APRIL 30, 2010 – This is the story about how just two words can have a big impact on courtroom workers. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Ten years ago, the state’s court system received funding almost exclusively from the state. Of its $46.55 million budget, $46.49 million came from state appropriations. Just over $66,000 came from fees and there was no federal money in the pot.

But things started to change. State dollars dropped. Fees started making up more of the budget. Federal grants added more. In the current year budget, for example, state appropriations are $22.6 million – less than half of 10 years ago – while fees are $18.1 million, an exponential increase. Had there not been an infusion of $6.2 million in federal funds plus $4 million in short-term stimulus money, the courts this year would have had almost the same overall budget as 10 years ago.

So it’s clear the state’s fee-for-service attitude is a reality in funding for courts. Through the years, there’s been a shift to fees as courts struggled to keep running as efficiently as possible.

In December 2005, Chief Justice Jean Toal signed an order that called for new fees for people who wanted their criminal records expunged. Some in the legislature apparently thought there was some overstepping of boundaries.

By last year, the legislature updated expungement laws and how the state dealt with them. In a complicated process, the legislature passed a law that essentially required expungement of records of anyone found not guilty of a ”criminal charge” or if the charge had been dismissed or discontinued.

When the matter was discussed on the floor by members of the House, Rep. Garry Smith, R-Simpsonville, recalled members did not intend the expungement revisions to apply to traffic cases – misdemeanor speeding charges and tickets that didn’t cause points for a driver’s license.

Unfortunately, the legislature wasn’t very clear in the law it passed. Everyone apparently just assumed its intent – that traffic cases wouldn’t be impacted – would be carried out.

Not so fast. Soon after the law went into effect, the South Carolina Court Administration interpreted the new law as applying to all cases because it found “criminal cases” was broad enough to include traffic offenses.  About that time, Smith asked for an attorney general’s opinion.  On Aug. 12, 2009, the Attorney General’s office also concluded that the two words in the new law meant the automatic expungements included traffic and wildlife offenses.

That resulted in paperwork headaches for magistrates’ and clerk of courts’ offices across the state. Court workers across the state had hundreds of new expungements to process every week. Charleston County Clerk of Court Julie Armstrong said her office processed 1,745 expungements in 2008 before the law went into effect. Last year, it processed 7,697 expungements in the half year the new law was in effect.

“It’s killing us,” she said. “You’re just pulling staff from everywhere to do this. My staff hasn’t increased, but my workload has with this.”

This year, Armstrong’s office is on track to have more than 14,000 record-clearings unless something is done.

Fortunately, Smith filed a bill in November to fix the new law and make it clear it didn’t apply to minor traffic and wildlife offenses. After the original law passed, he and other legislators started hearing from magistrates and clerks around the state about paperwork nightmares.

Smith’s bill to fix the 2009 expungement law passed the House on April 16 and got Senate approval the following week. The measure is now headed to the governor to be signed into law.

So two words – “criminal cases” – led to thousands of hours of unnecessary work in the court system.  A conservative estimate of the amount of money spent across the state to process these automatic traffic expungements: at least $400,000.

There are three lessons to be learned. First, legislators need to be specific in their crafting of laws. Second, taxpayers need to pay attention during the process of lawmaking to guard against unintended consequences. Third, even though the legislature caused problems for a year, it responded quickly to the problems it created and created a fix. And that shows, albeit painfully to court workers, that the process works.

Andy Brack is publisher of Statehouse Report, where this column first appeared.  You can reach him at brack@statehousereport.com.