BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2763
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 13, 2010

                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
                                  Mike Feuer, Chair
                  AB 2763 (Judiciary) - As Amended:  March 25, 2010
           
                                   PROPOSED CONSENT
           
          SUBJECT  :  SUBORDINATE JUDICIAL OFFICER CONVERSIONS

           KEY ISSUE  :  SHOULD LEGISLATION BE ENACTED TO IMPROVE THE  
          HANDLING OF FAMILY AND JUVENILE LAW CASES BY INCREASING THE  
          LIKELIHOOD THAT THESE MATTERS ARE PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGES?

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

                                      SYNOPSIS
          
          This non-controversial bill seeks to improve family and juvenile  
          law cases in California's courts.  First, the bill authorizes  
          the Judicial Council to convert up to 10 additional subordinate  
          judicial officer positions (SJOs) to judgeships each year, upon  
          vacancy, if the conversion of these additional positions will  
          result in a judge being assigned to a family or juvenile law  
          assignment previously presided over by a subordinate judicial  
          officer.  Second, the bill requires the Judicial Council to  
          prepare and submit to the Legislature a Judicial Needs  
          Assessment that revises the time study specifically for family  
          and juvenile law, and thus re-evaluates the overall judicial  
          needs of family and juvenile courts.  The bill is nearly  
          identical to last year's AB 942 (Judiciary), which passed out of  
          this Committee unanimously but was held in the Senate  
          Appropriations Committee.  It is supported by the Judicial  
          Council with no known opposition.

           SUMMARY  :  Seeks to improve the handling of family and juvenile  
          law cases in our courts.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Authorizes the Judicial Council to convert up to an additional  
            10 subordinate judicial officer positions (SJOs) to judgeships  
            each year, upon vacancy, if the conversion of these additional  
            positions will result in a judge being assigned to a family or  
            juvenile law assignment previously presided over by a  
            subordinate judicial officer.








                                                                  AB 2763
                                                                  Page  2

          2)Requires the Judicial Council to prepare and submit to the  
            Legislature a Judicial Needs Assessment that revises the time  
            study specifically for family and juvenile law, to get a  
            better handle on the judicial resource needs of our family and  
            juvenile courts.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the number of  
            judges and provide for the officers and employees of each  
            superior court.  (California Constitution, Article VI, Section  
            4.)

          2)Provides that the Legislature may provide for the trial courts  
            to appoint officers such as commissioners to perform  
            subordinate judicial duties.  (California Constitution,  
            Article VI, Section 22.)

          3)Authorizes the courts to appoint subordinate judicial  
            officers, and sets forth their duties and titles.  (Government  
            Code section 71622.)

          4)Authorizes the conversion of 16 subordinate judicial officer  
            positions in eligible superior courts to judgeships each  
            fiscal year as specified.  (Government Code section 69615.)

           COMMENTS  :  This bill seeks to improve family and juvenile law  
          cases by increasing the likelihood that these matters are  
          presided over by judges and not subordinate judicial officers.   
          The bill further seeks to ensure that there is an appropriate  
          understanding of the shortage of family and juvenile law judges  
          around the state so that this shortfall may begin to be remedied  
          in an appropriate manner.  The bill is supported by the Judicial  
          Council with no known opposition.  It is nearly identical to  
          last year's AB 942 (Judiciary), which passed out of this  
          Committee unanimously but was held in the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee.  The Committee is working to ensure there are no new  
          costs associated with the bill.  

           Subordinate Judicial Officer Conversions  .  According to the  
          Judicial Council, historically, SJO positions were created and  
          funded at the county level to address courts' needs for  
          judicial-like resources when new judgeships were pending or not  
          yet authorized by the Legislature.  Unlike judges, SJOs are not  
          directly accountable to the public, but due to the shortages of  







                                                                  AB 2763
                                                                  Page  3

          judges, are performing some of the most complex and sensitive  
          judicial duties.  Conversion of these positions to judgeships  
          when they become vacant makes them both more accountable to the  
          public and, the author contends, helps provide better trust and  
          confidence in the courts.

           Recent SJO Conversion Bill  :  In 2007, AB 159 (Jones, Chapter  
          722) was enacted to address a severe shortage in the number of  
          trial court judgeships.  At that time, the Judicial Council  
          noted potentially serious consequences flowing from this  
          deficiency in judicial resources, including a significant  
          decrease in Californians' access to the courts, compromised  
          public safety, an unstable business climate, and enormous  
          backlogs in some courts that inhibit fair, timely and equitable  
          justice.  That bill, in addition to authorizing 50 additional  
          judges, authorized the conversion of 162 SJOs, upon vacancy, to  
          judgeships to utilize the judicial resources more efficiently  
          and properly limit SJOs to subordinate judicial duties.  The  
          stated findings and declarations supporting the legislation  
          included the following:
           
               It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this  
               section to restore an appropriate balance between  
               subordinate judicial officers and judges in the trial  
               courts by providing for the conversion, as needed, of  
               subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships in  
               courts that assign subordinate judicial officers to act as  
               temporary judges. The Legislature finds that these  
               positions must be converted to judgeships in order to  
               ensure that critical case types, including family, probate,  
               and juvenile law matters, can be heard by judges.  
               (Government Code section 69615, emphasis added.)

