BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  May 3, 2011

                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
                                  Mike Feuer, Chair
                AB 1208 (Calderon) - As Introduced:  February 18, 2011
           
          SUBJECT  :  TRIAL COURTS: THE TRIAL COURT RIGHTS ACT OF 2011 

           KEY ISSUES  :
              
          1)WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF CONCERN THAT UNDERLIE THIS 
            MEASURE, AND WHAT ARE THE WAYS IT APPEARS TO POTENTIALLY 
            SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER EXISTING GOVERNANCE WITHIN THE JUDICIAL 
            BRANCH?

          2)TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE RESPECT THE REQUEST OF 
            THE NEW CHIEF JUSTICE TO ALLOW THE JUDICIAL BRANCH REASONABLE 
            TIME TO TRY TO ADDRESS INTERNALLY CONCERNS ABOUT ITS 
            GOVERNANCE?

          3)GIVEN THE BILL'S FOCUS ON TRIAL COURT FUNDING AND TECHNOLOGY 
            ISSUES, MIGHT THERE BE SOME APPROACH TO THESE ISSUES ABOUT 
            WHICH THE COMMITTEE AND AUTHOR MAY CONCUR, SHOULD THE 
            COMMITTEE CONCLUDE THE GOVERNANCE PROVISIONS IN THE MEASURE 
            ARE UNTIMELY OR POTENTIALLY UNWISE?  

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

                                      SYNOPSIS

          This legislation contains a broad umbrella of provisions that 
          seek to substantially alter governance within California's 
          judicial branch by transferring new authority to local courts.  
          The bill is an outgrowth of severe discontent that has arisen in 
          recent years amongst an unknown number of superior court judges 
          and some trial courts, reflecting one of the most turbulent 
          periods in the judicial branch in many years.  Supporters of the 
          bill, including some trial courts and an unknown number of 
          superior court judges, contend that the administrative and 
          governing arms of the judiciary, the Administrative Office of 
          the Courts and the Judicial Council, have allegedly 
          insufficiently respected the constitutionally-protected 
          independence of the trial courts.  Amongst the measure's broad 
          substantive provisions, the bill sets forth that the "The 
          Judicial Council does not govern the trial courts. . . ," and 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  2

          appears to potentially shift at least some measure of authority 
          for spending judicial branch funds from the Judicial Council to 
          the trial courts; ostensibly granting each of the state's 58 
          individual superior courts a potential "veto" over the 
          implementation of a highly controversial case management 
          computer system, as well as the design, siting and construction 
          of new court facilities.  Citing a laundry list of complaints 
          alleging mismanagement and perceived waste by the AOC, as well 
          as the alleged failure to enact a "Financial Management Bill of 
          Rights," the author states "The Legislature never intended to 
          strip the trial courts of their independence to manage 
          themselves."  

          The measure was introduced just over a month after California's 
          new and highly respected chief justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, was 
          sworn in to take the helm of the judicial branch.  Opponents, 
          including an unusual coalition consisting of the California 
          Commission on Access to Justice, the Civil Justice Association 
          of California, the Consumer Attorneys of California, the 
          California Defense Counsel, the California Chamber of Commerce, 
          along with the Judicial Council, other superior courts and an 
          equally uncertain number of individual trial and appellate court 
          judges, contend that, in addition to risking the unraveling of 
          almost fifteen years of progress in unifying the state's courts 
          and improving Californians' access to justice through the 
          extraordinary leadership of the former chief justice, the 
          Legislature should respect the co-equal independence of the 
          judicial branch and at a minimum provide the new chief justice 
          reasonable time to try to address where appropriate governance 
          and funding concerns within the branch.  As discussed below, 
          while the precise impact of many of the measure's provisions 
          appears unclear, it is clear the bill reflects strong discontent 
          amongst an unknown number of trial court judges within the 
          state's renowned judicial branch, both regarding the development 
          of a statewide case management computer system as well as what 
          proponents contend is a current imbalance of authority between 
          the administrative and governance arms of the judiciary and the 
          state's 58 trial courts.  
                                           
           SUMMARY  :  Would enact the Trial Court Rights Act of 2011, a 
          broad umbrella of provisions that seek to address governance and 
          funding within California's judicial branch.  Specifically, 
          amongst other provisions,  this bill  :  

          1)Contains extensive legislative findings including but not 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  3

            limited to:  (a) The Legislature has previously affirmed the 
            need for strong and independent local county court management; 
            and (b) the importance of having decentralized management of 
            the trial courts was recognized by the Legislature, and that 
            the Judicial Council failed to adopt a Trial Courts Bill of 
            Financial Management Rights as intended by the Legislature.

          2)Provides that the Judicial Council does not govern the trial 
            courts. 

          3)Provides that each trial court shall have the independent 
            right and duty to manage its administrative and financial 
            affairs in accordance with its own policies, as provided by 
            its trial court management, if the court is in reasonable 
            compliance with accounting, audit, and budgetary standards 
            established by law.

          4)Provides that each trial court shall be independently 
            empowered with all of the following powers, including, but not 
            limited:  (1) To elect and maintain its own presiding and 
            assistant presiding judges, according to its own policies; (2) 
            To hire, maintain, compensate, and supervise its own executive 
            officer and other specified staff; (3) To enter into its own 
            contracts and agreements to provide for the security of its 
            court sessions, including negotiating and maintaining 
            contracts with local law enforcement agencies; (4) To retain 
            and employ its own administrative legal counsel; and (5) 
            Except as otherwise required by law, to maintain the schedule 
            of its own sessions at times and places as deemed prudent by 
            its presiding judge and trial court management, and to open or 
            close the court facilities within its geographic boundaries as 
            deemed prudent by its presiding judge and trial court 
            management.

          5)Provides that except as necessary to otherwise carry out the 
            constitutional or other established statutory authority of the 
            Judicial Council, a trial court shall not be required to 
            coordinate or combine its operations with any other trial 
            court, except as the trial court management of that trial 
            court consents, including the assignment of its judges to any 
            other court. 
             
          6)Requires that all funds appropriated for trial court 
            operations be fully allocated to trial courts. 








                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  4

          7)Provides that each trial court may move funds, once budgeted 
            and allocated, between functions or line items or programs as 
            directed by that court's trial court management.  
            Notwithstanding Section 68085, an allocation of funds from the 
            Trial Court Trust Fund shall not be made without the consent 
            of the trial court management of the affected court or courts.

