Problem Definition Work Group
Meeting Notes
June 12, 2003

Members in attendance:

Jan Michels, Co-Chair	Wayne Blair
Sharon Blackford	Judge Pat Burns
Judge Robert Harris	Judge James Heller
Rena Hollis	Kirk Johns
Sharon Paradis	Gail Stone
Janet Sweeney	Marianne Walters

Staff:	Colleen Clark
	Jeff Hall
	Yvonne Pettus

Welcome and Introductions

The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. Those present introduced themselves. The meeting notes from May 15 were entered into the record as written.

Information/Materials Presented

Ms. Michels reported on the Court Funding Task Force (CFTF) meeting which took place on May 22, 2003. She said the “onion chart” developed by this committee was very useful to the task force.

She expressed that the discussion was difficult – should the (lack of) funding be characterized as a “train wreck” or a “train wreck waiting to happen,” or has it happened already? This committee needs to offer to the task force the degree to which funding for the courts is in crisis.

Ms. Michels told the CFTF that the AOC is working on actual dollar figures using the year 2000 as the benchmark. Initial findings are endorsing the CFTF’s original thoughts that we recognize all the major deficiencies that will impact funding.

Her report to the Task Force is appended as Attachment 1.

Ms. Hollis asked about the other work groups and their reports.

Mr. Johns, co-chair of the Funding Alternatives Work Group, did a presentation about defining the ‘octopus’ of current funding. There are not a lot of alternatives; there are taxes and user fees. They have not come up with other alternatives yet; but do realize that court user fees cannot support the system.

The Implementation Strategies work group is waiting for information from the other work groups.

The Public Information work group is just starting their work.

The Courts of Limited Jurisdiction work group is making progress, but has not reached any conclusions or published any findings yet.

Issues Discussed

Severity of Financial Crisis

Ms. Michels asked the work group to give their opinions and thoughts on the severity of the financial crisis of the court system. Comments included:

• The previous analogy of a train wreck that has happened or a train wreck that will happen – believe that problems have and are happening, there have been some crises and there will probably be more in the future.

• We need to look at Oregon and what has happened there; we are not at that point yet, but we need to be careful that we do not reach that point.

• The onion is a good metaphor, it’s something that grows and it can have rotten spots; and those rotten spots can be cut out, nutrients added and it can grow and bloom.

• The train wreck is occurring in slow motion and nobody is really noticing that it is happening; we cannot pinpoint exactly when it will culminate.

• The courts are doing such a good job of covering and scrambling, it does not look like there is much of a problem.

• All government is in a crisis. Although courts are core to the nature of democracy that somehow continues to get lost and we are not seen as important.

• Cutting everyone equally does not recognize the core nature of some entities, such as courts.

It was discussed that including something about Oregon’s crisis in our report might be useful.

Presenting to Legislature

There was also discussion about how we present ourselves [courts] to the legislature. It’s not that we see ourselves as more important than other parts of the government – but just as important. We should focus on who we are and the importance the courts play in our society. The principle is to make them aware that the third branch of government needs funding and not compare our needs with other functions of the government.

Mr. Johns offered that we need to:

1. identify what the shortfall is; and

2. We are not able to do (a) until we identify the functions and services the courts used to provide, but can no longer provide due to funding shortfalls.

Breaking Down the Information

Ms. Hollis asked at what point in the past do we start with functions that have been lost. She continued that the courts are different than they were even 10 years ago, for example drug courts were not around then; are they a core function now? Exactly how do we identify what the core functions of the courts are; at what point do we start?

Ms. Stone responded that this group should determine what is ‘fluff’ and what is not. Then figure out what is needed to fund that adequately and make the case for that.

Ms. Paradis added that we have to differentiate what is really ‘fluff’ and what programs have been developed that are cost effective and have been put together to assist the courts, judges, and public; such as courthouse facilitators and drug courts. There are programs that to the lay person may appear to be ‘fluff’ but are in reality necessary. The system is becoming stretched so thin that it is starting to collapse in the center.

Mr. Blair said he is looking to this work group to say if they think something is ‘fluff.’ That is part of this work group’s function. If the work group thinks something is fluff then they should take it out of the onion chart. He does look at all the different programs as assisting the decision-making mission of the courts. For example if there was no mandatory arbitration in King County, there would need to be more judges to handle the 40 percent of the civil case load that is now diverted and resolved by mandatory arbitration. But if this group looks at programs that really are not helpful, it needs to be pointed out.

Ms. Hollis offered that when we go to the legislature it is important to have statistics to back up our work, i.e. stats on recidivism vs. drug courts, whenever possible.

Mr. Blair responded that is not this work group’s function – that is the Implementation Strategies Work Group’s function. The Problem Definition Work Group’s function is to determine if it is in the ‘onion’ or not.

Ms. Michels reminded the group that when they were defining the problem early on, it was decided not to get into the discussion of core vs. non-core. This group should focus on what the court does to meet its mandate of adjudication of cases before an objective forum of an independent judicial branch. The courts reserve to themselves the best way to do that with which they are charged to do. We are talking about functions, not core vs. non-core.

There was discussion about a mission statement for the courts. The determination was that it was not this work group’s job to decide if one was needed.

Judge Burns stressed that the courts need to determine what it takes to run the courts and the legislature needs to be aware of the consequences of inadequate funding for those services.

Mr. Hall reminded the Work Group that they should not be constrained by political considerations. The Funding Alternatives and Implementation Strategies work groups are the ones that will deal with that aspect. There is a natural crossover among the groups; but if the PDWG worries about the political considerations, they may miss something and cut something out that maybe should not be cut out. There is a lot of overlap built into these work groups so that the big picture can be kept in focus.

Assessing the Dollar Amount

Ms. Stone said she would like to see a ballpark figure put into our recommendation. Mr. Blair agreed that was a good idea, although he is not sure how that will be developed.

Mr. Johns said the Funding Alternatives work group has announced the expectation that this group will come up with a dollar figure. He added that AOC is putting together numbers. Mr. Hall added that there are no nationally recognized standards for the staff to judge ratio. He is working with Dr. Glenn on statistical data. Judge Harris discussed several methodologies that have been looked at and none have been successful in determining these numbers. Ms. Hollis added a concern that looking at flat filing numbers will not show the whole picture – cases are much more complex now than they were 10 years ago. It was agreed that the numbers are going to be very difficult to pin down and will probably take several more meetings to explore the onion chart and break down everything that is included in it.

Input/Output Model

Ms. Michels suggested going through the onion chart and noting what information was available from the Input/Output Model (I/O) and accepting that information as valid. This will decrease the number of areas the work group will need to spend time on.

The committee went through the items on the onion chart to determine if they were readily available from AOC.

Item	Determination	Notes
Judicial Positions	I/O	I/O model does include commissioners
Judicial Support Staff	Next meeting	Look at state data to see what’s available; distinguish between smaller and larger counties; combination of filings and pleading counts; use 2000 as a benchmark?
Administration	Next meeting	Look at state data to see what’s available
Clerical Support Positions	Next meeting	Look at state data to see what’s available
Adjudicate Cases
Recordkeeping (evidence)
JIS
Community/Public Information		Websites - depends on local government technology
Reviewing Judgments
Training
Facilities	Next meeting	Need a method to assess adequacy; AOC fiscal notes include a Capital portion; there are national standards ($165/square foot)
Security	Next meeting	There was a Courthouse Security Task Force in 1996—adopted Courthouse Public Safety Standards
Warrants	Next meeting	Project 2001 looked at this (Ms. Pettus will distribute recommendations)
Probation	Next meeting	CLJ Bench, DOC, Juvenile
Accounting		Included in clerical support positions
Jurors		Fiscal note w/$35/day juror fee will be provided
Witnesses	Next meeting	Breakdown between expert (public defense category) and regular ($10/day plus gas - tied to juror fees)
Accessibility to Public
Interpreters		They negotiate own contracts; could be a problem if not available and not affordable; vital element, a funding issue
Infraction Processing		Included in clerical support positions
Failure to Appear/Pay		Included in clerical support positions
Schedule		Included in clerical support positions
Judgments		Included in clerical support positions
Criminal Indigent Defense	Next meeting	OPD Pilot project has some data for dependency
Court-annexed ADR		County pays half/state pays half; designed for congested counties (counties below 75,000 population are not required to have the program)
Settlement Conferences
Public Relations		Included in Administration
Specialty Courts	Next meeting	Dependent on economy of scale; established to meet an unmet need in the social fabric of the community
Courthouse Facilitators		If they are staff, they will be included in clerical support positions; some counties contract (we will know the FTE or the contract cost)
CASA		Located in county budgets; line item in AOC budget
GAL Programs
Orders of Protection		Included in clerical support and judicial positions
Injunctions		Included in clerical support and judicial positions
Family Court Services	Next meeting	Included in administration or are non-existent
Supervised Visitation
Probate/Guardianship		Gap in funding; case management
Family Court		Specialty court
Juvenile Court		Staffing ratios need to be developed
Juvenile Detention		Are there national standards or ratios?

