A final piece of the puzzle
 |
George |
By RONALD GEORGE
Chief Justice, California Supreme Court
Over the past few years, California's judiciary, with the help of our sister
branches of government, has undergone fundamental structural changes that have
placed us in a far better position to meet the need of the public we serve for
fair and accessible justice.
Underlying our ability to develop improved procedures and services for users
of the court system has been a series of major changes in the structure of the
judicial system. First, in 1997, the adoption of a system for state funding
of the trial courts provided a stable and dependable source of income for the
courts, as well as the means to have policy drive the administration of justice
and promote equal access to justice. Prior to the enactment of that legislation,
the courts often found themselves struggling simply to make ends meet.
The second major reform took place in 1998, when the electorate adopted Proposition
220, the constitutional amendment that allowed the trial courts of each county
to unify into a single superior court. The judiciary's response was swift and
universal: by the end of that year, the trial courts in 50 of the 58 counties
had merged, and early last year I swore in the last four municipal court judges
as members of a unified court, completing the transition from 220 California
trial courts to 58 one in each county.
I am equally pleased to announce the recent enactment of the Court Facilities
Bill. This third landmark structural reform completes the process of transforming
the trial courts from what were county components of our judicial branch into
what is now an integrated, truly statewide judicial system.
The status of courthouse facilities had been the one final piece of the puzzle
that was not yet in place. When state funding was adopted, the courthouses in
which the trial courts performed their functions were expressly exempted from
the state's control, and the question whether to relieve the counties of this
obligation was left deliberately for a later day.
This action created a troubling and anomalous situation. The trial courts had
become the state's responsibility, but the ownership and management of the buildings
in which these courts continued to operate remained with the counties, which
were no longer involved in the operations of the courts and thus had a diminishing
interest in their welfare.
In October 2001, the Task Force on Court Facilities, created by the legislature
and including diverse representatives from all three branches of government,
issued its report after three years of study.
The report disclosed that 54 percent of court space is located in buildings
that are rated either functionally deficient or marginal some of them
posing severe seismic or health problems to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers,
and the court staffs who work in them. Significant repair, maintenance or renovation
is required in more than 90 percent of the facilities many of which suffer
from inadequate security, dilapidated and deficient quarters, and facilities
incapable of accommodating modern demands. In short, the survey of existing
court space revealed an urgent need for remediation.
Senate Bill 1732, authored by Sen. Martha Escutia, chair of the Senate Committee
on the Judiciary, was signed into law in September by Gov. Gray Davis. This
historic measure establishes a process to transfer ownership and management
responsibility for trial court facilities to the state, under the direct oversight
of the Judicial Council, over a period covering the years 2004 to 2007.
The act sets forth specific procedures and conditions for the transitional
period and beyond. It raises penalty assessments and parking offense penalties,
and creates a civil filing fee surcharge, all of which are to be deposited into
a newly created state Courthouse Construction Fund to be used for the acquisition,
rehabilitation and construction of court facilities.
Other amendments to the various penalties and fees were imposed to augment
the General Fund, but the portion amended in accordance with the proposals of
the Task Force on Court Facilities is earmarked solely for facilities.
The historic shift in obligations brought about by this enactment conforms
to the state's assumption of responsibility to fund the courts. It recognizes
that every fundamental aspect of the administration of justice in our system
properly must be viewed as a statewide function.
The transfer of responsibility will permit our court system to integrate planning
for court operations and court facilities and to evaluate needs and solutions
on a statewide level. It will further enhance the judicial branch's role and
its accountability to the public and to its sister branches of government.
The impact of the first two of these reforms state trial court funding
and unification already has been widely felt across the system. They
have enabled courts to make the best use of available judicial and staff resources
and to provide new services for the public.
There are new developments in every segment of the judicial branch and of the
legal profession. Having given you examples of some of these accomplishments,
I hope they provide you with a sense of the initiative and energy being devoted
to improving our legal and judicial systems in California.
This column is exerpted from the chief justice's annual State of the Judiciary
address, delivered at the State Bar's Annual Meeting last month.
|