          8)Requires written consent from each of the state's 58 trial 
            courts before they are required to fund or implement statewide 
            computer case management or accounting systems.

          9)Requires written consent from each of the state's 58 trial 
            courts before the Judicial Council designs, sites, constructs, 
            or names new court facilities in that county.

           EXISTING LAW  : 

          1)Consolidates funding for trial court operations centrally at 
            the state level under the administration of the judicial 
            branch's Administrative Office of the Courts ("AOC").  
            (Government Code Section 77200 et seq., enacted by Ch. 850, 
            Stats. 1997, (AB 233).  All further statutory references are 
            to this code unless otherwise stated.)

          2)Provides that notwithstanding any other law, the Judicial 
            Council may regulate the budget and fiscal management of the 
            trial courts.  The Judicial Council, in consultation with the 
            Controller, shall maintain appropriate regulations for 
            recordkeeping and accounting by the courts.  (Section 77206.)

          3)Provides that the Judicial Council shall allocate funds to the 
            individual trial courts pursuant to an allocation schedule 
            adopted by the Judicial Council.  The allocation schedule 
            adopted by the Judicial Council must meet certain minimum 
            funding levels equal to county remittances to the state, as 
            set forth in statute.  (Sections 77200 and 77207.)

          4)Provides that the Judicial Council shall allocate funds to 
            ensure the courts can carry out their functions, promote 
            statewide policies, promote court efficiencies and cost 
            savings in court operations.  The Council may also identify 
            and request additional funding for the trial courts for costs 
            resulting from the implementation of statutory changes that 
            result in increased levels of service or a new activity that 
            affects programmatic or operational requirements of the 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  5

            courts.  (Section 77202.)

          5)Provides that the Judicial Council shall adopt rules which 
            establish a decentralized system of trial court management.  
            (California Rule of Court, Rule 10.601.)

          6)Provides, in addition, that the Judicial Council shall adopt 
            rules?to manage?consistent with statute?(an) annual allocation 
            of funding, including policies and procedures about moving 
            funding between functions or line items or programs.  The 
            Council can establish bank accounts for the 58 courts for 
            deposit of various court funds, including moneys appropriated 
            in the Budget Act, and allocated or reallocated to the 
            Superior Court by the Judicial Council.  (Sections 77001 and 
            77009.)
            
          7)Grants the Judicial Council additional authority to use trial 
            court funds to develop statewide information technology 
            systems and to create regulations for trial courts' 
            recordkeeping and accounting.  Further provides that trial 
            court policies and procedures shall specify the process for a 
            court to transfer existing funds between or among budgeted 
            program components. (Section 77202.)

          8)Establishes the Court Facilities Trust Fund to address 
            maintenance, renovation and construction of courthouses, and 
            gives the Judicial Council the authority to manage the fund 
            and plan, construct, and operate court facilities in the 
            state.  (Section 70352.)

          9)Requires the Judicial Council to consult with the local courts 
            regarding construction of new facilities, but vests ultimate 
            control over new trial court facility construction with the 
            Judicial Council.  (Section 70374.) 

           COMMENTS  :  Titled the "Trial Court Rights Act of 2011," this 
          legislation contains a broad umbrella of provisions that seek to 
          address governance practices and authority within California's 
          judicial branch.  It is an outgrowth of substantial discontent 
          that has arisen in recent years amongst an unknown number of 
          superior court judges who contend that trial courts have not had 
          their constitutionally-protected administrative and financial 
          independence appropriately respected by the administrative arm 
          of the judiciary, the AOC, and its governing authority, the 
          Judicial Council of California (the "Judicial Council").  By 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  6

          many accounts, much of this discontent (though its breadth 
          within the branch is highly debated) appears to grow out of a 
          perception that under prior leadership the Judicial Council was 
          not sufficiently open to, or inclusive of, dissenting views 
          regarding important issues of internal judicial branch 
          management. This measure was introduced on February 18, 2011, 
          approximately one month after California's new and highly 
          respected chief justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, was sworn in to 
          take the helm of the state's judicial branch during a difficult 
          time of severe budget cuts, furloughed employees, and great 
          uncertainty in the court system.  Though, as discussed below, 
          the precise impact of many of the measure's provisions appears 
          unclear, it is undisputed that the bill is a reflection of one 
          of the most turbulent periods now being experienced by the 
          judicial branch of government in many years.  

           Author's Statement  :  In support of the measure, the author 
          states in part that:  

                The Trial Court Funding Act was enacted to ensure equitable 
               distribution of funds to trial courts by transferring the 
               principal funding responsibility to the state of 
               California. The Legislature never intended to strip the 
               trial courts of their independence to manage themselves and 
               to meet their constitutional obligations.  Instead, the 
               Legislature intended that a Financial Management Bill of 
               Rights be adopted as part of the Trial Court Funding Act to 
               protect the financial independence of the courts. The 
               Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the 
               Courts (AOC), charged with the management of state court 
               funds, have failed to adopt any Bill of Rights. 

               The Court Case Management System (CCMS) illustrates the 
               problem. According to the State Auditor Report, the AOC has 
               spent $407 million as of June 2010, averaging $50 million a 
               year for a software system riddled with problems. To put 
               these figures into perspective, the Judicial Council closed 
               court houses 1-day a month to save $90 million instead of 
               eliminating CCMS funding.  Additionally, the audit report 
               estimated the total cost of finishing the CCMS system at 
               $1.9 billion, averaging $300 million a year for the next 5 
               years, which does not include the cost of implementing the 
               system.  Because trial courts lack control over their own 
               finances, they have been unable to either prevent court 
               closures or the use of their funds for CCMS.







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  7


               In order to protect the trial courts, which are created by 
               Article VI, Section 4 of the California Constitution, AB 
               1208 would carry out the intent of the Legislature when it 
               enacted the Trial Court Funding Act. Specifically, this 
               bill would provide that all funds shall be fully allocated 
               to the trial courts, and, once allocated, shall remain 
               unless consent of the affected courts is obtained.  It will 
               also authorize each trial court to move funds between 
               functions or programs as directed by trial court 
               management.  Finally, the bill would prevent the 
               implementation of a case or accounting information system 
               or to undertake the construction of a court facility in the 
               county without the trial court's consent.
           
           In addition, the author's office provided the following 
          additional statement in support:

               "Judicial Council has attempted a number of projects since 
               the enactment of the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding 
               Act.  It has created a number of court houses, it has 
               undertaken court maintenance, it has developed a statewide 
               case file computer system, and it has dealt with state 
               budget cuts.  It has failed to adequately deal with, 
               develop, and execute each one of these projects.
            
                1)     Court Construction Cost  : Court houses are averaging 
                 over $1,000 a square foot, in some cases $1,700.  By 
                 comparison, federal court houses average between $500 and 
                 $700 a square foot.
                2)     Maintenance cost  : According to the AOC, $8,201 was 
                 used to remove gum from the Sacramento Courthouse entry, 
                 $3,141 was used to replace junipers with rose bushes in 
                 front of the Madera County Superior Court, and $45,492 
                 was used in the San Diego North County Regional Center to 
                 repair a bench in department 10. 
                3)     CCMS  :  CCMS has ballooned in cost.  CCMS has been 
                 poorly planned since the beginning.     
                4)     Budget Cuts  :  Court houses were closed one day a 
                 month to deal with budget cuts.  It did this to save $90 
                 million.  At the same time, Judicial Council transferred 
                 $72 million from the Trial Court Trust Fund (used 
                 primarily to pay for court operations) to develop CCMS.  
                 It seems that access to justice would be better served by 
                 keeping court houses open instead of funding the 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  8

                 development of CCMS."  
           
          Support and Opposition  :  The Committee has received letters of 
          support from the following counties' trial courts:  Los Angeles, 
          Amador, Kern, Mariposa, Mono, Sacramento, and San Mateo.  

          The Committee has received opposition letters from the 
          California Commission on Access to Justice, the Civil Justice 
          Association of California (CJAC), the Consumer Attorneys of 
          California (CAOC), the California Defense Counsel, the 
          California Chamber of Commerce, the Judicial Council, and the 
          Santa Clara and Santa Cruz County trial courts, as well as a 
          large number of appellate and trial court judges.  

           Key Arguments Made By the Bill's Trial Court Supporters  :  In 
          support of this measure, the bill's trial court proponents point 
          to what they contend are a number of examples of what they 
          perceive to be excessive interference by the AOC into the 
          management and administration of their trial courts.  Proponents 
          argue in essence that the Judicial Council has exercised too 
          much power over how trial courts spend what they perceive to be 
          their own money.  Among other issues, proponents contend that 
          trial courts should be able to make such fundamental court 
          decisions as whether and when to close court facilities, or 
          choose instead to take alternative emergency measures of their 
          own design.  They especially point their collective frustration 
          at longtime leaders within the AOC, whom they forcefully assert 
          have been dictatorial and uncompromising. 

          In support of the measure, leaders of the Alliance of California 
          Judges ("the Alliance"), whose membership and size is unknown, 
          state they abhor what they call the "erosion" of the power of 
          trial courts in California since the passage of the 
          Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act in 1997.  They suggest 
          that since enactment of the Funding Act and subsequent laws, 
          there has been a power imbalance within the judiciary, placing 
          what they conceive as too much power in the hands of a flawed 
          AOC.  Moreover, although the Funding Act of 1997 directed the 
          Judicial Council to adopt a "Trial Court Bill of Financial 
          Management Rights" the Alliance argues that this never happened, 
          and as a result trial courts have lost needed power to reign in 
          a perceived bloated and mismanaged "AOC bureaucracy."  

          One of the most vocal and public proponents of the measure is 
          the current Sacramento Superior Court presiding judge, who has 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  9

          publicly decried what he calls a "massive debacle" in recent 
          years to shift power from local trial courts to the AOC in San 
          Francisco.  This judge asserts that without properly consulting 
          the trial courts, the AOC came to the Legislature and the 
          Governor to improperly gain statutory authority to allow the AOC 
          to force trial court closures.  He contends that such forced 
          court closures were intended by the Judicial Council simply to 
          cushion the AOC and the CCMS computer program from needed budget 
          cuts.  As a result, this trial court judge has suggested, 
          although the Sacramento Superior Court reportedly cut its staff 
          from 900 to 750 and imposed furloughs and pay cuts, as just one 
          example of trial court impacts, the AOC, he asserts, grew from 
          900 staff to over 1100 during the courts' difficult budget times 
          and went about "business as usual."
           
          In a recent editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, Los 
          Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles Horan focused his attack on 
          the AOC-administered CCMS court computer program, also 
          describing it as a "boondoggle."  Although the AOC claimed, 
          Judge Horan contends, that the project would cost $250 million, 
          it now appears from a recent state audit that the project is 
          actually likely to cost $1.9 to $3 billion dollars.  This 
          expenditure is simply not worth it, he asserts, when trial 
          courts lack the funding to keep their courthouse doors open.  
          (Charles Horan, California's CCMS Boondoggle is But a Symptom, 
          San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 24, 2011.) 

           Key Arguments Made By the Bill's Opponents  :  Opponents of the 
          measure vigorously contend that notwithstanding that there may 
          be some merits to some of the concerns underlying the measure, 
          the bill is an unwarranted and unwise intrusion into the 
          internal governance of the judicial branch of government.  Many 
          in the judiciary, opponents concede, are similarly troubled by 
          the serious problems specifically associated with the AOC's 
          implementation to date of the CCMS.  But, they contend, general 
          branch governance concerns should be solved within the 
          judiciary, under the leadership of the new chief justice, whom 
          has already publicly stated she is open to making whatever 
          governance changes may make sense.  She should at a minimum, 
          they contend, be given reasonable time to try to address such 
          concerns within her own branch before the Legislature seeks to 
          step in.

          In support of this view, some prominent appellate justices have 
          written to their branch colleagues stating:







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  10
                                                                               

               We are spectators, not combatants, in the travails of the 
               Alliance of California Judges, the Administrative Office of 
               the Courts and the Judicial Council.  But we lament the 
               toll that these controversies are needlessly taking on the 
               reputation and independence of our branch of government, 
               and the vitriol and character attacks that have become part 
               of the debate? we should not act out of frustration or 
               suspicion either to fragment judicial branch policy or 
               invite policy direction from outside of the branch, thereby 
               unwinding significant reforms that have solidified our 
               branch's independence.  It should be the cauldron of our 
               collective voices as judges that determines our future, not 
               legislative mandate? Madison wrote in Federalist Number 48 
               that, 'power is of an encroaching nature,' and 'the most 
               difficult task is to provide some practical security for 
               each Ýbranch of government], against the invasion of the 
               others.'  We ought not invite such a blurring of the lines 
               as would come to pass with the enactment of AB 1208.   

          Opponents of the bill also express worry that the measure will 
          risk wasting millions of dollars of state money in 
          inefficiencies, lead to reduced financial oversight of the trial 
          courts at the very time such financial oversight of all branches 
          of government is most needed, and generally reduce the quality 
          of, and access to, legal services offered to Californians, 
          especially for those of modest means.  They fear the measure 
          could eliminate statewide reporting requirements and standard 
          accountability, auditing and reporting practices by permitting 
          separate accounting and case management systems in each court, 
          and contend many counties are not equipped to handle separately 
          these important accounting and case management functions.  They 
          assert the result will be greater costs to the taxpayers, and 
          wasted resources that could be better spent on the 
          administration of justice for all Californians.

          Opponents contend that prior to more centralized management of 
          the judicial branch there was undue reliance on highly variable 
          and inconsistent county funding.  They applaud what they state 
          is the extraordinary leadership of the branch by former chief 
          justice Ronald George which has led to their being twice the 
          amount of trial court funding as there was when each individual 
          trial court had to "go hat in hand" to county supervisors prior 
          to the 1997 Funding Act.  They also note that there has been 
          increased funding for smaller courts to protect access to 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  11

          justice in rural communities; and a focus on improving retention 
          of experienced judges, including substantial increases in 
          superior court compensation, since the governance and other 
          court reforms commenced in 1997.  They also applaud the former 
          chief justice for helping set the state on a path to much safer 
          courthouses - now and in the future.  They also contend that 
          since 1997's move towards greater branch centralization there 
          has been more effective advocacy in the Legislature on behalf of 
          all trial courts and the branch generally.  

          Opponents also state that the funding and other reforms since 
          1997 have enabled the Legislature to partner with the judiciary 
          to enact with the help of the former chief justice new statewide 
          justice initiatives including self-help centers in all trial 
          courts; expanded representation in dependency cases; equal 
          access funds for legal services agencies for critical civil 
          legal needs of low income persons; interpreters in domestic 
          violence cases; and innovations such as expedited jury trials.
           
          Finally, opponents point out that within months of becoming the 
          court system's leader, the new chief justice has already 
          expressed sincere openness about potentially further 
          "democratizing" the selection process for the members of the 
          Judicial Council, including measures to allow judges to elect 
          some of their peers to the Council, though this would require a 
          constitutional amendment.  (Cheryl Miller, Capital Accounts: For 
          New Chief, Democracy Isn't a Three-Letter Word, The Recorder, 
          Mar. 3, 2011.)  In addition, they state that the new chief 
          justice has already appointed a "Strategic Evaluation 
          Committee," headed by a respected retired Sacramento jurist, and 
          tasked with broadly "assessing and reviewing all aspects of the 
          AOC to help reset priorities and goals that focus on core 
          services to the courts."  They note that the new chief justice 
          has also publicly stated openness to potential broad changes to 
          the AOC if that will be beneficial.  She also reportedly reached 
          out to the author, asking that he delay moving the measure 
          forward for a reasonable period of time so she can work on the 
          issues of concern that have been raised.  (Sherri M. Okamoto, 
          Calderon Refutes Reports of Willingness to 'Shelve' AB 1208, 
          Metropolitan News-Service, Apr. 1, 2011.)
           
          A Brief Trip Down Memory Lane -- The Legislature's Funding and 
          Other Branch Reforms of the Past 14 Years  :  Efforts to revamp 
          the state's tradition of 58 separately-funded county trial 
          courts began a quarter century ago.  The steady and incremental 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  12

          movement of the Legislature towards centralization of court 
          funding and administration came to fruition in 1997 with AB 233 
          (Escutia/Pringle, Ch. 850), commonly known as the 
          Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997.  The Funding 
          Act, which was approved by a bipartisan vote of 63-8 in the 
          Assembly and 30-0 in the Senate, sought to create a stable, 
          long-term funding base for the state's trial courts by requiring 
          the state to assume the full responsibility for funding the 
          courts.  In transferring primary responsibility for funding the 
          courts from the counties to the state, the Legislature 
          recognized the necessity to provide stable and adequate funding, 
          uniform standards and procedures, economies of scale, and 
          structural efficiency.  It also helped facilitate the 
          Legislature's ability to enact statewide initiatives to improve 
          access to, and the quality of, justice. 

          After implementation of the Funding Act of 1997, and with the 
          success in securing so-called state allocation limit ("SAL") 
          funding starting in 2005-06, the Judicial Council was in a 
          position to begin to address the historic large funding 
          disparities that existed between the state's trial courts.  In 
          2005, the Judicial Council reported that there were 18 courts 
          whose budgets were 20 percent or more below their projected 
          funding needs.  By 2007, after three years' of workload growth 
          and equity allocations by the Judicial Council, there appear to 
          be only two courts that could be considered severely 
          underfunded.  Under the Funding Act, state funding administered 
          by the Judicial Council has allowed the state to substantially 
          equalize the funding of its trial courts, and there appears to 
          be little debate that the reorganization of the state's 
          framework of judicial funding and governance has dramatically 
          improved uniformity and financing for trial courts throughout 
          the state.  

           Background On the Court Facilities Reforms  :  In addition to 
          shifting responsibility for funding trial court operations from 
          the counties to the state, the Funding Act of 1997 also 
          established a Task Force on Court Facilities to identify 
          facility needs and possible funding alternatives.  The Task 
          Force issued their Final Report which identified common problems 
          of inadequate security, safety, and access for the disabled, and 
          further found that a significant number of state court buildings 
          needed repair, renovation, or maintenance, and recommended that 
          responsibility for court facilities be transferred to the state. 
           In 2002, the Trial Court Facilities Act (Sen. Bill 1732, Stats. 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  13

          2002, Ch. 1082, and subsequent modifying language) was enacted, 
          providing for the shift of responsibility for trial court 
          facilities-including operations, maintenance, facility 
          modifications, and capital-outlay projects-from county to state 
          governance, under the direction of the Judicial Council.  The 
          responsibility for all trial courts has now been transferred to 
          the state. 

