BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 973 (Campos)
Hearing Date: 07/11/2011 Amended: 06/27/2011
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Judiciary 4-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 973 would require each trial court, prior to
adopting a baseline budget plan for the fiscal year, to allow
public input on the proposed plan by the submission of written
comments or by holding a public hearing, and would mandate
public input by both of those means on and after January 1,
2015. This bill would require a trial court proposing to close a
courtroom or close/reduce hours of clerks' offices to provide
the required 60-day advance written notice by electronic
distribution and to include in the notice information on how the
public may comment on the plan. This bill would require the
court to review and consider all comments received and provide
immediate notification of any plan changes.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Public hearings, electronic Unknown; cost pressure of $100
annually General*
notification, solicit/review through 2014, potential costs of
$100
public comments annually thereafter
*Trial Court Trust Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council, as part of its
court budget process, to seek input from groups and individuals
as it deems appropriate. Further, existing rules of court
provide for the inspection and copying of judicial
administrative records, unless otherwise exempt. This bill would
require a trial court, prior to adopting a baseline budget plan
AB 973 (Campos)
Page 1
for the fiscal year, to provide the public with notice of the
plan and an opportunity for input by the submission of written
comments or by holding a public hearing on the proposed plan. On
and after January 1, 2015, a trial court would be required to
allow public input by both the submission of written comments
and by holding a public hearing. This bill states that courts
are not obligated to provide responses to the comments presented
at the hearing or to written comments received.
Current law requires a trial court to provide written
notification to the public by conspicuous posting within or
about its facilities, on its website, and to the Judicial
Council not less than 60 days prior to closing any courtroom, or
closing or reducing the hours of clerks' offices during regular
business hours, as specified. This bill would require a trial
court to additionally provide the notice electronically to those
who have subscribed to the court's electronic distribution
service. Further, this bill would require the notice to include
information on how the public may provide written comments
during the 60-day period, and would require the court to
immediately provide notice to the public if its plan changes as
a result of comments received or for any other reason. The court
would be required to review and consider all comments received,
but would not be obligated to provide responses to the comments
received.
The Judicial Council indicates trial courts will incur ongoing
administrative costs to hold annual public hearings and solicit
and review public comments as required by this measure. Total
increased costs are unknown but could be significant across all
of the State's trial courts. If each trial court expended up to
$2,000 annually to provide notice and conduct hearings, costs in
excess of $100,000 annually statewide could result. Although the
provision mandating public hearings is delayed until January 1,
2015, there would still be cost pressure on the courts, as
public hearings are still authorized although not required.
Given the staffing cutbacks incurred due to ongoing branch-wide
budget reductions, and the recently approved reduction of $350
million to the Judicial Branch budget for 2011-12 will place
additional pressure on trial courts to perform increased
workload with shrinking resources. Diverting staff to fulfill
these new requirements could have the unintended result of
impairing a court's ability to meet its existing obligations.
AB 973 (Campos)
Page 2