BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1208
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 27, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1208 (Calderon) - As Amended: May 18, 2011
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill imposes restrictions on the Judicial Council's
authority to reallocate funding appropriated in the budget for
trial court operations. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Legislature, in the annual Budget Act, to specify
the amounts to be allocated for judicial programs of statewide
concern, i.e. those operating in the superior courts in
multiple counties.
2)Requires the Judicial Council, or the Administrative Office of
the Courts (AOC), to allocate 100% of the funds appropriated
for trial court operations according to each court's pro-rata
share of total state funding.
3)Prohibits the AOC, subsequent to enactment of the annual
Budget Act, from reallocating any statewide information
technology or administrative program without first obtaining
written approval of two-thirds of the proportional
representation of all trial courts.
4)Requires, commencing in 2011-12, that the amount allocated to
a trial court, from the amount appropriated in the Budget Act
for trial court operations, equal that court's pro rata share
of the adjusted base budget from the prior fiscal year.
5)Requires that ongoing workload or technical adjustments to a
trial court's base budget, calculated subsequent to enactment
of the Budget Act, be incorporated into that court's base
budget for the following fiscal year, and that the court's pro
rata share of overall funding be adjusted accordingly.
AB 1208
Page 2
6)Requires, at the end of each fiscal year, that any unspent
funds allocated pursuant to (1) be distributed to each court
based on its pro rata funding share, with the exception of
unspent funds in the Judicial Administration Efficiency and
Modernization Fund and the Trial Court Improvement Fund.
7)Authorizes each trial court to transfer budgeted and allocated
funds between functions and programs as directed by court
management, and removes the AOC's authority to review and
approve or deny such transfers.
8)Removes the AOC's authority to allow a trial court to carry
unexpended funds over from one fiscal year to the next and
instead vests that authority with the trial court, and
prohibits reallocation or redirection of such funds without
consent of the trial court's management.
9)Makes several conforming changes.
FISCAL EFFECT
To the extent the bill's limitations hinder the efficient
allocation of resources within the judicial branch, costs within
the overall system would increase. The impact of this bill would
largely depend on the extent to which the AOC's requested
budgets accurately delineate the resources required for all
statewide programs and the Legislature schedules each of these
programs in the annual Budget Act. (Past practice has been to
schedule certain statewide programs in the Budget Act, such as
court appointed special advocates, but not all programs, such as
information technology projects and activities.) Given the
inherent uncertainty in budgeting for IT projects in particular,
the budgeting restrictions in this bill could be particularly
problematic, as the need for additional resources subsequent to
budget enactment would require concurrence of two-thirds of the
trial courts on a proportionate basis.
COMMENTS
1)Background . As introduced, this bill contained numerous
provisions addressing governance practices and authority
within the judicial branch. The bill was 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
AB 1208
Page 3
administrative and financial independence appropriately
respected by the administrative arm of the judiciary, the AOC,
and its governing authority, the Judicial Council. By many
accounts, much of this discontent 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 approximately one month after
California's new chief justice was sworn in-a time of
continuing budget cuts, employee furloughs, and great
uncertainty in the court system.
Proponents of this bill, which include the Superior Courts of
Los Angeles, Amador, Kern, Mariposa, Mono, Sacramento, and San
Mateo Counties, argue that the Judicial Council has exercised
too much power over how trial courts spend what they perceive
to be their own money. 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.
2)CCMS . A major concern among some of the trial courts and many
judicial officers across the state regarding governance by the
AOC and Judicial Council has involved 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. The
goal of the CCMS system was to replace the more than 70
different case management systems of varying levels of
capability and age currently in use in California's trial
courts-many of which do not allow for exchange of information
with systems of other state agencies-with a single statewide
computer system.
In the recent climate of employee furloughs and significant
budget cut across the trial courts, proponents of AB 1208
repeatedly point to what they call the boondoggle of $1.9 to
$3 billion now anticipated to be spent developing CCMS. On
AB 1208
Page 4
February 8, 2011, the California State Auditor released a
highly critical audit report of CCMS.
3)Opposition to Introduced Bill . 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 expressed opposition to the
prior version of this bill. 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 that general governance concerns
should be solved within the judiciary, under the leadership of
the new chief justice, who has already publicly stated she is
open to making whatever governance changes may make sense.
Opponents contend that, at a minimum, the chief justice be
given reasonable time to try to address such concerns within
her own branch before the Legislature seeks to step in.
Opponents also note 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.
4)Purpose . The introduced bill has been narrowed to only address
trial court budgeting issues, as summarized on page 1. In
support of the bill, the author contends that, since enactment
of the Trial Court Funding Act, the Judicial Council "has
siphoned funds from trial court operations in favor of its own
pet projects, statewide objectives and priorities?AB 1208 will
prevent court closures by ensuring that trial courts get 100%
of funds allocated for trial court operation. AB 1208 will
also require that Judicial Council to obtain either
Legislative or the trial court (66%) approval before diverting
any trial court operating funds for a statewide IT system or
any other project."
The author also states that, "In 2009 the Judicial Council
closed courts for the first time in California history. Even
AB 1208
Page 5
during the Great Depression, the doors of the court remained
open. While closing courts down, Judicial Council decided to
take $72 million from the Trial Court Trust Fund for its pet
CCMS project without permission from the trial courts or the
legislature."
The AOC responds that the CCMS spending was known by the
Legislature prior to enactment of the budget, and that the
court closures were authorized in a budget trailer bill.
The author also notes that, "The AOC recently submitted a list
of department cuts to Judicial Council pursuant to the
Governor's request for a Ý2011-12] budget cut of $200 million
in general funds. Instead of an equitable reduction of 6.8%
to all departments within the judicial branch, the AOC
disproportionally cut an additional $20.4 million from the
Trial Court Trust Fund, saving the AOC a total of $3.45
million in cuts to their budget."
The AOC responds that it looked at all available funds to the
judiciary, not just General Funds, in proposing a 6.8%
across-the-board reduction. Moreover, the AOC contends that
the $178 million in reductions to the trial courts were
backfilled with redirections of special funds for courthouse
construction, from the Judicial Administration Efficiency and
Modernization Fund, and from extension of a court security
fee.
5)Opposition to Current Bill . According to the Judicial Council,
"AB 1208 is an inappropriate intrusion into the fundamental
governance of the judicial branch." The council adds that the
bill "would eliminate the authority of the Judicial Council to
transfer funding to finance specific trial court projects or
assist courts confronting unanticipated budget shortfalls or
other urgent fiscal needs.
"ÝB]y striking references to the goals that are to inform
council decisions on allocating funding, the bill appears to
seek to dismantle the goals of a statewide judicial branch,
instead making the paramount consideration each court's
individual needs and interests, without regard to uniformity
and consistency for the users of the court system, and seeking
to ensure equal access to justice statewide."
At the time of this analysis, no other letters of support or
AB 1208
Page 6
opposition had been received.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081