Facilities and Security

Ms. Pettus was asked how AOC defines the space/cost issue. She replied that each superior court judge is allowed 1900 square feet which includes a courtroom, jury deliberation room and office space for a court reporter or judicial assistant. For every clerical staff person, the national standard is 120 square feet.

The County Auditor should have cost allocations for facilities (overhead).

Judge Burns said that every courtroom, at a maximum, should have courtroom security. When you start looking at courthouses with more than one courtroom, you see less than one security officer per courtroom.

Ms. Michels summed up with the following: we can know the number of judges and the courtroom space; we can also know staff space and the court’s share of county overhead. But the big unknowns are adequacy and building maintenance. Who handles facilities and to what depth should this work group delve into it? This should be checked on with the Court Funding Task Force at their retreat.

Topics/Materials for Next Meeting

• Indicated items in the preceding table (staffing ratios, facilities, security, juvenile and CLJ probation, therapeutic courts, support to judicial decision makers).

• Facilities and Security – suggestions on how to address current adequacy.

• Look at other states’ data to see what is available for judicial support staffing recommendations.

• Courthouse Public Safety Standards.

• Description of methodology of input/output model for work group.

• Ms. Pettus will distribute material that Judge Harris gathered on superior court facilities.

Future Meeting Dates

The next two meetings have been scheduled:

Thursday, July 17
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Two Union Square, Suite 1606

Friday, September 26
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Location: TBD

ATTACHMENT 1

1. General Work Group Status

   The Problem Definition Work Group (PDWG) has held six meetings, and invested over 30 hours in its work to define the court funding problem. The PDWG has developed an approach that starts with the court’s role in our constitutional democracy and rule of law. The Work Group then discussed functions of the trial courts and placed those components in a priority scheme referred to as the "Onion Chart". See attached.

   The Group heard presentations from functions where they needed further information and discussion before entering them in the “onion”: indigent criminal defense, the full array of Juvenile Court components, Civil Equal Justice and Community Dispute Resolution Centers.

   The PDWG explored the various effects of inadequate funding, have an ongoing survey going, and collected anecdotes and stories as examples of the problems with inadequate funding.

   Concurrently the PDWG began exploring current funding structures and amounts and heard a presentation by AOC Research staff regarding available caseload data that could be used by the Work Group in establishing a baseline for services and costs of those services.

2. Initial Findings

   The PDWG has accepted and incorporated the concept that while incremental efficiencies and improvements are always sought and implemented, there are no large or major trial court efficiencies that could address the funding problems.

   The PDWG recognizes that the effort to adequately fund the trial courts has three audiences: the public, the legislature, and the judicial branch. It is essential that the report and recommendations address each audience and that the judicial branch be uniformly behind the approach and message.

   Trial court funding must be clarified and streamlined; a better balance between local government and state must be struck.

