BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 973|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 973
Author: Campos (D)
Amended: 8/30/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/21/11
AYES: Evans, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-1, 8/25/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley, Price,
Runner, Steinberg
NOES: Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 51-24, 6/1/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Trial courts: budget process: public notice
SOURCE : American Federation of State, County and
Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
DIGEST : This bill requires trial courts, prior to
adopting a baseline budget plan for the fiscal year, to
allow public input and comment on the proposed plan and to
hold a public hearing on the plan, as specified. This bill
requires a trial court proposing to close a courtroom or
close/reduce hours of clerks' offices to provide the
required 60-day advance written notice by electronic
distribution and to include in the notice information on
CONTINUED
AB 973
Page
2
how the public may comment on the plan. This bill requires
the court to review and consider all comments received and
provide immediate notification of any plan changes. The
provisions of this bill sunset on January 1, 2017.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council, as part of
its trial court budget process, to seek input from groups
and individuals as it deems appropriate. Existing law
specifies that the trial court budget process may include,
among other things, the: (a) receipt of budget requests
from the trial courts; (b) review of trial courts' budget
requests; (c) annual adoption of the projected cost of
court operations in the subsequent fiscal year; (d) annual
approval of a schedule for the allocation of moneys to
individual courts and an overall trial court budget; (e)
reallocation of funds during the fiscal year to ensure
equal access to the trial courts by the public, to improve
trial court operations, and to meet trial court
emergencies; and (f) establishment of rules regarding a
court's authority to transfer trial court funding moneys
from one functional category to another in order to address
needs in any functional category. (Government Code Section
68502.5(a).)
Existing law provides that the Judicial Council shall
retain the ultimate responsibility to adopt a budget and
allocate funding for the trial courts and perform the other
activities listed above that best assure the courts'
ability to carry out their functions, promote
implementation of statewide policies, and promote the
immediate implementation of efficiencies and cost saving
measures in court operations, in order to guarantee equal
access to the courts. (Government Code Section
68502.5(c).)
Existing rules of court provide for the inspection and
copying of judicial administrative records, unless the
records are exempt. (California Rules of Court, Rule
10.500.)
CONTINUED
AB 973
Page
3
This bill requires a trial court, prior to adopting a
baseline budget plan for the fiscal year, to provide the
public with notice of the plan and an opportunity for input
by the submission of written comments. Among other things,
this bill requires the court to allow public input by the
submission of written comments or by holding a public
hearing on the trial court's proposed baseline budget plan,
but requires public input by both of those means on and
after January 1, 2015.
The provisions of this bill sunset on January 1, 2017.
Existing law requires a trial court to provide written
notice to the public not less than 60 days prior to closing
any courtroom, or closing or reducing the hours of clerks'
offices during regular business hours. That notice shall
be provided by conspicuous posting within or about its
facilities, on its Web site, and to the Judicial Council.
The notice must include the scope of the closure or
reduction in hours, and the financial constraints or other
reasons that make the closure or reduction necessary.
(Government Code Section 68106(b).)
Existing law requires the Judicial Council, within 15 days
of receiving the notice, to post the information on its Web
site and to provide the Senate and Assembly Judiciary
Committees and the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review
Committee, and the Assembly Budget Committee with copies of
the notices. Existing law provides that the Legislature
intends to review this information to ensure that
California trial courts remain open and accessible to the
public. (Government Code Section 68106(b).)
This bill requires a trial court to additionally provide
the notice described above electronically to individuals
who have subscribed to the court's electronic distribution
service.
This bill provides that the notice shall include
information on how the public may provide written comments
during the 60-day period regarding the court's plan for
closing a courtroom or closing or reducing clerks' office
hours.
CONTINUED
AB 973
Page
4
This bill requires the court, if its plan changes as a
result of the comments received, to immediately provide
notice to the public by posting a revised notice within or
about its facilities, on its Web site, and by electronic
distribution to individuals who have subscribed to the
court's electronic distribution service.
This bill requires the court to review and consider all
comments received, but would provide that these
requirements shall not be construed to obligate courts to
provide responses to the comments received or for any other
reason.
Background
As a result of the current fiscal crisis, the Judicial
branch-and trial courts in particular-has faced significant
funding challenges over the last several years which
resulted in an unprecedented one-day per month closure of
courthouses across the state. Although those courthouse
closures have generally ended for the time being, the
Judicial Council notes that "Ýi]n an effort to meet these
challenges while remaining open on all non-judicial
holidays and to preserve as fully as possible access to
court services for all litigants, some superior courts may
adopt plans to institute limited services days. A limited
services day is one on which a court might close one or
more courtrooms or reduce the hours of one or more of its
clerks' offices, or both."
Existing law requires trial courts to notify the public and
the Judicial Council 60 days prior to closing a courtroom
or closing or reducing the hours of clerks' offices. The
Judicial Council, in turn, must provide this information to
the Legislature and post it on its Web site. That
information, which is available at
www.courts.ca.gov/12973.htm, currently shows that seven
counties have notified the Judicial Council of limited
service hours which range from reducing the hours of
clerks' offices to providing that a court may meet in a
community once every other month rather than once every
month.
This bill, sponsored by the American Federation of State,
CONTINUED
AB 973
Page
5
County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, would
provide for public comment and review concerning a court's
plan to close a courtroom or close or reduce the hours of
clerks' offices. The bill would also require a trial court
to hold a public hearing on its proposed baseline budget
plan prior to its adoption.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Public hearings, Unknown; cost
pressure of $100 General*
notification, solicit/annually through 2014, potential
review public commentscosts of $100 annually thereafter
*Trial Court Trust Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/30/11)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
(source)
San Bernardino Public Employees Union
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
Service Employees International Union
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes, "Since the
enactment of the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, the
mechanisms for public oversight and accountability of the
California Superior Courts Ýwere] removed. Existing law
requires a decentralized system of trial court management
managed by a Presiding Judge. The Superior Courts are also
not subject to the provisions of the Brown Act or the
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
"Neither the Legislature nor the Judicial Council of
California has ultimate responsibility for the daily
CONTINUED
AB 973
Page
6
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 Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act
to conduct public meetings, and Superior Courts do not
voluntarily do so.
The sponsor, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, writes that prior to
the enactment of the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, "The
Courts were under the jurisdiction of the county
governments. During this time, the public was afforded the
opportunity to provide their direct input over the
administration of local court operations. They were able
to express their opinions at County Board of Supervisor
meetings and to elect individuals who had the ultimate
responsibility of overseeing daily court operations."
AFSCME writes that this bill would "restore public
oversight and accountability to the California Superior
Court system."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger
Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea,
Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Conway, Cook, Donnelly, Fletcher, Beth
Gaines, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, Jones, Knight,
Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen,
Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bill Berryhill, Garrick, Gorell,
Jeffries, V. Manuel Pérez
RJG:do 8/30/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
CONTINUED
AB 973
Page
7
**** END ****
CONTINUED