Members in attendance:
Jeff Amram, Co-Chair
|
Jan Michels, Co-Chair
|
Sherry Blackford
|
Judge Pat Burns
|
Judge Robert Harris
|
Lorena Hollis
|
Nancy Jewett
|
Ron Miles
|
Sharon Paradis
|
Janet Sweeney
|
Marianne Walters
|
|
Staff: Yvonne Pettus
Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was called to order. Jeff Amram introduced himself and asked other members to introduce themselves and briefly explain the funding issues in their jurisdictions. Comments from the members' introductions are summarized in Attachment A.
Review of Work Group Charge
Jan Michels opened a discussion about the work group's charge. She indicated that the other work groups are waiting for the Problem Definition Work Group's final product so they can focus their work. The work group offered many suggestions of areas that could be examined to provide information regarding the problem.
Members voiced the need for more information about fines and penalties collected by the courts. It was suggested that we need comparison information from other states. The question was raised, "do the courts' deficits result in a greater impact than deficits in other areas of governments?" The work group was clear that we need to prove the problems are real and we need facts and data to state our case. Some information regarding the consequences of not funding or inadequate funding was seen as an important part of the work group's charge.
As a way to gather some initial information, it was suggested that a questionnaire be developed asking judges and court managers to list the top 10 funding problems in their jurisdictions. It might be useful to add some questions to juror exit questionnaires to get input from jurors.
The work group discussed the need for phrases to describe the problem that will grab the attention of different audiences such as; the courts are a safety net; courts are the backbone of public safety.
Vision of the Work Group's Outcome
Work group members shared ideas of possible outcomes of the work of the work group. These included:
- Elimination of the disparity of funding between courts.
- One level of government responsible for funding.
- Setting the county contribution at a certain level and having the state pay for growth needs.
- Funding needs to be a partnership, the state needs to fund a larger piece of the pie, funding needs to mirror the needs of the community.
- The state should fund certain functions such as interpreters, indigent defense, and big ticket items.
- We need to protect judicial independence.
- There should be caseload standards that could be used to interpret the "case/problem" definition.
- We need a multi-audience approach.
The work group then went back to the issues raised during the introductions to flesh out these issues and to discuss consequences of inadequate funding. These issues are summarized in Attachment B.
Assignments
Jan asked each work group member to:
- Draft a one page description of how they would define the problem or problems associated with funding in their court/jurisdiction; and
- Review the materials distributed at the meeting and think about how you would define the core functions of the court.
Future Meeting Dates
The following meeting dates were set: March 13; March 27; and April 10. All meetings will be held at Two Union Square, Suite 1606 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Introductory Comments re: Funding Issues
JURISDICTION
|
FUNDING ISSUES
|
Clark County
|
The superior court is unable to get a commitment from county commissioners to fund additional judicial positions. The superior court has a definite shortage of judges. The superior court has already discontinued the use of court reporters. The county has experienced a rapid population growth. The county revenues will not even cover inflation. Judge Harris conducted a survey of superior court judges regarding adequacy of facilities. A few courts indicated the facilities were adequate - most did not. Judge Harris estimated it would cost about $78 million to remedy the inadequate superior court facilities. Judges are currently spending about 2.5 minutes per defendant on the in-custody docket.
|
Jefferson County
|
There is inadequate funding from the county. The state is increasing the workload and funding requirements of local courts.
|
Skamania County
|
There has been a growth in law enforcement (more deputies hired) but no corresponding growth in court employees.
|
Benton/Franklin Counties
|
The judicial district has a request before the Legislature for an additional superior court judge. The counties have deficits in all areas. There is a need to prioritize at the county level but there are many competing interests.
|
Kittitas County
|
The county has experienced rapid growth. The county commissioners took a brutal approach to funding early on so the court is not facing cuts at this time but has been operating with few resources for some time. There is a shortage of courtrooms and judicial resources. The court struggles to cover the costs for interpreter services.
|
Everett Municipal
|
Unfunded mandates have hurt the city. Staff hours have been reduced.
|
Kirk Johns, WSBA
|
There is a need to understand the structure of court funding in Washington. We need to know where we are and how we got here. The work group needs examples of problems and firm evidence.
|
Spokane County
|
Infrastructure issues (13 courtrooms in 4 locations) are a major concern. There has been a growth in law enforcement (more deputies/officers hired) but no corresponding growth in court employees. There is no planning time and no staff to do planning. It is crisis management all the time. The court has inadequate recording equipment.
|
Auburn Municipal
|
The court is entirely dependent on local funding. There is a need for an independent source of funding. Facilities are inadequate. Staffing is inadequate. The court hears on average 85 hearings per day (that averages less than 5 minutes per hearing). The court generates a considerable amount of revenue for the city but the funds go to law enforcement increases not court staffing increases. We cannot put any more of the court funding burden on the users.
|
COURT FUNDING ISSUES
There has been a growth in law enforcement officers without a commensurate increase in other justice system staffing increases. In the City of Everett, the Municipal Court has not experienced the impact of the increased number of officers because the new officers are mainly filing felonies. In district courts, the Washington State Patrol (WSP) is emphasizing speed control enforcement and DUI enforcement. This has had a large increase in workload for district court with no commensurate staff increases. There is a feeling that the state should pay for processing these WSP cases. The increased DUI cases cause local issues to slip because of the mandatory next day hearing requirement. The DUI cases also result in more jury trials, public defense costs, interpreter costs, and local prosecution costs.
Local jails are full. This results in early jail releases and contributes to the problem of over 300,000 outstanding misdemeanant warrants.
The press of the criminal caseload at district court has caused, at least in Spokane County, the dismissal of infraction cases because they could not meet the noticing deadlines. In superior court, the press of the criminal caseload results in a trade-off between criminal and civil cases. As the criminal cases take precedent, the civil cases are delayed and may go elsewhere. Domestic relations cases cannot go elsewhere so they end up being delayed. Delay in these cases has real personal consequences for parents and children. Injunctions need timely action.
As civil litigation goes elsewhere, the state relinquishes its responsibility to establish case law, loses the consumer protection aspect of civil litigation, creates a two-tier system of justice, and inhibits the public resolution of emerging issues and developing emerging law. Small businesses may not be able to take advantage of private resolution options so may be left at the mercy of the court and the criminal docket.
Limited staffing resources results in no court enforcement of judgments. Court supervision in collection of monetary judgments at the courts of limited jurisdiction level has been turned over to collection agencies. The courts are hearing from the Legislature that they want the courts to perform this function (see House Bill 1800 and House Bill 1031).
In Benton/Franklin Juvenile Court there are 23 streams of funding that apply to different programs in the court. Juvenile court dependency actions require six-month reviews. There has been a breakdown in this process. The Office of Public Defense (OPD) conducted a pilot project providing representation to parents of dependent children. The project showed a decrease in continuances and more well-informed decision-making. The project no longer has funding. BECCA funding is an issue this legislative session. Efforts are being made to keep the current level of funding. The juvenile offender system is an adversial system. This adds to the cost of processing these cases.
Mental health issues for criminal defendants require more processing time in court and by clerks. The individuals often try to access the courts pro se which results in clerks spending much time with them to respond to questions. The lack of civil indigent representation exacerbates the problem for individuals with mental health issues who have civil issues for the courts to decide. The referral sources for these individuals are either inadequate or non-existent. If referred for treatment or evaluation, the individuals do not follow through and thus become repeat offenders. There is no system to provide follow-up for these individuals.
The mission of the courts has changed. The courts are no longer simply involved in provision of justice but are now involved in provision of social services and treatment. Specialty courts (unified family court, mental health court, drug court, domestic violence court) have been established because courts recognized the needs, recognized the value in treating the whole situation, and realized the benefit of greater protection for the community. These courts are very labor intensive but have shown good results.
