Court budget is a work in progress
By Nancy McCarthy
Staff Writer
|
Gov. Schwarzenegger
called Chief Justice Ronald George "the best that ever
was in the state of California in this job" during remarks
last month to the Conference of Chief Justices.
Photo by John G. Mabanglo/EPA |
|
|
|
California court officials, faced with a nearly $70 million proposed reduction
in their budget, are meeting with state financial planners to head off cutbacks
they fear could cause layoffs and reduced hours in the courts.
Emphasizing that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget proposals amounted to
only a rough draft, Bill Vickrey, administrative director of the courts, said,
"I'm optimistic we will make progress. I remain apprehensive about getting a
full and complete resolution of the issues."
He said even before the budget was unveiled, court officials received assurances
from the administration that nothing is final and "all issues were open."
The governor's proposed budget for fiscal year 2004-05 for the trial courts
totals $2.21 billion and $378.8 million for the appellate judiciary, which includes
the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, the Judicial Council and the Habeas Corpus
Resource Center. Those amounts mean reductions of $59.8 million in the trial
courts' operating budgets and $9 million to the judiciary.
Vickrey and others said that because of the newness of the administration,
financial planners did not have adequate time to familiarize themselves with
the courts' needs. Sen. Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin, explained that in normal times,
the budget staff works with each branch before a budget is released.
"This didn't happen with the judiciary," he said. "They had to do the budget
without any input and without talking to the Judicial Council, (Chief Justice)
Ron George and some other folks."
Ackerman also was optimistic that further negotiations, with an emphasis on
the judiciary's status as a third branch of government, will be productive.
"I think the process is still early, some people probably didn't have the history
of what's gone on in prior years," Ackerman said. "When the Judicial Council
gets with the Department of Finance, it won't be so grim."
But Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove, wasn't so hopeful, noting that the budget
is predicated on what he believes are overly optimistic assumptions that may
not come true.
First, he said, it assumes billions of dollars in federal funds will be forthcoming,
"yet none of the political insiders believe that's going to become a reality."
Second, the proposals assume successful passage of Schwarzenegger's proposed
March bond issue for $15 billion, which polls so far have found is not a shoo-in.
Third, Dunn said, is the administration's estimate of tax receipts. "They aren't
necessarily pie-in-the-sky estimates, but they're still considered overly optimistic,"
he said.
If any of the assumptions prove to be incorrect, the administration will "have
to look for other areas in which to impose additional cuts. The problem for
the courts is that they are not often viewed as a high priority by a sitting
administration at budget time. If the new administration has to find an additional
$1 million in cuts in May, my concern is the courts' budget will be dead center
in the bullseye."
The courts slashed spending by $154 million, a 5 percent reduction in their
budget, in fiscal year 2003-04. Ackerman and Dunn were able to avert further
reductions last year by proposing a wide range of increased filing and other
fees.
However, because of a variety of shortfalls, the courts are facing a deficit
of $59 million in the current fiscal year, Vickrey said. Current estimates indicate
filing fee collections this year will fall about $31 million short of projections.
In addition, revenue for the facilities program is expected to be $10 million
less than anticipated, $11 million must be cut out of the court security budget,
retirement payments will cost another $4 million, and the courts must absorb
a $2.5 million permanent reduction in administrative costs. In addition, the
Trial Court Trust Fund, a $100 million fund to address emergencies and cash
flow problems, is depleted. "Instead of any cushion, today it has a negative
cash balance," Vickrey said.
Compounding the courts' budget problems is the fact that for the past three
years, many mandatory costs have been partially funded or not funded. For example,
the cost of providing court interpreters in criminal cases is partially funded
and higher county charges (an annual increase of $12 million) have not been
funded at all. Such problems have what Vickrey called an "erosionary impact"
and cause "a real hit."
"It's because of that we've seen things like shortened hours, courts closing
for two weeks, a backlog in warrant files, a backlog in processing commitments
to prison," he said.
One area that may change came with the governor's proposal to restructure collective
bargaining procedures affecting court employees, court security and employee
benefits. Under the current system, each of the state's 58 county court systems
negotiates directly with public employee unions for multiyear labor contracts,
a system unique to Califor-nia. If the state were to become involved, it would
have more control over the process and establish better consistency in how money
is spent in the court system statewide.
Vickrey said he has three goals in looking at next year's budget:
- Funding mandatory
costs;
- Making sure the level of reductions next year is not greater than last year;
and
- Assuring that any reductions do not become permanent.
When it comes to prioritizing, criminal cases will be at the top of the list,
Vickrey said, and things like small claims and landlord-tenant issues will be
at the bottom. "I don't want a budget that institutionalizes, as a continuing
way of doing business, something that's based on the current fiscal crisis,"
he said.
"The position of the chief justice and the Judicial Council is that under the
state Constitution, the public is entitled to open courts everywhere in the
state. They should be accessible.
"We don't expect to be immune from the state's serious financial problems .
. . and the courts need to be cooperative in trying to make reductions. We just
want to be funded for actual costs."
Perhaps California can take comfort in knowing it is not alone in facing serious
financial problems. The problem was a hot topic at the meeting last month in
San Francisco of the Conference of Chief Justices. Indeed, the group unanimously
passed a resolution endorsing the strategies set forth in a "white paper" on
judicial budgets in times of fiscal crisis.
Among its recommendations: courts must be treated as a co-equal branch of government,
they must have significant input in responding to budget crises rather than
allowing others to manage such crises, and they must avoid sending a message
that they are self-funding.
The resolution also pointed out that constitutional and statutory provisions
bearing on a state's budget process can have a large impact on the judiciary.
For example, permitting a governor to alter the judiciary's budget request prior
to submission to the legislature undermines judicial independence, and line
item restrictions on judicial branch spending "preclude courts from making most
efficient use of their resources."
"The judicial branch should speak with one voice in advancing its budget goals,"
the resolution concludes.
|