COURT FUNDING TASK FORCE
Funding Alternatives Work Group
Revised to include superceding votes of 10/23/03

“User Fee” Voting Tally

1. Should the Work Group’s court funding proposal include proposals for new and/or higher user fees? In other words, should new and/or higher user fees be used as a source of funds that will contribute to trial court funding?

YES	15
NO	4
n/r	2

2. Should existing user fees be increased?

YES	19
NO	1
n/r	1

2.a Which existing user fees should be increased

2.a.1 (and by how much)?

Sub-Committee formed to review and make recommendations.

3. Should certain parties be exempt from user fees?

YES	16
NO	4
n/r	1

3.a Which parties?

YES	14	Indigent parties.
NO	1
n/r	6

3.b From which user fees?

YES	11
NO	1
n/r	9

3.b.1 From existing fees, at current amounts?

YES	8
NO	4
n/r	9

3.b.2 From existing fees, at higher amounts?

YES	11
NO	4
n/r	6

3.b.3 From new fees?

		(From which user fees?)	Yes	No	n/r
YES	12
NO	3
n/r	6

4. Should certain proceedings be exempt from user fees?

4.a–4.i (Superceding vote by acclamation on 10/23/03)

All proceedings currently exempt shall remain exempt.

5. From which user fees?

5.a-5.b Not applicable – see item 4 above.

6. Should new user fees be established?

YES	15
NO	3
n/r	3

6.a For the initiation of an action or proceeding (complaint or petition)?

YES	10
NO	6
n/r	5

6.a.1 Superceding vote on 10/23/03: Should the fee for the assertion of a claim (complaint, cross, counter, 3^rd party) be set on a graduated scale based on the amount claimed?

YES	0
NO	18
n/r	2	abstain

6.a.2 Superceding vote on 10/23/03: Should the fee for the assertion of a claim (complaint, cross, counter, 3^rd party) be set on a graduated scale based on the number of parties against whom claims are made?

YES	2
NO	17
n/r	1	abstain

6.b For an appearance or response to a complaint or petition other than an answer or motion under rule 12 (per party, regardless of joint representation)?

YES	3
NO	13
n/r	5

6.c For an answer without any claims?

YES	0
NO	16
n/r	5

6.d For a responsive pleading that asserts claims?

YES	17
NO	2
n/r	2

6.d.1-3 See superceding votes for 6.a.1 and 6.a.2.

6.e For amended pleadings ( except amendments to name “Doe” parties, or amendments after an order not sought by the amending party)?

Superceding vote on 10/23/03:

Should there be a fee for amended pleadings?

YES	11
NO	6
n/r	4	abstain

6.e.1-2 See superceding votes for 6.a.1 and 6.a.2.

6.f For a jury demand?

YES	13
NO	5
n/r	3

6.g For motions for class certification (Rule 23)?

YES	11
NO	8
n/r	2

6.h For dispositive motions?

YES	9
NO	10
n/r	2

6.h.1 For Rule 12(b)(1), (2), or (6) motions?

YES	8
NO	6
n/r	7

6.h.2 For Rule 56 motions?

YES	8
NO	6
n/r	7

6.i For evidentiary hearings?

YES	3
NO	16
n/r	2

6.i.1 Flat fee?

YES	2
NO	8
n/r	11

6.i.2 Per hour?

YES	1
NO	9
n/r	11

6.j For preliminary hearings?

YES	2
NO	17
n/r	2

6.j.1 Flat fee?

YES	1
NO	8
n/r	12

6.j.2 Per hour?

YES	1
NO	8
n/r	12

6.k For bench trials?

YES	5
NO	14	H: We should pay them!
n/r	2

6.k.1 Flat fee?

YES	2
NO	8
n/r	11

6.k.2 For 1/2 day increments?

YES	2
NO	8
n/r	11

6.l For jury trials?

YES	6
NO	13
n/r	2

6.l.1 Flat fee?

YES	2
NO	8
n/r	11

6.l.2 For 1/2 day increments?

YES	5
NO	7
n/r	9

7. Other responses / suggested fees.

Withdrawn by proponent 10/23/03

J: Ex Parte Orders – user fee for clerks.

10/23/03 vote:

Should there be a fee for all civil and family law motions

Yes	1
No	19
n/r	1	abstain