Trial Court Operations Funding

April 23, 2008

Trial Court Operations Funding Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2008
Kilroy Tower Meeting Room

Members in Attendance:  Judge Harold Clarke, Judge Patrick Burns, Ms. Ela Selga, Judge Frank LaSalata, Ms. Roni Booth, Judge Deborah Fleck, Judge Sara Derr, and Mr. Paul Sherfey

Staff present:  Mr. Dirk Marler, Mr. Jeff Hall, Mr. Chris Ruhl, Ms. Mellani McAleenan, and Ms. Karen Castillo

Call to Order  
Judge Clarke called the meeting to order.

Welcome and Introductions
Judge Clarke thanked everyone for being at the meeting.

Approval of Minutes 
The minutes of the March 26, 2008 meeting and the April 15, 2008 conference call were reviewed individually by committee members and approved by consensus.
 
Review of Budget Submission Documents
            Mr. Hall informed the committee that the BJA had reviewed the TCOF submission.  He reported that the BJA established priorities for moving the committee’s requests forward.  Those priorities are:

1. Juror compensation
2. Judges salaries
3. Interpreter funding

            Mr. Hall then asked the committee to look at the documents prior to discussion of the details. 

Document 1: Judges’ Salaries
            Mr. Hall reported that on the Judges’ Salaries portion of the committee’s submission, the BJA chose the three-year option and also asked that an adjustment be made to reflect the known salary increase that will take place in September.  The document makes a request for $5.4 million.

            Mr. Hall asked if there are adjustments to the Preliminary Budget Submission form for Judges’ Salaries that the committee would like to recommend.

            Judge Clarke asked how the amounts are calculated, and whether or not the dollar amount is a moving figure.  Mr. Hall responded that the calculation depends on how the committee wants it to be structured.  If the committee tries to get to a finite dollar amount and uses the current formula for distribution, then it is not a moving figure. 

            Judge Fleck asked whether the request will be presented as policy legislation or budget legislation and whether to request a percentage of costs or a finite amount.  Mr. Hall said that part of the discussion will be whether or not to have the statute reflect that the state will be responsible for a set percentage of the budget; but, for the current phase of the process, the information provided is sufficient. Other numbers will be submitted and the court will refine its submission.

            Judge LaSalata asked if the increases would be along the same lines as the previous increase, to which Mr. Hall responded it would not, and that it would represent a General Fund savings for local government.

            Judge Derr asked if the committee needs to reconsider the Trial Court Improvement Account (TCIA), in light of the fact that it is General Fund money that pays judges’ salaries.  Mr. Hall responded that this committee will be the group to have the initial discussions about those types of issues.  The BJA makes the ultimate decision, but it would be helpful for them to know that such issues have been fully vetted.  However, the first task is to approve the forms which will ultimately be submitted by the BJA.  Judge Fleck commented that the staff work on the first form is adequate.

Document 2: Interpreter Funding
            Mr. Ruhl presented the Preliminary Budget Submission forms for Interpreter Funding, saying that there are actually two main purposes for these funds: 1) to provide 50 percent reimbursement, and 2) to pay for the program analyst.  He informed that those items listed in the Brief statement as (3), (4), and (5) should be labeled (c), (d), and (e).

            Mr. Sherfey asked if there is data to support the statement.

            Mr. Ruhl said that the current census data is eight years old, so information from OSPI is also used, and with the composite of information, it can be said that language diversity is increasing.

            There was discussion about referencing that information at this point in the process.  It was decided that, for the time being, the last sentence would be removed and replaced with a reasoned statement about increasing diversity.  Judge Fleck suggested the term, “increasing language diversity.”

            Mr. Ruhl directed the group’s attention to Proposal B in the table entitled “Biannual Foreign Language Interpreter Costs.”  Mr. Hall informed that the TCOFC recommendation to BJA was a $2 million increase, and the BJA adopted a higher asking amount, closer to $4 million.

            Mr. Hall noted that the audience for this submission is the Supreme Court; the committee’s task is to bring them something that they will approve.

Document 3: Juror Compensation
            Judge Clarke directed the group’s attention to the Juror Compensation proposal forms.

            Mr. Hall reported that the BJA accepted the committee’s recommendation in terms of the amount requested.  He suggested that the second paragraph be reordered so 3 becomes number 1, 4 becomes number 2, 1 becomes number 3, and 2 becomes number 4.

            Discussion followed about jury management staffing levels and asking the legislature for an additional .5 FTE.  It was noted that the AOC does not have a dedicated jury management staff.

