Trial Court Operations Funding

May 29, 2008

Trial Courts Operation Funding Committee
Phone Conference
May 29, 2008
Meeting Minutes

Members participating:  Judge Harold Clarke (Chair), Judge Patrick Burns, Ms. Roni Booth, Judge Sara Derr, Judge Deborah Fleck, Ms. Ela Selga, Mr. Paul Sherfey

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

Call to Order:  Judge Clarke called the meeting to order.

Welcome and Introductions: Judge Clarke welcomed everyone and asked staff to share information about the outcome of the Supreme Court Budget Committee (SCBC) meeting.

SCBC Meeting Outcomes: 
Mr. Hall informed the committee that the SCBC had met twice in May, but took no action on any of the proposals until the second meeting.  They then decided not to include the Jury Compensation proposal or the Judges’ Salary proposal in their budget.  Those two pieces will need to go through the legislative process, and the SCBC encourages the Justice in Jeopardy Implementation Committee (JIJIC) to put them through.  The Court will meet en banc on June 5, at which time the recommendations of the SCBC will be either accepted or rejected.  The SCBC will recommend that the Court Interpreter proposal move forward in the SCBC budget.  Mr. Hall said that if the en banc approves that proposal the JIJIC will continue to develop the detail on that.

Mr. Hall commented that it will be incumbent upon this group to prepare and draft for BJA’s consideration the policy legislation for the other two proposals along with the analysis for the fiscal notes, adding that it is still appropriate to develop those and send them over to the BJA.

Mr. Sherfey asked Mr. Hall if the SCBC had provided a rationale for their decisions.  Mr. Hall responded that the SCBC was looking at the total amount of the request in the context of the total state budget requirement.  In light of the anticipated deficit in excess of $2 billion, there is the question of viability of each proposal and they felt that the Court Interpreter piece stood the best chance of gaining the legislature’s approval.

When asked if the SCBC adopted the full 50 percent funding proposal for the Court Interpreter proposal, Mr. Hall responded that they had, but when the SCBC makes the final pass on all the proposals it’s possible some will either be eliminated or reduced.  He said that the Court will look at the entire package of money that is being requested, whether through the budget or through the legislative process.  The Court might try to keep the budget ask down to $10 or $12 million, but if a policy ask is for $100 million, then they’re looking at $110-$112 million.  They will have to prioritize across all items whether in the budget or in legislation. 

Mr. Radwan noted that there will be two more economic revenue forecasts that could have an impact ? one in June and one in September.   He added that AOC has asked for another budget meeting in September.

Mr. Hall said that, at this time, the SCBC hasn’t established relative priorities from a Court perspective, but that they had expressed to the SCBC that the first priority for the JIJIC is jury funding.  He added that he thinks the Court still feels a level of responsibility for all the items, no matter what process they go through.

Juror Compensation Detail Development:
Mr. Backus explained the chart he had provided.  He said that the three RCW sections that deal with jury compensation will need to be amended.  The proposal represents the amendments needed to each of the RCW’s to accomplish having the state pay $60 for the second day and travel expenses.  There was some discussion about the current statute.  Mr. Backus noted that the local compensation for the first day would continue to stay in the range of $25.00.

Mr. Sherfey commented that the draft proposal is well done and suggested that the language in Section 5 be clarified to say that the mileage reimbursement includes the first day of jury service and every day thereafter. 

There was further discussion about the Jury Pay legislative proposal. Changes will be made to lines 10 and 11 on Page 2, to say “city” instead of “county.”

Clarifying language related to mileage reimbursement will be added in all three sections.

Lines 36-39 on Page 1 will be struck because the date mentioned has passed.

Mr. Hall asked the committee if they want to stay with a flat $60 amount, or do they want to talk about minimum wage.

Judge Fleck responded that, if the committee wants to make this meaningful by eliminating the need to make more changes in the future, then tying it to the minimum wage would be wise.

