Justice in Jeopardy Implementation

February 7, 2008

Justice In Jeopardy Implementation Committee
AOC Conference Room
Kilroy Tower, SeaTac
February 7, 2008
Minutes

Members present:  Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, co-chair; Mr. Jim Bamberger; Mr. Wayne Blair, vice-chair; Mr. John Cary; Mr. Kirk Johns; Judge Eileen Kato; Ms. Paula Littlewood; Mr. Michael Merringer; Ms. Joanne Moore; Mr. Scott Smith; and Mr. Ron Ward.

Guests present:  Ms. Nell McNamara; Ms. Kelly Stockman Reid; and Ms. Gail Stone.
     
Staff present:  Ms. Anita Gausepohl; Mr. Jeff Hall; and Mr. Ramsey Radwan.

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Blair, vice-chair.

Approval of Minutes

      Mr. Blair asked for approval of the minutes from the November 26, 2007 meeting. 
The minutes were approved.

Board for Judicial Administration Action on Recommendations

      The BJA approved the original membership proposal from the last meeting. The Board felt that the proposed membership created during the JIJ meeting was too large and the original structure was more practical.  The approved membership was provided to the committee.

State Revenue Forecast 2009/11

     Mr. Radwan provided an overview of the revenue forecast for the remainder of the 2007/09 biennium.  A revised 2007/09 and initial 2009/11 forecast will be published February 15, with updates following in June, September and November.  Mr. Radwan stated that the general fund collections for 2007/09 were expected to be greater than in the previous biennium.  He continued that he was more concerned with the Public Safety and Education Account (PSEA) forecast which was over estimated for 2005/07.  He pointed out that collections are historically lower than forecasted.   Mr. Radwan noted that the forecast council has decreased the PSEA forecast every year since the first estimate for PSEA 1-2.  PSEA 3 is generally more stable, however, the legislature authorized a $4 million infusion to ensure solvency.  The Judicial Information System (JIS) account has increased due to a boost in the base charge for traffic infractions.  The JIS account relies on traffic infraction revenue which is up 20 percent from the original forecast.   Mr. Radwan provided detailed graphs showing the forecast history for both the general fund and the public safety and education account. 

Judicial Branch Budget Schedule

     Mr. Radwan gave an overview of the budget schedule for the judicial branch.  He stated that the purpose of the process is to show more structure, and provide more time for development and review than in past budgets.  The review at the Supreme Court level is chaired by the Chief Justice and includes five senior justices.  After approval from the court, the budget is submitted to the legislature, with copies provided to the Governor and OFM.
    
     Chief Justice Alexander asked others if they used a similar process and how it worked for them.  Ms. Moore stated that the budget that she submitted to the legislature was well received because of prior review by the Supreme Court.  Mr. Bamberger noted that having a strategic policy is important and this is the right process.  Mr. Hall stated this is a natural progression for the development of judicial branch budget requests; because the amount of judicial branch requests have increased substantially and a structured process is necessary.

Environmental Scan

      Mr. Bamberger provided an overview of priorities for 2009/11 biennium.  He stated that the committee should look closely at what should be asked for and work to effectively prioritize requests for the upcoming budget.  In determining the magnitude of individual and aggregate JIJ requests, we should assess the political present and likely landscape (including changes resulting from legislative retirements and the November elections), the state budget landscape, and the national budget landscape to the extent that it may affect JIJ budget related considerations, changing case loads, consumer demand and relevant demographics.  Mr. Bamberger suggested that the committee identify and monitor key external variables to ensure that the 2009/11 requests internalize these considerations. 

High Level Target Areas for 2009/11

      The committee reviewed areas that would have a higher impact in the 2009/11 session.  The OCLA had a scoping session on priorities for the next session.  The discussion was a preliminary review of the process and high level objectives.  The requests will be for more policy driven funds rather than maintenance, looking at critical areas geographically, and types of cases looking at demographics.  Judicial areas include jurors, being the biggest issue and looking closely at the actual cost of supporting an increase to juror pay, as well as the CMS system.  Other areas of focus are child representation, interpreter program, and courthouse security issues.  The Court of Appeals will seek to add another judge to division two and fix computer issues.  The Office of Public Defense will discuss the process and data at their March advisory meeting.  CASA had a preliminary discussion and are looking at expansion and stabilization of current programs.

Next Meeting

      The next meeting will be on April 3, 2008 from 1:30-4 p.m.  The meeting will be held at the AOC Conference Room in SeaTac. 

      There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                Anita Gausepohl