Transcript Proposed Budget Cuts Would Impede Courts’ Ability to

1
State Courts System Administration and
Clerk of Circuit Court Related Functions
Senate Criminal and Civil Justice
Appropriations Committee
March 5, 2009
Funding the State Courts System
and
Funding County Clerks:
Contrasts and Comparisons
“We simply cannot afford to hold on to the
old ways of doing business. We cannot
afford to hold sacrosanct programs that we
have supported in the past without testing
their merits or measuring their outcomes.
We cannot afford to assume that policies,
processes, procedures, or programs are
effective merely because they exist.”
Senate President Jeff Atwater
“…[T]he development of an accountability
system to insure that what we set out to
accomplish with the people’s money actually
gets done…if we thought it important
enough to appropriate money for it, then it’s
important enough to measure our success at
getting it done right.”
Senate President Jeff Atwater
Seven Principles for Stabilizing Court Funding
• The state court system developed a plan
encompassing seven basic principles to address
both the immediate economic crisis as well as
long-term, sustainable funding stability for the
unified state courts system
• Principle Five: Additional or increased filing fees
should be considered, but only after an adequate
review of the distribution of the current filing fee
revenue has been made
Contrasts and Comparisons
• Courts are funded from state funds, and so
are clerks for their court-related functions
• Clerks are funded entirely from court-related
revenue, as set forth in the state constitution
• State constitution allows for courts to be
partially funded from court-related revenues
• The clerks’ budget process established in
Chapter 28 is not required in the constitution
Contrasts and Comparisons
• Courts have budgets appropriated by the
Legislature and administered under Chapter
216, Fla. Stat.
• Clerks’ budgets are not appropriated by the
Legislature and are administered under
Chapter 28, Fla. Stat.
Contrasts and Comparisons
Chapter 216 – Court Statutory
Budget Controls
Chapter 28 – Clerk Statutory
Budget Controls
• Courts submit budgets to
Legislature based on analysis of
judicial need. Legislature reviews
and appropriates court budgets.
• Clerks submit budgets to CCOC
based on amount of money they
project they will collect.
• Public hearing is required with
submission of annual budget
request to the Legislature.
• Court budgets reviewed in
legislative appropriations
committees.
• Governor may exercise veto
authority over any line item in
court budgets.
• Functions of CCOC are carried
out by executive council of 8 clerks
who review and certify these
budgets.
• CCOC certifies to Sen. President,
Speaker, CFO, and DOR the
budgets, projected revenue, and
each clerk eligible to retain some
or all of the state’s share of fines,
fees, service charges and costs.
Contrasts and Comparisons
Chapter 216 – Court Statutory
Budget Controls
Chapter 28 – Clerk Statutory
Budget Controls
• Appropriations made by
Legislature are maximum
appropriations.
• CFO reviews CCOC budget
certification.
• Federal funds and all other
revenue sources require
appropriation by Legislature.
• Amendments to court budgets
require notice, review, and
approval by Legislature.
• Court budgets require
performance measures and
standards to be submitted to the
Legislature.
• Estimated revenues for clerks’
budgets include cash balances
brought forward from the prior
fiscal period, projected fees,
service charges, court costs, and
fines.
• Clerks’ budgets may include a
contingency reserve of up to 10%.
• Clerks’ budgets require
performance measures and
standards.
Contrasts and Comparisons
Chapter 216 – Court Statutory
Budget Controls
Chapter 28 – Clerk Statutory
Budget Controls
• Court budgets are subject to
annual cash release plans set by
the Governor and CFO.
• The LBC may approve increases
to maximum annual clerks’
budgets to provide for new or
additional functions due to
changes in law, or to pay for the
costs of supporting increases in
the number of judges or
magistrates.
• Courts must cover any
projected deficits from within
their legislatively authorized
budget.
• Actions to cover statewide
deficits that impact court budgets
are directed in statute.
