So it’s now one week since I met with the Speaker of the
House about the court’s budget and I’ve heard nothing from the supreme court
about the suggestion of fees to reduce the cutback. I gather from the testimony
of the court administrator (CA) yesterday at the house judiciary committee that
the court is ignoring that idea.
She proposed other money saving ideas to the committee;
well, sort of. The first is a proposal to add videoconferencing equipment to 7
correctional facilities to allow remote court hearings. The judiciary would
have to purchase not only those 7 but 14 for the 14 courthouses. The cost would
be $306,000. They are proposing a July pilot project in Chittenden County
followed by expansion in January. This should help reduce the sheriffs’
transportation costs of $2.2 million by about 25-30%. But, there will be no
savings in FY 16; there will be a net cost with savings to be seen in FY 17.
The court hopes to follow the lead of New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia.
This, as some of you may remember,
has been tried before but didn’t succeed. The CA attributed that to lack of
discipline in project management and the technology at the time, although New
Hampshire has apparently been doing it for 18 years.
The court does desperately need to cut back on transport fees
as over two million dollars a year is really not at all sustainable. But this
proposal does nothing to help the cut of $500 K that’s about to hit the
judiciary hard. I’ve spoken to some members of the committee who remain
confused as to what the court intends to do for the fiscal year beginning in 4
months. You can read about the video proposal here:
The question was asked about attorneys meeting their
clients. The CA responded that defense counsel could meet their clients before
a hearing or could travel to the correctional facility and meet with and appear
with their client from there. I wonder how that will work with some public
defenders who may have clients out on bail and in the correctional centers; how
do you appear for both say, for status conferences?
The court is having a bill drafted that will cover some other
issues. I was not given a copy of it. I expect that it will bypass some appeals
to the superior court and redirect them to the supreme court. I expect it to
say that appeals from magistrate decisions will go “on the record” to the supreme
court, bypassing the family court judge.
The proposal will also include probate hearings on the record
and appeals to the supreme court on that record. You readers will have to tell me
whether all probate courts are outfitted with the equipment needed to make that
record.
In divorce cases with substantial assets at stake or complex
business valuation issues, the court wants the authority to appoint a special
master to aid movement of the case through the family court.
Finally, and I’m not sure just what this could entail, the
CA spoke about the court seeking authority to change venue by rule. I believe
she said “up to four counties”. This is part of the court’s repetition of “right
sizing” the courts. Although the supreme court does not support closing courthouses.
This proposal will require some study and comment when it’s on paper.
I expect the House Judiciary Committee will return to these proposals
on Tuesday March 10 and Thursday March 12. Stay tuned.
This should shed more light on how bad things are:
Finally, the governor has made his appointments to the
Judicial Nominating Board; now we’re only awaiting the senate’s three names. I expect
legislative counsel will convene the Board after the senate appoints its three
members on Tuesday, March 10th. At the first organizational meeting
the Board will adopt rules and elect a chair. Then the governor is expected to
ask them to fill one judicial vacancy.
So, this is my last report until after the Town Meeting
break. Thanks as always for reading and don’t forget to buttonhole your reps
and senators next week and ask that the court be fully funded.
No comments:
Post a Comment