BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1008 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 30, 2013 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Bob Wieckowski, Chair AB 1008 (Torres) - As Amended: April 23, 2013 SUBJECT : COURTS: CLERKS KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE LAW BE CLARIFIED TO REQUIRE THAT, WHILE JUDGES CAN PERFORM ANY DUTY REQUIRED OF A COURT CLERK, CLERKS MUST STILL ATTEND ALL COURT SESSIONS? FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal. SYNOPSIS This bill seeks to clarify and harmonize two code sections. The Government Code, which addresses the organization and operations of the courts, requires court clerks to attend all trial court sessions. Another provision, in the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), allows judges to perform any act or duty of a court clerk. However, since the CCP contains procedural provisions specific to particular cases before the court, the two provisions can easily be read in harmony - allowing judges to perform any procedural duties of the clerk, but still requiring that clerks attend each court session. This bill seeks to make that clarification. This bill is sponsored by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 575, which is concerned that their local court - the Los Angeles County Superior Court - may be planning to eliminate clerks in courtrooms, even when court is in session. The Local's parent organization, AFSCME, adds that the bill "preserves the essential job responsibilities of court clerks while ensuring that courts function efficiently during difficult budget seasons." The Judicial Council opposes the bill because of concerns that courts have had to reduce staff because of budget reductions and, as a result, judges in some courts are operating without clerks in the courtroom. The Judicial Council believes that this bill will "significantly interfere with the courts' ability to process cases and manage their courtrooms and resources." AB 1008 Page 2 SUMMARY : Clarifies that a clerk of the superior court must attend every session of the superior court and upon judges in chambers when required. EXISTING LAW : 1)Requires the clerk of the court to perform, in addition to the powers, duties, and responsibilities provided by statute, any powers, duties, and responsibilities required or permitted to be exercised by the county clerk in connection with judicial actions, proceedings, and records. (Government Code Section 69840.) 2)Requires the clerk of the court to attend each session of the superior court in the county and, when required, upon the judges of the court in chambers. (Government Code Section 69841.) 3)Sets forth other duties required to be performed by the clerk of the court, including keeping court minutes and issuing all required notices. (Government Code Section 69842 et seq.) 4)Provides that any act required or permitted to be performed by the clerk of the court may be performed by a judge. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 167.) COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill seeks to resolve a conflict that exists today between two code sections - one that requires court clerks to attend all superior court sessions and one that permits a judge to perform any act that may be performed by a court clerk. The Government Code, which addresses the organization and operations of the courts, including the trial courts, requires court clerks to attend all court sessions. Another provision, in the Code of Civil Procedure, allows judges to perform any act or duty of the court clerk. However, since the CCP contains procedural provisions specific to particular cases before the court, the two provisions can easily be read in harmony - allowing judges to perform any procedural duties of the clerk, but still requiring that clerks attend each court session. This bill simply seeks to clarify and harmonize those two code sections by providing that notwithstanding the authority of judges to perform duties of the court clerk, clerks must still AB 1008 Page 3 attend each court session. The author writes that the bill "eliminates any ambiguity that might exist to court administrators between the two sections and allows judges to continue to operate courtrooms in as efficient and as flexible a manner as possible under recently imposed budget constraints." Scarce Court Resources Must be Expended Prudently to Help Ensure Justice for All . Historically, trial courts in California were county entities, funded by the counties, but in 1997, after significant problems came to light with the county-based court funding model, the Legislature passed the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act, AB 233 (Escutia and Pringle), Ch. 850, Stats. 1997. Under that bill, the state assumed responsibility for funding the courts and helping ensure equal access to a quality judicial system statewide. After the state took over funding, the courts received significant funding increases and historically underfunded courts saw greater increases. Unfortunately, the recession forced significant reductions in state General Fund support for the courts, but "one-time" fixes, backfills and new revenues has, to date, substantially spared the court system the brunt of the General Fund reductions. Even though trial courts have, to date, largely been spared the bulk of the General Fund reductions, trial courts have taken dramatic steps to address the budget cuts, including (1) closing courthouses and courtrooms, some on selected days and others completely; (2) laying off or furloughing employees; and (3) reducing services, including substantial cuts to self-help and family law facilitator assistance, and providing fewer court reporters and court interpreters. While the Governor's 2013-14 budget does not propose any additional cuts to the trial courts and includes restoration of a $418 million one-time General Fund reduction made this past year, some of the one-time fixes are set to expire. As a result, it is anticipated that courts will be looking for additional ways to reduce expenditures, unless there is an infusion of additional funds, including further laying off or furloughing court employees, possibly including court clerks. While this bill may not prevent layoffs of court clerks, it will require that clerks attend all court sessions. Supporters Argue that Clerks Serve Critically Important Functions and Are Needed in Courtrooms : In support of the bill, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO writes of the need to keep court clerks in AB 1008 Page 4 courtrooms: Without court clerks, official records can be incomplete. Clerks record information, such as which witnesses are sworn in, which jurors are chosen or excused, and which exhibits are moved or denied. Without a reliable record of court proceedings, California's courts cannot serve their communities to the best of their abilities. AB 1008 preserves the essential job responsibilities of court clerks while ensuring that courts function efficiently during difficult budget seasons. The Judicial Council Believes that this Bill Will Make it More Difficult for Courts to Manage Their Limited Resources : The Judicial Council opposes the bill, arguing that "there are increasing instances in some courts where judges are hearing calendars without clerks in the courtroom simply to try to keep up with the court's workload. In light of significant budget reductions to the trial courts, many courts have been forced to reduce staff and consolidate services." The Council believes that the bill "will significantly interfere with the courts' ability to process cases and manage their courtrooms and resources." The Judicial Council is particularly concerned for smaller courts, that may only have a few clerks. If one misses work, "the court may not be able to function at all because there are simply too few clerks available to cover all courtrooms." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 575 (sponsor) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO Opposition Judicial Council Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 AB 1008 Page 5