          Although the facility transfer process has successfully 
          concluded, California's trial court facilities remain in a state 
          of significant disrepair.  Based on Task Force on Court 
          Facilities data, approximately 90 percent of California's trial 
          court facilities require significant renovation, repair, or 
          maintenance.  Many court facilities are in extremely poor 
          condition, lack adequate security, are functionally insufficient 
          to support court operations, and are sometimes inaccessible.  
          Thus in in 2008, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1407 
          (Perata), Ch. 311, a $5 billion court construction bond that is 
          now funding critical facilities projects throughout the state.
           
          This Measure Appears To Advocate a Substantially Different 
          Direction From The Modern Legislative Trend Over The Past 14 
          Years  .  In contrast to the modern trend toward uniform statewide 
          standards and administration, this bill, proponents note, seeks 
          to substantially rebalance authority within the judicial branch 
          towards much greater local trial court control and autonomy.
           
           Proposed Legislative Declarations in the Measure:  As noted 
          above, the bill sets forth a host of legislative findings and 
          declarations, several of which appear to depart from prior 
          legislative enactments.  For example, a key legislative 
          declaration states that "ÝT]he Legislature has also previously 
          affirmed the need for strong and independent local county court 
          management."  Supporters have not identified the basis for this 
          declaration, and the Committee's research has not located prior 
          measures in the Legislature regarding governance of the courts 
          that have specifically stated such a finding.  While the Funding 
          Act contained a finding of the "need for strong and independent 
          local court financial management" (emphasis added), the Funding 
          Act explicitly provided for Judicial Council authority and 
          responsibility with regard to the financial management of the 
          courts by, among other things, providing that "the Judicial 
          Council may regulate the budget and fiscal management of the 
          trial courts" and that the Judicial Council, " in consultation 
          with the Controller, shall maintain appropriate regulations for 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  14

          recordkeeping and accounting by the courts" to ensure, among 
          other things, that "the fiscal affairs of the trial courts are 
          managed efficiently, effectively, and responsibly."  (Gov. Code 
          section 77206, subd. (a) & (a)(1).)  

          By contrast, the proposed declaration regarding independent 
          local management could be read as to provide the county trial 
          courts an unknown increase of, or even unlimited authority over, 
          financial management, something prior legislative enactments 
          including the Funding Act have not appeared to provide. 

          It is also important to note that at the time of the Funding Act 
          of 1997's passage the Legislature also found that "Many trial 
          courts have made significant progress in efficiency through 
          court coordination in developing cost management and control 
          systems . . . However, this progress is not uniform throughout 
          the court system. . . ."  The Legislature further stated its 
          intent to "accelerate the pace of court coordination and 
          efficiencies adopted by the Judicial Council and continue the 
          development and implementation of comprehensive budget 
          procedures and performance standards."  Finally the Legislature 
          also stated its 1997 intent that the Funding Act promote and 
          encourage local and statewide efforts toward efficiency and 
          coordination of the 58 trial courts.

          Responsibility For Financial Management: Amongst the measure's 
          broad substantive provisions, the bill sets forth both that "The 
          Judicial Council does not govern the trial courts?," and broadly 
          that "Each trial court shall have the independent right and duty 
          to manage its administrative and financial affairs in accordance 
          with its own policies, as provided by its trial court 
          management, if the court is in reasonable compliance with the 
          accounting, audit, and budgetary standards established by law."  
          The bill would, thereby, as explained more fully below, appear 
          to potentially shift at least some measure of authority for 
          spending judicial branch funds from the Judicial Council to the 
          trial courts, by statutorily granting the trial courts the 
          explicit right to reject proposals by the judicial branch to 
          spend funds allocated by the Legislature on various statewide 
          projects.  This would appear to at least potentially include 
          funding directed by the Legislature itself, or the Judicial 
          Council, to such programs as court interpreters, counsel in 
          dependency cases, and self-help centers, as examples.

          The bill could also potentially be interpreted to reduce the 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  15

          potential for statewide auditing of trial court spending.  In 
          addition, the bill would also appear to provide each of the 
          state's 58 individual trial courts a potential "veto" power over 
          the siting, design and  construction of any new court facility 
          in their jurisdiction, unless the court's trial court management 
          decides to provide its prior and final written consent and 
          approval.

           Charts Comparing Bill's Proposed Changes With Existing Law  :  To 
          assist the Committee's understanding of this comprehensive 
          proposal, the following charts attempt to briefly compare what 
          it appears to propose, compared to existing law, rules, and 
          current practices within the judicial branch:


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |   Provisions Where Proposed Changes Appear to Change Existing   |
          |                        Rules or Practice                        |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |Issue        |Existing Law, Rule, or    |Proposal Under AB 1208  |
          |             |Practice                  |                        |
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |Election of  |Each court must select a  |Different. Would appear |
          |Presiding    |presiding and assistant   |to overrule current     |
          |Judges       |presiding judge according |Rule of Court 10.602's  |
          |             |to prescribed factors,    |specified experiential  |
          |             |but may develop an        |and other criteria.     |
          |             |internal local rule.      |                        |
          |             |(Cal. R. of Court         |                        |
          |             |10.620).                  |                        |
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |             |Permits superior courts   |Different.  For         |
          |Hiring,      |to establish the means of |example, regarding its  |
          |Maintaining, |selection executive       |new authorization of    |
          |Compensating,|officers or court         |courts hiring chief     |
          | and         |administrators, clerks of |probation officers,     |
          |Supervising  |the court, and jury       |while in some courts    |
          |Officers and |commissioners, and to     |the court selects the   |
          |Employees.   |manage their personnel    |chief probation         |
          |             |systems, including the    |officer, in some, it's  |
          |             |adoption of personnel     |the county.  Also,      |
          |             |policies. (Rule 10.601(b) |courts do not currently |
          |             |(2)-(3).)                 |supervise or compensate |
          |             |                          |the chief probation     |







