply with an ordinance.[20] They are seen as extremely beneficial, particularly where there exist “sharp reductions in enforcement personnel” and because building inspectors often are not as knowledgeable of “the history of the property and its zoning regulations” as would be a representative of that particular community.[21] One difficulty with the private right of action is that it is unable to be used if one of the eight above listed agencies has begun action against a property in violation.[22] This is true even if the agencies case seems to be making little process because of the many extensions normally given to attain compliance.[23] But in a situation where the proper agencies are not following up with a continuing problem, or no agency is willing to take responsibility for that type of violation, the private right of action can be useful as a means for a neighbor or local organization to take control of the issue, and follow it through the court system.[24]

Pittsburgh’s private right of action is, however, in its extreme infancy having only been enacted in 2001 by the city Council.[25] There have only been four cases filed, only one of which proceeded to trial and resulted in a ruling against the landlord, with one action pending, and the other two being dismissed.[26] Once a judgment is obtained against a landlord, the case then moves through the standard housing court process for collection of judgments.[27] It remains to be seen how effective this tool will be for City of Pittsburgh Code enforcement. The sense one gets it that if more individuals in neighborhoods facing particularly troubling housing problems which city agencies seem apparently unresponsive to were aware of such an enforcement tool, that it would be more effective and give a heightened sense of ones ability to effectuate change in their respective neighborhoods.[28] Since the private right of action can also be used by representative community organizations, these organizations can utilize their financial resources to take a “big picture” approach and target repeat offenders.[29]

After an agency files a complaint with Housing Court, a summons is issued for the defendant to appear in court for the violation.[30] Remember that prior to being served with the summons there was a lengthy process by which the particular agency attempted to obtain compliance with the code (abatement of the violation). Generally the agency will re-inspect after the defendant receives the summons to ascertain whether the summons itself has caused abatement.[31] If the case is not withdrawn for abatement after the issuance of the summons it proceeds like any other summary proceeding under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.[32] Testimony is heard from the inspectors of the premises with regard to the code violation and the defendant is permitted to cross-examine and present its case (usually the case consists of admitting the violation and presenting mitigating factors.)[33]

Housing Court cases have two possible outcomes; dismissal or fines with court costs.[34] Dismissals are given if there is insufficient evidence of the code violation or when the inspector reports that abatement of the code violation has been achieved.[35] Housing Court finds itself in an interesting position, however, with regard to fines. Fines pose a monetary threat to the defendant, but the main goal of Housing Court from the time of its inception has been to achieve code compliance in order to better the conditions of Pittsburgh’s neighborhoods.[36] Housing Court’s hands are somewhat tied in that the “Housing Court magistrate cannot order the owner to make the repairs, but can [only] threaten the owner with a fine if the violations are not corrected within a certain time period.”[37] The Housing Court achieves abatement within a reasonable time period using only fines by brandishing what former Housing Court magistrate Irene McLaughlin described as a “carrot and stick”, the court will:[38]

“ . . . [R]etain jurisdiction and continue the case for a period of anywhere between one week and 90 days during which the defendant will be told explicitly what tasks toward abatement the defendant is expected to achieve within that time.”[39]

This approach represents a sort of ‘fine-tying’ by which nominal fine with court costs is generated by full abatement within the proscribed time period, and a larger, more damaging fine is imposed for non-compliance.[40] Further, this approach represents the idea that “neighborhood stability and investment are achieved more directly by a property owner putting money into property maintenance rather than into fine and cost accounts”.[41] Larger, more dubious violators may require several of these continuances before abatement can be achieved, but the sights of Housing Court remain set on its primary purpose; the elimination of the code violation rather than on the collection of fines.[42] The use of a single Magistrate who oversees all housing cases allows the Magistrate to utilize a consistent method with respect to repeat offenders, and to consistently apply similar penalties in similar situations without reviewing past cases.

