Problem Definition Work Group
Meeting Notes
July 17, 2003

Members in attendance:

Jan Michels, Co-Chair	Sharon Blackford
Sophia Byrd	Judge Leonard Costello
Judge Richard Fitterer	Judge Robert Harris
Rena Hollis	Kirk Johns
Ron Miles	Sharon Paradis
Gail Stone

Staff:	Colleen Clark
	Jeff Hall
	Yvonne Pettus

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. Judge Costello was welcomed to the committee and introductions were made.

Mr. Miles commented on the train wreck analogy in the notes from June 12. He agreed that the train wreck is going to happen, but there is a series of events that lead up to it, an erosion of the system. The meeting notes from June 12 were entered into the record as written.

INFORMATION/MATERIALS PRESENTED

Trial Court Function Analysis (logical state/local balance)

Ms. Michels reported that the Work Group Co-Chairs met on June 23 for a two-day discussion, to catch up on what the other work groups were doing. They asked for a snapshot of what might be considered state functions and came up with the following:

1. Judicial Salaries

2. Criminal and Juvenile Indigent Defense

3. Juvenile Dependency Representation/Parent Representation

4. Juvenile GAL and Dependency Services

5. Expert Witness Payments

6. Criminal & Juvenile Interpreters

7. State Patrol Filings and Workload

8. Jury Costs for Criminal Cases

Judicial Salaries Adding an additional bullet for Court Employees’ salaries was suggested. Discussion followed; some thought it should be left out, others thought it would be appropriate to add staff directly tied to the judge; some employees carry the same judicial immunity as judges.

Ms. Michels said the issue of state vs. local control was discussed. No clear direction came from it, but she wanted the work group to be aware of it.

Mr. Johns asked for clarification of the differences between clerks and administrators.

• County Clerks are established by constitution; they are the keepers of record for items required to be filed in superior court. They are also elected (except for five counties).

• Court Administrators serve more as case managers and judicial support.

No final determination was made as to adding Court Employees’ salaries; it was agreed that this needs more discussion. Ms. Michels suggested adding it to the list with a note that no decision was reached.

Criminal and Juvenile Indigent Defense (CJID) Mr. Miles reiterated that he does not believe criminal defense is a court function. Ms. Michels said this subject received extensive discussion at the Work Group co-chair meeting; and that it was not up to this group to say whether it should be in the final decision. She said that his concern is still on the table though.

Mr. Hall also shared some discussion on this subject. He said it was not decided if it was a state or a local function. A sub-group of the Funding Alternatives work group is recommending that criminal and juvenile indigent defense should remain a locally funded piece. One reason is that there is a sense that if CJID is paid for by the state, the logical companion is prosecution for the same reasons. The sub-group made an exception for aggravated first degree murder cases; they thought the defense costs for these cases should be state funded.

Judge Harris said it is really not a trial court function, but there is a responsibility to ensure minimum standards are maintained. The state is establishing standards which all counties and cities are expected to adhere to and there should be equal justice across the state and not dependent on the ability of the county to fund a particular service.

Juvenile GAL and Dependency Services Judge Harris pointed out that appointment of guardians ad litem have been limited to dependency. The court also appoints GALs in dissolution cases when a child may be at risk; it is required by statute to do so. The state is not bringing the action, but it is requiring the appointment. Dissolution cases are a local matter, but the child-at-risk could be considered a state matter.

State Patrol Filings and Workload Mr. Hall commented that rather than trying to collect a filing fee from the State Patrol, this should be viewed as a reason to provide state funding for district courts. There is a strong argument that district courts should be considered the same as superior courts in terms of the argument for state funding for judges and staff. This will be expanded to discuss state agency filings.

