Prosecuting Attorney Stanley Morton warns Kootenai County staffing crunch could undermine prosecutions; board favors pay‑matrix over new hires

Prosecuting Attorney Stanley Morton told the Kootenai County Board of Commissioners during an FY27 budget review that his office is facing sustained turnover and caseload pressures that threaten its ability to prosecute cases effectively.

Morton said his requests to the board include three additional criminal attorney positions, a new attorney pay matrix with higher starting wages, conversion of an existing victim‑witness coordinator role into a lead coordinator, and a permanent fourth law‑school intern position. "There's no point, very little point in our sheriff's office, in the state police ... continuing to make arrests if I can't prosecute cases," Morton said, arguing that understaffing can erode enforcement outcomes.

Why it matters: Morton presented staffing and caseload figures showing persistent excess workloads. He said felony attorneys in his office were about 47.3% over recommended caseload benchmarks and that some categories of attorneys are roughly 13.3% over recommended levels. Morton said his office has 24 criminal prosecutor positions and currently shows five vacancies, and that frequent departures—often when law‑school loans are forgiven or when other counties offer higher pay and signing bonuses—leave remaining staff to absorb additional work.

Morton recommended the new pay matrix in part to improve retention. He said the office is already paying newly hired attorneys about $90,000 a year and proposed a starting wage of $95,000 in the new matrix to remain competitive with neighboring jurisdictions and the state public defender's office. "I would rather have the new matrix than have the new attorneys," Morton said, noting that hiring additional new attorneys without addressing retention could leave the office perpetually understaffed.

Morton also described recruiting and training dynamics. He noted the office often hires former interns and that expanding the permanent intern complement from three to four could help bridge workloads and develop local candidates. He detailed recent departures to neighboring Bonner County where some prosecutors received signing bonuses of roughly $10,000 and substantially higher pay, and said those moves signal to his staff that they can take on lower caseloads and higher pay elsewhere.

Board response and decision: Commissioners questioned whether adding three full‑time positions would be practical given persistent hiring challenges and recommended alternatives including short‑term or seasonal (quarter‑ or half‑year) positions to allow over‑hiring, HR analysis to benchmark reasonable turnover, and clearer metrics for determining whether a pay change is successful. Morton offered to provide regular updates. After discussion, a commissioner asked whether the board should cut the three requested new positions; the group indicated consensus to move forward with the new pay matrix and to cut the three requested new attorney positions while approving the requested conversion of one existing victim‑witness coordinator to a lead coordinator (the conversion does not add a new FTE). The board also asked staff to provide historical turnover metrics and to involve HR in further analysis.

Claims and context: Morton warned that high caseloads can influence plea decisions and courtroom preparation; he said in extreme cases he would not pursue dismissals but hypothetically would start with low‑level traffic and drug cases if the office could not manage workloads. Commissioners cautioned against repeating past budget adjustments without measurable benchmarks and asked Morton to propose measurable criteria and follow‑up reporting schedules.

Next steps: The board signaled support for prioritizing a revised pay matrix and the one conversion request, requested comparative data on past matrix changes and turnover, suggested HR involvement, and asked Morton for ongoing updates to assess whether the salary changes reduce excessive turnover.

Proper names and context used in this report appear as spelled in the meeting record: Kootenai County, Bonner County, Spokane, Seattle, Portland, California.