           The Conversion Cap  :  In 2007, when AB 159 was enacted, the  
          Legislature capped at 16 the number of conversions that may  
          happen each fiscal year.  According to the Judicial Council, the  
          number of conversions selected was based on an estimate provided  
          by the council during a budget subcommittee hearing that it  
          would likely take about 10 years to convert the 162 requested  
          positions, as the positions may only convert upon vacancy.  For  
          the first two years in which the council has converted  
          positions, that number has fallen short of the number SJO  
          vacancies that have occurred in courts that are eligible for  
          conversions.  In support of the need to convert SJO positions to  
          judgeships, the 2007 Judicial Council Legislative Priorities  







                                                                  AB 2763
                                                                  Page  4

          report included the following:
           
               When courts do not have enough judges, they must assign  
               commissioners and referees to act as temporary judges; in  
               that capacity commissioners and referees exercise the full  
               power of judges, rather than the more limited duties within  
               their statutorily defined scope of authority. Commissioners  
               and referees act as temporary judges so often that, as  
               stated in the [National Center for State Courts 2001]  
               report to the council, they are "simply judges under a  
               different title." In response to these findings, the  
               Council in 2000 adopted a policy emphasizing that the  
               primary role of subordinate judicial officers (SJOs) is to  
               perform subordinate judicial duties, as delegated by the  
               courts and described by statute. At the same time, the  
               council adopted a policy supporting the conversion of SJO  
               positions to judgeships in courts that use SJOs as  
               temporary judges because of a shortage of judges. The  
               council's policy is based on the principle that full public  
               accountability requires the courts to provide judges to  
               hear the serious and complex matters that are reserved to  
               them by law.
           
           Blue Ribbon Commission Urges This Reform  :  In 2002 the Judicial  
          Council identified family and juvenile law matters among those  
          that are of such a nature as to require judges, rather than  
          SJOs, to preside over them whenever possible.  This Council  
          policy has been echoed repeatedly.  Among its many  
          recommendations, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in  
          Foster Care (BRC) recommended that "Consistent with Judicial  
          Council policy, judges-not subordinate judicial officers-hear  
          dependency and delinquency cases.  Pending a full transition  
          from subordinate judicial officers to judges (through  
          reassignment or conversion of subordinate judicial officer  
          positions to judgeships), presiding judges should continue the  
          assignment of well-qualified and experienced subordinate  
          judicial officers to juvenile court." 
           
          This bill will therefore permit the Council to convert an  
          additional 10 positions in each year.  Consistent with the  
          Legislature's increased focused interest on family and juvenile  
          law reform and improvement, and with the enacted legislative  
          findings and declarations regarding the rationale for conversion  
          of SJOs, the Council's repeated statements that judges rather  
          than SJOs should preside over critical case types such as family  







                                                                  AB 2763
                                                                  Page  5

          and juvenile law, the recommendation of the BRC, and the focused  
          attention on family law matters with the work of the Council's  
          Elkins Family Law Task Force, the bill will permit the Council  
          to convert the additional 10 positions if and only if the  
          conversion results in a judge being assigned to a family or  
          juvenile law assignment that was previously presided over by an  
          SJO.  The bill does not impact the Council's authority to  
          convert the 16 positions already authorized by law.  The  
          criteria related to the family or juvenile law assignment is  
          related only to conversions number 17 through 26.

           Judicial Needs Assessment  .  Government Code 69614 requires the  
          Judicial Council to report to the Legislature by November 1 of  
          every even-numbered year on the general need for new judgeships  
          in each superior court.  In October 2008, the Council approved  
          the 2008 updated Judicial Needs Assessment, which was  
          subsequently transmitted to the Legislature.  This bill directs  
          the Council to prepare a special needs assessment, by November  
          30, 2011 (to give it needed time to do its work), specifically  
          addressing judicial needs in family and juvenile law matters.   
          There has been some concern that the time study used to produce  
          the initial and all subsequent Judicial Needs Assessments has  
          continued to "undercount" the time it takes to properly handle  
          family and juvenile law matters, and thus inadvertently  
          understates the judicial resource needs in courts across the  
          state.  The Judicial Council's Administrative Office of the  
          Courts (AOC) Office of Court Research and Center for Families,  
          Children & the Courts, have already begun the process to conduct  
          a revised needs assessment specially targeted at these case  
          types.  

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :  In support of the bill, the Judicial  
          Council states:

               Over the years, in the face of few or no new judgeships  
               being created, courts have had to hire SJOs simply to meet  
               the demands of their workload.  As a result, these SJOs  
               have not simply been assigned to perform subordinate  
               judicial duties, but in many cases they are assigned as  
               temporary judges, possessing the full power of judges.  The  
               Judicial Council believes that family law and juvenile law  
               cases, among the courts' most sensitive and often most  
               complex, should be assigned to judges whenever possible.  

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   







                                                                  AB 2763
                                                                  Page  6


           Support 
           
          Judicial Council

           Opposition 
           
          None on file
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :  Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334