Wanted: Stable court funding
By Ronald M. George
Chief Justice, California Supreme Court
|
Chief Justice George |
This past year has been a turbulent time for the courts, as for all of state
government and the nation as a whole. The difficult budget challenges have highlighted
the urgency of determining whether the many reforms that have been made to our
court system over the past several years are having the hoped-for effects.
Although we were successful in mitigating the impact of the fiscal crisis,
courts were not left unscathed. Far from it. The judicial branch was not immune
to the general fiscal downturn affecting government operations, and like others
we must learn to do more with less.
Our final budget for the present fiscal year contains some $85 million in unallocated
reductions for the trial courts, and $8.5 million in reductions for the appellate
courts, the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts and the
Habeas Corpus Resource Center, plus a further reduction of $11 million in court
security costs.
The projected new fee revenue is likely to fall short because of belated approval
of the budget. At the same time, civil filings, which had been on a slight downward
trend, have begun to increase once again.
The budget crisis has provided a strong incentive to consider what further
steps need to be taken to ensure stable and adequate funding for our judicial
system.
We already have a sense of what a stable, statewide funding source can accomplish:
the administration of justice has become more equitable across the state, and
sharing best practices and approaches in areas such as technology and purchasing
have provided tangible rewards. Courts statewide are better equipped to monitor
expenditures, to quantify and respond to the needs of the public, and to plan
for the future.
At the same time, the current uncertainty in the state’s overall budget
situation — and its impact on our courts — have made it all too
clear that we have not yet fully achieved our goals. Stable and adequate funding
is so integral to the successful administration of justice that we should not
have to debate it anew each budget cycle.
Simply increasing fees is definitely not the answer. Many of the recently imposed
fees were set and instituted with the cooperation of bar leaders in recognition
of the need to ensure that courts were not stripped of essential resources.
But we are revisiting some of the fee changes that were increased in unexpected
ways to see whether we can return to the original agreement, and examining whether
the overall administration of the fee schedule can be simplified and improved.
Fees, fines, and penalties have a place in court funding. But courts cannot and
should not be expected to fund themselves. A fully functioning and accessible
system of justice is essential not only for those who appear at the courthouse
door, but for all of society.
Every Californian, not just those who enter the courthouse doors, should be
considered a direct user and beneficiary of the judicial system.
A basic premise underlying the shift to state funding has been that justice
must be administered equally across the state. Courts must be considered and
treated as part of the critical infrastructure of government, not as a pay-as-you-go
enterprise whose fortunes ebb and flow with “consumer demand.”
At the same time, courts must be fiscally responsible. Unification and state
funding have required courts to approach budgeting in a more uniform fashion.
For the first time, significant in-depth analysis can be done, resulting in
the elimination of duplication and a firmer sense of overall needs as well as
local needs. This has enabled us to develop branch-wide recommendations during
the state budget process.
The failure to enforce court orders imposing fines and fees undermines the
judicial system not simply because of the ensuing loss of revenue, but also
because it diminishes respect for the courts and their role. The Judicial Council
and its staff arm, the Administrative Office of the Courts, have been focusing
on creating and expanding better ways to recover court fines and fees.
For example, many courts have facilitated the payment of fines and fees, including
providing services in the courthouse that enable a litigant to set up a payment
plan to accommodate his or her budget, thus increasing the likelihood of collection
with less expense and effort.
We continue to provide for waiver of fees where they would otherwise conflict
with our paramount goal of ensuring access to the courts.
Senate Bill 940, authored by Sen. Martha Escutia and just signed by the governor
establishes California’s first statewide system for collecting court-ordered
fines, fees and penalties. The bill initially will require the Judicial Council,
in coordination with the counties, to adopt guidelines for a comprehensive program
and each superior court to develop in cooperation with its local county a plan
to implement those guidelines.
California’s courts are taking strong measures to ensure that court orders
are obeyed and the rule of law respected. This is part of a nationwide effort.
It is estimated that nationally the amount of uncollected court-ordered penalties
exceeds $5 billion.
Because adequate and stable funding for the judicial branch is so essential,
I will soon convene a working group including bar and court leaders to take
a fresh look at what we can do to promote the long-term stability of court funding.
For example, policy- and workload-driven funding formulas could help standardize
the process.
Other sources of dedicated revenues beyond fines, fees and penalties should
be explored. The process of how we present the budget to the other branches,
and how we provide appropriate accountability, needs to be reviewed.
We must ensure that providing adequate funds for the administration of justice
happens as a matter of course, in good years and in bad, and not after an annual
struggle with uncertain odds.
Our goal is to make statewide systems work in a way that will enable courts
to meet the needs of the local community. Our justice system is a statewide
system — in terms of responsibility, effect, accountability and oversight.
Individuals anywhere in California must be assured of equivalent treatment.
But a statewide approach to the judicial system in a jurisdiction as varied
as ours can be successful only if it develops hand in hand with the attention
to detail that is needed for the many local communities being served.
Having a statewide system that makes available a menu of services from which
local courts can select and adapt can be of tremendous benefit. We must never
lose sight of the fact that although the administration of justice involves
a court system, it affects individual lives in profound ways every day.
This column was exerpted from Chief Justice George’s State of the
Judiciary address to the State Bar Sept. 6.
|