Task force reviews trial court funding

An intense effort to find ways to improve and stabilize trial court funding in Washington is making steady progress, with a task force hoping to hand recommendations to the 2004 Legislature.

Created during court closings and staff layoffs around the state - and the promise of worsening budget problems to come - the Court Funding Task Force has been tunneling through the massive issue since October after being appointed by the Board for Judicial Administration.

Requested by the state Superior Court Judges' Association and the District and Municipal Court Judges' Association, the Task Force follows recommendations spanning two decades.

"The lack of adequate and stable trial court funding has been documented in court studies for two decades, and these studies have also contained a call for action," said King County Superior Court Judge Deborah Fleck. "Regrettably, it has taken the current financial crisis to focus attention on problems identified long ago," said the immediate-past president of the Washington Superior Court Judges' Association, and task force member.

A case in point is King County, which closed two district courts, eliminated nearly 70 court positions and considered cutting the entire district court probation department during budget deliberations at the end of 2002.

Courts across the state have also laid off court staff, considered closing for certain hours during the week, and looked at other budget-cutting measures to respond to state and county deficits.

At the same time, however, courts are expected to handle increasing caseloads with new and innovative ways of resolving disputes.

Washington is joined by courts across the nation in reeling from the impact of budget cuts: Oregon courts shut down every Friday and cut court workers' pay by 10 percent; Los Angeles County has closed 29 courtrooms and laid off 250 people; New York has frozen 700 empty court positions; Colorado is considering unpaid days off for court employees and cutting court hours.

"I'd say it's the worst fiscal crisis to confront the state judiciary in 50 years," Roger Warren, president of the National Center for State Courts, told the Associated Press in April.

Part of the crisis in Washington comes from the lack of stable and equitable funding for trial courts across the state, say members of the funding task force. Another part of the crisis involves law or policy changes that create larger caseloads, but provide no additional money to the courts.

"It's popular to be tough on crime, but no one wants to spend the kind of money needed to cover the costs of such policies as they crowd the courts," said Fleck.

"I give her credit for getting us going," said M. Wayne Blair, chairman of the task force and former president of the Washington State Bar Association, about Fleck's leadership on funding problems.

Blair has volunteered hundreds of hours on at least five task forces since the late 1970s that worked to improve the justice system, and each one included recommendations that funding for Washington trial courts should be stabilized and improved.

Some past efforts include a 1972 citizen's conference that recommended the state pay the entire cost of courts; the 1990 Commission on Washington Trial Courts that found courts were creating "escape valve" methods of surviving budget problems; the 1996 Access to Justice conference that concluded courts were seriously under-funded, harming the fundamental right of access to justice; and Project 2001 that called for a long-term solution for adequate court funding and a proper balance between state and local responsibility for courts.

One issue that has been repeatedly raised is that Washington ranks 50th in state government contribution to funding judicial and legal services --- legal services including prosecution and indigent defense. More than 85 percent of total judicial and legal service costs in Washington are borne by counties, the highest percentage for counties in all states.

The state pays less than 15 percent of total judicial and legal service costs, and sets aside just three tenths of one percent of the state budget to fund all levels of the courts, the law library and the Administrative Office of the Courts.

As state and county budget projections darkened in 2000, court officials started to ask, "Are we going to talk for another 15 years or are we going to do something?" Blair said.

No one expects funding reform to be easy, however. "This is a big, hairy, audacious scenario of the future we desire, and it is the scenario adopted by the Court Funding Task Force," said Jan Michels, executive director of the Washington State Bar Association and a task force member, in a report written for the bar association.

Michels was writing about the mission adopted by the task force: "To develop and implement a plan to achieve stable, adequate, long-term funding of Washington trial courts and provide equal justice throughout the state."

Though the task force has an ambitious goal, the consequences of inadequate funding were becoming too severe to ignore.

In a survey of the District and Municipal Court Judges' Association, in a March planning session of the Presiding Judges Conference, and in Court Funding Task Force meetings, judges and court officials say:

• They lack staff to monitor court orders and probation and to perform vital functions such as updating criminal history.

• Courts struggle to pay for indigent defense, interpreters, expert witnesses, court-ordered evaluations and other elements crucial to adequate justice.

• One juvenile court juggles 23 separate funding streams.

• Courts operate in cramped and inadequate facilities.

To tackle these issues, the Court Funding Task Force has approached funding reform effort in five distinct areas. Work groups have been formed to focus on the following areas: Problem Definition; Courts of Limited Jurisdiction; Funding Alternatives; Public Education; and Implementation Strategies.

"It's a major effort," Blair said. "It's been an enormous effort in itself just getting this far."

Though he expects the task force to have some information or recommendations to present to the 2004 Legislature, Blair also feels the task force will need to continue working on the ambitious effort into 2005.

"You have to have patience," he said, "and if you don't, you won't get it done."