« Law - "Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web": Students at Yale Law and Indiana University Feel Effects of Anonymous Attacks | Main | Ind. Courts - "The town court judge in Yorktown doesn't take her job lightly" »

Saturday, September 06, 2008

Ind. Courts - More on: Commission on Courts discussion of judicial mandates

Updating this ILB entry from Friday, where several speakers, including Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, suggested that a solution to the judicial mandate problem at the local level, where the mandates involve the funding of salaries for court employees, would be a move to totally state funding, the ILB has reviewed the Kernan-Shepard Report. The 46-page report, issued Dec. 11, 2007, is available here. Here is Recommendation #7 from the report, found on p. 23 of the document:

Recommendation #7: Transfer the responsibility for all funding of the state’s trial court system to the state, including public defenders and probation.

By state law, Indiana trial courts have responsibility for criminal, civil and juvenile cases and for providing probation officers and public defenders. But most funding for these courts and court personnel is provided by county [property] taxes. This system of county funding for personnel and programs, required by state law, has created inherent tensions between county governments and the judiciary. In addition, inequities exist among counties’ caseloads, personnel and probation and public defender programs. This means that some Hoosiers are denied prompt access to courts and court services simply because they live in a county unable to support its local courts at the same level as others.

While trial court judges would continue to be responsible for local court personnel and administration, state funding would improve the judiciary’s ability to allocate resources where they are needed most. This would help assure equal access to courts, probation, services and public defenders. In addition, state funding would reduce costs by allowing purchasing to be done on a larger scale.

We recommend that the state assume funding for the state’s trial court system, including probation officers and public defenders, so that the Indiana courts can meet the needs of the people they serve; conflicts with county government be eliminated; equal access can be assured; and economies of scale can be achieved.

Because state money, court costs and user fees already finance so much of court expenses, and because implementation should be a multi-year project, the fiscal impact should be manageable.

“The Indiana Judges Association has long supported, and continues to support, transferring the financing of Indiana trial courts to state government.” - Judge Thomas J. Felts, President Indiana Judges Association Allen Circuit Court Ft. Wayne, Indiana.

“There is a crying need to reduce the tensions that often arise between Indiana trial courts and county government over the funding courts and courts services.” - Judge Peggy Quint Lohorn Montgomery Superior Court Crawfordsville, Indiana

Re the statement: "Because state money, court costs and user fees already finance so much of court expenses ...", the ILB hopes to be able to post a break-down. This question was brought up at the recent Commission on Courts meeting and they were promised an answer at the next meeting. Or perhaps a reader can help?

[More] The ILB has located this document, the Fall 2001 issue of Indiana Court Times, a publication of the Division of State Court Administration. The main story in the issue is the introduction of HB 1003 (2001), a tax restructuring bill which would include an increased state role in trial court funding. (A check of the bill's history shows it subsequently passed the House and died in the Senate finance committee.) Some quotes from the story:

Appellate courts in Indiana have been financially supported by the State. However, county governments have incurred most of the net expense of trial courts. While trial court finances are a small part of the entire overall property tax restructuring plan, HB 1003, if enacted, would shift a substantial portion of trial court funding from counties to the state, resulting in a reduction of local property tax levies in the various counties. Trial court operations would then be supported in large measure by statewide income and sales taxes. * * *

Current trial court structure and jurisdiction are not affected. Also not affected is current trial court authority “to employ, manage, or fix the salary of … personnel necessary to transact the business of the court,” to operate a probation department, or to administer the court. These key statutory provisions strongly reaffirm the principle of local judicial management of trial court personnel and operations, consistent with Supreme Court rules.

The Supreme Court is assembling committees of trial court judges to recommend policies and procedures for the development, submission, and review of budgets and any personnel or administrative guidelines occasioned by the new funding procedures if adopted. We anticipate these recommendations of trial court judges will be adopted by the Supreme Court as the policies, procedures, and guidelines governing budgets, personnel, and administration under the new system.

In addition to judiciary expenses currently paid by state government, HB 1003 would shift to the state responsibility for payment of salaries and state level fringe benefits of “other” judicial officers, court reporters, bailiffs, court administrators, secretaries, law clerks and other salaried and non-salaried trial court personnel, starting with those authorized by court budgets previously approved for 2002. With stated exceptions, the State would pay operating expenses of all Circuit, Superior, Probate, and County courts. Included in the State pick-up would be the current portions that some counties pay of the salaries of such judicial officers as juvenile magistrates and small claims referees. * * *

Included in trial court expenses to be paid by the state are jury per diems, witness fees, medical and psychiatric fees, pro tem fees and lodging and meals of jurors. As a general rule, the state would pay all trial court operating costs that are not specified in the bill to be the responsibility of counties. The fiscal impact of the proposal assumes an inflationary factor for ensuing fiscal years, based upon historical data. * * *

Commencing with the year 2003, each court will submit a budget to the Division of State Court Administration. The Division is required to compile the trial court budgets and to assist the Supreme Court in preparing and submitting a unified court budget to the General Assembly. All salaries which become the obligation of the state would be paid by the state directly. As a result of discussions with the State Budget Director, the legislation includes authority to permit a system of advance block payments from the State Auditor to county treasurers in order to provide trial courts with funds for other operating expenses at the local level.

In the end, if a similar effort to move to state funding is successful, rather than local judges submitting their budgets to county councils, local judges' recourse would become the Division of State Court Administration. And the potential for a judicial funding mandate would be elevated to the State level -- as the Supreme Court would be submitting its state-wide judicial budget to the General Assembly.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 6, 2008 08:07 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts