BILL ANALYSIS AB 663 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Kevin De Leon, Chair AB 663 (Jones) - As Amended: April 29, 2009 Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-2 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill establishes a pilot project to provide court interpreters in specified civil proceedings, and makes it unlawful for an entity to use the term "legal aid" unless referring to a nonprofit organization providing legal services to the poor without charge. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires the Judicial Council to: a) Establish, before September 1, 2010, a working group to review, identify, and develop best practices for providing court interpreters in civil cases. b) Select up to five courts to participate in a pilot project, from July 1, 2011 until June 30, 2014, to provide interpreters in civil proceeds as specified. c) Report its findings and recommendations based on the pilot project by September 1, 2013. d) Assess the need for court interpreters in court proceedings and report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature by July 1, 2016 and every five years thereafter. This revises and recasts a current needs assessment requirement that will sunset on January 1, 2011. e) Enter into a master agreement or agreements with one or more venders to provide for telephone appearances in civil cases, as permitted by law. 2)Requires the agreements above to require an appearance fee in an amount set by the Judicial Council and requires the vendor AB 663 Page 2 to pay the state $15 for every telephone appearance, with the revenue to be used by the Judicial Council to pay the costs of the pilot court interpreter program. FISCAL EFFECT Estimated annual revenues to the Trial Court Trust Fund from the $15 fee are $2.3 million. The Judicial Council intends to use these revenues to cover the workload described in (1) above. The council indicates that the court interpreter pilot is scalable in that it allows increases in the types of cases and parties served, thus providing flexibility in allocating the resources made available through the fee increase. COMMENTS 1)Purpose . The author states, "Court interpreters should be available to all Californians who need them, just as they are for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, in order to protect the fair and efficient administration of justice, allow parties to be understood by the court when they are not represented by lawyers, encourage trust and confidence in the judicial system and promote respect for the rule of law and compliance with court orders." 2)Prior Legislation . In 2008, AB 3050 (Judiciary Committee), which was substantially similar to this bill, was one of numerous bills summarily vetoed by the governor without a stated objection. In 2007, AB 1726 (Judiciary Committee), contained court interpreter provisions similar to this bill but mandated interpreters for all counties, and did not include a financing mechanism. AB 1726 was held on this committee's Suspense File. In 2006, AB 2302 (Judiciary Committee), which was substantially similar to AB 1726, was vetoed. The governor, while expressing support for the policy, argued that the state's structural budget deficit did not allow for expansion of state programs. Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081