BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2763
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2763 (Judiciary) - As Amended: March 25, 2010
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : SUBORDINATE JUDICIAL OFFICER CONVERSIONS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD LEGISLATION BE ENACTED TO IMPROVE THE
HANDLING OF FAMILY AND JUVENILE LAW CASES BY INCREASING THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT THESE MATTERS ARE PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGES?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill seeks to improve family and juvenile
law cases in California's courts. First, the bill authorizes
the Judicial Council to convert up to 10 additional subordinate
judicial officer positions (SJOs) to judgeships each year, upon
vacancy, if the conversion of these additional positions will
result in a judge being assigned to a family or juvenile law
assignment previously presided over by a subordinate judicial
officer. Second, the bill requires the Judicial Council to
prepare and submit to the Legislature a Judicial Needs
Assessment that revises the time study specifically for family
and juvenile law, and thus re-evaluates the overall judicial
needs of family and juvenile courts. The bill is nearly
identical to last year's AB 942 (Judiciary), which passed out of
this Committee unanimously but was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee. It is supported by the Judicial
Council with no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Seeks to improve the handling of family and juvenile
law cases in our courts. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes the Judicial Council to convert up to an additional
10 subordinate judicial officer positions (SJOs) to judgeships
each year, upon vacancy, if the conversion of these additional
positions will result in a judge being assigned to a family or
juvenile law assignment previously presided over by a
subordinate judicial officer.
AB 2763
Page 2
2)Requires the Judicial Council to prepare and submit to the
Legislature a Judicial Needs Assessment that revises the time
study specifically for family and juvenile law, to get a
better handle on the judicial resource needs of our family and
juvenile courts.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the number of
judges and provide for the officers and employees of each
superior court. (California Constitution, Article VI, Section
4.)
2)Provides that the Legislature may provide for the trial courts
to appoint officers such as commissioners to perform
subordinate judicial duties. (California Constitution,
Article VI, Section 22.)
3)Authorizes the courts to appoint subordinate judicial
officers, and sets forth their duties and titles. (Government
Code section 71622.)
4)Authorizes the conversion of 16 subordinate judicial officer
positions in eligible superior courts to judgeships each
fiscal year as specified. (Government Code section 69615.)
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to improve family and juvenile law
cases by increasing the likelihood that these matters are
presided over by judges and not subordinate judicial officers.
The bill further seeks to ensure that there is an appropriate
understanding of the shortage of family and juvenile law judges
around the state so that this shortfall may begin to be remedied
in an appropriate manner. The bill is supported by the Judicial
Council with no known opposition. It is nearly identical to
last year's AB 942 (Judiciary), which passed out of this
Committee unanimously but was held in the Senate Appropriations
Committee. The Committee is working to ensure there are no new
costs associated with the bill.
Subordinate Judicial Officer Conversions . According to the
Judicial Council, historically, SJO positions were created and
funded at the county level to address courts' needs for
judicial-like resources when new judgeships were pending or not
yet authorized by the Legislature. Unlike judges, SJOs are not
directly accountable to the public, but due to the shortages of
AB 2763
Page 3
judges, are performing some of the most complex and sensitive
judicial duties. Conversion of these positions to judgeships
when they become vacant makes them both more accountable to the
public and, the author contends, helps provide better trust and
confidence in the courts.
Recent SJO Conversion Bill : In 2007, AB 159 (Jones, Chapter
722) was enacted to address a severe shortage in the number of
trial court judgeships. At that time, the Judicial Council
noted potentially serious consequences flowing from this
deficiency in judicial resources, including a significant
decrease in Californians' access to the courts, compromised
public safety, an unstable business climate, and enormous
backlogs in some courts that inhibit fair, timely and equitable
justice. That bill, in addition to authorizing 50 additional
judges, authorized the conversion of 162 SJOs, upon vacancy, to
judgeships to utilize the judicial resources more efficiently
and properly limit SJOs to subordinate judicial duties. The
stated findings and declarations supporting the legislation
included the following:
It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
section to restore an appropriate balance between
subordinate judicial officers and judges in the trial
courts by providing for the conversion, as needed, of
subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships in
courts that assign subordinate judicial officers to act as
temporary judges. The Legislature finds that these
positions must be converted to judgeships in order to
ensure that critical case types, including family, probate,
and juvenile law matters, can be heard by judges.