• Court budgets do not have a
contingency reserve.
• Clerks may increase the amount
of FTE in their budgets, within
annual caps.
Contrasts and Comparisons
Chapter 216 – Court Statutory
Budget Controls
Chapter 28 – Clerk Statutory
Budget Controls
• Court GR budgets revert to
state at end of each fiscal year for
use by the Legislature.
• Clerks may increase the amount
of their budgets if revenue is
available, within annual revenue
caps.
• Courts may not initiate new
programs without Legislative
authority.
• Salary rate is appropriated by
the Legislature to control
maximum amounts authorized for
salaries of court employees.
Contrasts and Comparisons
Chapter 216 – Court Statutory
Budget Controls
• Court employee salaries are set
in the approved classification and
pay plan for the branch.
• Court budgets may not provide
for general salary increases or
bonuses without legislative
authorization.
• Court budgets may not exceed
the amount of legislatively
authorized positions.
Chapter 28 – Clerk Statutory
Budget Controls
Total “Court Related” Revenue From Filing Fees, Fines, Service Charges,
and Court Costs FY 2008-09 (including 12A)
Other 1790 Traffic Other, including 12A
Summons $6.5 Fines $28.4
$10.4
$7.9
DUI $13.6
Directly
to GR
Evictions $28.0
Traffic Admin Fee
$42.5
Countersuits $9.1
Total Revenue:
$981.1 million
$80 per filing $58.2
Program
Earmarks*
$179.7
*Includes $13.4 million for
Mediation and Court Education
Trust Fund, $10.8 for the State
Courts Revenue Trust Fund, and
$3.7 for the SA and PD Trust Fund.
Clerk/GR "2/3 1/3
Split" $596.8
(Based on Revenue
Estimating Conference
Estimate)
Note: Clerks take in
additional revenue from
the Documentary Stamp
Tax and the Intangible
Class C Tax that are not
included in this chart.
Sources of Court
System’s Budget:
89.5% General Revenue
3.8% Filing Fee Revenue
2.5% Fine Revenue
4.2% Other Sources
Clerk of Court “Court-Related” Estimated Revenue Sources –
After Earmarks to GR and Other Programs: FY 2008-09
Total Revenue
$550.7 million*
*Source: Florida Clerk of Court Operations Corporation, FY 2008/09 Certified Article V Budgets
Contrasts and Comparisons
Court System Budgets
Clerks Budgets
FY 08/09:
$433 million
4,137.50 FTEs
FY 08/09:
$539 million
9,645.49 FTEs
FY 07/08:
$467 million
4,391.50 FTEs
FY 07/08:
$502 million
9,378.83 FTEs
Contrasts and Comparisons
Clerks of Court and State Courts System
Expenditures vs. Budget
$600,000,000
33%
13%
22%
23%
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
FY 2004-05
FY 2005-06
$300,000,000
FY 2006-07
FY 2007-08
FY 2008-09
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
Clerk Budget
Court Budget
Clerk Expenditures
Court Expenditures
Clerks expenditures excludes amount budgeted for capital; data is unknown.
Source: Florida State Courts System. Florida CCOC, Certified Article V Budget. Clerk expenditure as reported in CCOC Executive Council meeting materials,
November 8,2008.
One-third of all fines, fees, service charges, and costs collected by the
clerks of the court during the prior month for the performance of courtrelated functions shall be remitted to the Department of Revenue for
deposit into the Department of Revenue Clerks of the Court Trust Fund.
§28.37, F.S.
Clerks of Court
Projected FY 2008/09 Revenue - $550.7 Million*
Clerk Budget
($539.2 mil)
1/3
Budgeted to be sent to
GR ($11.5 mil) –
Actual 1/3 of projected
revenue is $183.6 million
*Source:
2/3
Florida Clerk of Court Operations Corporation, FY 2008/09 Certified Article V Budgets
Contrasts and Comparisons
• The clerk budget model is workload based. When
workload goes up and creates additional revenue, an
individual clerk is able to add resources within their
revenue caps.
