Here’s a short update and what’s happening both on a
substantive issue and on the funding crisis in the judicial branch. The House
Judiciary Committee is nearing completion of its review of the Uniform Transfer
to Minors Act. Yesterday, legislative counsel Erik FitzPatrick presented some amendments
to the committee that were requested last week. After discussion and a few more
changes, he emailed them to Stephanie Willbanks, Joe Cook, Mark Langan, and me.
Stephanie weighed in with one comment as did I; pending any issues that may be
raised by Joe or Mark, the Committee may vote the bill out as early as 1:30
today.
Tomorrow the Committee will focus on the H.86 - An act
relating to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Uniform Law Commissioner
Richard Cassidy will testify and VBA Family Law Section Chair Penny Benelli
will also. I’ll post an update when there’s more to report on that.
On the judiciary budget front, you now know that H. 82, the
budget adjustment act is out of committee, on today’s Notice Calendar and up
for action Thursday and Friday on the House floor. Yesterday the Senate
Appropriations Committee heard from the court administrator on the $224,138 cut
in this year’s budget. Although I continue to deliver the message I’ve heard
from many of you that these cuts are damaging access to justice, the judiciary
seems willing to manage to that level of reduced funding. Every state agency
(yes, I know we’re talking about a branch and not an agency or department) is
expected to keep about a 3% vacancy savings. The judiciary now carries a 3.5%
vacancy. The cuts in the budget adjustment bill would force them to raise that
to 7-8%; too much to ask, I’d say. The question for you the reader is whether a
branch of government should be forced to operate at that reduced level. When does
that reduction affect the constitutional obligation of the judicial branch? And,
if, as some of you are telling me, the answer is NOW, what should we do about
it? I will continue to deliver your message to the legislature. My hands are a
bit tied though since the court is acceding to the reduction.
So, back to yesterday’s hearing. There are a couple of
highlights I want you all to know. Senator Sears pressed court administrator
Pat Gabel on the costs of court security ($2.5M). He thinks they’re spending
too much on security. He’s looking for the governor’s recommended $500,000 cut
in next year’s budget. He said he’d be willing to discuss court closings if the
court administrator has a recommendation on saving some of the “wasted” money
spent on security.
In response to the letter to the Chief Justice by the House
Appropriations Committee last Friday, she said the court is prepared to convene
and lead a process that includes all the parties. (The VBA is one of the
parties copied in that letter). She raised two other topics: the potential regionalization
of certain dockets and, not closing courts but “right sizing courts”.
When Senator Sears asked about the court’s decision to not
fill the Environmental Division manager’s position, Pat said the following: she
had been tasked by the supreme court to report to them (within 60 days) on the “regionalization
of management”. That was new to me. She had previously told me, as had the
Chief, that the court had not made a final decision on filling that position. Now,
it appears to be tied to something that we’ve not heard before.
Finally, Senator Sears raised the issue of consolidating
probate courts again. As many of you may recall when H. 470, the judicial restructuring
bill, was introduced it reduced the number of probate courts from the then 18
to 5! The VBA opposed that in 2010 and the final act settled on 14 courts. He’s
bringing it up again as a way to reach the $500,000 savings the governor is looking
for. Pat Gabel made it clear that that is not the judiciary’s recommendation.
So, where does this leave us? I expect the budget adjustment
debate is over; it’s certainly too late to change anything in the House. Now is
the time for each of you to contact your senators and let them know the effect
these cuts are having on your clients’ access to justice. As one person, I can
only do so much. Nothing beats a constituent contacting a legislator. It would
be even better if you could get a client story before your senator.
Thanks for reading. Send me any comments or questions you may
have.