3. Concepts Behind the Developing Report of the PDWG

   1. The courts maintain the rule of law and social order central to our quality of life.

   2. Courts are increasingly looked to for the resolution of social problems; Courts are the “fail safe”/ last resort.

   3. The "Onion Chart" describes what we mean by “trial court funding” in terms of the work of the C$TF.

   4. Year 2000 costs of the components of court funding are the most accurate and normalized year. These figures will become the anchor for analyzing costs and funding needs

   5. The trial courts are a general government function and cannot be self supporting or supported on court fees

   6. Current funding of the trial courts is convoluted and not reasonably shared between local and state; there needs to be a high level conceptual principal behind funding structures.

   7. The burden of funding the trial courts should be parsed according to broad functions (for example: judges salaries, criminal defense and juvenile representation, interpreters, etc)

   8. The C$TF needs to rely on the work of the Civil Equal Justice Funding Task Force to document the need and develop funding recommendations for civil indigent representation.

   9. The C$TF needs to rely on the WSBA Panel on Defense to develop mechanisms to document the adequacy of current criminal and juvenile defense/representation.

   Further work is needed to document the current finances and project “adequate funding” principles.

   A draft report has been developed and is being refined by the Work Group as their work proceeds

4. Timeline

   The Work Group has a meeting scheduled for June 12^{th and} expects to meet again in later June. The Work Group expects to complete its report by June 30^th.

5. Challenges/ Questions for the C$TF

   • Integration of the work of the Civil Equal Justice Funding Task Force and the C$TF; is it correctly categorized in the “onion”?

   • Counties are oriented toward funding of the Justice system (third ring in the “onion”) and reluctant to parse out trial court funding.

     ALTERNATIVE AS SUGGESTED BY WSAC: “In addition to having a strong interest in securing adequate trial court funding, counties must maintain a broad perspective on the overall justice system because counties also bear the responsibility for funding and operating most functions of the overall system.”

   • Law Libraries are a judicial resource AND important public service and access mechanisms. They are funded primarily by the court revenue stream but are law libraries a trial court, judicial branch, or access to justice function?

   • What does it mean that increasingly litigants want personal help but not representation; is there a clear line between assisting the public and representation?

   • Non-litigation dispute resolution is increasingly seen as “better justice”- what is the courts role in offering such services?

   • There is no easy constituency for adequate trial court funding; while jurors, victims and litigants are “consumers” they have no conceptual, logical, or ongoing interest in the courts.

   • The C$TF, Civil Equal Justice Funding TF and WSBA Panel on Criminal Defense are on different time lines and not yet fully integrated.