            Mr. Hall said that he believes this request falls within the tolerance of the Legislature, adding that all the numbers can shift.  The Supreme Court Budget Committee should understand that they could change.

            There was discussion about submitting the request as a budget bill versus a policy bill with regard to the current budget climate.  Mr. Hall noted that, whether or not the funding is in the final budget as opposed to being in the books as a statute bill is the final piece. The question about what actually goes into the budget will be a game time decision.

            Judge Clarke asked if there were any further suggested changes to the Juror Compensation document.  There were none.

Interpreter Code Request Status
            Mr. Hall reported that a request to the Codes Committee had been submitted regarding the data about trials that were continued due to the lack of an interpreter.  It has been added to the agenda of the May 6 meeting of the Codes Committee. 

Meeting Schedule
            Judge Clarke said that before proceeding with the detail development, the committee needs to discuss a schedule for future meetings.

            Mr. Hall informed that the Supreme Court Budget Committee meets on May 9 and then again on June 5.  The TCOFC will need to submit its packets to Ramsey Radwan at AOC on July 21.  He requested that, in light of the amount of work the committee needs to do, the committee give staff the direction to go on these bigger chunks of issues, rather than trying to develop the detail in the meeting.

            Judge Clarke suggested meeting after May 9 to develop the fine print.  It was decided that a one-hour phone conference will be set up for 4:15 PM on May 13. At that time, the committee can discuss the May 9 meeting of the Supreme Court Budget Committee.

            Mr. Hall noted that the Juror Compensation funding is the highest priority of the Chief Justice so a strategic plan is important.  He added that on the other two items, it’s possible the Supreme Court could decide not to move forward on them, or ask for less money on them, but there is no way of knowing. 

            Judge Clarke inquired about timelines.  Mr. Hall noted that the work of this committee will wrap up in September or October, once the decision package and policy package are drafted.

            There was discussion about scheduling an additional phone conference prior to the June 5 Supreme Court en banc meeting and two additional in-person meetings.

            It was determined that AOC staff will provide optional dates to the committee for the additional phone conference and the in-person meetings.

Judges’ Salaries Funding Detail Development
            Judge Clarke then directed the committee’s attention to the Judges’ Salaries Funding Detail Development form.

            Discussion followed.  Judge Fleck remarked that, based on a comment made at the BJA, the judges’ salaries request might be a more difficult sell to the legislature and that parking it in the budget might make it easier to discuss with legislators.  Mr. Hall commented on the matter of how the Civil Equal  Justice Account  and the Trial Court Improvement Account (TCIA) will be dealt with. He noted options of having the state pay a percentage of judges’ salaries or trying to get a lump sum, which, he said, would argue for trying to push that into a process that already exists in the TCIA.

            Judge Derr raised a question about money given by the state to fund the TCIA and how that might tie in with the dollars given to the counties for judges’ salaries.  She commented that the committee needs to look at options and realize that they will need to write legislation to go with it. 

There was additional discussion.  Language was suggested to say that the county shall put into the TCIA an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount given by the state for judges’ salaries.

            Judge Clarke proposed a revamping of the current legislation that would give a 10 percent increase to counties for the next three years for judges’ salaries (30 percent, 40 percent, and 50 percent for three years)  There was general approval by the committee.

            The committee then discussed which model to use: the reimbursement model or the paycheck model, and decided to stay with the reimbursement model.

Interpreter Services
            Mr. Ruhl referenced the previous decision package two years ago and the legislation passed last session which creates a framework for the funding.

            There was discussion about reform legislation to bring about financial savings.  It was noted that there would be no way of calculating the effect of such changes on what the committee would ask for. 

            Mr. Hall said that the initial proposal was predicated upon some central gains (i.e. fiscal incentives for courts to use only certified interpreters; incentive to become certified because of higher pay; putting into place market forces to improve level of interpreter services; and adoption of Language Assistance Plans in trial courts across the state), and not just doing things the old way.  These policy ideas have been sold to the Legislature, but we don’t have the data on it.

            Judge LaSalata asked what policy reasons we are giving the legislature to provide the funding.

            Mr. Hall responded that this is an expansion of a policy that the legislature already accepted; the basic policy has passed. This is purely a money ask to further that policy.  Promoting the decision package will involve having discussions with legislators to bring them on board.

            Judge Fleck asked if these ideas can be handed over to the Interpreter Commission.  Mr. Hall said that Judge Clarke can call the Commission Chair and ask to have it placed on their meeting agenda.

            There being insufficient time to discuss the Jurors’ Compensation Funding Detail, Judge Clarke announced that the committee will discuss it during the Phone Conference on May 13th.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 PM.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Karen Castillo