BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 973
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 973 (Campos) - As Amended: April 7, 2011
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires trial courts to provide notice and an
opportunity for written and oral comment before adopting their
annual budgets. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires each trial court, prior to adopting a budget plan for
the fiscal year, to provide an opportunity for public input
through submission of written comments and by holding a public
hearing to receive comments. Notice of the public hearing must
be provided at least 10 court days prior, and the proposed
budget must be made available to the public at least three
days prior to the public hearing.
2)Requires a trial court proposing to close any courtroom or
close or reduce hours of the clerks' office, in the
currently-required 60-day advance written notice, to include
how the public may provide written comments on the court's
closure or reduction plan. The court must review and consider
all public comments received, and if the court changes its
closure or reduction plan as a result of the comments
received, the court must immediately post the revised plan.
FISCAL EFFECT
The courts in every county will incur costs to hold public
hearings and formally review and respond to written and oral
comments received. In addition, some courts in smaller or rural
counties may have to lease facilities to conduct the public
hearings. These costs would not be significant for each court,
but if only $3,000 per county on average, would exceed $150,000
statewide. While these costs likely would be absorbed within
courts existing budgets, given the staff reductions already
AB 973
Page 2
incurred by the courts and the likelihood of continuing budget
pressures for the foreseeable future, the staff resources
required to fulfill these new requirements could impact the
courts ability to meet current obligations.
COMMENTS
Purpose . This bill is sponsored by the American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which contends
the bill is needed to "restore public oversight and
accountability to the California Superior Court System.
According to the author, "Neither the Legislature nor the
Judicial Council of California has the ultimate responsibility
for the daily operations of the trial courts and the services
provided to the public; that responsibility rests with each
Superior Court. However, the Superior Courts are not required by
either the Brown Act or the Bagly-Keene Open Meeting Act to
conduct public meetings, and Superior Courts do not voluntarily
do so. This bill simply restores a mechanism of public
accountability by requiring the Superior Courts to conduct
public meetings prior to the adoption of their annual budget or
any changes in court services."
The Judicial Council, while neutral on the bill, indicates it
could support the bill if amended to reduce costs by allowing
the courts to either "conduct public hearings or accept written
testimony consistent with the needs of the community and the
available resources of the court."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081