ATTACHMENT 2

SURVEY RESPONSES FROM COUNTY CLERKS

COUNTY	QUESTION 1 Since 2000, what if any, budget reduction has your office experienced	QUESTION 2 If you were required to cut your budget 20%, what would you stop doing and what would be the consequences to those served?
1	Overall budget has not decreased since 2000 however I increased one deputy clerk position in 2001 and lost it in 2002. Also, since 2000, our workload increased 14% in the number of cases filed, 20% in the number of court hearings, 35% in the number of jury trials and 10% in the number of documents filed.	87.2% of current budget is salary and benefits. If I had to cut 20%, I would have to cut ¼ of my entire staff plus something out of supplies/printing/phone/travel budget. We would not be able to continue doing what we do now. We would have to cut the hours the office is open to the public and I think we would have to shut down court on some days. The only non-mandated service we do is passports. We have a part-time facilitator but she is paid for by the surcharge and appointment fees. We currently have a collections clerk however she brings in enough revenue to cover her salary and then some. New legislation is going to put even more of a responsibility on the clerks to monitor collections. A 20% cut would result in us being just a criminal court and putting off all civil and domestic matters longer than we already do.
2	There was an overall increase of 19% in our budget. Salary and benefit related costs increased 12% (reclassifications, normal steps, COLAs and increasing medical and other benefit costs. In 2003 salary and benefit costs are 73% of our budget. Our fixed costs such as DIS overhead charges and space rent make up the majority of the balance of the increase.	A 20% budget cut would mean a reduction of up to 18% of our staff. The non-mandated services would go first, collections, facilitator program, separate domestic violence program. There would be a corresponding loss in revenue from facilitator and collections reductions. Beyond that we would be cutting FTEs to levels that would severely impact our ability to provide mandated services.
3	20%	The only thing left to cut is a small supply budget and personnel.
4	We have not received any budget cuts. Every budget cycle we prepare for and get around a 5% cut. However, we have always been successful in arguing the necessity of putting the money back before the budget is adopted. However, we do have a serious staff shortage, and have made up for it with temporary monies and trainees from various school programs that are free.	If we get a significant cut it will come from staff. There is not enough non-mandated or non-salary money to make a major cut. Also we would cut hours of operation.
5	10% in the clerk’s budget for 2003 except for public defense. Additional 5% cut in 2004. These cuts were made without cutting staff except in the extra help budget.	It would almost have to be in staff. Our 10%/5% wiped out almost all non-staff discretionary money. We would need to cut 10 of our 39 staff. If the courts, sheriff and prosecutor also made 20% cuts what we did would be different than if we were the only ones that had to cut 20% in the law and justice side of business. What would we do? Implode. We don’t do any discretionary activities now except passports and we make money off of those! We could close from noon to 1:30 when superior court is not in session. We stopped microfilming in the 10%/5% cuts. You tell me what part of the RCWs we ignore.
6	Have been lucky, no percent decrease but I anticipate a 12% reduction for FY2004.	Non-mandated services would be the first to go because a 20% cut to my budget equals $108,000. Two staff members with benefits ($78,000); travel and training ($3,500); extra help ($2,500); overtime ($500); supplies ($2,500). I would not provide a clerk for juvenile drug court. We do not get money for staffing and this would save time away from my office as well as $250 in travel. Advertising ($12,000) for legal notices, Passports ($15,000 in revenue) Jury management for district and municipal courts. Collections with the increased revenue loss.
7	Strictly speaking my budget has been bigger due to salary increases for staff, benefits, insurance costs, etc. however w have not been able to increase the number of staff since 1998. Some of my line items like travel have been cut drastically. This year the County Commissioners refused to fund WACO dues although they paid their WSAC dues.	First I would cut the individual in my office who answers the switchboard for the county (and also does some scanning for me). This impact really causes every department problems, although a lot of them have their own outside numbers. I would probably have to let my Chief Deputy go as my second choice. Another $185,000 could only come from staffing cuts (4 total) and all the public and the users of the court system would suffer.
8	There hasn’t been any excess in my budget since before 2000.	There is no way I could make a 20% cut. If I have to cut at this point, it will be my travel budget ($1,000) and dues. That is all that is left. I could cut my 1-2 day a week person and then I would have to close the office if I had to be gone for any reason.
9	There was an overall increase of 7.7% however it was entirely routine step increases (no COLA) and medical and other benefits costs. Actual 11% reduction in operating costs.	The non-mandated services would go first, i.e. collections (5.4%) and passports (0.3%) and the corresponding loss of revenue. The next to go would be remaining travel and training dollars and jury management for other court levels (an efficiency move years ago) (3%). Beyond that we would lose the balance of the position left after the above reductions and would have to reduce counter and telephone service to operate with the remaining staff. This would mean an overall reduction of 1/3 of my staff.
10	Our budget has been bare bones and travel has been cut 33%.	20% of my budget would be two staff. We would have to close our doors frequently therefore; at times (not predicted) there would be no service.
11	County departments were required to keep the bottom line budget balance the same as year 2002. Keeping the budget the same as 2002 caused reductions in line items to meet this. With union wage increases and increases in expenditures for the County IS department, phone, benefits, I had to cut in areas which are showing low balances or deficits. I am asking for a budget extension in the line item for advertising because of the high costs of publicizing dependency notices. That line item was decreased over $4,000.	I really don’t know where I will be able to cut. I have a bare bones budget now. I need every bit of money and every person.
12	Reductions: 2000 (3%), 2001 (5%), 2002 (1.5%), 2003 (3%0, 2004 (5%)	1. I would look for as many ways to increase my revenues as possible. 2. Next I would propose cutting all archiving activity - which is short term positive, long-term negative impact. Paper would eventually need to be changed to a different medium, so this only moves the expense to a later date. 3. I may propose cutting some drug court treatment dollars, which is a short term fix, again. 4. Next would be FTE cuts that would affect all our customers - from judges to lawyers to pro se's. FTE cuts in cashiering, docketing, juvenile, files access, customer services, case auditing, would all be likely.

