February 17, 2010

I’ve finally found a few minutes to report on what’s been going on Tuesday and today. We’re moving into crunch time if the House Judiciary Committee hopes to get the restructuring bill out of committee before Friday, February 26th when the Town Meeting recess begins. But this week the House Government Operations Committee returned to hearing testimony on the bill, H. 470. They are looking at issues surrounding the incorporation of county employees into the state system; the creation of new electoral districts for the probate districts; and the number of probate districts/courts/judges. I was able to finally present the VBA position on the Commission report to the Government Operations Committee this morning. Judge Davenport, who had testified earlier this morning, told the committee that the five probate district recommendation is not going anywhere. So the debate will be how to construct the district map and how many FTE judges there will be. The other morning witnesses were all probate judges: Judges Balivet, Bruce and Lewis. They addressed issues of staffing, budget, caseload, adequacy of time, benefits, etc. Judge Balivet said that it was hard for the probate judges to not feel as though there was a target printed on their backs. He said that the total judiciary budget is about $36M with the probate portion about $3M. Yet the commission recommended a $1M cut. Judge Davenport pointed out that there will also be significant staff savings as well as savings from the reduction in services in Grand Isle and Essex Counties.
While this was going on and I was there the House Judiciary Committee met to begin trying to reach some consensus on the bill itself. I understand that they discussed the E court again; jurisdiction issues; and issues of venue. Besides the general concept of unification there remain many smaller issues that when you drill down require a good bit of thought and debate. For example, yesterday Judge Manley and Judge Belcher jointly testified to the overlapping jurisdiction of family and probate court in minor guardianship cases.
You know I certainly welcome your feedback or questions on anything that I report to you here; my contact email is bpaolini@vtbar.org. I also welcome questions on bills that I don’t report on. If I can find the answer for you I will. Just as an aside, I recently got my first pushback on this blog from a reader. Let’s just refer to that reader as TGW. Anyway, TGW thinks that my recent reporting is more ‘advocacy” that reporting. Although I disagreed, I am now thinking what would be wrong with advocacy? After all this is the VBA’s blog. Maybe I’m not as impartial as some would like when I report on what I am doing or saying on behalf of the VBA Board of Managers.
Yesterday the Senate gave preliminary approval to its version of H. 533, the military parental rights bill. They will return to it on Friday. House Judiciary will look at the Senate passed language then also and decide whether to concur or request a committee of conference. We hope it’s the former so this bill can be sent to the governor for signature. Remember that if that is what happens, the changes to the law will take effect immediately. We’ll keep you posted.
I’m heading back to the statehouse soon for continued House Judiciary work on H, 470, followed by a 3:30 hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee at which the Chief Justice, Justice Dooley and CA Bob Greemore are expected to make the judiciary’s case for its FY11 budget. Then at 5PM, the Joint Committee on Judicial Retention will give Judges Durkin, Howard, and Toor the opportunity to comment in response to last week’s public hearing. I’ll update you on these afternoon and evening events tomorrow. Thanks for reading.