It’s time I updated what’s been happening in Montpelier. First
of all, the House chose its members of the Judicial Nominating Board. They are
Bill Lippert, Maxine Grad, and Patti Komline. I spoke with Sen. Mazza yesterday
about the Senate’s appointments. He is part of the three member Committee on
Committees and said he’d urge Pro Tem John Campbell and Lt. Gov Phil Scott to
make their appointments soon. And, we are still awaiting the governor’s two
appointments. It’s hoped that then the new JNB is complete, at least one
judgeship may be filled. If that means that the JNB will have to meet during the
session, then that’s what will happen. By the time the notice of application
goes out, followed by the interview period etc, it’ll be summer before names go
to the governor. According to Chief Superior Judge Grearson, he’d like a new
judge or judges to be ready to be on the rotation schedule by September.
So, where are we on judicial funding issues? After hearing
many of you, some probate judges, trial court clerks, VBA Board members talk
about increasing fees I took that message to members of the house
appropriations committee. Some members seem interested in that conversation. Remember
though that the fees (and fines) generated go to the general fund and not to
the court’s budget. My approach was to ask that, in exchange for increased
dollars to the general fund, that the court would be given a pass on the proposed
$500K cut this year. In exchange the court could continue its meetings with its
“justice partners” through the rest of this year and report to the legislature
in January where to find efficiencies and potential savings.
Last Friday I made that pitch to the speaker in a one on one
meeting. His response was that he’d be willing to see a “dollar for dollar” swap-
any increase in fees would reduce the court’s cut. He wasn’t able to go
further. I communicated that message to the chief justice an court
administrator within minutes of leaving that meeting. To date, I haven’t heard
from the court as to whether this is a direction they want to pursue. I know that
the speaker talked about that idea to the chair of the senate appropriations
committee Jane Kitchel; she is also interested.
Yesterday afternoon the chair of the Senate institutions
Committee, Peg Flory, asked me to sit in
on a 3:15 hearing on the “judiciary protocol for prioritizing of capital
projects”. The question was whether to go forward with the $5.2 million capital
project at the Lamoille courthouse or redirect that money to a case management
system. The court administrator (CA) told the committee that the “priorities of
the court are changing given the current cuts”. The commissioner of building
and general services objected saying that substantial money had already been
spent on engineering etc. Also, he said they have already rented space for
court staff who will be relocating in April in preparation for the
construction. She also said that redirecting that money will not result in any
savings in FY 16. Sen. Mazza asked what the return on that investment would be;
Sen. Rogers said that the cost of running IT systems is always higher than
planned. Again the CA responded that some states claim a 20% savings. She doesn’t
expect VT will see any savings because “we’re underfunded already”.
Senators Mazza and McAllister asked about increasing fees
and again the CA didn’t really respond. All she said was that last year was the
court’s three year cycle to have fees reviewed and, with the exception of
removing the surcharge and rounding up the filing fees, the fees were not
increased. So it seems as though the door may be open to moving forward on
this.
Everywhere in the statehouse people interested in the judiciary
are talking about the funding crisis hitting the courts. I’ve asked all of you
at least twice now to talk with your representatives and senators about fully
funding the judiciary. You should see many of them next week at your town
meetings. Make sure they understand what this means for access to justice and
preservation of the rule of law.
OK, back to senate institutions. The CA spoke to moving to
increase use of videoconferencing, which of course would require an investment
upfront. There were no details as to cost or timing. She also spoke to
regionalization of termination of parental rights cases (TPRs). Sen. Flory
asked about the experience with the use of video for criminal cases in the
past. The CA responded that the technology is better today and these systems
are in use in other states. She thinks a 25-30% savings in the cost of
transport and travel if the money is invested in video technology.
The hearing ended with the CA repeating the well-known
limitations in the paper filing system, data entry 30 year old system that our
courts use. She also raised the issue of whether every county should have a “full
capacity court”. Should some courthouses be outfitted with the newest
technology and trials held there, even if it means taking a case to another county?
I’ve run that idea by some trial lawyers and they seemed interested; this is especially
true among those who practice in the federal district court. She repeated that
the supreme court does not support closing courts.
Two final issues were raised: at what level are courthouses
maintained? Should some of that cost be shared by the county? Finally security
costs came up again. This time it was raised by Sen. Mazza. Earlier in the day
in my conversation with Sen. Kitchel, she raised the same question.
So that’s where we are at the moment. I’ll continue to
report any news. Thanks for staying informed and for reading these posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment