Democrat Budget Blueprint Ignores Court Crisis

We’ve been noting that the early plans for our next state budget do not exactly place civil courts funding in the “crisis” category. Indeed, the courts in general are, at best, being placed on the back-burner – even the criminal courts which have a higher political profile than civil justice. The latest example is the recently released “budget blueprint” released by the Democratic Caucus of the state assembly.
 
In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times described the document thus: “Top Assembly Democrats have revealed what they’d like to do with billions of dollars in extra tax revenue that the state is projected to receive, and their top priorities were reassuring: expanding the reserve fund and paying down the debts that Sacramento accumulated over the last decade. Their budget blueprint also calls for a lot of new spending on education and anti-poverty programs, however.”
 
The most passionate appeal for any justice-related funding in the “blueprint” comes amid plans to reduce spending on prison housing. There, the “collaborative justice” efforts get some attention, but that’s hardly noting a billion dollars of court cuts over the past five years. Certainly, most of the issues getting attention are worthy – yet you have to wonder how long we can expect courthouse-related labor unions and others to sit by while the Democrats ignore their concerns. 
 
Read the Times editorial here.
Find the Blueprint here.

Paper Calls For More Superior Court Judges

Program NOTE: No post on Christmas Day! Happy Holidays to all!

A major Inland Empire newspaper is calling for increased funding for civil court judges and staff in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, which have the worst judicial shortfall in California – the only area in worse shape than Los Angels County, according to state research. The Press-Enterprise, in an editorial, says that the California Judicial Council has determined that “… Riverside County, for example, has 76 judges, but needs 138. San Bernardino County has 84 judges, but should have 156. So Riverside County is 62 judges short, while San Bernardino County needs another 82 judges. Those are the worst numbers in the state; the next largest gap is in Los Angeles County, which should have another 41 judges.”
 
The newspaper says that lawmakers should use use “a small share” of a projected budget surplus to address the problem adding that funding a new judge also means funding related support staff. The paper noted that “… a new judgeship costs about $1.65 million the first year, and $909,000 annually in subsequent years — figures which include money for additional court staffing that judges need, such as clerks, secretaries and security.”
 
We can expect more demands for judicial improvements as word circulates of a likely state budget surplus, yet early budget documents have not indicated any anticipated increases. See more here.

Civil Courts Funding Gets No ‘Governing’ Priority

It’s only one of the nation’s end-of-year stories, but a “Top 10 Issues” list by Governing magazine, which caters to the policy setters nationally, lets us know where the civil courts funding and capacity issue stands for 2014: Nada, zilch, zero. Not only is it not top 10, but it doesn’t even make the half-dozen “watch” issues.
 
This is a list that includes state policy on drones and self-driving automobiles. That’s right, at least several reporters looking across the national landscape and figured that regulation of self-driving cars, which might be available to consumers by the end of the decade, are a pressing issue. And they noted civil courts capacity not at all… so there’s work to do there. Issues that did make the list include the usual: Immigration, pension reform and minimum wage regulation that’s going nowhere on the federal agenda, at least according to Governing.
 

CCM Publisher Describes Civil ‘Hellholes’

Sara Warner, publisher of the California Courts Monitor, finds herself agreeing with a business-focused group about the hellishness of state civil courts, yet for somewhat different reasons. Find out what she things a “real hellhole” looks like in our era of rationed justice:  Verdict Is In: California Courts Hellish.

More Judges, Court Staff Eyed, If There’s More Money

Nobody is saying there will be funding to expand California’s court capacity, but the California Judicial Council has voted that some of any new money will go to provide new judges in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Both communities have been identified as among the state’s very worst in terms of justice access and have, of course, been hard-hit by the half-decade of court budget cutting
 
The Press-Enterprise newspaper has a good story on the decision by the Judicial Council, the courts administrative branch, and noting that lines outside courthouses are going around the block. The newspaper reports that “…additionally, several years of statewide budget cuts resulted in hundreds of staff reductions for both courts, causing shuttering or reduction of services at courthouses, and redirecting the type of cases some courts can handle… [the] cases affected by the pressure of too few judges include civil and family law courts, where decisions are made about critical issues of custody and child support.

The report cites a significant “new assessment” approved in 2012 that changed the official “judicial needs” for several counties, and Contra Costa County gave up a promised judicial position because of Riverside County’s shortage. The paper also recalls that money-dependent legislation “… originally provided for 150 new judges statewide, in three rollouts of 50 judges each. The first was completed, but the next two were stalled as state funds for the courts were severely cut in the succeeding years… the 2012 assessment says Riverside County has 76 judges, but needs 138. San Bernardino County has 84, but needs 156.

