BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 973 (Campos)
As Amended May 27, 2011
Hearing Date: June 21, 2011
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
SK:rm
SUBJECT
Trial Courts: Budget Process: Public Notices
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require trial courts, prior to adopting a
baseline budget plan for the fiscal year, to allow public input
and comment on the proposed plan and to hold a public hearing on
the plan, as specified.
Under existing law, a trial court must provide the public with
notice 60 days prior to closing a courtroom or closing or
reducing the hours of court clerks' offices. This bill would
require that the notice include information on how the public
may comment on that plan and would require the court to review
and consider all comments received and to provide immediate
notification if the plan changes as a result of those comments.
BACKGROUND
As a result of the current fiscal crisis, the Judicial
branch-and trial courts in particular-has faced significant
funding challenges over the last several years which resulted in
an unprecedented one-day per month closure of courthouses across
the state. Although those courthouse closures have generally
ended for the time being, the Judicial Council notes that "�i]n
an effort to meet these challenges while remaining open on all
non-judicial holidays and to preserve as fully as possible
access to court services for all litigants, some superior courts
may adopt plans to institute limited services days. A limited
services day is one on which a court might close one or more
courtrooms or reduce the hours of one or more of its clerks'
(more)
AB 973 (Campos)
Page 2 of ?
offices, or both."
Existing law requires trial courts to notify the public and the
Judicial Council 60 days prior to closing a courtroom or closing
or reducing the hours of clerks' offices. The Judicial Council,
in turn, must provide this information to the Legislature and
post it on its Web site. That information, which is available
at www.courts.ca.gov/12973.htm , currently shows that seven
counties have notified the Judicial Council of limited service
hours which range from reducing the hours of clerks' offices to
providing that a court may meet in a community once every other
month rather than once every month.
This bill, sponsored by the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, would provide for
public comment and review concerning a court's plan to close a
courtroom or close or reduce the hours of clerks' offices. The
bill would also require a trial court to hold a public hearing
on its proposed baseline budget plan prior to its adoption.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council, as part of its
trial court budget process, to seek input from groups and
individuals as it deems appropriate. Existing law specifies
that the trial court budget process may include, among other
things, the: (a) receipt of budget requests from the trial
courts; (b) review of trial courts' budget requests; (c)
annual adoption of the projected cost of court operations in
the subsequent fiscal year; (d) annual approval of a schedule
for the allocation of moneys to individual courts and an
overall trial court budget; (e) reallocation of funds during
the fiscal year to ensure equal access to the trial courts by
the public, to improve trial court operations, and to meet
trial court emergencies; and (f) establishment of rules
regarding a court's authority to transfer trial court funding
moneys from one functional category to another in order to
address needs in any functional category. (Gov. Code Sec.
68502.5(a).)
Existing law provides that the Judicial Council shall retain the
ultimate responsibility to adopt a budget and allocate funding
for the trial courts and perform the other activities listed
above that best assure the courts' ability to carry out their
functions, promote implementation of statewide policies, and
promote the immediate implementation of efficiencies and cost
AB 973 (Campos)
Page 3 of ?
saving measures in court operations, in order to guarantee
equal access to the courts. (Gov. Code Sec. 68502.5(c).)
Existing rules of court provide for the inspection and copying
of judicial administrative records, unless the records are
exempt. (California Rules of Court, Rule 10.500.)
This bill would require a trial court, prior to adopting a
baseline budget plan for the fiscal year, to provide the
public with notice of the plan and an opportunity for input by
the submission of written comments.
This bill would also require the court to hold a public hearing,
including public comment, on its proposed budget plan in a
place that is reasonably accessible to the residents of the
county in which the court is located, such as the courthouse.
This bill would provide that, prior to conducting the hearing,
the court must provide notice of the hearing date, time, and
location. That notice must be posted not less than 10 court
days prior to the date of the hearing and must be posted
within or about the court's facilities, on its Web site, and
by electronic distribution to individuals who have subscribed
to the court's electronic distribution service.
This bill would require that the proposed baseline budget plan
be made available to the public at the courthouse and on the
court's Web site no less than three court days prior to the
hearing.
This bill would specify that these requirements shall not be
construed to obligate courts to provide responses to the
comments presented at the public hearing or to written
comments received.
