Like almost every state agency, Maine’s court system in the early 1990s lost an important portion of its budget to a recession. And like some of those agencies, it never caught up again. And like a very few of those agencies, the level of service and security the court is supposed to provide has expanded without a budget to match. And like no agency, it is a co-equal branch of government that cannot depend on institutional advocacy to raise revenue, but must appeal, as Chief Justice Leigh Saufley did last week, to the governor and legislative leaders.

Chief Justice Saufley said the courts need $2.5 million more annually to meet demands and provide required heightened levels of security. Gov. John Baldacci and legislative leaders from both parties were encouraging of an increase of $1.5 million discussed at a meeting last week.

The best reported comment of that meeting came from House Minority Leader David Bowles, who said Chief Justice Saufley “accomplishes so much for so little, people come to expect it. That does not always serve her well. She has not learned that around here you ask for everything, not just what you need.”

With that in mind, legislators should help the courts get enough to have their security systems up and running and to begin services such as the business court, introduced last session by Speaker John Richardson to increase the pace and lower the cost of adjudicating cases affecting business, especially small businesses. Chief Justice Saufley said criminal and child-abuse cases come before business court, which certainly makes sense, but security seems to have been waiting longest of all.

Take your pick – Leigh Saufley in 2005 or 2002 or her predecessor, Daniel Wathen, in 2001, 2000, 1999 or as far back as 1995 – and the observations and arguments are the same. Whether it’s a criminal trial, a child-custody dispute or a hearing on a protection order, the 43 buildings that house Maine’s superior and district courts are where upset, often very angry, people come together yet little has been done to prevent heightened emotions from turning to violence.

Security staffing to maintain order, to quell disturbances and to deter intimidation remains low; metal detectors and X-ray machines to keep weapons out are in place but often not staffed for lack of funding. They are used now only when court officials predict a potentially violent situation or if a large number of people are likely to attend.

After so many years and so many promises by the Legislature, through economic bust and boom and bust and, maybe, another boom, the courts have been trying to operate a decent system of security and have been, if anything, too patient.

Now – again – it’s the Legislature’s turn. New revenue projections are expected to reduce the budget shortfall and leave a little for projects that have been on hold for too long. Some of that funding should go to the courts. Otherwise, Chief Justice Saufley – or someday her successor -will be back to make the same sensible pitch to lawmakers. Again.