BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                    SB 56|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  SB 56
          Author:   Dunn (D), et al
          Amended:  5/27/05
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  :  6-1, 4/26/05
          AYES:  Dunn, Morrow, Cedillo, Escutia, Figueroa, Kuehl
          NOES:  Ackerman

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  12-1, 5/26/05
          AYES:  Migden, Alarcon, Alquist, Ashburn, Battin, Dutton,  
            Escutia, Florez, Murray, Ortiz, Poochigian, Romero
          NOES:  Aanestad


           SUBJECT  :    New and converted judicial positions

           SOURCE  :     Judicial Council of California


           DIGEST  :    This bill, upon legislative appropriation,  
          authorizes an unspecified number of new superior court  
          judgeships for each of the next three fiscal years.   
          Placement of the new positions will be determined by the  
          Judicial Council of California pursuant to uniform criteria  
          for determining the need for additional trial court judges.  
           This bill also, upon legislative appropriation, permits  
          the conversion of an unspecified number of existing  
          subordinate judicial officer (SJO) positions to judgeships  
          in eligible superior courts upon a vacancy of a SJO  
          position.  Eligibility for conversion would be determined  
          by the Judicial Council pursuant to uniform criteria for  
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                 SB 56
                                                                Page  
          2

          determining the need for converting SJO positions to  
          judgeships.  The Governor may fill by appointment the new  
          vacant judicial position. Candidates for appointment will  
          be subject to review by the State Bar's Commission on  
          Judicial Nominees Evaluation.  

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law, Article VI, Section 4 of the  
          California Constitution, provides that the Legislature  
          shall prescribe the number of judges and provide for the  
          officers and employees of each superior court.

          Existing law, Article VI, Section 22, provides that the  
          Legislature may provide for a court's appointment of  
          officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate  
          judicial duties.

          This bill, upon appropriation of the Legislature, creates  
          an unspecified number of superior court judges to be  
          appointed by the Governor in the 2005-06, 2006-07, and  
          2007-08 fiscal years, to the various counties as determined  
          by the Judicial Council pursuant to uniform criteria.  

          This bill also authorizes up to SJO positions in eligible  
          superior courts, as determined by the Judicial Council, to  
          be converted to judgeships, according to uniform specified  
          criteria and upon appropriation by the Legislature.  This  
          bill declares the Legislature's intent in enacting this  
          provision to restore an appropriate balance between  
          subordinate judicial officers and judges and to ensure that  
          critical case types can be heard by judges.  

           Background  

          According to the Judicial Council's September 2004 fact  
          sheet on the California Judicial Branch, there are 1,498  
          authorized superior court judges positions and another  
          414.6 (in terms of full-time equivalents) commissioners and  
          referees, for a total of 1,915 "Authorized Judicial  
          Positions (AJPs)."  Judicial Council, however, points that  
          current workloads require the services of 2,270 "Judicial  
          Position Equivalents", which include the AJPs plus the  
          services of assigned judges, temporary judges, and  
          temporary commissioners and referees.    


                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                 SB 56
                                                                Page  
          3

           Projected Costs of New Judgeships  

          According to the Judicial Council, the average ongoing cost  
          for a new judgeship is estimated to be $755,000 annually,  
          which varies by court depending on costs of support staff  
          and individual court facility needs.   

          This cost estimate includes the salary and benefits for a  
          new judge ($172,000), salary and benefits for five support  
          staff and 1.1 bailiffs ($389,000), and office space,  
          operating expenses and equipment (including  
          facilities and court security costs) for the judge and  
          staff ($193,000). 

          The Judicial Council estimates the first year costs of this  
          bill at $3 million, based upon its assumption that the  
          Governor will not make the appointments until June 1 of  
          next year.  This may be a reasonable assumption, given the  
          condition in this bill that the judgeships are created only  
          upon appropriation by the Legislature.  The full year cost  
          for 50 positions averages about $37 million annually for  
          each group of 50 judges.     

          Within the $37 million estimate is the estimated facilities  
          cost of an averaged $3.5 million for each group of 50 new  
          judgeships.  Because most (15 of 50) of the first group can  
          be housed by existing facilities, the annual additional  
          facilities cost for the first 50 is "only" $2.267 million.   
          However, costs escalate to an annual $3.646 million for the  
          second group of 50 (29 of  
          50 will need leased space) and to $4.652 million for the  
          third group (37 of 50 will need leased space).  These  
          estimates are based on the assumption that the new  
          positions will be housed in leased space until new or  
          renovated facilities are built.  Building costs for  
          permanent space will be much more expensive.

          FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  No

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

                          Fiscal Impact (in thousands)


                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                 SB 56
                                                                Page  
          4

             Major Provisions                2005-06     2006-07     
             2007-08               Fund  

            Judgeships          $2,946    $38,410   $75,193+   
            General
            SJO conversion      ----------- $3,470 annually  
            ----------          General
            Capital outlay      --        --        --

          SUPPORT  :   (Verified  5/27/05)

          Judicial Council of California (source)
          California District Attorney's Association
          California Judges Association
          Orange County Bar Association
          San Diego County Bar Association

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  5/31/05)

          Service Employees International Union

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the Judicial Council,  
          the bill's sponsor, California faces a "judicial gap" which  
          must be bridged in order to avoid serious and far-reaching  
          ramifications, including a significant decrease in  
          Californians' access to the courts, compromised public  
          safety, an unstable business environment, and, in some  
          courts, enormous backlogs that inhibit fair, timely, and  
          equitable justice.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    The Service Employees  
          International Union (SEIU) states:

            "SB 56 would upon appropriation, authorize an  
            unspecified number of new superior court judgeships  
            over the next three years and permit the conversion of  
            an unspecified number of judicial officers to  
            judgeships for an unknown number of new judges.

            "While SEIU supports a well functioning and efficient  
            trial court system, we are extremely concerned about  
            the cuts that have been made over the last few years to  
            the state's social services programs for children,  
            elderly and disabled, health care programs, child care  

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                 SB 56
                                                                Page  
          5

            services and the state's K-12 schools, community  
            colleges and universities.  Once again this year, these  
            programs will experience cuts or will not experience a  
            restoration of previous year cuts.  Cuts to these  
            programs have had direct and negative impacts on the  
            quality of life for many Californians and in too many  
            cases have completely devastated them.  Those who rely  
            on public services are often the most vulnerable,  
            poorest or disabled individuals and children.

            "Each day in California, our poorest citizens go  
            without healthcare.  Additional cuts to CalWorks grants  
            are forthcoming.  SSI/SSP grantees are likely not to  
            receive a cost of living adjustment.  Thousands of  
            families who are barely making ends meet are likely to  
            lose their state subsidized childcare.  Our school  
            children face a broken promise by not having their  
            education adequately funded.  Our most vulnerable  
            children, those who are abused or severely neglected,  
            often do not receive timely intervention.  The  
            difference for a family and child in crisis in the  
            Child Protective Service system is too often a matter  
            of life and death for the child.  There are simply not  
            enough social workers to help families cope, break the  
            cycle of abuse and teach proper parenting skills, there  
            are not enough social workers to provide healing  
            emotional support and understanding to a victimized  
            child and not enough shelters for them.

            "California is facing a budget crisis and prioritizing  
            program funding over another is a sad realty.  But  
            given the choice, we would elect to lower the caseloads  
            of child protective service social workers instead of  
            judges.  On this matter the calculated average annual  
            cost per judgeship is estimated to be $755,000 per year  
            for the judge and other associated costs.  On the other  
            hand, the cost per social worker and all associated  
            costs, including supervision is on average $130,000  
            annually.  SEIU appreciates the author's desire for a  
            stabilized and timely trial court system, however we  
            believe that staving off additional cuts or reinvesting  
            in social and health care programs and education out to  
            be the priority in this dire fiscal environment and the  
            first priority in an economic recovery."  

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 56
                                                                Page  
          6

           

          RJG:mel  5/31/05   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****






































                                                           CONTINUED