BILL ANALYSIS
AB 996
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 996 (Anderson) - As Introduced: February 27, 2009
SUBJECT : COURTS: CONTINUOUS HOURS OF OPERATION
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, OR
THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF EITHER A COURT OF APPEAL OR A SUPERIOR
COURT, BE AUTHORIZED TO ORDER THE COURT TO OPERATE 24 HOURS A
DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK, AN UNPRECEDENTED GRANT OF AUTHORITY THE
CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER JUDICIAL OFFICERS HAVE NOT THUS FAR
REQUESTED, AND WHICH WOULD MANIFESTLY REQUIRE A SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE IN PERSONNEL AND SECURITY COSTS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
Current law requires all offices of every state agency typically
to be kept open for the transaction of business from 8 a.m.
until 5 p.m. of each day from Monday to Friday, other than legal
holidays, absent an MOU to the contrary or another law, but
provides that any state agency or division, or branch or office
thereof, may be kept open for the transaction of business on
other hours and on other days. This bill would authorize the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the presiding justice of a
court of appeal, or the presiding judge of a superior court to
order the court to operate on a continuous and ongoing basis, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week notwithstanding the fact that the
Chief Justice and other judicial officers have not requested
this unprecedented grant of authority and it would clearly
result in a substantial increase in state costs during this
difficult budget era. The bill does not provide any funding for
the inevitable increase in personnel and other costs that the
authorization, if exercised, would potentially entail.
SUMMARY : Provides that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
the presiding justice of a court of appeal, or the presiding
judge of a superior court may order the court to operate on a
continuous and ongoing basis, 24 hours per day, seven days per
week.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 996
Page 2
1)Requires, unless otherwise provided by law or pursuant to a
memorandum of understanding, that all offices of every state
agency be kept open for the transaction of business from 8
a.m. until 5 p.m. of each day from Monday to Friday,
inclusive, other than legal holidays. (Government Code
section 11020.)
2)Provides that any state agency or division, or branch or
office thereof, may be kept open for the transaction of
business on other hours and on other days. (Government Code
section 11020.)
3)Charges the Judicial Council of California with the duty to
make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature for the
improvement of the administration of justice. (California
Constitution, Article VI, Section 6.)
COMMENTS : This well-intended but controversial bill would allow
judges to require a court to operate on a continuous basis 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, without providing any funding for
this operation and notwithstanding the fact that the Chief
Justice and other judicial officers have not requested this
unprecedented grant of authority and it would clearly result in
a substantial increase in state costs during this difficult
budget era. The author states that the bill is intended to
provide courts with the flexibility that they need to "meet the
demands that they face" and that the bill is a "responsible
option for promoting resourcefulness and fully using what the
state already has." However, permitting courts to extend their
hours in such a significant and unprecedented way would require
substantial numbers of additional security and other personnel,
as well as judges, in order to cover the potentially extended
hours of operation. The Committee may conclude, although
well-meaning, it may be unrealistic to permit the judicial
branch to order continuous court operation absent legislative
authorization of substantial additional funding to support
additional personnel and judges. Given that the courts are
having great difficulty managing their workloads within their
current schedules, and may even need to lay off current
employees due to budget cuts, the Committee may conclude the
timing is not ripe to dedicate the substantial additional money
necessary to fund such a potentially large increase in operating
hours.
AB 996
Page 3
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents, the Judicial Council, state
that this bill would be cost-prohibitive-continuous 24-hour
operation of the courts would require significant security and
personnel costs, and given that with the Budget Act of 2009 the
judicial branch is already severely under-funded, courts will
face serious challenges to even fund their current operating
costs. The Council states that there is regrettably simply no
funding to cover increased hours of operation. The Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) also oppose the measure
stating that requiring courts to operate 24 hours per day, 7
days per week would pose a significant hardship on trial court
employees and judges, especially during this time of budget cuts
and lay-offs. The SEIU states that there is already
insufficient funding for the current level of staffing and
judgeships and that it is unrealistic to add significant
additional staff without providing the substantial additional
funding. In addition, AFSCME states that they "find[s] it
appalling that the Legislature would consider adding more
hardship to state employees."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California State Sheriffs' Association
Glendale City Employees Association
Judicial Council
Orange County Employees Association
Organization of SMUD Employees
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
Santa Rosa City Employees Association
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert and Rachel Anderson / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334