A year of coping ends with new hope for stable court funding
By Ronald M. George
Chief Justice, California Supreme Court
|
John Van de Kamp and
Chief Justice Ronald L. George with Andrea (R) and Diane Van de Kamp |
This year began with uncertainty
for much of state government. Following an unprecedented recall election, an
unprecedented fiscal crisis kept us unsure of where the judicial branch would
be as we began this latest fiscal year. Mean-while, our quest for establishing
predictable, adequate funding for courts statewide has acquired more and more
urgency. The demands and expectations placed on the judicial branch have greatly
expanded as the diversity and complexity of our state has grown.
The start of the latest budget
cycle was not promising. As has been the custom, and taking into account the
difficult fiscal picture, we developed a budget for the courts based on documented
needs, but Gov. Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget to the legislature would
have resulted in severe reductions in court operations. During the ensuing months,
we held numerous meetings and negotiations with the governor, legislators and
staff and, as a result, the May budget revision, as passed, included almost
$100 million in additional funding for the judicial branch.
The final trial court budget amounted
to $2.31 billion — a 4.4 percent increase over the prior year and part
of an overall 16 percent increase in trial court funding since fiscal year 2000-2001.
The bottom line in dollars and cents for the current fiscal year is a budget
that still does not meet all the needs of our branch — but one that allows
courts to maintain services for the public at a reasonable level. Some courts
have reduced hours of service and cut back certain programs, but by and large,
courts have been able to cope.
Two legislators — Sens. Joe
Dunn and Dick Ackerman — were of tremendous help in advocating for the
judicial branch. They come from different sides of the aisle, but were united
in their strong support for an adequately funded judicial branch. They spread
the word not only to other legislators, but also to the public and community
groups through hearings around the state. The State Bar was an active partner
in making presentations at these hearings.
One particularly striking presentation
was a joint effort. The first speaker was a CASA worker — a court-appointed
special advocate — who told the story of meeting a 16-year old girl in
juvenile hall who was trying to provide her younger siblings with the stability
their parents could not, but who had succumbed to the drug and alcohol abuse
learned from those same parents. This young woman had made remarkable progress,
beating her addiction, finishing high school, going on for more education and
returning as a counselor to the drug rehabilitation center that had helped her.
The former client then began to
read a prepared statement on what the CASA volunteer had done for her. She soon
lost her composure — as did many others in the room — as she explained
in direct words how the volunteer’s support and belief in her had changed
her life.
The recent budget cycle involved
more than successful advocacy to restore judicial branch resources to a manageable
level. A budget trailer bill provides an automatic adjustment to the base funding
for trial court operating costs in each new budget year. In addition, our proposed
budget for the trial courts will be submitted concurrently to both the legislature
and the governor, not just the governor alone. This may sound highly technical,
but it represents a sea change in our branch’s relationship with its sister
branches. The judiciary’s budget no longer will be treated as that of
just another state agency, but instead will be accorded the deference and consideration
due an equal branch of government.
This does not mean that the courts
will have free rein to demand increases. Far from it. The process contemplated
is a collaborative one, in which the judicial branch has the responsibility
to carefully and completely justify its budget requests. But changes in judicial
branch governance during the past several years have made that a far easier
task.
These modifications ultimately
benefit the judicial branch, the state and the public at large by establishing
responsible — and responsive — growth. As a result of the revised
budget structure, we anticipate a new era of predictable and stable funding,
equal funding across the state and adequate funding to permit quality operations
to meet the public’s needs.
This column is adapted from the chief justice’s State of the
Judiciary Address during the State Bar’s Annual Meeting last month. The
chief justice’s complete remarks are available at courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/soj100904.htm.
|