Discussion Regarding the Trial Court Function Analysis

Ms. Stone elaborated on the Funding Alternatives sub-group's meeting. The sub-group's charge was to define “What is an Appropriate Balance.” They started out by trying to remain philosophically driven and not fiscally minded; but ended up considering the fiscal practicalities. This group included Judge Godfrey, Barb Miner, Gail Stone, Jeff Hall, and Ronald Hjorth. The following summarizes their recommendations.

• They started with an analysis of what functions have a state nexus. The group began with judicial salaries which then became judicial salaries and judicial staff which increased the number significantly for the state’s share of the burden.

• Superior court judge's salaries would remain half funded by the state and half by the county as it is a constitutional mandate and it makes sense to retain that cost sharing. All other staff salaries or court administrators for judicial officers would be paid by the state; they really go hand in hand with judges. There was a second discussion regarding court clerks; the conclusion was that they should remain local, but this is open for further discussion.

• This changed the perspective on the criminal and juvenile indigent defense. It was decided this should remain a local expense; in part since prosecution is locally funded.

• It was agreed that juvenile dependency representation should be state funded.

• Expert witness payments because they’re part of the criminal prosecution and defense system should remain local, as they’re connected and directly linked with those items.

• Criminal and juvenile interpreters were recommended to be a state obligation.

• They also looked at the state agency filing issue. Number 7 (State Patrol Filings and Workload) becomes a more compelling argument that district courts should be paid by the state.

• Jury costs should be paid by the state, but it could be either state or local.

• First degree aggravated murder charge defense would be state funded.

• Municipal courts would stay locally funded.

Ms. Michels summed up with her understanding that the Funding Alternatives sub-group defined district and superior courts as "state courts" top to bottom but left some discreet functions local.

Principles of Trial Court Funding

Attached is a copy of the principles provided by Ms. Michels (Attachment 1). These are the principles that this group is working with.

Ms. Paradis commented on item I., juvenile courts should have a benchmark of 2001 (latest complete information); the group was in agreement.

Judge Costello asked about item P. (facilities), Ms. Michels replied that the Work Group Co-Chairs thought this was such a large area (burden) that it shouldn’t be tackled in this task force. We should all be aware of this, but practically speaking it’s not likely to be funded by the state.

Ms. Michels continued, this is a ‘living document’ that will be revised as our work continues.

Mr. Miles asked about item B (court functions), the last sentence. Does this sentence assume uniformity of all services across jurisdictions? What impact will that statement have on courts that currently operate differently? Ms. Michels replied that this is an area that is still to be discussed.

Ms. Michels asked about D., should this be enriched? Yes, something about the train running on an infrastructure that is crumbling.

PRESENTATION

Mr. Hall presented a model that describes the current and estimated needed number and cost of personnel supporting the trial courts. This model is still in a very rough, draft form and Mr. Hall is seeking feedback from the work group. The information is based on 2002 data.

Mr. Johns suggested the group make the recommendation that all judges have an ‘in chambers’ staff (i.e. law clerks). Ms. Michels said she would note that for further discussion. As the complexity of cases increases, the absence of law clerks is a factor that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Hall noted that the positions included under administration staff is anyone in court administration, excluding court reporters, judicial assistants/bailiffs or law clerks. Ms. Michels suggested calling them ‘central staff’ or ‘central administration staff.’ This would cover budgeting, personnel, LAN, family court services, secretaries, payroll clerks, etc.

When discussing staffing, Judge Harris said that it would be a good idea to factor in multiple counties that are in one judicial district; adding additional staff per judge.

After the presentation; Ms. Michels asked the work group to discuss the model presented. Overall the group approved of the concept.

Ms. Hollis commented that she would like to see 2000 data run against the 2002 data to see what variances might show up.

Mr. Hall commented that the model assumes in the staffing ratios the staffing needs for specialty courts/programs.

Regarding specialty courts, Ms. Michels would like this work group to develop a model that would encompass what we want to say about specialty courts. We are agreeing that:

• it should be up to the court whether they have specialty courts;

• specialty courts are cost effective and efficient; and

• we are trying to ensure the model accommodates courts' choices.