III. Recent Controversy Over the Court

The population of Allegheny County diminished markedly between the 1990 and 2000 census, a fact that would probably seem inconsequential except for the fact that all of the 67 counties of Pennsylvania are all “required to review [their] district justice system to see whether the district courts are justified based on caseloads and population figures from the federal census.”[43] The results of the reevaluation required the county to reduce its number of lower court officers (magistrates and district justices are both in this category) to 49 from a number totaling 61 (55 district justices and 6 city magistrates).[44] One commentator quite facetiously pointed out that without enough work to go around “the state either has to encourage more low-level crime or cut some of these [DJ’s} loose”.[45]

The ultimate determination on what plan of action is take to reduce the number of lower court officers in Allegheny County rests in the hands of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.[46] Two plans emerged for how to accomplish the reduction of lower court officers. The first plan would eliminate Magistrates’ Court, send the work they used to handle to the District Justices that fall within the city limits on a rotating basis and reduce the number of District Justices from 55 to 49.[47] The Second Plan would keep Magistrates Court in tact, but “reduce the number of county district justices from 55 to 43”.[48] As of June 2, 2002, the Supreme Court indicated that it was leaning toward the latter of the two options.[49] Pending a decision on the matter, Mayor Murphy has decided to go with a plan that does not re-appoint the magistrates as their terms expire.[50]

The context of the battle then turned political, pitting the District Justices against the Magistrates in an epic battle to remain employed in the face of a mandatory reduction of lower court officers. The strategy for District Justices was apparent, though some of them would have to fall victim to the axe of belt tightening, six could be spared such a grim fate by simply pointing the axe’s blade in another direction, that of the Magistrate Court. As with anyone who finds their job security suddenly threatened, the District Justices were not simply going to sit idly by while others decided their respective fates. “In 2000, the DJ’s struck a blow by convincing the state to end a $1.2 million subsidy that had covered the magistrates’ operations.”[51] Governor Ridge later reinstated the subsidy. Mayor Murphy fought vigorously in defense of the City Magistrate Court but retreated in the face of what seemed like an uphill battle. He eventually switched from a position of preserving all of Magistrates Court to lending support to a Council Bill that would preserve Housing Court in its downtown location.[52] Murphy commented, “It’s going to happen (the loss of Magistrates Court). We have to make the best deal for the citizens,”[53] The evidence was clear that as one writer correctly pointed out, “the magistrates just don’t have the clout the district justices do.” [54]

The Magistrates were not going to give up without a fight, however, and attempted two strategies the results of which remain to be seen. First, the Magistrates Court won a major battle in the form of a two-year Supreme Court study that would focus on the efficiency of the court.[55] The plan was submitted by Common Pleas Court judge Robert Kelly to the Supreme Court and later approved by Supreme Court Justice Stephen A. Zappala Sr.[56] One has to wonder how much of a victory this actually is considering that in the interim while the study is ongoing, Mayor Murphy will not be re-appointing any of the magistrates. As of today there are three remaining Magistrates, one of whose terms expires at the end of 2003, the other two have terms expiring at the close of 2004.[57]

The Magistrates employed another strategy in an attempt to keep Magistrates Court in tact; filing suit against Mayor Murphy and the presiding judge of Allegheny County Common Pleas Court who decided not to reinstate the Magistrates as their terms expired. The Suit, filed January 30, 2003, claims that both the Mayor and the Judge “overstepped their powers when they agreed . . . not to reappoint magistrates and to alter the court by staffing it with district justices (which was the plan when Magistrates terms expired and they weren’t reappointed)” and “ unlawfully abolishing court functions.”[58] This was an interesting strategy that may pay off for the Magistrates but as of the most recent inquiry with former Chief Magistrate Simmons, the suit was making little to no headway.[59]

IV. The Current State of Things

Housing Court finds itself today in a state of limbo, awaiting the completion of the Supreme Court study, possibly the results of a lawsuit. To complicate matters, the Magistrate who had been in charge of Housing Court, Irene McLaughlin, saw her term expire January 31, 2003.[60] What is being done in the meantime is that the number of district justices within the City of Pittsburgh is being reduced from 17 to 14, and those 14 will rotate through all of Magistrates Court in 6 month intervals.[61] This particular approach is simply a procedural one, none has been mandated from the Supreme Court as of yet but this was done in order to keep the court functioning.[62] Chief Magistrate Simmons has stepped down as a magistrate and taken up an administrative function in Housing Court.[63] Mayor Murphy made the request of the former Chief Magistrate in order to ease the transition of Magistrates Court as it is slowly staffed with District Justices upon the expiring of Magistrates terms.[64] A new approach may be required upon the completion of the Supreme Court study, but this current way is considered the best possible approach while awaiting the results.[65]

Particularly vexing, however, is that while waiting on the study Housing Court has seen the continuity and predictability that comes from having a long-serving, well-refuted (as to some frequently offending landlords, feared) and experienced Magistrate in Ms. McLaughlin replaced by a stream of rotating District Justices who may lack the experience and vision to appraise the breadth of Pittsburgh’s code enforcement needs as a whole and to administer them in a uniform fashion.[66] As Chief Simmons himself said:

This isn’t about knowing the neighborhood or knowing the disputes; its about administering justice and fairness to the communities, the entire city has the right to expect that there will be uniform justice . . .splitting up the Magistrates Court is unfair to the public.[67]

Many other institutions that deal regularly with the Housing Court also feel that the rotating of district justices into the Housing Court could have an adverse effect Pittsburgh’s code enforcement process, particularly the predictability and long-term effects that came with having one Housing Court Magistrate decide all code violations.[68]

V. Predictions and Assessments

“frankly, all about the numbers”[69]

One helpful tool in assessing the current state of things with regard to Magistrates Court as a whole and Housing Court in particularly would be to embark on a statistical comparison of Magistrates Court to the district Justice system. The Supreme Court study is essentially going to compile statistical data on the caseloads of Magistrates Court to assess its efficiency and necessity as well as the practicality of giving the duties of Magistrates Court to the District Justices.[70] A look at the caseloads of both systems over the past few years may give some insight into what the Supreme Court Study will find upon its completion. In 1999, the Magistrates Court comprised of six magistrates handled 376,000 cases while during the same time frame the 17 District Justices within the City of Pittsburgh handled 36,000 cases.[71] During the three-year period from 1999-2002 a Supreme Court Audit revealed that the 55 District Justices of Allegheny County dealt with 536,272 cases.[72] In the same time period, Pittsburgh Magistrates Court handled 1,121,886 cases (both figures include traffic tickets).[73] Critics of the numbers game point out that 90% of the filings in Magistrates court in 2001 were traffic citations and misdemeanors.[74] These types of cases, the argument goes, are the type that District Justices are meant to and do, in fact, deal with on a regular basis.[75] Housing Court itself handled an average of 6000 cases per year from 1992-1998[76] and recent numbers indicate that that number was roughly 7000 in 2002.[77] Not that it needs stated, but none of the Housing Court cases were traffic tickets.

From an experience, salary and staff perspective, Magistrates Court is a bargain as compared to the District Justice system. The Magistrates Court are all lawyers averaging twenty years of experience as required by Pittsburgh’s home rule charter.[78] In contrast, only two of the District Justices within the city are lawyers[79], those who are not lawyers are simply required to attend training course that lasts four weeks before they are certified.[80] The District Justices of Allegheny County are paid $60,000 per year in addition to their office and courtroom rents, and staff salary, all out of the county budget.[81] The salary of the Magistrates is $46,000 per year and the state reimburses the city for these expenses.[82] Staffing for District Justices is established by a guideline that says that there should be roughly one staff person for every 1500 cases handled, using this conversion the Magistrates Court would be able to employ a staff of 250 people if the same guideline applied to them, currently they have 38 staff members and still work efficiently.[83]

Perhaps another saving grace for the Magistrates Court is its composition. If the raw numbers breakdown is not proof enough that the housing court is worth while institution, the shear diversity within its make up should be enough to sway the unconvinced, even if not enough to persuade the supreme court. The Magistrates court is comprised of six Magistrates, half of which are women and half of which are African American, while the 16 District Justices in the City of Pittsburgh include only five women and two African Americans.[84]

It is likely that the Supreme Court study will reveal numbers similar to those stated above, what is unclear is what they will do with the numbers. Will the Supreme Court adjust for the number of traffic cases and misdemeanors, or consider the need for continuity or centralized enforcement of certain issues such as housing? Will diversity play any role in the decision? What about efficiency or the need for experienced, law educated individuals in certain contexts?

“forgone conclusions”[85]

Just what the results of the two-year Pennsylvania Supreme Court study will be is any ones guess. Upon completion of the study a recommendation will be made as to whether or not the Pittsburgh Magistrates Court will be spared.[86] The particular recommendations could range from reinstating Magistrates court, requiring the Mayor to reappoint the six magistrates whose terms will all be expired by the completion of the study, to keeping the current system of rotating District Justices on a six month Basis.[87] Of course, a whole new system could be proposed as well with any variation on the spectrum between these seemingly obvious approaches. Former Chief Magistrate Simmons and others on staff regretfully admit that there may be a forgone conclusion when it comes to the outcome.[88] They explain that the system they have in place for the current functioning and the fact that all Magistrates terms will have expired by the time the Supreme Court study will have completed all add up to a pretty grim picture for the future of Magistrates Court.[89] The wheels are in motion, and it appears that they are spinning in the opposite direction of Pittsburgh Magistrates Court. Steps have been taken that point toward the end of Magistrates Court as it has been known in the City of Pittsburgh. As one commentator aptly, though satirically pointed out, “if you don’t like it, you’ll have to tell this week’s special guest judge.”[90]

---

[1] Niki Kaps Ambelis, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Pg. 10, “Pittsburgh Magistrates Court Loses State Funding; Chief Magistrate Says Legislature’s Decision is Significant Financial Blow”, June 5, 2000.

