Archive for the ‘Salary & Budget’ category

« Older Entries

Connecticut will NOT force courts to order poor into community service prior to filing civil suits

May 17th, 2013

I noted last month that Connecticut was considering compelling those unable to pay civil filing fees to work up to 20 hours of community service. HB 6692 would have amended existing law to provide a person who could not pay due to indigence could be be compelled to work.

If the court waives such fee, fees or the cost of service of process, the court may, in connection with the granting of such fee waiver, order that the person participate in a program of community service, as set forth in section 2 of this act, for a period of time not to exceed twenty hours. In determining whether to order a person to participate in a program of community service, the court shall consider the person’s ability to perform community service and prior compliance with any order to participate in a program of community service.

The avowed purpose according to news reports was to stop frivolous lawsuits.

After an April 15 hearing the bill was effectively rewritten with all references to community service removed (additions to existing 52-259b(c) are underlined):

(c) Nothing in this section shall preclude the court from (1) finding that a person whose income does not meet the criteria of subsection (b) of this section is indigent and unable to pay a fee or fees or the cost of service of process, or (2) denying an application for the waiver of the payment of a fee or fees or the cost of service of process when the court finds that (A) the applicant has repeatedly filed actions with respect to the same or similar matters and such filings establish an extended pattern of filings that have been so without merit as to be deemed frivolous and an abuse of judicial process, (B) the application before the court is consistent with the applicant’s previous pattern of frivolous filings, (C) the application is sought in connection with an action that, on its face, fails to state a cognizable claim for which relief may be granted and would likely be dismissed by the court as frivolous, and (D) the granting of such application would constitute an egregious misuse of Judicial Branch resources. If an application for the waiver of the payment of a fee or fees or the cost of service of process is denied, the court clerk shall, upon the request of the applicant, schedule a hearing on the application.

The amended bill was approved 44-1 in the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on April 19.

No comments »

Posted in Other, Salary & Budget

Tags:

Did Kansas Senator threaten funding for courts if judges didn’t accept change to merit selection? Similar efforts occurred in FL in 2011.

May 15th, 2013

I’ve mentioned over the last two years the numerous efforts by Kansas Republicans to change the merit selection system used for the state’s appellate courts. Efforts to change it by statute for the Court of Appeals was approved earlier this year, but GOP members have not gotten the 2/3rds of the House needed to change it for the Supreme Court.

Now comes word from the state’s Chief Justice that the Senate Judiciary chair and prime sponsor of the change away from merit selection attempted to link court funding to the changes (h/t to Gavel Grab for the pointer). A Topeka Capital Journal article details the accusation and denials.

If the Kansas Senate did attempt to link changes to judicial selection with court funding, it would not be the first time. When Florida attempted to change not only merit selection but the structure of the supreme court itself (splitting it into two courts) those seeking to end merit selection was tied with a constitutionally guaranteed 2.25% appropriation of general revenue funds.

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection

Tags:

California Assembly Committee approves limits on court contracts

April 16th, 2013

Many trial courts contract out at least some services that would otherwise be performed by court staff. In California, the use of such contracts may be curtailed under AB 566 as approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee last week.

Under the bill trial courts would only be allowed to contract “for any services that are currently or customarily performed by trial court employees” if a series of criteria were met, described in the bill’s official analysis as:

  • The contract may not be approved if, in light of the services provided by the trial courts and the special nature of the judicial function, it would be inconsistent with the public interest to have the services performed by a private entity
  • The court clearly demonstrates that the contract will result in actual, overall cost savings to the court, considering specified factors
  • The contract savings are not the result of lower contractor pay rates or benefits, provided the contract is eligible for approval if the contractor’s wages are at the industry standard and do not undercut trial court pay rates
  • The contract does not cause existing trial court employees to lose employment
  • The contract is awarded through a competitive bidding process
  • The contract provides for qualified staff, and the contractor’s hiring practicing are nondiscriminatory
  • The contract allows for immediate termination by the trial court, without penalty, for material breach
  • For contracts over $100,000, requires the contract to (i) disclose specified information, (ii) provide measurable performance standards; and (iii) require a performance audit and a cost audit be done and considered prior to any contract renewal
  • The contract is limited to no more than five years

The bill was approved on a 7-2 vote in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 9.

