BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1123
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 1123
(Mayes) - As Introduced February 27, 2015
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT: DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS: COURT ADMINISTRATION
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD COUNTIES BE ALLOWED TO FORMALLY TRANSFER THE
REVENUES AND RESPONSIBILITIES operation of local DISPUTE
RESOLUTION PROGRAMs to their superior courts, upon the agreement
of those superior courts?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill, sponsored by the County of San
Bernardino, seeks to clarify that a county has the authority to
transfer operations and revenue of an established county
alternative dispute resolution program to the superior court of
its county. Counties and courts have memoranda of understanding
and other agreements to transfer these programs, and they
operate by these agreements, but they question whether they are
operating outside of existing law. Also, because existing law
gives counties the authority to establish and conduct these
programs, there is confusion as to whether courts can exercise
authority over these programs and the required procurement
AB 1123
Page 2
processes to operate the programs. This bill will alleviate any
confusion about these issues by specifically authorizing
counties and courts to agree to transfer alternative dispute
resolution programs to the court when they choose to do so.
SUMMARY: Permits a county to transfer the operations of an
established alternative dispute resolution program to the
superior court in the county. Specifically, this bill:
1) Allows a county and the superior court of the same county to
formally agree to the transfer of the revenues and
responsibilities of an established dispute resolution program
to the court to operate the program.
2) Requires that upon transfer of the alternative dispute
program to the superior court, the court must operate the
program in compliance with requirements, rules and regulations
associated with the program.
3) Provides that a court which contracts to operate a dispute
resolution program assumes the relevant rights and
responsibilities connected with the program.
4) Requires the county to transfer, within a reasonable time,
any funds received for the administration of the program, and
that all future program funding to be provided directly to the
court.
EXISTING LAW provides that local dispute resolution services
provide an alternative to formal court proceedings. (Business
and Professions Code, Section 465. All further statutory
references are to that code, unless otherwise indicated.)
AB 1123
Page 3
1)Provides for the establishment and funding of local dispute
resolution programs to be operated by counties and for
participating counties to receive funds to administer the
programs. (Sections 465-467.1.)
2)Provides that local dispute resolution programs are funded by
civil filing fee surcharges. (Section 470.5.)
3)The Department of Consumer Affairs is charged with the
oversight and enforcement of alternative dispute resolution
programs. (Section 471.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: The Dispute Resolution Programs Act of 1986 (Chapter
1313, Statutes of 1986 and Chapter 28, Statutes of 1987), or
Act, provides for the establishment, funding and use of local
dispute resolution programs. In considering the Act's
implementation, the Legislature determined that the resolution
of disputes could be unnecessarily costly, time-consuming, and
complex when achieved through formal court proceedings. In an
attempt to achieve more effective and efficient dispute
resolution, the Legislature encouraged greater use of
alternatives to litigation, such as mediation, conciliation, and
arbitration. In order to achieve effectiveness and efficiency
and facilitate more flexible forums to hash out disputes, the
Legislature created the Act to encourage counties to utilize
these less formal, less costly programs for the resolution of
disputes. Since the Act was established, many counties have
created local alternative dispute resolution programs to assist
persons who wish to resolve disputes prior to trial.
(www.dca.ca.gov/publications)
AB 1123
Page 4
Although some counties contract with their superior courts to
handle the operations of their alternative dispute resolution
programs, their authority to do so is not clear in the Act.
This bill will allow counties and courts to formalize their
existing practices of transferring the responsibility for
operating such programs to courts and will allow other counties
and courts who may wish to do so, to contract for the transfer
of alternative dispute resolution programs and their revenue,
from the county to the court.
In support the author writes:
The Dispute Resolution Programs Act of 1986 provides for the
establishment and funding of local dispute resolution
programs. The purpose of the Act is to encourage the use of
local dispute resolution services as an alternative to formal
court proceedings. The program is funded by civil filing fee
surcharges.
In several counties, including the County of San Bernardino,
the program has been administered by the local superior court.
However, the County is required to adopt the code sections
and the funds are deposited with the County.
Assembly Bill 1123 would allow counties and courts to agree to
formally transfer revenues and responsibilities relating to
the Dispute Resolution Programs Act of 1986. This would
formalize the current practice in several counties, reduce
staff time, and eliminate confusion over program authority and
procurement process. This bill would not mandate any change,
it would only allow it.
Oversight of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs. The Act
provides the framework for the statewide system of oversight.
AB 1123
Page 5
Initially, a limited-term Dispute Resolution Advisory Council
(Council) was created in the Act to adopt temporary guidelines
and propose regulations to supplement the provisions of the Act.
After completion of its responsibilities, the Council was
disbanded on January 1, 1989. The Department of Consumer
Affairs now has the responsibility to oversee the local
programs, review and modify the rules and regulations governing
the local programs, provide technical assistance to counties and
their programs, monitor local government program compliance with
the Act and applicable regulations, and evaluate the programs
and their impact on the state justice system. This bill does
not change any oversight provisions of the Act, except to the
extent that existing oversight of county alternative dispute
resolution programs will now extend to programs operated by
county superior courts after they are transferred to the local
superior courts. (www.dca.ca.gov/publications)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The sponsor of this bill, the County of
San Bernardino writes in support:
The County of San Bernardino operates a dispute resolution
program that has been administered by the San Bernardino
Court since 2004. This is particularly important in the
County of San Bernardino given the limited number of
judicial positions relative to caseload.
The County of San Bernardino has maintained involvement
because the code sections require that the funds are
deposited with the County. However, in practice, the funds
are administered by the Court. Questions have arisen
regarding responsibility for procurement and contracting
authority, often resulting in duplicative work performed by
the Court and San Bernardino County.
AB 1123 would allow for the transfer of revenues and
AB 1123
Page 6
responsibilities under the Act on a permissive basis to
formalize the County's current practice, whereby the Court
administers the funds and oversees operations, reduce staff
time, increase efficiencies and eliminate confusion over
program authority and procurement processes.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
County of San Bernardino (sponsor)
California Judicial Council
California State Association of Counties
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Khadijah Hargett / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
AB 1123
Page 7