Funding Alternatives Work Group
Union Bank Building
March 27, 2003

Members present: Kirk Johns, co-chair; Roland Hjorth, co-chair; Judge Rick Bathum; Richard Carlson; David Donnan; Robert Dowdy; Joan Ferebee; Judge Deborah Fleck; William Fosbre; Judge Gordon Godfrey; Judge Bruce Hilyer; Judge Craig Matheson; Barb Miner; Andra Motyka; Jane Noland; Glenn Olson; Judge David Tracy; and Judge Rick White

Guests present: Councilman Dow Constantine

Staff present: Gil Austin, Jude Cryderman and Jeff Hall

Information/Materials Presented

1) Information relating to court funding.

2) Proposed Principles.

Mr. Johns presented an overview of court funding:

State	15%	$ 15,000,00
Local (County/City)	85%	$401,300,00
	100%	$416,300,00

Washington’s 15% support for court funding is the lowest in the nation. The national average for funding of the courts is 45% state and 55% local. Mr. Johns pointed out the difficulty in determining court funding details based on the high level reports. He continued the notes made require clarification and more details.

Ms. Noland asked if the goal of the work group is to indicate what funds are need or whether the state and local costs should be changed? Mr. Johns responded that the work group’s mandate is wide providing the opportunity to look at all options.

Mr. Hjorth pointed out that there is not enough money to accomplish the work the trial courts must do. He said there is a need to provide additional funding for courts, but where that money will come from is a complicated issue. Mr. Hjorth feels it is necessary to look at all possible funding options.

Judge Godfrey presented the following history:

1932
Initiative process. Income tax (initiative 69) passed by public. Cap on property taxes (measure 94). Income tax struck down by Supreme Court, Culliton vs. Chase, 174 Wash. 363.

1936
Legislature changed “uniform”

1937
MVET (graduated income tax). Governor slashed 25-30% of salaries for women working for state, county, city government unless they were able to proof they were the breadwinner.

Salaries of superior court judges: ½ paid by state and ½ paid by county.

1979
Initiative 62 — State cannot put burden local government with any new programs unless they fund them.

1980
King County received 5 new judges. Senator Talmadge inquired of Attorney General Gorton--how does initiative 62 affect request for additional judges? The Attorney General responded “It is our considered opinion that if the legislature, during its current (1980) session, increases the number of superior court judgeships within a given county, the state will be required by § 6(1) of Initiative No. 62 to reimburse that county for its added costs arising by reason of those new judgeships.”

The Attorney General’s opinion was referenced in Seattle vs. State, 100 Wn.2d 16, 666 P.2d 351 (1983), authored by Justice Pearson and in State v. Howard, 106 Wn.2d 39, 722 P.2d 783 (1985), authored by Justice Durham.

1990
Legislature passed the Criminal Justice Funding Act of 1990. The Act provided that money appropriated shall not supplant existing local funding for criminal justice programs.

Judge Godfrey reminded the Task Force that courts are a branch of government, not part of the criminal justice system. He continued one of the requirements of the legislature is to properly fund courts. Judge Godfrey also pointed out that the courts are not revenue producers.

Judge Godfrey advised that the workload analysis indicates a need for 241 superior court judges. Currently there are 175 sitting judges and 48 court commissioners filling 222 of the authorized 241 positions. Those 19 are unfilled by local government.

Judge Godfrey advised the members of the process for calculating fiscal notes.

Mr. Blair advised the members that all five work groups have held their initial meetings. He estimates 100 people are involved with the work groups. He reminded the members that the mission of the Task Force is to identify adequate, stable, long-term funding for the courts.

Mr. Hjorth reported the Principles Committee had met to develop a proposed set of Principles. Mr. Hjorth reviewed the proposed Principles.

Principles of Funding Alternatives
Draft 1

1. Trial courts should have a “guaranteed” base of funding to meet Constitutional mandates

   The members discussed the need for courts to meeting their legal obligations. They agreed that the source of funds must be adequate and long-term.

   Amended Principle 1.

   Trial courts should have a guaranteed base of funding.

   a) Trial courts must meet their legal obligations;

   b) Source of funds must be adequate, stable and long-term.

2. Trial courts must be publicly accountable for the effective and efficient use of public money

   After a brief discussion the members agreed that Principle 2 should remain as proposed.

3. a) The trial courts should be funded through appropriate contributions from all levels of government (state, county and municipal) and court revenue should be distributed on a pro rata basis;

   OR

   b) The state should fully fund the trial courts (state Constitutional right) and receive all court revenue

   The members discussed the following points:

   • local government funds the majority of court system;
   • courts should not be self sustaining
   • courts should be supplemented by government
   • the responsibility for funding the courts falls to the government, whether it be state or local
   • the state is not paying enough, governments entities should pay for courts, not the users
   • the financial health of the courts should not be tied to court fees
   • court funding should be independent of court decisions

   Amended Principle 3

   Court Funding must be adequate to provide the administration of justice equally across the state.

4. Trial courts are not self-sustaining government agencies

   After a brief discussion, the members agreed that Principle 4 should remain as proposed.

5. Trial court collections are not a factor in determining trial courts’ budgets

   The members discussed the following points:

   • Trial court judges are not collection agencies
   • Court budgets should not be based on amount of fines collected >
   • Fines and penalties imposed by trial courts should not be a factor in determining trial courts’ budget
   • Failure of past efforts in Washington due to judges fear of loss of local control

6. The judiciary is responsible for the distribution (budgeting) of public money appropriated for court operations

   The members briefly discussed Principle 6.

   It was moved, seconded and passed (with Judge Bathum abstaining) to amend Principle 6 as follows:

   The trial courts are responsible for the distribution of public money appropriated for court operations.

Commentary

The Principles Committee confined its work to identifying principles of “funding alternatives” rather than principles of “justice” that may be within the charge of the Problem Identification Workgroup.

The Principles Committee also discussed the need to develop a common definition of trial court costs (what functions are included) and decided to refer that question to the full Funding Alternatives Workgroup for discussion and possible submission to the Problem Identification Workgroup.

The work group next discussed need for short commentary following each of the principles. That will be completed by the Principles Committee.

Judge Godfrey volunteered to research the legal authority each of the principles.

Mr. Johns indicated the format should be:

Principle
Legal basis
Commentary

Mr. Johns also indicated the Principle Committee should provide narrative background as work progresses.

Issues Discussed

Councilman Constantine said it was necessary to establish the judiciary’s right to a fair share of the funding, as the judiciary is funding by the legislature just as any other branch of government.

Judge Bathum advised that for every case 60% is added for the Public Safety and Education Account. He spoke of the different “takers” of the Public and Safety Account (PSEA) moneys.

Actions/Decisions

Minutes

It was moved by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Judge Godfrey to approve the minutes of the March 12, 2003 meeting as published. The motion carried.

Topics/Materials for Next Meeting(s)

Review draft 2 of Principles
Presentation of the Sources of Funding

Studies requested:

Why states have different share of state funding and what are the state/local mixes;
What are interests of local government having share in court funding;
What is the rationale behind means by which courts are funded;
Road Map and support studies;
Identifying all reasonable sources of funds for courts;
Pros/cons of user fees (what is a user fee); and
AOC/BJA study index

Date of next meeting is April 17, 2003. The meeting will be held in Suite 1606, Two Union Square, Seattle.