2.Existing law requires a trial court to provide written notice
to the public not less than 60 days prior to closing any
courtroom, or closing or reducing the hours of clerks' offices
during regular business hours. That notice shall be provided
by conspicuous posting within or about its facilities, on its
Web site, and to the Judicial Council. The notice must
include the scope of the closure or reduction in hours, and
the financial constraints or other reasons that make the
closure or reduction necessary. (Gov. Code Sec. 68106(b).)
Existing law requires the Judicial Council, within 15 days of
AB 973 (Campos)
Page 4 of ?
receiving the notice, to post the information on its Web site
and to provide the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees
and the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, and the
Assembly Committee on Budget with copies of the notices.
Existing law provides that the Legislature intends to review
this information to ensure that California trial courts remain
open and accessible to the public. (Gov. Code Sec. 68106(b).)
This bill would require a trial court to additionally provide
the notice described above electronically to individuals who
have subscribed to the court's electronic distribution
service.
This bill would provide that the notice shall include
information on how the public may provide written comments
during the 60-day period regarding the court's plan for
closing a courtroom or closing or reducing clerks' office
hours.
This bill would require the court, if its plan changes as a
result of the comments received, to immediately provide notice
to the public by posting a revised notice within or about its
facilities, on its Web site, and by electronic distribution to
individuals who have subscribed to the court's electronic
distribution service.
This bill would require the court to review and consider all
comments received, but would provide that these requirements
shall not be construed to obligate courts to provide responses
to the comments received.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
Since the enactment of the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997,
the mechanisms for public oversight and accountability of the
California Superior Courts �were] removed. Existing law
requires a decentralized system of trial court management
managed by a Presiding Judge. The Superior Courts are also
not subject to the provisions of the Brown Act or the
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
Neither the Legislature nor the Judicial Council of California
has ultimate responsibility for the daily operations of the
AB 973 (Campos)
Page 5 of ?
trial courts and the services provided to the public; that
responsibility rests with each Superior Court. However, the
Superior Courts are not required by either the Brown Act or
the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act to conduct public meetings,
and Superior Courts do not voluntarily do so.
Sponsor, American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, writes that prior to the enactment
of the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, "the Courts were under
the jurisdiction of the county governments. During this time,
the public was afforded the opportunity to provide their direct
input over the administration of local court operations. They
were able to express their opinions at County Board of
Supervisor meetings and to elect individuals who had the
ultimate responsibility of overseeing daily court operations."
AFSCME writes that this bill would "restore public oversight and
accountability to the California Superior Court system."
2. Bill would provide for additional public input on court
budgets and plans for closure or reduction in service hours;
Judicial Council neutral; support if amended
As described in more detail below, this bill would require a
trial court to hold a public hearing on its proposed baseline
budget plan and would provide for public comment and review
concerning a court's plan to close a courtroom or close or
reduce the hours of clerks' offices.
The Judicial Council of California has a neutral position on
this bill and would support the measure if it were amended to
permit trial courts to either conduct a public hearing or accept
written testimony prior to adopting a baseline budget plan for
the fiscal year. On this point, the Judicial Council writes:
During a time when staff resources are being stretched as far
as possible in order to meet the court's workload in light of
growing vacancy rates, diverting staff for this new task could
have the unintended result of impacting the ability of a court
to meet its constitutional and statutory obligations. These
concerns would be alleviated, and the Judicial Council would
be pleased to support your bill if it allowed trial courts the
flexibility either to conduct public hearings or to accept
written testimony consistent with the needs of the community
and the available resources of the court.
As the Judicial Council notes, in recent years the judicial
AB 973 (Campos)
Page 6 of ?
branch has faced significant reductions in its budget at a time
that caseloads are growing and demands on staff have increased.
These reductions have had significant impacts. For example, San
Francisco Superior Court just announced plans to lay off 200
employees (nearly 41 percent of its workforce) and close 25
courtrooms. ("SF Superior Prepares for Layoffs," Daily Journal,
June 17, 2011.) It is not inaccurate to say that access to
justice is threatened as courtrooms have closed and clerks'
offices have reduced their hours.
Given the reductions already incurred by the courts, the
continuing fiscal crisis, and the resultant threat to access to
justice, the Committee should consider amending the bill to
allow a court to either conduct a public hearing or accept
written testimony. The following amendments would achieve this:
Suggested amendment :
On page 4, line 8, delete "and" and insert "or"
On page 4, line 26, after "hearing" insert "or, if there is no
hearing, adoption of the plan"
Alternatively, the Committee may instead wish to delay the
operation of the mandatory public hearing provisions for three
years so that they would not take effect until January 1, 2015.
