BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session AB 2116 (Evans) As Amended April 5, 2010 Hearing Date: June 10, 2010 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No SK:jd SUBJECT Subordinate Judicial Officers: Gifts and Honoraria DESCRIPTION This bill would extend existing gift limitations and honoraria restrictions currently applicable to superior court judges and justices of the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to also apply to subordinate judicial officers (SJOs). BACKGROUND California law imposes gift limitations and honoraria restrictions on superior court judges and justices of the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. These provisions were added by AB 3638 (Margolin, Ch. 1238, Stats. 1994) and specifically provide for a gift limit and prohibition on the acceptance of honoraria. In 1995, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 353 (Alquist, Ch. 378, Stats. 1995) which clarified the definition of "gift" with respect to informational materials. SB 1589 (Calderon, Ch. 557, Stats. 1996) revised the honoraria prohibition and exempted gifts from any person whose preexisting relationship with a judge would prevent the judge from hearing a case involving that person. The Commission on Judicial Performance is charged with enforcing these restrictions. In addition, the California Code of Judicial Ethics, adopted by the California Supreme Court, specifies rules and guidance on appropriate behavior by judicial officers, including SJOs. This bill, sponsored by the California Judges Association, would extend existing law's gift limitations and prohibition on honoraria to SJOs. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW (more) AB 2116 (Evans) Page 2 of ? Existing law authorizes the Legislature to provide that a court may appoint officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate judicial duties. (Cal. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 22.) Existing law defines subordinate judicial officer as an officer appointed to perform subordinate judicial duties as authorized by the California Constitution, including, but not limited to, a court commissioner, probate commissioner, referee, traffic referee, and juvenile referee. (Gov. Code Sec. 71601(i).) Existing law provides that no judge shall accept gifts from any single source in any calendar year with a total value of more than $250. This prohibition does not apply to: (1) payments or reimbursements for travel and related lodging, as specified; (2) wedding, birthday, or holiday gifts exchanged between individuals; or (3) gifts from any person whose preexisting relationship with a judge would prevent that judge from hearing a case involving that person. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 170.9(a)(b).) Existing law prohibits a judge from accepting an honorarium, which is defined to mean a "payment made in consideration for any speech given, article published, or attendance at any public or private conference, convention, meeting, social event, meal, or like gathering." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 170.9(g)(h).) "Honorarium" does not include income earned for personal services customarily provided in connection with the practice of a bona fide business, trade, or profession such as teaching or writing, and it does not include fees or other things of value received for performance of a marriage. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 170.9(i).) Existing law defines "judge" for purposes of the above gift and honoraria limitations as a judge of the superior court and justices of the courts of appeal or the Supreme Court. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 170.9(c).) This bill would revise the definition of "judge" to also include SJOs, as defined in Government Code Section 71601. COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill The author writes: AB 2116 (Evans) Page 3 of ? Recognizing the need to prevent actual and the appearance of improper influence or bias in the courts, AB 2116 would extend the scope of existing judicial gift limits to subordinate judicial officers, including court commissioners, probate commissioners, referees, traffic referees, and juvenile referees. The question posed by existing law is whether the gift limitations that seek to eliminate actual and the appearance of bias in the courtroom, but are currently only applicable to specified judicial officers, should be extended to subordinate judicial officers. The California Judges Association, sponsor of the measure, writes that "[t]here is no policy reason why [SJOs], in many cases performing the same function as Superior Court judges, should not be subject to the same gift rules as judges." The Judicial Council writes in support that, "[w]hile subordinate judicial officers are employees of the court and not elected officials, for this purpose their role is indistinct from that of judges and they owe the same accountability to the public." 2. Whether extending gift and honoraria restrictions to SJOs is appropriate: wide-ranging use of SJOs This bill would extend gift and honoraria restrictions currently applicable to superior court judges and justices of the courts of appeal and Supreme Court to SJOs. As a result, this bill raises the public policy question of whether it is appropriate to treat SJOs similarly to judges with respect to gift and honoraria limits. In order to address workload issues, California trial courts have increasingly relied on SJOs. While SJOs are appointed to perform "subordinate judicial duties," such as hearing small claims cases, traffic infractions, and certain civil discovery issues, they have increasingly taken on a more expansive role. In many instances, courts have assigned SJOs to act as temporary judges thus requiring them to perform some of the most complex and sensitive judicial duties, including core judicial duties such as adjudicating juvenile and family law matters. Recently, the Judicial Council indicated that SJOs typically spend an average of 55 percent of their time serving as temporary judges. In larger courts, that number is closer to 75 to 80 percent. This over reliance on SJOs has resulted in many critical court proceedings being heard by judicial officers who are not accountable to the public. SJOs are court employees and are not AB 2116 (Evans) Page 4 of ? subject to elections. They do not have the authority or independence provided by the Constitution. Because SJOs are performing judicial duties and, in some cases, the same function as a judge, this bill seeks to eliminate both actual bias and the appearance of bias in courtrooms across the state by extending the gift and honoraria restrictions to all those with adjudicative power within the California court system. Support : Judicial Council Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : California Judges Association Related Pending Legislation : AB 2767 (Committee on Judiciary), the annual civil law omnibus bill, would revise the definition of "subordinate judicial officer" to also include a child support commissioner, juvenile court referee, and juvenile hearing officer. This measure is currently pending in this Committee. Prior Legislation : See Background. Prior Vote : Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0) Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0) Assembly Floor (Ayes 74, Noes 0) **************