The next-biggest judicial shortage is in Los Angeles County, which needs 41. The P-E also breaks down the money: “Funding for a judgeship includes not just the judge’s salary but also money for court room personnel such as clerks, secretaries and sheriff’s deputies for security. A new judicial position is estimated to cost $1.65 million for the first year, which usually involves establishment of chambers and other one-time costs, and about $909,000 per year thereafter. A beginning judge’s annual salary is $181,292.”

 

Early Budget Advice: No More Cash For Courts

Anyone hoping the next state budget surplus might reverse years of court funding cuts might be disappointed with early advice being offered to lawmakers. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature” is setting the anticipated courts increase at zero.
 
The LAO fall forecast and report documents a solid financial footing, saying that “the state’s budgetary condition is stronger than at any time in the past decade. The state’s structural deficit—in which ongoing spending commitments were greater than projected revenues—is no more.” The report also says that “… the Legislature will make decisions about the state’s 2014–15 budget in the coming months… assuming no change to current law and policy, we project that the state would have a $5.6 billion General Fund reserve at the end of the 2014–15 fiscal year.” 
 
Despite those billions, the LAO anticipates no budget increase for courts, reporting that while lawmakers “… could decide to provide additional General Fund support in the future to offset [court[ reductions” the actual forecast “assumes that General Fund spending on the judicial branch will remain roughly flat at about $1.2 billion over the forecast period.” 
 
This is not a trivial group. The LAO reports directly to the 16-member state Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). The LAO website says the office currently has a staff of 43 analysts and approximately 13 support staff. Thus, they are the early-early drafters of what will become the state budget discussion. Check out how taxpayer money might be spent in the coming years here.

Chief Justice Favors Transparency She Controls

 
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Photo: California Courts)

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Photo: California Courts)


The Courthouse News has some of the better coverage from a year-end press meeting with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, who still says she favors court transparency despite having led the successful effort to remove open-meeting requirements from legislation. Apparently she supports the rule if judges write it, with TCN reporting that “… while the chief justice lobbied against a bill requiring open meetings by Judicial Council committees, she said she always supported the idea but wanted the judiciary to have control over the language in the rule.”
 
She explained that: “Because I think there are different considerations with judges who are on the advisory committees that draft the proposals for council to consider. In the process of drafting those proposals and deciding if a proposal should even come to council, judges still in their judicial role speak about substantive issues of law…  we have a concern about the code of judicial ethics and what judges can and cannot say in the process of a heated argument in the development of a proposal versus what they can and should be saying publicly.” 
 
And of course she noted “… a new long-term fiscal plan for the courts that she hopes will persuade the governor to restore $1 billion in funding to the judicial branch over five years.” Read more here.

Pensions Next Target For Cutbacks?

Courthouse workers and other public employees should take notice of a Detroit judge’s ruling that public employee pensions are just contracts, not really guarantees at all. If that ruling is upheld on appeal, it means that funds like the California Public Employee Pension System are not as protected as many thought. In effect, the judge is saying that federal laws trump state assurances.
 
The Press-Democrat newspaper in Sonoma County is among those offering analysis of the decision, writing in an editorial that “… to cover soaring retirement costs, which in some places are approaching 50 cents on every payroll dollar, cities and counties in California and across the country have laid off workers and slashed spending on parks, street maintenance and other public services. A handful have filed under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy code; others are weighing the possibility”
 
You already see pensions at issue in the high-profile San Bernardino bankruptcy debate. You also hear whispers that, should public employee pensions be questioned, the issue could be real leverage in the next round of budget negotiations. Read the Press-Democrat editorial, which outlines the issue pretty well, here.

Judicial Pay Hike Continues To Make News

That pay increase for California judges continues to make headlines, especially since the hike will be retroactive back to July 1 and none of the increase was discussed amid decisions to eliminate courthouse jobs. But the raises are virtually mandated by state law, which ties judicial pay increases to the average pay increase received by other state employees.
 
That same law means the judges could be in line for a 4.5 percent pay increase by the middle of 2015, even if none of the eliminated court jobs are ever reinstated. Even with the state law and the fact that judges have not gotten a pay raise since 2007. Superior Court judges earn $178,789 per yea, and that’s going to $181,292. Justices on the appeals court will get bumped to $207,463, up from $204,599.
 
The pay increase will also have a cascading effect in San Diego and several other counties, where the pay for members of the county Board of Supervisors is tied to the pay of judges.
 
There’s a good story about the raises, and ties to county supervisor pay, at the U-T San Diego website here.

Gov. names 8 New L.A. Superior Court Judges

Gov. Brown has named eight new Los Angeles County Superior Court judges among 18 judicial choices statewide, the governor’s office announced. In L.A. County, the new judges are Deborah S. Brazil, Carl H. Moor, Connie R. Quinones, Armen Tamzarian, Sergio C. Tapia, Lee W. Tsao, Frank M. Tavelman and Joel Wallenstein.
 
Superior Court judgeships pay $181,292 in California. For bios on the L.A. choices, check out The Courthouse News here.