No comments »

Posted in Rule Making Authority, Salary & Budget

Tags:

Connecticut bill would require indigent work up to 20 hours of community service before filing lawsuits; hearing set for 4/15

April 11th, 2013

Many states provide by law, court rule, or case law that an indigent person too poor to pay the fees associated with a  case may have the fees waived. Connecticut’s present statute on the subject, 52-259b(a) is fairly straightforward

In any civil or criminal matter, if the court finds that a party is indigent and unable to pay a fee or fees payable to the court or to pay the cost of service of process, the court shall waive such fee or fees and the cost of service of process shall be paid by the state.

HB 6692 would amend this to provide an alternative; if a person cannot pay due to indigence they can be compelled to work.

If the court waives such fee, fees or the cost of service of process, the court may, in connection with the granting of such fee waiver, order that the person participate in a program of community service, as set forth in section 2 of this act, for a period of time not to exceed twenty hours. In determining whether to order a person to participate in a program of community service, the court shall consider the person’s ability to perform community service and prior compliance with any order to participate in a program of community service.

Those seeking restraining orders against domestic violence under 46b-15 or 46b-38c would not be compelled to work.

HB 6692 is set for a hearing on April 15 before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget

Tags:

New Mexico’s governor vetoes bills on judicial pensions, public financing of judicial elections

April 9th, 2013

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has issued several vetoes affecting the state’s judiciary in the last several days (h/t Gavel Grab for the pointer).

On the pension side, Gov. Martinez vetoed SB 25, which would have changed the age and service credit requirements and pension calculations for the judicial retirement system and magistrate retirement system. SB 25 altered cost of living adjustments, employee and employer contribution rates, and provided a new benefit structure starting in July 2013.

In her veto message Gov. Martinez noted

Although there is no doubt that these funds are in dire condition, this legislation does not fairly or adequately solve the problem. Instead, this bill seeks to address the deficiencies in the judicial retirement fund through an increase in taxpayer contributions while failing to address the serious challenges facing the magistrate retirement fund. Even with optimistic projections, this plan only delays the magistrate fund’s eventual bankruptcy.

The second veto of note was of changes to the state’s public financing for judicial elections (SB 16), changes made necessary because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McComish v. Bennett. SB 16 ended the practice of basing matching funds on the spending of a non-qualified opponent and instead based it on the amount of contributions collected by a qualified candidate.

In her veto message Gov. Martinez doubted the constitutionality of the new scheme and also opened up the possibility of reexamination of the state’s judicial selection system (a form of merit selection combined with partisan elections).

[I]t is entirely unclear that this proposed legislation is constitutional and allowing publicly-financed candidates, including judges, to raise an unlimited number of $100 contributions flies in the face of the intent of the law.

We need a broad, ground up reform of the entire judicial election system. We have the unusual procedure of using a bi-partisan judicial nominating commission process with an immediate open partisan election system. I encourage the Legislature to consider broadly reforming our election system when it comes to judges and am willing to address the issue of public-financing reforms in that overall context.

Because New Mexico’s legislature has adjourned sine die there appears to be no way to override the vetoes unless the legislature calls itself back into extraordinary session.

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection

Tags:

Indiana legislature wants a look at cost, benefits, and funding of state’s judicial retirement system

March 25th, 2013

With state’s looking at their various pension and retirement programs in general, Indiana’s legislature appears posed to take an in-depth look at the state’s judicial pension system.

Under SB 527 as introduced effective rewrote the Judges’ 1985 Retirement System regarding funding, age and service requirements, changes to early retirement penalties, etc. That bill effectively went nowhere; instead the Senate Pensions and Labot committee gutted the bill and replaced it entirely with a study proposal.

Under SB 527 as amended, the legislature urges its Legislative Council to assign the Pension Management Oversight Commission to investigate 4 areas related to retirement, disability, and death benefits for judges and full-time magistrates:

  1. cost
  2. whether the current funding method is adequate
  3. possible addition funding methods
  4. benefits changes

The review would be completed by November 1, 2013.

Sb 527 as amended was approved unanimously by the full Senate on February 26 and by the House Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee March 19.

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget

Tags:

Like Wisconsin’s before it, North Carolina’s public financing of judicial campaigns may fall to political opposition and the budget ax

March 22nd, 2013

North Carolina is one of several states that have public financing of at least some judicial elections. Republicans in the legislature have tried for years to use the state budget to kill the program, including a “dark of night amendment” offered on the House floor in 2011 that was debated on Facebook before being killed (click here for my coverage at the time).

2013, however, may be the year of defunding. According to WRAL.com (h/t Gavel Grab) the Republican Governor’s budget includes no funding for the state’s public financing system.