ATTACHMENT 3

SURVEY RESPONSES FROM SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATORS

COUNTY	QUESTION 1 Since 2000, what if any, budget reduction has your office experienced	QUESTION 2 If you were required to cut your budget 20%, what would you stop doing and what would be the consequences to those served?
1	We were asked to cut $86,000 from proposed 2002 budget. These cuts were made before the 2002 budget was approved. This is less than 1%. It did not include any personnel costs other than some extra hire dollars. In the 2003 budget the court was reduced $25,000 in it's pro tem commissioner line to help fund one full-time commissioner. The full-time commissioner had been funded by the Involuntary Treatment Act grant but due to cutbacks in that program, other funding had to be located. This was less than 1%.	A 20% reduction would be $2 million and would cripple services. Virtually all areas would suffer cuts. Best guess on priority cuts might be: Pro tem judge program; Drug court; Breaking The Cycle program; travel/training; jury expenses; repairs and maintenance; minor equipment; data processing equipment; books; extra hire/work study personnel; part-time position; mandated services: interpreter, jury, guardian ad litem. Personnel might be the last cut.
2	None. Budget has increased since 2000, however many new funding requests, such as for new judicial positions have been denied.	20% of budget is $416K. Not in any particular order: full-time commissioner (142K) would force judges to re-prioritize; court administrator ($108K); travel ($17K); part-time bailiffs ($30K); family court services ($43K); family court services manager ($75K) would probably be offset by required GALs. This assumes the Court would continue to require clerical staff to pay bills, do some scheduling, etc. (Some of that work could transfer to the county).
3	We have not had budget reductions since 2000.	We have not discussed what cuts we would make. The 20% figure is terrifying and I don’t even know where we could start!
4	The bottom line is that our overall budget has increased a little each year since 2000 but many of our individual lines have been reduced, while others have increased. The last two years we’ve overspent our total budget due to expert witness costs associated with aggravated murder cases and that has been picked up by the county’s reserve contingency fund (they don’t budget us for this in our regular budget.) What is hidden in the fact that our total allocation has continually increased, is that COLAs, merit increases, raises, and the cost of doing business has gone up, and our other operating lines like supplies, equipment, etc. have been negatively impacted as a result.	I can’t even comprehend a 20% reduction. In our case that translates into about $1.4 million. With about $3.5 million tied up in personnel costs, another $1 million in professional services, jury fees etc and the balance in phones, IS, rent, etc. there is not much to go to. Some possible ideas: 1) lay off 4 commissioners, move family court proceedings to the judges and push civil matters out much further. This would only get us less than halfway to the 20% reduction. Civil trials get delayed way too long. 2) close family court investigations and lay off 4 staff. Saves about $250 – 300,000 but the savings is offset by having to pay private GALs for investigations. 3) eliminate court reporters and move to digital recording – salary savings approaching $1 million but offset by one-time start-up costs of up to $500,000 plus on-going support and maintenance. Many judges and attorneys would feel that it was a lower level of service and quality. 4) close court one day a week and take 20% reduction in salaries, etc. Net savings pretty small assuming judicial salaries would not be changed so reductions would come from non-judicial employees (maybe $300,000 per year). A variation on this would be to go to a 35 hour work week for court staff with even less in the way of saving or could do both. 5) ask to move all expert witness, interpreter, and related costs from superior court to the Office of Public Defense. No net savings to the county but mitigates budget impact to the court. 6) some combination of the above.
