BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1008
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1008 (Torres)
As Amended April 23, 2013
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 6-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Alejo, Chau, | | |
| |Dickinson, Garcia, Stone | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Wagner, Gorell, | | |
| |Maienschein, Muratsuchi | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
3)Sets forth other duties required to be performed by the clerk of
the court, including keeping court minutes and issuing all
required notices.
4)Provides that any act required or permitted to be performed by
the clerk of the court may be performed by a judge.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
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
AB 1008
Page 2
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 (CCP), 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 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."
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), Chapter 850, Statutes of 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
AB 1008
Page 3
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.
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 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 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."
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0000303