Court advocates want courts to decide on spending

SACRAMENTO — Advocates for the trial courts are working to protect the millions of dollars in long-sought new funding in the state budget and the courts’ discretion over how to use it.

“The budget as it was proposed really reflects what we think are the consensus priorities of the members of the judicial branch,” Judicial Council Administrative Director Martin Hoshino told an Assembly budget subcommittee during a hearing on Monday.

“There’s no daylight between the courts, the council, the chief and the Department of Finance on this,” said Alameda County Superior Court Presiding Judge Wynne S. Carvill. “We fully support the budget as proposed.”

Courts are slated to receive more than $4 billion for the 2018-19 fiscal year, an increase of $188 million over the previous year’s revised final budget, according to the hearing agenda. The budget includes $47.9 million for underfunded courts, $25.9 million for increased retirement and health costs, and $34.1 million to backfill reduced fine and fee collections. It also commits to 10 courthouse construction projects.

The committee was tasked with taking a deep dive into the proposed court budget — and paid particular attention to $75 million in new discretionary funds for the courts. Witnesses included a long list of judges, labor union representatives, legal aid advocates and others.

Even with new money to work with, old divides remained: in particular, divides between the courts and the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan agency that advises state lawmakers. As in previous years, the analyst’s office questioned the court’s funding priorities and urged the Legislature to seek greater control over the money.

“We recommend that whatever additional funding be provided in relation to Legislative priorities rather than allowing the Judicial Council to make those decisions,” said principal fiscal and policy analyst Anita Lee. “Right now it’s unclear how the $75 million would be spent because the Judicial Council would have complete flexibility.”

The budget calls for much of this money to be used on projects identified by the Judicial Council’s Commission on the Future of California’s Court System. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye convened the commission in 2014 to examine the courts to find ways to modernize and streamline operations.

Lee said the commission has not provided a cost-benefit analysis for each proposal, making them difficult to evaluate. She questioned the formula the Judicial Council uses to determine the workload of each county court.

But Lee got pushback from several witnesses. Speaking on behalf of the California Judges Association, the Consumer Attorneys of California and other groups, lobbyist Mike Belote said the courts are not going to squander the “significant new opportunity” the improving state budget has provided.

“The civil system was particularly and disproportionately hit for constitutional reasons during the great recession.” Belote said. “This is a chance to catch up.”

Hoshino also defended the Judicial Council’s ability to determine the best use of the money through its many committees.

“It’s not unlike the legislative process,” Hoshino said. “It will be the council, but that decision is so well informed by a lot of articulation on the lower committees and membership that it is almost a distinction without a difference.”

Much of the debate focused on courthouse construction, in particular 10 projects funded under the current budget. The single biggest project is a new main superior courthouse for Sacramento that will cost $460 million to build, according to the committee analysis. In last year’s budget process, legislators kept funding for the Sacramento courthouse against a recommendation from the analyst’s office to cut it.

Mike Courtney, the director of the Judicial Council’s capital program, testified that these projects were deemed high priority based on criteria including better security to keep criminal suspects away from jurors and other litigants, reducing overcrowding, addressing safety issues like fire exits, and improving access to court services.

“All the buildings in the budget as proposed are listed as immediate or critical,” Courtney testified.

Of the 10, he added, five are already fully permitted. Some had appeared in past budget proposals but ended up not getting funding due to shortfalls in the Judicial Council’s main construction account.

“A couple of these projects would already be done,” he added.