BILL ANALYSIS Ó Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair AB 973 (Campos) Hearing Date: 08/25/2011 Amended: 06/27/2011 Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Judiciary 4-0 _________________________________________________________________ ____ BILL SUMMARY: AB 973 would require each trial court, prior to adopting a baseline budget plan for the fiscal year, to allow public input on the proposed plan by the submission of written comments or by holding a public hearing, and would mandate public input by both of those means on and after January 1, 2015. This bill would require 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 how the public may comment on the plan. This bill would require the court to review and consider all comments received and provide immediate notification of any plan changes. _________________________________________________________________ ____ Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund Public hearings, electronic Cost pressure of $100 annually through General* notification, solicit/review 2016 public comments *Trial Court Trust Fund _________________________________________________________________ ____ STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED. Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council, as part of its court budget process, to seek input from groups and individuals as it deems appropriate. Further, existing rules of court provide for the inspection and copying of judicial administrative records, unless otherwise exempt. This bill would require 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 AB 973 (Campos) Page 1 comments or by holding a public hearing on the proposed plan. On and after January 1, 2015, a trial court would be required to allow public input by both the submission of written comments and by holding a public hearing. This bill states that courts are not obligated to provide responses to the comments presented at the hearing or to written comments received. Current law requires a trial court to provide written notification to the public by conspicuous posting within or about its facilities, on its website, and to the Judicial Council not less than 60 days prior to closing any courtroom, or closing or reducing the hours of clerks' offices during regular business hours, as specified. This bill would require a trial court to additionally provide the notice electronically to those who have subscribed to the court's electronic distribution service. Further, this bill would require the notice to include information on how the public may provide written comments during the 60-day period, and would require the court to immediately provide notice to the public if its plan changes as a result of comments received or for any other reason. The court would be required to review and consider all comments received, but would not be obligated to provide responses to the comments received. The Judicial Council indicates trial courts will incur ongoing administrative costs to hold annual public hearings and solicit and review public comments as required by this measure. Total increased costs are unknown but could be significant across all of the State's trial courts. If each trial court expended up to $2,000 annually to provide notice and conduct hearings, costs in excess of $100,000 annually statewide could result. Although the provision mandating public hearings is delayed until January 1, 2015, there would still be cost pressure on the courts, as public hearings are still authorized although not required. Given the staffing cutbacks incurred due to ongoing branch-wide budget reductions, and the recently approved reduction of $350 million to the Judicial Branch budget for 2011-12 will place additional pressure on trial courts to perform increased workload with shrinking resources. Diverting staff to fulfill these new requirements could have the unintended result of impairing a court's ability to meet its existing obligations. The proposed amendments extend the provision requiring courts to allow the submission of written comments or to hold a public AB 973 (Campos) Page 2 hearing to January 1, 2017, and would delete the provision mandating public hearings after January 1, 2015.