Using the budget process in a similar manner was effective in killing off the Wisconsin program for financing that state’s supreme court races. There, the plan was only in place for 13 months (May 2010-June 2011), unlike North Carolina’s decade-long plan.

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection

Tags:

Should efiling fees be charged per case, or per document? Texas Senate Jurisprudence Committee debated the subject.

March 21st, 2013

Legislature after legislature is dealing with the question of efiling in state courts as courts themselves grapple with the subject. In December 2012 the Texas Supreme Court issued an order effectively mandating efiling in civil cases in the state’s trial courts (except justice court) over the next 4 years

  • January 1, 2014, all appellate courts +  trial courts in counties with a population of 500,000 or more
  • July 1, 2014, trial courts in counties with 200,000 to 499,999
  • January 1,2015, trial courts in counties with 100,000 to 199,999
  • July 1, 2015, trial courts in counties with 50,000 to 99,999
  • January 1,2016, trial courts in counties with 20,000 to 49,999
  • July 1, 2016, trial courts in counties with fewer than 20,000

The question then turned to funding for efiling: should an efiling fee be put on the filing of each document filed, or as a lump sum one-time addition? And which would allow for enough funding to implement the system?

SB 1466 of 2013 as introduced would opt for the one-time only fee: $15 added to civil filing fee in probate, county, and district courts and Supreme Court; $5 additionally for criminal convictions from the justice, county and district courts. As came out in testimony, the amount will likely need to be increased to $20 in the form of a committee amendment later.

The fees would go to a Statewide Electronic Filing Fund, appropriated to the Office of Court Administration and the Supreme Court, for the electronic filing system. Testifying on the bill was the Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson and David W. Slayton, Administrative Director of the Texas Office of Court Administration.

The bill was debated, and left pending, in the Senate Jurisprudence Committee on March 19.

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Video

Tags:

It is dog eat dog in Pennsylvania, but under a bill introduced last week that may not bode well for the state’s court technology funding

March 21st, 2013

I’ve mentioned the various and sundry ways that state legislatures have attempted to pay for court technology. Pennsylvania has what is perhaps a unique system, one which may be ending soon, involving dogs.

In 1988, Pennsylvania law (HB 1308 of 1988, now 42 Pa.C.S. § 3733(a)(1)) set a baseline of fines, fees and costs collected by various agencies and divisions within the judiciary; any fines, fees and costs “collected by any division of the unified judicial system which are in excess of the amount collected from such sources in the fiscal year 1986-1987 shall be deposited in the Judicial Computer System Augmentation Account.”

Over time, certain fines, fees and costs were exempted, such as those allocated by law to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the Child Passenger Restraint Fund, etc.

HB 913, introduced last week, would provide a new exemption for fines, fees and cost under the state’s Dog Law, which deals with licensing, tagging, and caring for dogs in the state.

Dog Law fines, fees and costs instead of going to the state’s Judicial Computer System Augmentation Account would instead go to the Dog Law Restricted Account which helps to pay for the Office of Dog Law.

HB 913 has been assigned to the House Committee on Agriculture & Rural Affairs.

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget

Tags:

Kansas House Appropriations Committee approves plan to stop dividing docket fees to special funds, 100% goes to State General Fund

March 18th, 2013

It is not at all uncommon for court fees to be divided with $X or Y% going to a particular fund.  Kansas’ structure for docket fees in this regard are relatively common. Current law (K.S.A. § 20-367) for example provides the following breakdown for docket fees. Under HB 2338, as approved by the House Appropriations Committee this morning, there would be a simplified version: it all goes to the State General Fund.

Fund July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2013 July 1, 2013 forward (as of today)
 HB 2338 of 2013
judicial performance fund 3.05%  –
access to justice fund 4.24% 4.37%
juvenile detention facilities fund 2.35% 2.42%
judicial branch education fund 1.81% 1.87%
crime victims assistance fund 0.48% 0.50%
protection from abuse fund 2.31% 2.38%
judiciary technology fund 3.66% 3.78%
dispute resolution fund 0.29% 0.30%
Kansas juvenile delinquency prevention trust fund 1.07% 1.10%
permanent families account in the family and children investment fund 0.18% 0.19%
trauma fund 1.27% 1.31%
judicial council fund 0.96% 0.99%
child exchange and visitation centers fund 0.58% 0.60%
judicial branch nonjudicial salary adjustment fund 15.54% 16.03%
judicial branch nonjudicial salary initiative fund 15.37% 15.85%
state general fund Balance  (46.84%) Balance (48.31%) 100%

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget

Tags: