Congressman Biggs Calls for End of Monitoring Racket in Rules Committee Testimony

WASHINGTON, D.C.-Today, Congressman Andy Biggs (AZ-05) testified to the Rules Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives in support of his legislation, H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act, which is scheduled to be considered on the floor later this week.

This bill will end the grift exemplified by the federal court monitor in Maricopa County, which has far outlived its original purpose and cost county taxpayers $350 million.

Congressman Biggs' prepared remarks are as follows:

"As you may know, monitors oversee compliance with consent decrees and settlements. When the federal government enters into a consent decree or other settlement with a state or local government, a monitor is appointed by the court to implement and monitor compliance with the terms of the consent decree or court order. Courts appoint monitors on a case-by-case basis under individual consent decrees and enforcement agreements, resulting in a variable number of active monitors at any given time.

"H.R. 8365 would place conditions on a district court's appointment of a monitor of a state or unit of local government. These conditions include a cap on fees, a term limit on the monitors and judges overseeing monitor cases, public comment on the selection of the monitor, and providing a public accounting of the activities of the monitor. In several cases, monitorships have remained in place for a decade or longer. The tenure of some monitors has prompted debate over whether this oversight remains narrowly focused on ensuring compliance with the consent decree or if it expands into sustained managerial control of agency operations.

"The tenure of longer-serving monitors has also raised concerns regarding costs, duration, and accountability of monitors. Some court monitors have amassed a great deal of wealth at the taxpayers' expense and have no incentive to conclude their monitorships. For example, in Maricopa County, Arizona, the monitorship of the County sheriff office has cost the taxpayers almost $350 million since 2013. Since it began, about $32 million has been paid directly to the monitor's firm. The same monitor has been accused of charging exorbitant fees without producing results in similar monitoring duties in New York, California, Michigan, and Louisiana.

"To be clear, this bill does not end monitors. It only requires that a fresh set of eyes is placed on jurisdictions subject to a monitor.

"And let me give credit where credit is due. While I agreed very little with the policies of the Biden-Harris Administration, this bill codifies reforms based on five core principles first proposed by the Biden-Harris Administration. In 2021, the Department of Justice reviewed monitor practices and proposed reforms. Those reforms included applying a series of principles that included limiting costs and conflicts of interest, ensuring monitors' accountability, compliance assessment, community engagement, and efficient reform.

"This is what the Monitor Accountability Act does."

###