5	Until about 5 years ago, I was the only support staff in superior court. I am the court administrator and court reporter for the two-county judicial district. Finally, we hired a full-time assistant court administrator. In 2001 they started talking about cutting her position but she took on more work including facilitator and collections in order to bring in more money for the county. In 2002 her position was cut 20%. In June 2003 her position is cut to 50%. They also cut funding out of our budget for a court commissioner. The commissioner used to hear dockets every Monday.	We’ve already cut back on our facilitating. The only place to cut would be to eliminate the assistant court administrator position. The only other items are about $1,500 in supplies and professional fees for investigators, interpreters and psychological exams.
6	The 2003 budget is higher because of COLAs.	We would have to start with any non-mandatory programs: criminal pre-trial services; staff – law clerks; education funding; arbitration; look at the way we do our business i.e., court reporting (might have to look at some electronic). County would look at different hours, freezing COLAs (already been done for department heads).
7	When adjusted for step increases and COLA, a 4% budget reduction from 2000 to 2003.	We would eliminate two court commissioners who hear domestic relations and juvenile dependency dockets. We would to “spread” those cases to the 8 superior court judges. This would have a significant impact: 1) we would not have resources to hear BECCA cases; 2) trailing trial docket would increase on criminal matters; 3) civil cases would be extended out further on our docket; and 4) would not have resources to contribute judicial time for drug court.
8	In 2002, budget was reduced by 0.5% - approximately $82,000.	At this time, I believe a 20% reduction would not be realistic. No doubt if it were to happen, the court administrator’s staff would be reduced. Also there would be a possibility of consolidating superior court administrative staff with juvenile and district court administrative staff. One court commissioner position would be eliminated. This budget reduction scenario would probably represent about a 5 – 7% reduction. Beyond this, I believe the court would refuse to take additional cuts.
9	We have not made any budget reduction because there is simply nothing to reduce. The court operates on roughly $200,000 per year and that includes judge and court administrator salaries as well as bailiff and security.
10	2% targeted (net is an increase including labor/benefits)	We would cut one of two facilitators, first. Instead of serving 9,000 litigant contacts per year, we’d serve 4,000. We would cut court-funded supervised visitation, hoping that non-profit would pick it up. We would cut court reporters, in favor of digital recording. (I’d have trouble selling this to the judges but the administration is in favor.
11	Experienced a 5.21 % reduction in 2003 and in 2002 we took a 3% reduction.	In 2003 we lost a court reporter position to balance a budget cut 5.21%. A 20% budget cut is equivalent of one full time judicial officer and/or our full time family court commissioner. We could not handle our current workload with one less judicial officer. Higher priority proceedings such as criminal, juvenile offender, and dependency cases would consume the court’s time creating a backload of trials. Trial dates for civil and domestic cases would be pushed so far out that litigants will be denied access to justice, not to mention the costs of litigation with prolonged trial dates. Criminal cases may be lost due to guidelines set for timely dispositions. The court could not support programs such as our unified family court, drug court and mental health court that are vital to the well-being of our community.
12	Since 2000, our expenditure budget has been reduced approximately 10%. We have not had any positions cut in this office and salaries have increased due to cost of living raises. I believe the reason we have not been approached to cut staff is that the positions in this office do both administrative work and prepare verbatim report of proceedings as official court reporters. If we were asked to cut positions, court reporters would need to be hired.	Within the last couple of years we stopped doing civil settlement conferences to reduce the court commissioner line item. The result to those served is that the ability to resolve a civil case – or narrow issues – prior to trial is gone. The judges have met with the court commissioners and implemented a local policy that pertains to appointment of guardians ad litem. If the GAL is to be paid at public expense, it is now our court’s policy to appoint only when there are substantial allegations of serious harm to children. If we were asked to 20% during the 2004 budget negotiations, I believe the judges would consider cutting family law settlement conferences, look at the judge pro tem line item and review miscellaneous items such as law books, etc.