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  16

          |             |                          |officer.                |
          |             |                          |                        |
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |Judicial     |Permits each court to     |Different. It is        |
          |Assignment   |determine the number and  |unclear if this is      |
          |and Session  |locations of sessions.    |intended to override    |
          |Scheduling   |Judicial Council may      |Section 68548, which    |
          |             |adopt rules to address    |states that a judge     |
          |             |appropriate mechanism for |assigned by the Chief   |
          |             |sharing expenses between  |Justice to another      |
          |             |the respective courts.    |court of like or higher |
          |             |(Section 69740.)          |jurisdiction "has no    |
          |             |                          |authority to refuse     |
          |             |                          |such assignment."       |
          |             |                          |It also should be noted |
          |             |                          |that Article VI, Sect.  |
          |             |                          |6(e) of the State       |
          |             |                          |Constitution, gives the |
          |             |                          |Chief Justice the power |
          |             |                          |to assign a judge to    |
          |             |                          |another court to        |
          |             |                          |"equalize the work of   |
          |             |                          |judges."                |
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |Contracts    |Requires the courts to    |Different. Each court   |
          |for Court    |contract with the sheriff |shall be empowered to   |
          |Security     |or the marshal for court  |enter into its own      |
          |             |security services.        |contracts to provide    |
          |             |(Section 69921 et. seq.)  |security for its court  |
          |             |                          |sessions, including     |
          |             |                          |contracts with local    |
          |             |                          |law enforcement         |
          |             |                          |agencies of the courts  |
          |             |                          |choosing.               |
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |             |                          |                        |
          |Allocation   |Permits superior court to |Different.  Could       |
          |of Funds     |"manage their budget and  |suggest no oversight    |
          |             |fiscal operations,        |over the trial court's  |
          |             |including allocating      |use or expenditure of   |
          |             |funding and "moving       |funds, or reporting to  |
          |             |funding between functions |the Judicial Council on |
          |             |and line items."          |the use or expenditure  |
          |             |(Rule 10.601(b)(4)).      |of funds, limiting the  |
          |             |                          |ability of the Judicial |







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  17

          |             |                          |Council to report to    |
          |             |                          |the Legislature.  Govt. |
          |             |                          |Code Section 77206      |
          |             |                          |provides Judicial       |
          |             |                          |Council may regulate    |
          |             |                          |the budget and fiscal   |
          |             |                          |management of the trial |
          |             |                          |courts and shall        |
          |             |                          |maintain appropriate    |
          |             |                          |regulations for         |
          |             |                          |recordkeeping and       |
          |             |                          |accounting by the       |
          |             |                          |courts.                 |
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |             |                          |                        |
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |             |                          |                        |
          |Court        |The AOC is responsible    |Different. The design,  |
          |Facility     |for the acquisition,      |siting and construction |
          |Design and   |construction, and design  |of a court facility     |
          |Construction |of court facilities.      |shall not be undertaken |
          |             |Affected courts must      |in a county without the |
          |             |consult with the AOC      |prior written consent   |
          |             |regarding annual capital  |of that court's         |
          |             |needs and must work with  |management.  This would |
          |             |the advisory group that   |appear to give trial    |
          |             |is established for any    |courts "veto" power     |
          |             |court construction or     |over key matters        |
          |             |renovation project.       |involving new court     |
          |             |(Rule 10.184)             |facility construction.  |
          |             |                          |                        |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |  Provisions Where Proposed Changes Effect on Current Rules or   |
          |                        Practices Unclear                        |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |    Issue    |  Existing Law, Rule, or  | Proposal Under AB 1208 |
          |             |         Practice         |                        |
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |Administrativ| As noted above, CA Rule  |  Change Unclear. Each  |
          |   e Legal   | of Court 10.601(b) gives |  court may retain and  |
          |  Counsel    |   courts control over    |     employ its own     |







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  18

          |             | hiring of personnel, but |  administrative legal  |
          |             | does not specify whether | counsel to assist with |
          |             |this includes or excludes |  court affairs and to  |
          |             |     legal counsel to     |  represent the court   |
          |             |  represent the court.    |  with respect to its   |
                         |             |                          |  rights, duties, and   |
          |             |                          |     obligations.       |
          |             |                          |                        |
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |Coordination |  Section 68500 et seq.   |   Change and Breadth   |
          | with Other  |sets out the authority of |   Unclear. Except as   |
          |   Courts    | Judicial Council, but it | necessary to carry out |
          |             |   does not appear that   | statutory authority of |
          |             |   Judicial Council has   |the Judicial Council, a |
          |             |   authority to compel    | trial court shall not  |
          |             |   coordination between   |    be compelled to     |
          |             |       courts.            | coordinate or combine  |
          |             |                          |  operations with any   |
          |             |                          |  other trial court.    |
          |-------------+--------------------------+------------------------|
          |  Case and   | Section 68150-68153 sets |   Change and Breadth   |
          | Information | forth general rules for  | Unclear. A trial court |
          | Management  |    handling of court     | shall not be required  |
          |             |   records, including a   | to implement or share  |
          |             |     requirement that     | any case or accounting |
          |             |  electronic records be   | information system or  |
          |             | maintained according to  | contribute any portion |
          |             |rules adopted by Judicial |   of its budget to a   |
          |             |        Council.          | statewide system.  As  |
          |             |                          |noted above, this would |
          |             |   Judicial Council is    |  appear to give trial  |
          |             |required to submit status |court "veto" power over |
          |             | reports on CCMS, but at  | continuing efforts to  |
          |             | this point local courts  |   create a statewide   |
          |             |   are not required to    | court computer system  |
          |             |  participate. (Section   | and could make fiscal  |
          |             |        68511.8.)         |     auditing more      |
          |             |                          |       difficult.       |
          |             |                          |                        |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
          Ambiguities in the Measure's Language, and Uncertainties About 
          the Bill's Reach  :  Regardless of one's views about the proper 
          balance of control within the judicial branch, it is clear that 
          there are many ambiguities in this bill's provisions, and 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  19

          substantial uncertainties about its potential impacts, 
          including:  

          Court Coordination:  For example, the measure, at subdivision 
          (e) on page 4, states that "Except as necessary to otherwise 
          carry out the constitutional or other established statutory 
          authority of the Judicial Council, a trial court shall not be 
          required to coordinate or combine its operations with any other 
          trial court, except as the trial court management of that trial 
          court consents, including the assignment of its judges to any 
          other court."  This provision may unintentionally affect 
          statewide court administration.  For example, the Committee may 
          recall that in 2007 the Superior Court of Riverside County's 
          criminal case backlog had reached an unprecedented level, with a 
          potential significant threat to public safety if the court's 
          high volume of last-day criminal cases required dismissal of 
          cases.  The former chief justice acted swiftly to assist this 
          trial court by creating a "strike team" of judges that worked 
          through the backlog of cases.  It is not clear whether such 
          types of necessary emergency actions by the chief justice would 
          potentially be barred under the language noted above, if for 
          some reason the impacted trial court chose not to cooperate with 
          such an issue of statewide import.

