State budget woes hit courts hard
By NANCY McCARTHY
Staff Writer
California's courts, already struggling with whittled-down budgets, face a
worst-case scenario of a $396.4 million shortfall next year, a devastating possibility
one court official said "would severely cripple the entire judicial system."
The staggering budget reduction likely would lead to the elimination of many
programs instituted in recent years, closing courtrooms or reducing hours of
operation, reducing or freezing salaries, early retirement, and possible layoffs.
"We're talking about things that are simply horrendous," said Los
Angeles Appellate Justice Norman Epstein at a recent Judicial Council meeting.
Resigned to the financial realities, the council offered little discussion
before adopting a series of recommendations authorizing the staff to adjust
budgets to meet the crisis and to appeal to the governor for more funds to pay
for mandated costs.
Like most other public entities affected by California's projected $34 billion
deficit, the judicial branch, whose $2.5 billion budget accounts for slightly
more than 2 percent of the total state budget, slashed spending for the current
fiscal year by $154 million, a 5 percent reduction.
When Gov. Davis proposed mid-year cuts in December, the courts took another
$44.5 million hit for the remainder of the fiscal year ending June 30. Of that,
trial courts will absorb a loss of $36 million and the judiciary (Supreme Court,
courts of appeal and the Administrative Office of the Courts) will lose another
$8.5 million.
Each trial court submitted to the AOC proposals for achieving the required
cutbacks, which include early retirement, involuntary work furloughs, slicing
full-time jobs to three-quarters or half-time, merging traffic and collections
divisions, limiting night courts, postponing equipment purchases or buying lower
quality equipment and no longer providing district attorneys and public defenders
with daily copies of detailed court calendars.
 |
Chief Justice George |
"Some things that are nearest and dearest to my heart will be affected,"
said Chief Justice Ronald M. George. He added that he hopes layoffs can be avoided,
but "no areas will be immune" from the budget ax.
Some counties already have scaled way back.
Los Angeles County, for example, which has the largest trial court system in
the United States, has closed 29 courtrooms, laid off part-time and student
employees and 70-80 full-time workers, and has a $57 million deficit.
At the other end of the spectrum, Yolo County's 110 court employees, with the
exception of one criminal law department, took off eight days without pay at
the end of last year, and the court's offices close early every day and shut
down at lunch.
During the Christmas holidays, the Placer County courthouse was shuttered for
two weeks. Courtrooms in Alameda County close at 4:30 p.m. daily, and the clerk's
office closes at 4. Riverside County's public offices close early and Orange
County has ceased its night court operations, save one night a month.
Fresno County instituted voluntary furloughs and froze its 22 vacancies, its
Family Law Information Center closed six months early because the grant funding
ended, and it has huge backlogs in its criminal and traffic departments.
"This is a total crisis," said Tamara Beard, executive officer of
the Fresno courts. "I've never seen anything like it in my 22 years in
the courts."
In so-called "spring letters"sent to the governor each year to try
to win more funds, the Judicial Council will seek $61 million for the trial
courts this fiscal year to pay for such mandated costs as retirement, workers'
compensation, postage, increased charges for county-provided services and converting
temporary help to permanent positions, as required by recent legislation.
These represent costs that were submitted to the governor previously, but were
rejected.
If the additional funding is not provided, if cost-cutting or revenue-producing
legislation fails, and if the state's fiscal woes don't improve, or worsen,
the courts will face a whopping $396.4 million shortfall next year, said Judicial
Council deputy director Ron Overholt.
Compounding the shortfall is the fact that, like many other state agencies,
a high percentage of the courts' funding is non-discretionary. In the trial
courts, for instance, 61 percent of the budget is non-discretionary and includes
judicial salaries, jury services, and constitutionally required criminal expenditures.
In the appellate courts, an even larger portion - 74 percent - of the budget
is earmarked for non-discretionary expenses, such as judges' salaries, rent,
appointed criminal defense counsel and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center.
Some of the governor's proposals, whether cost-saving or revenue-generating,
have met with resistance from the Legislative Analyst's Office and others face
powerful political opposition.
For instance, Davis wants to increase several court filing fees which could
generate $66.2 million in revenues. A new court security fee would add $20 per
civil filing and $20 in criminal cases where the defendant is convicted, and
trial motion fees would cost another $10. An increase in the appellate filing
fee, from $265 to $630, would generate $2.1 million by the governor's estimate.
However, the legislative analyst has criticized increased fees as a possible
impediment to the courts for low-income people.
The legislative analyst supports a proposal to allow the courts to take competitive
bids for security services, which Davis believes could save $22 million. Sheriff's
deputies provide security in most courthouses, and the analyst believes their
growing salaries are a big factor in increased security costs which could be
reduced if private security agencies were hired. Court officials estimate they
have seen a 50 percent increase in security costs in recent years.
But the proposal has met resistance from the politically powerful sheriff's
union.
Davis also believes he can save $31 million by switching in some cases from
court stenographers to electronic reporting, a proposal which has been blocked
in the past. Another $5.5 million savings could be realized if the courts own
the transcripts. Besides opposition from the court reporters, another group
with political clout, the legislative analyst said more information is needed
about staff requirements and management of transcripts from the recordings.
The switch would require legislation. In addition, start-up costs would be
very expensive and may be an outlay the courts cannot afford right now.
George seems willing to take on the sheriffs and court reporters, noting in
a recent statement that the courts can achieve some savings "if we have
the strength of will to reexamine how we conduct our business in many areas
(such as security, traffic adjudication, maintaining the records of court proceedings,
etc.)."
The cutbacks are particularly painful to a court system whose executives, from
George on down, have emphasized improved access to the public, particularly
those who might be underserved, and modernization of operations.
Many of the advances, such as mediation services, self-help centers, assistance
for pro pers, services for families and children, and specialized courts are
now at risk.
Nonetheless, the Judicial Council agreed that its priority in the coming year
will be to keep courts open to provide maximum access to the public.
|