Ms. Michels summed up the presentation with the following statements:

• We like the input/output model for judicial positions;

• We like “in chambers” staff per judge;

• We are a little softer on central staff and how to come up with those numbers;

• We like the clerk items, but make sure it is filings and not pleadings we should be using;

• We are not sure on the specialty courts; and

• We are not suggesting actual staff numbers, but we are using staff numbers to come up with the delta for overall spending.

Mr. Hall asked what the distribution of this model should be. Can it go to the Funding Alternatives meeting on July 31? It was agreed that it could be presented at this meeting. With the caveat that the document and the information in the document should not be disseminated beyond these two work groups until the data is more solid and refined.

FUTURE MEETING DATES

The work group agreed there should be a meeting before the scheduled September 26 meeting. A poll will be done regarding the next meeting date. That meeting has been added below.

The next two meetings are scheduled for:

Thursday, August 14	Friday, September 26
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.	10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Two Union Square, Suite 1606	Two Union Square, 54th Floor

Respectively submitted,
Colleen Clark

Attachment 1

Principles of Trial Court Funding
From the Problem Definition Work Group, June 23, 2003

1. Trial Courts are part of an independent and co-equal branch of Government. The Judicial Branch of Government is critical to maintaining the rule of law in a free society. The courts are essential to the enforcement of obligations, to the protection of rights for all and to ensure the social order central to our quality of life/our republic

2. The need for adequate funding needs to be based on what the courts need to fulfill their charge. All functions in the Trial Court ring of the “onion” are necessary for the effective operation of the trial courts. There is no element of these functions less valuable or severable from the others.

3. While incremental efficiencies and improvements are always sought and implemented, there are no large or major trial court efficiencies that could address the extent of the current funding crisis.

4. The current funding situation can best be conceived of as a slow motion crisis. The “train wreck” has started and is felt is some areas, some counties, and some functions but will inevitably subsume all trial courts unless averted by a rebalancing and rethinking the need for adequate trial court funding.

5. The judicial branch is uniformly behind the approach and message of the Task Force.

6. The State has an interest in the adequacy of the trial courts and must invest in this interest and the impact of their decisions through a better balance between local government and state funding;

7. Trial court funding issues are: clarification and streamlining the revenue stream, state/local balancing, and adequacy of funding.

8. Adequate trial court funding is a long-range strategic goal with a variety of strategies and annual action plans.

9. Year 2000 costs of the components of court funding are the most accurate and normalized year. These figures can be used as the anchor for analyzing costs and funding needs. It is not possible or productive to reach further into history to establish benchmarks.

10. It is possible to determine the “delta”, the gap, between current and adequate funding using four factors:

    1. AOC Input/ Output projections of judicial positions

       needed based on filings

    2. Staffing ratios of support staff to judicial positions

    3. Direct costs of specific functions (ex: defense, jury, witness, interpreters)

    4. Costs of effective program (ex: facilitators, MAR)

11. Funding considerations must not create unequal access or unequal justice

12. The failure to adequately fund the courts has real, concrete documented consequences to society and litigants.

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

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

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

16. Although facilities are threshold to trial courts operations, facility construction, maintenance, and operational and overhead costs are not included in this quantification at this time.

17. 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.

18. The C$TF will incorporate Project 2001 findings about Warrant service and enforcement

19. The C$TF can incorporate the findings about the adequacy and cost of juvenile defense and dependency representation from the “Bridge Study”/ Juvenile Assessment Study.

OPEN ISSUES

The C$TF needs to rely on the WSBA Panel on Defense to develop mechanisms for the structure of criminal and juvenile defense/representation; still under consideration is whether defense is seen within the trial court ring for funding purposes. Current costs will be quantified.

The PDWG is still discussing methods of quantifying and projecting needs for: judicial decision support, proliferation for statewide availability of successful special programs, juvenile detention, and therapeutic-justice programs.