[2] Timothy Mcnulty, “Council Champions city Housing Court”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg. B-5, June 6, 2002.

[3] Mike Bucsko, “Magistrates Court In City May Get Ax Court To Pick Plan For Fewer Justices: One Would Keep City Magistrates on Job”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg C-1, June 2, 2002.

[4] Niki Kaps Ambelis, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Pg. 10, “Pittsburgh Magistrates Court Loses State Funding; Chief Magistrate Says Legislature’s Decision is Significant Financial Blow”, June 5, 2000.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Rich Lord, “Full Court Mess”, The Pittsburgh City Paper, June 12, 2002, www.pghcitypaper.com/archives/newarch/football/ fb02/fb61202.html

[7] Carnegie-Mellon University School of Urban and Public Affairs, “The Pittsburgh Housing Court And The Code Enforcement Process, May 5, 1976, pg 9.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Irene McLaughlin, Pittsburgh Legal Journal, “Housing Court Marks 30^th Anniversary”, Pg 7, May 1998.

[10] Brien O’Neill, “Loss of Magistrates Might Be Bad for City”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg. B-1, June 13, 2002

[11] Niki Kaps Ambelis, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Pg. 10, “Pittsburgh Magistrates Court Loses State Funding; Chief Magistrate Says Legislature’s Decision is Significant Financial Blow”, June 5, 2000.

[12] Carnegie-Mellon University School of Urban and Public Affairs, “The Pittsburgh Housing Court And The Code Enforcement Process, May 5, 1976, pg 9.

[13] Mike Bucsko, “Magistrates Court In City May Get Ax Court To Pick Plan For Fewer Justices: One Would Keep City Magistrates on Job”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg C-1, June 2, 2002.

[14] Irene McLaughlin, Pittsburgh Legal Journal, “Housing Court Marks 30^th Anniversary”, Pg 3, May 1998.

[15] Ibid.

[16]Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] City of Pittsburgh Ordinance 27 of 2001. (Creating an additional option for municipal code enforcement for individuals, complainants, who wish to initiate and prosecute summary code offenses.)

[19] Irene McLaughlin, Pittsburgh Legal Journal, “Housing Court Marks 30^th Anniversary”, Pg 7, May 1998.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Interview at Magistrates Court with Chief Magistrate Simmons, April 16, 2003

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] City Ordinance 17 of 2001, supplementing Pittsburgh Code Title 1, § 101.09e (“any private person is hereby authorized to institute a criminal proceeding in a summary case by filing a complaint with a City Magistrate where the action arises under Chapter 419.03, 609, 619, 620, Title 9- Zoning, or Title 10 – Building)

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Carnegie-Mellon University School of Urban and Public Affairs, “The Pittsburgh Housing Court And The Code Enforcement Process, May 5, 1976, pg 6.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Nancy Libson, “An Evaluation of the Housing Court of the City of Pittsburgh as a Legal Remedy for Code Enforcement”, Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1970, Pg. 31.

[33] Ibid, pg. 32

[34] Ibid. Pg 33.

[35] Ibid. Pgs. 33-34.

[36] Irene McLaughlin, Pittsburgh Legal Journal, “Housing Court Marks 30^th Anniversary”, Pg 1, May 1998.

[37] Carnegie-Mellon University School of Urban and Public Affairs, “The Pittsburgh Housing Court And The Code Enforcement Process, May 5, 1976, pgs. 7-8.

[38] Irene McLaughlin, Pittsburgh Legal Journal, “Housing Court Marks 30^th Anniversary”, Pg 5, May 1998.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid. Pg 7

[42] Ibid.

[43] Mike Bucsko, “Magistrates Court In City May Get Ax Court To Pick Plan For Fewer Justices: One Would Keep City Magistrates on Job”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg C-1, June 2, 2002.

