Wednesday was the longest day so far for the House Judiciary Committee as it devoted the entire day to the restructuring report and bill. Justice Johnson was the first witness in the chair as she reviewed the statement of the commission’s principles. Administrative Judge Davenport followed with some specific examples of what unification would mean and how it would operate. I was the last of the morning’s witnesses and had the committee’s attention for about 45 minutes. My testimony centered on the report of the VBA Board and, for the first time, the committee began to hear a different perspective on the work of the commission. As those of you that have read both the commission report and the VBA Board report, you know that they are very similar for the most part. So, my testimony focused on the probate court consolidation and the VBA Board opinion that 5 probate districts and 5 probate judges just would not deliver the service Vermonters expect and deserve.
I stated the VBA’s principles that underlay our report and they are two: we believe in full funding of the judiciary and maintain that it should not be treated as a department, agency or program of the executive branch. Secondly, we support the concept of unification of administrative management of the judicial branch- unification under the control of the Supreme Court. I opened and closed with that message. And I reminded the committee that the charge to the commission was fivefold before the additional one to find $1 million in savings in the judicial budget. I asked the committee to not allow that final add on (added one year after the commission was formed) to swallow the initial reason for its creation. The commission did find a million dollars in savings even though some of the commissioners did not like the recommendation they ultimately sent to the legislature. My message was, in short, to work on unification giving the court the management authority to make necessary changes to meet future budget challenges during future recessions. I took that position even if the savings aren’t attained in this budget year. That’s probably not likely to happen, actually as the chair of the Judiciary Committee wants to see some savings in the bill that emerges from his committee. Fine; there are possibilities for savings in other areas that wouldn’t require dismantling the probate court system as we know it.
After lunch the committee devoted its time to the probate court’s position. They heard from Attorney Ed Miller representing the probate judges as well as Judge George Belcher and Judge Toby Balivet, President of the Probate Judges’ Association. In short, they are asking the committee to reject the consolidation and maintain 14 probate courts as presently exist. Judge Belcher’s message was pretty clear- the savings from consolidation don’t equal the reduced access to justice that would result. He did comment on the language of the bill as it relates to jurisdiction of cases in a combined superior court with civil, criminal, family and probate divisions. The bill is pretty vague as to which case goes to which division and there is no guarantee that probate cases will go to the experienced probate judge. In fact, the VBA Board will be considering the language of the bill in this area and others at its meeting on Friday in Montreal. As soon as the Board settles its position, I will deliver the language to the judiciary committee and let you know what we’re offering. At least one committee member wants to retain the county based delivery of probate services even though it can be unified into a “superior” court. This may change staffing but probably not the number of judges. We’ll have to wait to see how this all works out.
Judge Balivet addressed the committee on the numbers. His calculation was that the savings the commission claims to be $1.2 million is really more like $440,000. the committee chair announced that he’s asked JFO (the Joint Fiscal Office), a non partisan office of the legislature to run the numbers. The judge made reference to the weighted caseload study the commission relied on which resulted in 6.35 probate judges. He did a salary and benefits calculation and came up with 7 probate judges; this is the minimum number the VBA Board thinks would work based on input from Bob Pratt. Again, the same committee member interested in retaining the county based system said his calculation resulted in 9. so the challenge is finding a workable solution from 5 to 14 judges and its resulting financial consequences.
I don’t know how long this process will take. I did submit names of members who responded to my emails to the Elder law and Probate and Trust Law Sections asking if they would like to testify. I hope the committee finds the time to hear from all of them. There are many others who will probably weigh in; some are: Vermont Bankers’ Association; Vermont Funeral Directors’ Association; Vermont Hospital Association; Vermont Health Care Association; Committee of Vermont Elders; Vermont Legal Aid Senior Citizens Law Project; and Vermont Adoption Council. And the there’s the Senate.
I’ll be out of the building for the next two days traveling to Montreal; attending the VBA Board meeting and taking part in a couple CLEs. I’ll report back next week. Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment