BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1718
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1718 (Monning) - As Amended: March 11, 2010
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : DISPUTE RESOLUTION: CIVIL COURT FEES
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THIS "PLACE HOLDER" BILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE
FORWARD WHILE THE AUTHOR CONTINUES HIS LAUDABLE EFFORTS TO SEEK
BETTER FUNDING FOR IMPORTANT DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS WITH
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BILL WILL RETURN TO COMMITTEE FOR
HEARING IF AND WHEN IT IS AMENDED TO CONTAIN A SUBSTANTIVE
PROPOSAL?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
As proposed to be amended, this "place holder" bill would
replace the amount to be distributed to private and public
dispute resolution programs established by counties from
superior court filing fees with an unspecified amount. The
author seeks to move the bill forward in light of legislative
deadlines while he continues his commendable efforts to gain
consensus on the level of and means for providing financial
support to these important community dispute resolution
programs, with the understanding that the bill will require a
further hearing in this Committee on any substantive proposal
that emerges to increase civil fees to provide additional funds
for these worthy programs.
SUMMARY : Seeks to increase civil filing fees to support
independent community dispute resolution programs.
Specifically, this bill : Would instead limit the amount to be
distributed to dispute resolution programs to an unspecified
amount.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Under the Uniform Civil Fees and Standard Fee Schedule Act of
2005, establishes uniform statewide fees charged for services
AB 1718
Page 2
and programs provided by the courts. (Government Code 70600
section et seq.)
2)Requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to make
monthly distributions from superior court filing fees for the
support of specified dispute resolution programs established
by counties. (Business & Professions Code section 470.5.)
3)Authorizes a county receiving a distribution for the support
of specified dispute resolution programs to increase the
amount of that distribution and limit the amount to be
distributed to no more than $8 per filing fee. (Business &
Professions section Code 470.5.)
COMMENTS : The author explains the reason for the bill as
follows:
The Dispute Resolution Programs Act (DRPA) was designed to
support the provision of conciliation and mediation
services to a wide cross-section of the population.
Programs funded by DRPA work to settle disputes that divide
neighbors, families, co-workers and communities, including
disputes that can escalate to the point of violence or
community-wide strife. Conciliation and mediation is a
process that brings people together to solve their disputes
collaboratively, focusing on common interests rather than
on adversity. It is typical for programs to find that over
80% of conciliations and mediations result in a resolution.
Given this, it is important that the DRPA fee be increased
so that the program can continue to help support the
judicial system.
Background On The Dispute Resolution Programs Act . Under the
Dispute Resolution Programs Act, counties may, if they wish,
establish a program of grants to public entities and nonpartisan
nonprofit corporations for dispute resolution programs to be
operated pursuant to contract with the county. These programs
are funded by a surcharge on fees paid by persons filing and
responding to civil lawsuits. The amount of the surcharge
varies by county, from $2 to $8 - the latter being the statutory
cap on the amount any county may authorize, which was instituted
in 2006. The Administrative Office of the Courts makes monthly
distributions from superior court filing fees for the support of
dispute resolution programs in each county that has acted to
establish a program in accordance with the amount that county
AB 1718
Page 3
has authorized. Counties may also accept and disburse funds
from any public or private source for these purposes. DRPA
programs may also charge fees to their clients on a sliding
scale, although indigent persons must receive services without
charge.
Information supplied by the sponsor, California Dispute
Resolution Council (CDRC), indicates that the $8 fee cap has not
been increased since 1992. Although the fee is capped, total
revenue rises and falls with civil filings. Information
provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts shows that
DRPA revenue increased from approximately $8 million in 2006-07
to over $10.5 million in 2008-09 (the latest period for which
figures are available). According to CDRC's website there are
currently 37 counties that collect some filing fee surcharge for
DRPA programs; most counties have authorized the statutory
maximum charge of $8. Since court filing fees are uniform
across the state, but some counties do not authorize the maximum
surcharge, the AOC presumably retains any fees that are paid by
court filers and are not required to be distributed to the
counties for DRPA programs.
The CDRC reports that the Judicial Council evaluated the program
in 1997 and found the program to be very successful in resolving
disputes and resulting in high participant satisfaction.
Supporters state that DRPA-funded programs clear smaller cases
from the court dockets and add to civil court efficiencies. The
statute requires that DRPA can account for up to 50% of any
recipient program's total budget. Therefore, supporters
explain, these organizations cannot rely on DRPA alone for their
funding and must receive support from their communities in the
form of grants, contributions from the public, and income from
fees charged for service. Supporters comment that a large
proportion of staff time is spent on administrative tasks
associated with fundraising and/or grant writing, taking away
time and resources that could be devoted to providing direct
dispute resolution services. However it is not clear how this
problem would be addressed by the bill unless the 50 percent
ceiling were lifted.
Although DRPA revenue has grown in recent years because of an
increase in civil filings, it also falls when the volume of
civil filings drops. CDRC has previously noted that these
decreases provide an important justification for increasing the
amount of the fee. As the Committee has previously noted, this
AB 1718
Page 4
phenomenon may present a conundrum for DRPA programs. To the
extent they achieve their goal of reducing conflict and
litigation through alternative dispute resolution programs,
their very success may put them at risk of reduced funding under
the current scheme. This observation was shared by some
commenters after the Governor's veto of a prior related bill in
2008. "Mary Culbert, director of the Loyola program, which
specializes in mediations for monolingual Spanish-speakers,
called the veto a "serious loss. 'As the mediation programs
have become more well known, fewer people are actually filing in
the court, and they're coming directly to the community
mediation programs ... and that means, because the funding
actually comes out of the filing fees, as we get better at our
job, the funding for the programs theoretically decreases, she
said." (Los Angeles Daily Journal, September 30, 2008.)
Thus, reliance on filing fees paid by court users may not
continue to be a sustainable model for the future support of
DRPA programs without the need for alternative revenue sources.
In addition, as noted below, civil filing fees are increasingly
needed to support other important interests and objectives -
most notably, the courts themselves. In this financial climate,
the long-term financial health of these important programs may
need to rest on new sources of funding.
This Bill Is Intended To Provide A Vehicle For Further
Discussions . As proposed to be amended, AB 1718 would give
county board of supervisors' the option of increasing the
county's DRPA trust fund for each civil case first paper filing
by an unspecified amount to be added to each first-paper filing
fee. This is a sensitive point for those concerned about the
impact of General Fund cuts on the budget of the judicial
branch, and particularly for parties who may be asked to pay
greater civil fees in order to provide the funding needed to
maintain court operations. As proposed to be amended, this bill
would simply remove the $8.00 cap and leave the figure blank.
The author reports that he is in discussions with interested
stakeholders in an effort to reach consensus on an appropriate
figure. It is understood that because the distributions are
allotted from the total filing fee, any increases for individual
programs, such as dispute resolution, will result in either a
reduction to the distribution for other programs, or an increase
in the overall filing fee. Because the bill does not yet
reflect a substantive proposal, it is naturally the author's
pledge to bring the bill back to this Committee for a hearing
when a substantive provision is inserted, consistent of course
AB 1718
Page 5
with Committee Rules.
Prior Related Legislation : SB 1177 (Ridley-Thomas) in 2007-08
would have increased civil filing fees for all court parties
statewide by over 60%, from $8 to $13, and directed those funds
to support dispute resolution programs in those counties that
have established a program. That measure was vetoed by the
Governor, with the following statement: "Although I support the
effort to secure a non-General Fund source of funding for these
programs, I am not comfortable increasing court fees at this
time. This would create an additional burden on the public,
many of whom use our court system and would face the increased
fines."
SB 396 (Ridley Thomas) of the 2007-2008 legislative session
would have required the Judicial Council to establish an
advisory commission on civil fees in the courts. This bill was
vetoed by the Governor.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Dispute Resolution Council (sponsor)
Mike Kerns, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Jon Rantzman, Alameda Superior Court Commissioner
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Carmen Trutanich, Los Angeles City Attorney
7 individuals
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334