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