Trial Court Operations Funding

April 15, 2008

Trial Court Operation Funding Committee
Telephone Conference
April 15, 2008
Meeting Minutes

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

Staff present:  Mr. Dirk Marler, Mr. Jeff Hall, Mr. Ramsey Radwan, Ms. Mellani McAleenan, Mr. Chris Ruhl, Ms. Katrin Johnson, Mr. Brian Backus, Ms. Karen Castillo.

Call to Order:
Judge Clark called the meeting to order and asked all who are on the conference call to identify themselves.

Welcome and Introductions:
Judge Clark said he is looking forward to seeing everyone next week.

District Court Judge Salaries
Mr. Hall reiterated that the committee’s direction to staff on this funding request was to achieve fifty percent state funding of District and qualified Municipal Court Judges’ salaries over three years or approximately ten percent per year.  This would result in an 09/11 biennium request of just under $5.4 million:  $1.787 million in the first year and double that amount in the second year.  In the following biennia, assuming the first biennia gain rolls to maintenance, a request of approximately $3.5 million, would be required.  Mr. Hall indicated that these numbers underestimate actual costs because of salary increases and new judgeships.

Mr. Radwan stated that, once fully funded, the total of the increases over current funding would run $10.7 million per biennium.

Discussion followed.  It was suggested that an alternative would be to seek gains of ten percent per biennium (approximately $3.5 million new funding each biennium) over three biennia.  This could be further reduced by seeking five percent per year.  It was noted that with several of the alternatives considered there would be a “bow-wave effect.”  That is, the “maintenance” level funding in the succeeding biennia would be more than the original amount funded.  Mr. Radwan noted that starting at the lower five percent per year would not leave any room to negotiate.

It was suggested and there was agreement to present two alternatives to BJA on Friday:  The original committee proposal and five percent per year.

Interpreter Funding
Ms. Johnson presented the chart which had been emailed to committee members, and explained how the cost figures were derived. She stated that they had gathered interpreter costs information from various places around the state, from those counties that could provide “total costs” of all their courts, to get a full price for the county. These were full numbers for one year.  This was compared with census data of limited language individuals.  Costs appeared to break down in this fashion: $10 per hour, urban; $20 per hour, rural; and $15 per hour in more mixed populations.

Ms. Johnson stated that the total increased to $5.5 million because of costs reported from counties that pay $40 per hour for certified interpreters. The state requires that certified and registered interpreters be paid $50 per hour.

Ms. Johnson informed that the $5.5 million represents one-hundred percent of the cost for LAP interpreters.  The actual dollar amount for the state at fifty percent would be $2.75 million for one year.  $5.5 million would be the biennial cost.  The amounts presented do not include American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters; no data was collected regarding costs for ASL.

Mr. Ruhl clarified that, if $5.5 million is one-hundred percent of the cost for the biennia with the state paying half, the amount it would take to get halfway there as an incremental increase would be $2.7 million - $2.8 million, an increase per year of $1.1 million - $1.2 million.

Mr. Hall commented that the budget strategy for the long-term needs to be determined, saying that it is easier to convince the Legislature to add jurisdictions than to give incremental increases in funding – thoselegislators whose districts are likely to get funded in the next go-round would give support.

Discussion followed regarding what the request should be.  Judge Fleck expressed concern about funding for King County and suggested asking for two-thirds of the cost as a good start. It was determined that asking for $2 million per biennium would get to two-thirds of fifty percent.  There was general consensus that two-thirds of fifty percent would be a good place to start.

Mr. Hall noted that the discussion is about caseloads, not counties.  The two-thirds amount is not two-thirds of the courts, but two-thirds of the LAP population, which could be ninety percent of the counties or ten percent of the counties.

Juror Compensation Funding
Mr. Backus provided an explanation of the Juror Cost Projections Chart, explaining that the matrix presents several scenarios that show what the costs would be if juror pay only is included.  Costs would depend on whether the state or local government pays for local travel.

Discussion followed regarding the impact on the state’s cost when beginning the state’s obligation on the second day vs. the third day. It was the general consensus that the best savings to local government would be to ask that the state’s obligation begin on the second day, but to be willing to fall back to a “third day” request if necessary.

Discussion began regarding whether or not local governments should still pay travel costs.

Mr. Hall estimated travel costs at about $4 million a year.

Mr. Backus said that the current level of $6.2 million per biennium was added.

Mr. Hall stated that, with respect to what the committee will present to the BJA on Friday, he suggests a policy request with the state paying travel, and then backing things out if needed.  He commented that the political side of the travel dollars depends on other choices the committee makes (i.e., whether we push the jury number through the budget or approach it as a policy request.)  If it is made as a policy request, it would be easier to include the travel dollars.  In light of the budget outlook, to push it through the budget would require making it the smallest number possible.

Judge Clarke said that, in terms of policy, the committee will ask for the second day with travel.

General affirmation was given.

Next Meeting: 
The next meeting will be Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. at the SeaTac office.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Castillo