          Local Court Independence:  On page 3, line 26, the bill would 
          establish that "Each trial court of this state is recognized as 
          an independent constitutional and statutory court?"  It is 
          unclear what the term "independent" means, in this seminal part 
          of the measure.  One can reasonably assume the measure does not 
          mean that trial courts are independent from oversight of 
          appellate courts or from other laws.  However the effect of the 
          term regarding the trial courts' relationship with the Judicial 
          Council is not fully evident.  For example, the Constitution 
          currently vests in the Judicial Council the authority to adopt 
          rules for court administration, practice and procedure (Article 
          VI, sec. 6(d).)  It is not certain whether the measure is 
          seeking to change that current constitutionally-vested authority 
          of the Judicial Council, and if so, how.

          Local Court Financial Affairs:  On page 3, line 29, the measure 
          provides that "(c) Each trial court shall have the independent 
          right and duty to manage its administrative and financial 
          affairs in accordance with its own policies, as provided by its 
          trial court management, if the court is in reasonable compliance 
          with the accounting, audit, and budgetary standards established 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  20

          by law."  It is again unclear what the term "independent" means 
          in the framework of current governance within the judicial 
          branch, and where the Judicial Council's constitutionally-vested 
          rulemaking authority pursuant to Article VI, sec. 6(d)) ends and 
          the trial courts' proposed new level of independence over 
          administrative and financial affairs begins.        

          Judicial Council Governance:  Additionally, page 3, line 32 of 
          the measure states simply that "The Judicial Council does not 
          govern the trial courts."  The intent and breadth of this 
          statement is quite uncertain in regards to governance within the 
          judiciary.  As noted above, the Judicial Council is 
          constitutionally-authorized to promulgate rules of court 
          administration, practice, and procedures.  Some may even contend 
          that this language could potentially repeal all Judicial Council 
          authority to promulgate rules regarding court administration.  
          At a minimum, the Judicial Council contends, this provision 
          creates substantial uncertainty about the validity of existing 
          statutes and rules of court that give the Judicial Council 
          authority vis-a-vis the courts -- e.g., the current provision in 
          the Government Code (Section 77202) which requires the Judicial 
          Council to adopt policies and procedures governing practices and 
          procedures for budgeting, as well as Government Code Section 
          77206 which authorizes the Judicial Council to regulate the 
          budget and fiscal management of the courts to ensure that their 
          fiscal affairs are managed efficiently, effectively, and 
          responsibly.  

          Allocation of Funds:  In addition, in the bill's requirement 
          under subdivision (f) that all funds allocated to trial court 
          operations be fully allocated, with no deduction without the 
          consent of the affected courts, it is not evident who the 
          affected courts may be.  It is unclear if it is the courts that 
          may lose funds, the courts that may have funds reallocated to 
          them based upon need, or all of the courts.  It is also unclear 
          whether under subdivision (g) the Judicial Council will have any 
          oversight authority over how a trial court expends its allotted 
          funds, and whether trial courts may henceforth ignore 
          legislative directives and requirements by moving funds between 
          line items and programs, as the trial courts deem appropriate, 
          as the bill provides at page 5, lines 6-8. 
           
          Debate Regarding The Bill's Contention That the Judicial Council 
          Did Not Properly Enact a Rule of Court Regarding Trial Court 
          Financial Management Rights :  In its findings, the measure 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  21

          contends that the Judicial Council never properly adopted a 
          "Trial Courts Bill of Financial Management Rights," as the 
          Legislature required in the 1997 Funding Act.  This issue 
          appears to be a major bone of contention between supporters and 
          opponents of the measure.  The Committee's research suggests 
          that the Judicial Council did indeed enact a rule of court, Rule 
          of Court 10.601, in response to the 1997 legislative directive, 
          though supporters and opponents disagree whether the Rule 
          sufficiently comports with the legislative directive.  
           
           Questions Regarding Whether Portions of This Measure Would Be 
          Found Unconstitutional  :  In an editorial highly critical of the 
          proposal, University of California Irvine Law School Dean Erwin 
          Chemerinsky argues that the portions of this measure which might 
          take away the authority of the Judicial Council to adopt rules 
          of court administration and restrict a chief justice's ability 
          to assign judges are likely unconstitutional.  ("Enactment of AB 
          1208 Would Reverse the Benefits of Centralization That Our Court 
          System Has Achieved," Daily Journal, March 30, 2011.)  Dean 
          Chemerinsky argues that these measures would likely violate 
          Article VI, Section 6(e) of the California Constitution, which 
          vests these powers in the Chief Justice, stating in part, "The 
          Chief Justice may provide for the assignment of any judge to 
          another court but only with the judge's consent if the court is 
          of lower jurisdiction.  A retired judge who consents may be 
          assigned to any court."   
                  
           Major Information Technology Concerns  :  Though the impact and 
          meaning of many of the bill's current provisions is very 
          unclear, there can be little doubt that a major fuel for concern 
          amongst some of the trial courts and many judicial officers 
          across the state regarding governance by the AOC and Judicial 
          Council has involved indisputable and serious problems 
          surrounding the branch's implementation of the Court Case 
          Management System (CCMS) and some trial court concerns about 
          other information technology programs managed by the AOC.

          Genesis of CCMS:  According to AOC records, when the state 
          assumed responsibility for funding the trial courts in 1998, 
          more than 130 variations of 70 independently operated systems 
          were used in California's trial courts, having been developed by 
          counties, courts, and private commercial vendors.  Thus the goal 
          of the CCMS system was to replace the multiple existing systems 
          that courts currently use, many of which do not allow for 
          exchange of information with systems of other state agencies, 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  22

          with a single statewide computer system for the courts that 
          would eventually replace more than 70 different case management 
          systems of varying levels of capability and age currently in use 
          in California's trial courts.  The branch hoped that CCMS would 
          provide benefits not only to the courts themselves, but also to 
          millions of Californians by greatly expanding electronic 
          services and enabling a standardized approach to doing business 
          across the state.  The branch also had hoped that CCMS would 
          provide judges with critical information as they are hearing 
          cases and making decisions about releasing criminal defendants, 
          placing children in foster care or reunifying them with their 
          parents, ordering custody or visitation of children, and issuing 
          protective or restraining orders.