(Government Code section 69615, emphasis added.)
The Conversion Cap : In 2007, when AB 159 was enacted, the
Legislature capped at 16 the number of conversions that may
happen each fiscal year. According to the Judicial Council, the
number of conversions selected was based on an estimate provided
by the council during a budget subcommittee hearing that it
would likely take about 10 years to convert the 162 requested
positions, as the positions may only convert upon vacancy. For
the first two years in which the council has converted
positions, that number has fallen short of the number SJO
vacancies that have occurred in courts that are eligible for
conversions. In support of the need to convert SJO positions to
judgeships, the 2007 Judicial Council Legislative Priorities
AB 2763
Page 4
report included the following:
When courts do not have enough judges, they must assign
commissioners and referees to act as temporary judges; in
that capacity commissioners and referees exercise the full
power of judges, rather than the more limited duties within
their statutorily defined scope of authority. Commissioners
and referees act as temporary judges so often that, as
stated in the [National Center for State Courts 2001]
report to the council, they are "simply judges under a
different title." In response to these findings, the
Council in 2000 adopted a policy emphasizing that the
primary role of subordinate judicial officers (SJOs) is to
perform subordinate judicial duties, as delegated by the
courts and described by statute. At the same time, the
council adopted a policy supporting the conversion of SJO
positions to judgeships in courts that use SJOs as
temporary judges because of a shortage of judges. The
council's policy is based on the principle that full public
accountability requires the courts to provide judges to
hear the serious and complex matters that are reserved to
them by law.
Blue Ribbon Commission Urges This Reform : In 2002 the Judicial
Council identified family and juvenile law matters among those
that are of such a nature as to require judges, rather than
SJOs, to preside over them whenever possible. This Council
policy has been echoed repeatedly. Among its many
recommendations, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in
Foster Care (BRC) recommended that "Consistent with Judicial
Council policy, judges-not subordinate judicial officers-hear
dependency and delinquency cases. Pending a full transition
from subordinate judicial officers to judges (through
reassignment or conversion of subordinate judicial officer
positions to judgeships), presiding judges should continue the
assignment of well-qualified and experienced subordinate
judicial officers to juvenile court."
This bill will therefore permit the Council to convert an
additional 10 positions in each year. Consistent with the
Legislature's increased focused interest on family and juvenile
law reform and improvement, and with the enacted legislative
findings and declarations regarding the rationale for conversion
of SJOs, the Council's repeated statements that judges rather
than SJOs should preside over critical case types such as family
AB 2763
Page 5
and juvenile law, the recommendation of the BRC, and the focused
attention on family law matters with the work of the Council's
Elkins Family Law Task Force, the bill will permit the Council
to convert the additional 10 positions if and only if the
conversion results in a judge being assigned to a family or
juvenile law assignment that was previously presided over by an
SJO. The bill does not impact the Council's authority to
convert the 16 positions already authorized by law. The
criteria related to the family or juvenile law assignment is
related only to conversions number 17 through 26.
Judicial Needs Assessment . Government Code 69614 requires the
Judicial Council to report to the Legislature by November 1 of
every even-numbered year on the general need for new judgeships
in each superior court. In October 2008, the Council approved
the 2008 updated Judicial Needs Assessment, which was
subsequently transmitted to the Legislature. This bill directs
the Council to prepare a special needs assessment, by November
30, 2011 (to give it needed time to do its work), specifically
addressing judicial needs in family and juvenile law matters.
There has been some concern that the time study used to produce
the initial and all subsequent Judicial Needs Assessments has
continued to "undercount" the time it takes to properly handle
family and juvenile law matters, and thus inadvertently
understates the judicial resource needs in courts across the
state. The Judicial Council's Administrative Office of the
Courts (AOC) Office of Court Research and Center for Families,
Children & the Courts, have already begun the process to conduct
a revised needs assessment specially targeted at these case
types.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of the bill, the Judicial
Council states:
Over the years, in the face of few or no new judgeships
being created, courts have had to hire SJOs simply to meet
the demands of their workload. As a result, these SJOs
have not simply been assigned to perform subordinate
judicial duties, but in many cases they are assigned as
temporary judges, possessing the full power of judges. The
Judicial Council believes that family law and juvenile law
cases, among the courts' most sensitive and often most
complex, should be assigned to judges whenever possible.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 2763
Page 6
Support
Judicial Council
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334