Mr. Hall commented that from a policy perspective, minimum wage is actually the aim of the committee, but that if it becomes necessary to start rolling things back, they could return to $60.

Judge Fleck suggested that as a fallback they could say 95 percent of minimum wage to bring it back down, but still keep it tied to minimum wage.  She added that she advocates that the committee do that as a recommendation, along with Mr. Sherfey’s recommendation.
Mr. Sherfey commented that tying jury pay to an inflator is a good idea, but asked if that would create a necessity to go back to the SCBC.

Mr. Hall responded that they had advised the SCBC that the figures presented were “big picture” numbers, subject to modification.

Judge Clarke stated that the consensus of the committee is that they would like to see a proposal that is tied to the minimum wage and cleans up the other items.  Also, that the proposal could start with minimum wage as the goal and move back to 95 percent of minimum wage if necessary.

Mr. Hall noted that any adjustments back from the initial position will be part of the legislative process and positions that the BJA would take.

Mr. Hall inquired if, from the trial court perspective, there are things that need to be discussed. 

Mr. Sherfey said that they want to make this low in terms of cost.  Others concurred.

Mr. Ruhl asked if there might be incentive to attach a policy proposal about jury practice.  Mr. Hall added that if they want to get some of the efficiencies included, this is something to consider and discuss.

Judge Clarke said that the committee should discuss possible policy proposals and how far they should push them.

At that point, Judge Clarke had to leave the meeting for a call to the bench.

Judges’ Salaries:
Ms. Eckholm provided information on the legislation draft for Judges’ Salaries, saying that the proposal essentially adds to the current language, which states that the local jurisdiction is responsible for the payment of judges’ salaries.  The legislative draft adds to that language, saying that the State will reimburse the local jurisdiction in 10 percent increments for three years. 

Judge Fleck observed that this language ignores the contribution that is made now by the State into the Trial Court Improvement Account.

Mr. Hall stated that in an internal discussion, one of the issues raised was whether or not to make reference to the funds currently distributed from the Civil Justice Account.  The conclusion was that it would be safer to put the wall between the increases being proposed and the money that’s already going out.

There was additional discussion on this subject.  Concerns were expressed that if the funds currently being received are not mentioned, the proposal may be interpreted as an over-ride to that current funding, which would result in less money, not more.
It was suggested that there be at least a vague reference made to the funds already being received.

Judge Fleck noted that it has always been the goal to have the state pay 50 percent of the judges’ salaries, in order to treat DMCJA judges as similarly as possible to Superior Court judges.  She suggested that the legislative proposal include that reminder.

Mr. Radwan suggested that the legislation be written both ways – one with reference to the funds and one similar to Judge Fleck’s suggestion.

Mr. Hall commented that they could simply draft it in a way that cleans up everything and gets to the goal of 50 percent.

There was further discussion on that, with several references made to Dr. Sohn’s presentation about the February 2008 Economic Forecast in the April JIJIC meeting, and how that all ties to the expenditure side of the issue.

Mr. Radwan stated that Dr. Sohn had projected that revenues will increase by 8.3 percent, but the expected expenditure level will increase at a greater rate. This is part of what the legislature will grapple with.  He noted that June 16 is the date of the new forecast.  He further noted that there hasn’t been a briefing about the expenditure side in order to answer questions such as:  What is the outlook?  Are the costs that are forecast truly mandatory or is there flexibility?

It was again suggested that the draft legislation for judges’ salaries include a vague reference to the monies already being received.  Several concurred.

Judge Fleck reiterated that it might be best to do what can be done now and in five years come back and clean it all up.

Mr. Radwan said that AOC will have to ask for maintenance increases for the greater number of judges that qualify and there will need to be some thought given to how that will be done. 

In closing, Mr. Hall noted that if the decision package is ready to go for the next meeting, it might be possible to finalize it and give it to the BJA.

Next Meeting:
The next meeting of the TCOF is June 17th in SeaTac at 1:00 P.M.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

                                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                                            Karen Castillo
                                                            Administrative Office of the Courts