[44] Ibid

[45] Brien O’Neill, “Loss of Magistrates Might Be Bad for City”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg. B-1, June 13, 2002

[46] Rich Lord, “Full Court Mess”, The Pittsburgh City Paper, June 12, 2002, www.pghcitypaper.com/archives/newarch/football/ fb02/fb61202.html

[47] Mike Bucsko, “Magistrates Court In City May Get Ax Court To Pick Plan For Fewer Justices: One Would Keep City Magistrates on Job”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg C-1, June 2, 2002.

[48] Ibid

[49] Ibid

[50]Timothy Mcnulty, Post Gazette Staff Writer, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg. C-2, January 31, 2003.

[51] Rich Lord, “Full Court Mess”, The Pittsburgh City Paper, June 12, 2002, www.pghcitypaper.com/archives/newarch/football/ fb02/fb61202.html.

[52] Timothy Mcnulty, Post Gazette Staff Writer, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg. B-5, June 6, 2002.

[53] ibid.

[54] Brien O’Neill, “Loss of Magistrates Might Be Bad for City”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg. B-1, June 13, 2002

[55] Jeffery Cohan, “City Courts May get Reprieve; 3-year study would focus on Magistrates”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, December 3, 2002.

[56] Timothy Mcnulty, Post Gazette Staff Writer, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg. C-2, January 31, 2003

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Interview with Chief Magistrate Simmons, April 16, 2003.

[60] Timothy Mcnulty, “Magistrates Sue Mayor, Judger; They Claim Top State Court Also Erred In Halting Staffing”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg. C-2, January 31, 2003.

[61] Interview with Chief Magistrate Simmons, April 16, 2003.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Ibid

[65] Ibid.

[66] Mike Bucsko, “Magistrates Court In City May Get Ax Court To Pick Plan For Fewer Justices: One Would Keep City Magistrates on Job”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg C-1, June 2, 2002. (quoting Chief Magistrate Simmons )

[67] Mike Bucsko, Post Gazette Staff Writer, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg C-1, June 2, 2002

[68] Opinion garnered from employee of Health Department, Interview March 18, 2003 (predictability that Ms. McLaughlin brought to the court was its own effective tool in code enforcement. She had a reputation with landlords in the city.

[69] Niki Kaps Ambelis, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Pg. 10, “Pittsburgh Magistrates Court Loses State Funding; Chief Magistrate Says Legislature’s Decision is Significant Financial Blow”, June 5, 2000. (quoting Chief Magistrate Simmons)

[70] Interview with Chief Magistrate Simmons, April 16, 2003.

[71] Niki Kaps Ambelis, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Pg. 10, “Pittsburgh Magistrates Court Loses State Funding; Chief Magistrate Says Legislature’s Decision is Significant Financial Blow”, June 5, 2000.

[72] Dan Butler, Editorial, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg A-9, June 17, 2002. (Dan Butler is a City Magistrate writing an editorial in the Post Gazette)

[73] Ibid.

[74] Mike Bucsko, “Magistrates Court In City May Get Ax Court To Pick Plan For Fewer Justices: One Would Keep City Magistrates on Job”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg C-1, June 2, 2002.

[75] Ibid

[76] Irene McLaughlin, Pittsburgh Legal Journal, “Housing Court Marks 30^th Anniversary”, Pg 3, May 1998

[77] Rich Lord, “Full Court Mess”, The Pittsburgh City Paper, June 12, 2002 (describing the Magistrates Court as a model of efficiency)

[78] Dan Butler, Editorial, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg A-9, June 17, 2002. (Dan Butler is a City Magistrate writing an editorial in the Post Gazette)

[79] Interview with Chief Magistrate Simmons, April 16, 2003.

[80]Mike Bucsko, “Magistrates Court In City May Get Ax Court To Pick Plan For Fewer Justices: One Would Keep City Magistrates on Job”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg C-1, June 2, 2002.

[81] Dan Butler, Editorial, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg A-9, June 17, 2002.

[82] Ibid.

[83] Ibid.

[84] Rich Lord, “Full Court Mess”, The Pittsburgh City Paper, June 12, 2002 (describing the Magistrates Court as a picture of diversity). Online www.pghcitypaper.com/archives/newarch/football/ fb02/fb61202.html

[85] Interview with Chief Magistrate Simmons, April 16, 2003.

[86] Ibid.

[87] Ibid.

[88] Ibid.

[89] Ibid.

[90] Brien O’Neill, “Loss of Magistrates Might Be Bad for City”, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pg. B-1, June 13, 2002