          Current Problems and Controversies Surrounding CCMS:  In the 
          recent painful climate of employee furloughs and severe budget 
          cutbacks across trial courts in California, proponents of this 
          measure repeatedly point to what they call the "boondoggle" of 
          $1.9 to $3 billion now anticipated to be spent developing CCMS.  
          On February 8, 2011, the California State Auditor released an 
          unusually scathing audit report of CCMS, entitled:  The 
          Statewide Case Management Project Faces Significant Challenges 
          Due to Poor Project Management.  Amongst the "key findings" in 
          the Auditor's report:

           The AOC inadequately planned the project since 2003.  
            Specifically, the AOC: 1) Did not conduct a business needs 
            assessment at the onset of the project nor has it performed a 
            cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the CCMS is the most 
            cost-effective technology solution for the courts' needs; and 
            2) Did not structure its contract with the development vendor 
            to adequately control the project costs and scope-over the 
            course of seven years, the AOC entered into 102 contract 
            amendments and increased the cost of the contract from $33 
            million to $310 million.

           The AOC has consistently failed to develop accurate cost 
            estimates or timelines for the project.  Cost estimates have 
            gone from $260 million in 2004 to nearly $1.9 billion in 2010. 
            Moreover, this estimate excludes other significant costs such 
            as those that the superior courts and justice partners are 
            likely to incur if CCMS is deployed.  Annual reports to the 
            Legislature did not provide complete cost information.  The 
            estimated date for complete deployment has been pushed back by 
            seven years.







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  23


           The majority of the courts believe their current case 
            management systems will serve them for the foreseeable future 
            and users of interim systems expressed reservations about 
            using CCMS. Some of these users say they will not adopt CCMS 
            until the AOC makes significant improvements in the areas of 
            performance, stability, and product management.

           The AOC's attempt at independent oversight came late in the 
            life of the project and the scope of services it contracted 
            for fell short of best practices for a project of this size 
            and scope. Nevertheless, the AOC did not adequately address 
            significant concerns raised by the consultant providing the 
            oversight and thus, the project may have future quality 
            issues.

          The Auditor then made extensive and broad recommendations to the 
          AOC, including the following that the AOC should take 
          immediately:  1) Conduct a thorough analysis of the costs and 
          benefits of CCMS to determine the course of action to take; 2) 
          Update cost information and estimates on a regular basis and 
          report true costs to the Legislature and others; 3) Develop a 
          realistic overall funding strategy for the CCMS in light of the 
          current fiscal crisis facing the state; 4) Take steps to fully 
          understand and address the trial courts' concerns as 
          implementation moves forward; 4) Retain an independent 
          consultant to review CCMS before deployment to determine if 
          there are quality issues and problems.

          The AOC has now agreed to implement all of these 
          recommendations, though the bill's proponents repeatedly and 
          heatedly criticize the unreasonable length of time they contend 
          it took for top AOC management to accept responsibility for 
          their missteps and take needed actions.  

          While the AOC has stated its intention to continue development 
          and implementation of CCMS, as part of this year's budget (SB 
          78, Ch. 10, Stats. 2011), the Legislature codified the Auditor's 
          recommendation that an independent assessment of the CCMS be 
          conducted "to ensure that no significant quality issues or 
          problems exist within CCMS."  In codifying this recommendation, 
          SB 78 requires that the AOC retain an independent consultant to 
          review the system and produce a written independent assessment.  
          It also requires that prior to deploying CCMS to any trial 
          court, the independent consultant shall provide the written 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  24

          independent assessment to the AOC and the AOC shall transmit 
          this report to each of the chairs and vice-chairs of the Senate 
          Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Assembly Committee 
          on Budget.  SB 78 also requires that the AOC work with the 
          development vendor of CCMS to ensure that any flaws, defects, or 
          risks identified in the independent assessment are remedied 
          during the warranty period before considering any further 
          deployment of the system.
          
          How The Bill Seeks to Address CCMS  :  Proponents of this measure 
          agree that as currently drafted, the bill would effectively give 
          a single trial court in California complete "veto" power over 
          further development of the entire system, or any financial 
          accounting system generally, if the goal of the system is a 
          statewide approach ultimately connecting all 58 state trial 
          courts.  Proponents have recently stated this single court veto 
          power is not their intent, but have not yet determined precisely 
          how they would strike the balance legislatively on this issue.
           
          Amendments Requested by the Author Which the Committee May Wish 
          to Consider In Place of the Existing Provisions in the Measure  :  
          In order to address concerns that have been raised, the author 
          is proposing to substitute the following provisions to 
          constitute the entire contents of the measure.  These provisions 
          would:

          1)Clarify that, based on information submitted in the Governor's 
            proposed budget, the Legislature shall continue to specify, in 
            each annual Budget Act, funding amounts for programs of 
            statewide concern to come from all funds appropriated by the 
            Legislature for trial court operations prior to allocating 
            funds to each local trial court. 

          2)Require the Judicial Council and/or its designee to allocate 
            the entire amount of funds appropriated by the Legislature for 
            trial court operations according to each court's proportional 
            share of statewide court operation funding.  The Judicial 
            Council may submit a request to the Legislature of any amount 
            of funding that it recommends be set-aside for statewide court 
            operation needs.  The request shall include the purposes of 
            such set-asides to promote statewide policies, promote court 
            efficiencies and to achieve cost savings in court operations.  
            Legislative approval and/or modification of the request is 
            required before the proposed set-aside funds are redirected 
            and expended. 







                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  25


          3)Notwithstanding the full allocation required in # 2, allow 
            Judicial Council and/or its designee to withhold portions of 
            all funds appropriated by the Legislature for trial court 
            operations for statewide information technology and 
            administrative infrastructure expenses only after obtaining 
            written approval from 75% of a proportional representation of 
            all local trial courts, if such programs were not identified 
            in the annual Budget Act.
           
          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          Los Angeles Superior Court
          Superior Court Amador
          Superior Court Kern
          Superior Court Mariposa
          Superior Court of California, Mono County
          Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
          Superior Court of California, San Mateo
          Peace Officers Research Association of California
          A Large Number of Individual Superior Court Judges
           
          Opposition 
           
          Bar Association of San Francisco
          Cal Chamber
          California Commission on Access to Justice
          California Defense Counsel
          Civil Justice Association of California
          Consumer Attorneys of California
          Judicial Council of California
          Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa
          Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
          Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz
          Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma
          A Large Number of Individual Superior Court Judges and Appellate 
          Justices
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :  Drew Liebert  / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 










                                                                  AB 1208
                                                                  Page  26