Trial Court Operations Funding

June 17, 2008

Trial Court Operations Funding Committee
June 17, 2008
SeaTac Office Center
Meeting Minutes

Members Present:  Judge Harold Clarke; Judge Patrick Burns; Ms. Roni Booth; Judge Sara Derr; Judge Deborah Fleck (by phone); Mr. Jeff Hall (by phone); Judge Frank LaSalata; Ms. Ela Selga.

Staff Present:  Mr. Dirk Marler (by phone), Ms. Mellani McAleenan, Mr. Chris Ruhl, Ms. Karen Castillo.

Call to Order: Judge Clarke called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone.

Approval of Minutes:  Judge Clarke called for a motion to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2008 meeting.   Judge Burns moved to approve the minutes; Judge LaSalata seconded.  The motion passed unanimously.   Judge Burns moved to approve the May 29, 2008 phone conference minutes; Judge Derr seconded.  The motion passed unanimously.

Review of Juror Pay Legislation: 
Mr. Ruhl explained the draft of the juror pay legislation included in the meeting packet.  He noted that it is an effort to embody the changes recommended at the last meeting and is consistent with all three RCW’s that would be affected.  He also noted that Section (5) adds language stating that the state pays for juror mileage reimbursement beginning on the first day. 

There was discussion about the frequency of reimbursement.  The draft provides for payment “not more often than quarterly.” After further discussion, it was decided that the term “at least quarterly” would be substituted in all three statutes, which would allow for more frequent payment if necessary.
           
Judge Fleck noted that the amount of payment for the first day of jury service has remained the same for 50 years.  She suggested that the language be changed to say “up to” whatever the amount is on the second day to provide local government the option of paying a higher rate for the first day of service. 

Mr. Hall observed that it is not necessary to have four sections when the payment is exactly the same for all the courts.  He suggested collapsing it down to one section, “Jurors in Washington shall receive…..”  It was also noted that the RCW reference regarding mileage reimbursement in line 30 is a repeat from line 4.

Judge Clarke summarized the discussion by saying that staff will need to clean the language up, shrink it, and add language providing the counties with the option to pay anywhere from ten dollars to minimum wage times eight for the first day.

There were questions and a brief discussion about the process of reimbursement to the counties.  Mr. Hall noted that it’s an administrative matter and not something that needs to be placed in statute.   Staff will provide a revised draft for the BJA meeting on Friday.

Review of Judges’ Salaries Legislation: 
Mr. Hall said that a simple change was made to the new language that states that the reimbursement set forth in the above language is in addition to any other provisions of law. 

There was discussion about the frequency of the state reimbursements to the counties.  RCW 2.56.030(21) directs AOC to administer and distribute the SB 5454 funds but is silent about how frequently the reimbursements occur.    The funds are in the AOC’s budget and distributed quarterly. It was suggested that the phrase “on a quarterly basis be deleted.  Judge Clarke asked why the reimbursement schedule is being specified on the jury pay legislation.  Mr. Marler said that the AOC has an established methodology with the judicial salaries s and they are assuming there would be a similar pass through, but the state could determine otherwise.  Mr. Hall said it might be prudent to include language in the jury legislation which directs the funds through AOC as in the case of SB 5454.  He will consult with Ramsey Radwan and report back.

Review of Draft Interpreter Decision Package: 
Mr. Ruhl explained that the Court Interpreter Decision Package is modeled after the decision package that was drafted two years ago.  The language will be refined further.   He called the members’ attention to page four – Performance Measure Detail – saying that this is what could and might be accomplished with the funding that was requested at that point.  He said that, because the data is from the 2000 Census, staff is working with the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and others to refine the data to find how many limited English proficiency (LEP) plans have been developed at this point.

Mr. Hall clarified that the regions depicted on the table represent local workforce investment areas.  These are the groupings that the census bureau used to develop the special tabulation of LEP information for census 2000.  He added that the breakouts are readily available and staff will make sure that those are included. 

Mr. Ruhl said that before staff decides what methodology to use in gathering data, they want to go back to the additional research from a year ago and incorporate that into the narrative.

Mr. Hall reported that the Supreme Court met en banc and accepted in whole the recommendations of the Supreme Court Budget Committee (SCBC) to move forward with the interpreter proposal in the budget.  The other juror compensation and judicial salary pieces will go forward as policy legislation. The final package will go back to the SCBC in September and then to the Supreme Court en banc in October.  Mr. Hall noted that he had informed the Supreme Court that the Trial Court Operations Funding Committee (TCOFC) will recommend that we tie juror compensation to the minimum wage rather than a flat sum and the court seemed supportive. 

Mr. Hall also noted that, should the courts get less than the full funding amount, an important question will be: How will we proceed with distribution – fully fund a limited group of courts or partially fund as many courts as we can? It was suggested that it would be best to continue with the current phase-in approach, which holds the best promise for getting funding in the long term.

Judge Clarke asked if the work of the TCOFC is concluded, to which Mr. Hall responded that he thinks it is. The committee has met the charge of submitting the proposals to the Board of Judicial Administration, so there may not be a need to meet again unless the BJA brings something back.  It was agreed that the committee will leave open the possibility of having a phone meeting on the interpreter piece later in the year. 

Judge Clarke thanked everyone for their work on the committee. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Castillo
JSD Administrative Assistant
Administrative Office of the Courts