Suggested amendment :
On page 4, after line 29, insert "This section shall not take
effect until January 1, 2015."
a. Bill would require public hearing prior to adoption of
baseline budget plan
Under this bill, a trial court would be required to hold a
public hearing on its baseline budget plan prior to adopting
that plan. The trial court would have to provide notice of
the hearing, which must occur in the county in which the court
is located, at least 10 court days prior to the date of the
hearing. That notice must be posted within or about the
court's facilities, on its Web site, and by electronic
distribution to individuals who have subscribed to the court's
electronic distribution service. In addition, the court must
make the proposed baseline budget plan available to the public
AB 973 (Campos)
Page 7 of ?
at the courthouse and on the court's Web site no less than
three court days prior to the hearing.
This bill would also permit the public to submit written
comments and would specify that the court is not obligated to
provide responses to any comments received, including comments
presented at the public hearing.
As the author and sponsor note, trial courts are not subject
to either the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code Sec. 54950 et
seq.), which provides the public with access to local public
agency information, or the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Gov.
Code Sec. 11120 et seq.), which provides public access to
state public agency meetings. The Judicial branch is also
exempt from the provisions of the Public Records Act (Gov.
Code Sec. 6250 et seq.) which provides public access to
records of state and local agencies.
Instead, the California Rules of Court provide public access
to judicial administrative records, including records of
budget and management information relating to the
administration of the courts. Under the Rules of Court,
budget information submitted to the Administrative Office of
the Courts after enactment of the annual Budget Act and any
other budget and expenditure document pertaining to the
administrative operation of the courts, including quarterly
financial statements and statements of revenue, expenditure,
and reserves are both subject to public inspection and
copying. (California Rules of Court, Rule 10.500.)
This bill seeks to provide public access to a trial court's
baseline budget plan prior to its adoption and to also provide
for an opportunity for the public to comment on that plan,
both in writing and in public testimony at a hearing on the
plan. The bill specifies that a trial court is not obligated
to provide responses to comments which are presented at the
public hearing or submitted in writing.
The bill also provides that the public hearing on the budget
plan must be held in the county in which the court is located;
however, the court may conduct the hearing at the courthouse
in order to help alleviate any challenges associated with
locating a suitable public hearing space.
b. Bill would provide opportunity to comment on a trial
court's plans for closure or reduction in service hours
AB 973 (Campos)
Page 8 of ?
Existing law requires trial courts to notify the public and
the Judicial Council at least 60 days prior to closing a
courtroom or closing or reducing the hours of clerks' offices.
This bill would permit the public to submit written comments
during this 60-day period and would require the court to
review and consider all comments received. A court would not,
however, be required to provide responses to those comments.
Should the plan for closure or reduced hours be changed as a
result of the comments received, this bill would require the
court to immediately provide notice to the public and the
Judicial Council. That public notice must be provided by
posting a revised notice within or about its facilities, on
its Web site, and by electronic distribution to individuals
who have subscribed to the court's electronic distribution
service.
In some cases, however, a plan for closure or reduced hours
may change for reasons other than as a result of the comments
received. In that case, it is equally important to provide
the public with notice of the revised plans for closure or
reduced hours, particularly if it means that a courtroom or
clerks' offices will be closed for additional hours or days
than originally planned. The following amendment would ensure
that revised public notice is given:
Suggested amendment:
On page 3, line 20, after "received" insert "or for any other
reason"
This bill would not change existing law which requires that,
within 15 days of receiving notice from a trial court of a
closure or reduced hours, the Judicial Council must post the
information on its Web site and provide the Senate and
Assembly Judiciary Committees and the Senate Committee on
Budget and Fiscal Review, and the Assembly Committee on Budget
with copies of the notices. Consistent with existing law,
this information is helpful to ensure that trial courts remain
open and accessible to the public.
Support : San Bernardino Public Employees Union (SBPEA); San
Luis Obispo County Employees Association (SLOCEA); Service
Employees International Union (SEIU)
AB 973 (Campos)
Page 9 of ?
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 51, Noes 24)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 5)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 2)
**************