Trial Court Operations Funding

March 26, 2008

Trial Court Operations Committee
March 26, 2008
Kilroy Tower, SeaTac
Meeting Minutes

Members Present:  Ms. Roni Booth, Judge Deborah Fleck, Judge Frank LaSalata, Mr. Paul Sherfey, and Judge Michael Trickey

Staff Present:  Mr. Brian Backus, Ms. Jude Cryderman, Mr. Jeff Hall; Ms. Katrin Johnson; Mr. Dirk Marler; Mr. Ramsey Radwan, and Mr. Chris Ruhl

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Jeff Hall.  Mr. Hall explained that committee chair, Judge Harold Clarke, was conducting a trial and unable to attend the meeting.

Introductions

Mr. Hall requested that those present introduce themselves.

Committee Charge

Mr. Hall advised that the committee is:

Charged with developing specific funding proposals and implementation plans for court operations for recommendation to the Court Funding Implementation Committee and/or the Board for Judicial Administration.

Mr. Hall provided an overview of the history of the Justice in Jeopardy Committee and its initiatives.  Judge Fleck gave a brief overview of the budget process taken by the Justice in Jeopardy Committee.  Both Judge Fleck and Mr. Hall reviewed the budget strategy and outcome of the Justice in Jeopardy efforts.

Judicial Branch Budget Process and Schedule

Mr. Radwan reviewed the 2009-2011 Budget Instructions document.  He pointed out the important dates for the budget process are included in the following chart:

Mr. Hall advised the group that its budget request would be presented during the Board for Judicial Administration’s (BJA) April 18 meeting.  He noted the tight timeline for getting the requests put together, review by the committee and revised for the BJA.

Next, Mr. Hall reviewed the draft Judicial Branch Principal Policy Objectives.  He indicated they had been reviewed and revised at the BJA’s March 21 meeting.  Judge Fleck advised the committee of the BJA’s changes made during the March 21 meeting.  The BJA passed a motion to endorse the revised Policy Objectives to the Supreme Court for adoption.

Judge Trickey requested that the revised Judicial Branch Principal Policy Objectives be distributed to the judicial associations.

2009/2011 Funding Request Development

Removing Language Barriers to the Courts (Interpreters)

Mr. Ruhl provided an overview of the Interpreters’ budget for the 2007-2009 biennium.  He advised that two pots of money had been provided by the legislature.  One is for a cost-sharing program that had been implemented which provided for 50% reimbursement of the fee when courts use certified and registered interpreters.  The AOC has received applications from 18 clusters of courts of which 10 clusters were approved for reimbursement through both fiscal years of the biennium.  The other money is to assist individual courts with completing and implementing a local Language Assistance Plan (LAP).

The Committee discussed the dollar amount necessary to provide interpreter reimbursement to all courts, statewide.  They also discussed how best to develop the interpreter budget projection for the 2009-2011 cycle.  Mr. Sherfey agreed to contact the five or six largest courts (King, Spokane, Snohomish, Clark, and Pierce Counties) requesting their assistance in providing fiscal year court interpreter cost data.  This information will be used in the development of the proposed budget request.  AOC staff will develop a form for collecting the data necessary for developing the budget.

The Committee agreed that the proposed budget request will only include reimbursement of interpreter services, not staff, equipment or other costs associated with interpreters.

Based on cost data provided to AOC staff, they will develop the proposed budget for the Committee’s review.  The AOC is to develop a budget request that would, in conjunction with the current funding level, result in 50% of the statewide need being funded.

District and Municipal Court Judges’ Salaries

Judge Fleck advised that currently 18-21% of the costs of district and elected municipal court salaries are paid by the state.  She recommended that the proposal be an additional 10 percent per year for the next three years.

The Committee briefly discussed benefits.  Judge LaSalata indicated he felt the incremental approach is the most reasonable and that the best approach was to deal with judicial salaries first.

AOC staff will draft this proposal and distribute to the Committee.

Juror Pay

Judge Fleck explained the current jury pay research project, pointing out that for this biennium’s request the committee has the benefit of the data collected from the jury pay research project.  The Committee discussed different options for the budget request.  The Committee discussed the following three budget proposal scenarios:

• First day of jury service at $10 per day, subsequent days at minimum wage;

• First two days of jury service at $10 per day, subsequent days at minimum wage;

• Incremental approach:  $10 per day would increase to $30 the first fiscal year; $30 would increase to $45 the second fiscal year, and so on until minimum wage was attained; and

In each of the three scenarios above, it is assumed that the state would pay for 100% of the jury fee expenses, including mileage.

That proposal would also assume that the reimbursement would be made to local government, instead of by direct pay to the juror.

Mr. Hall suggested that the Committee meet either in person or via conference call prior to the April 18 BJA meeting.  The Committee agreed that a conference call would best fit schedules.  AOC staff will provide possible conference call dates.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.