• The budget model for Judicial Branch entities,
including the courts, is needs based. The
Legislature determines the budget priorities for the
courts, state attorneys, public defenders, regional
counsels, and guardian ad litem programs, and
determines the level of resources provided to
address increased workloads.
Contrasts and Comparisons
Miami-Dade
SRS Circuit and County Filings
FY 06/07 to FY 07/08
1,000,000
Miami-Dade
Comparison of Clerk Budget
and Court Budget
$100,000,000
14% Increase
21% Increase
800,000
$80,000,000
6% Decrease
600,000
$60,000,000
FY 07/08
400,000
$40,000,000
200,000
$20,000,000
0
$0
FY 06/07
FY 07/08
FY 08/09
Clerk Budget
Court Budget
Questions
• Clerks determine not only their need for
additional resources based on workload, but
also the number of FTEs, salary rates,
employee pay raises, and bonuses, which is a
separate budgetary decision.
• Court employees get what is approved by the
Legislature for all state employees.
Questions
• Of the 42 county clerks who have responded to the courts’
February 12th public records request:
▫ 32 clerks reported giving bonuses, merit increases,
longevity increases, and/or COLAs
▫ 16 clerks gave more than one of these increases to
employees
▫ 29 clerks gave all or almost all employees COLAs or
merit increases
▫ Bonuses range from $50 to $2,500
▫ Merit/Longevity increases range from $45 to $4,551
▫ COLAs range from 2% to 4%
▫ Many clerks pay the full health insurance premium for
all employees
Court-Related Functions
of County Clerks
Established in Chapter 28
Clerks’ Court-Related Services
•
•
•
•
Case maintenance
Records management
Court preparation and attendance
Processing the assignment, reopening, and
reassignment of cases
• Processing appeals
• Collection and distribution of fines, fees, service
charges, and court costs
• Processing bond forfeiture payments
Clerks’ Court-Related Services
• Payment of jurors and witnesses
• Payment of expenses for meals or lodging
provided to jurors
• Data collection and reporting
• Processing jurors
• Determinations of indigent status
• Keeping progress dockets
• Disposal of evidence
• Pro se assistance
Challenges
• The amendment to Article V known as Revision 7
created a statewide court system; however, 20 chief
judges rely on 67 independent clerks for support,
limiting opportunities to increase uniformity
and/or standardization
• Performance of court-related duties varies by
county since each clerk is only designing and
implementing work processes for that one county
• Accountability of chief judges for administrative
supervision of their circuits is difficult when courtrelated functions are handled 67 different ways
Challenges
• OPPAGA Report No. 01-54, written regarding
Revision 7 implementation, acknowledged that:
“the state’s ability to hold these officers
[clerks] accountable for providing
standardized state services will be very
limited”
Challenges
• Splitting Case Maintenance and Case Management
functions is not working from the court system’s perspective
• Due to funding scheme, clerks have resources to build both
local case maintenance systems and the statewide
Comprehensive Case Information System (CCIS)
▫ $1.90 of each recording fee to local clerk for
technology
▫ $1.00/first page and $0.50/each additional page,
for each instrument listed in s. 28.222, Fla. Stat.,
to be deposited in the Public Records
Modernization Trust Fund
▫ $0.10 of each recording fee to Florida Association
of Court Clerks for CCIS
Challenges
• In a Revision 7 implementation study
conducted in 2003, 738 distinct
information systems were in place in the
clerk’s offices to support court activity.
Challenges
• Courts’ technology resources
▫ $2.00 of each recording fee shared by
courts, state attorneys, public defenders,
guardians ad litem, and regional conflict
counsels
▫ Some counties provide other technology
funding
• No funding from Legislature for statewide case
management system
• Courts have limited case management systems
available only in some circuits
Challenges
• Courts lack reliable case data needed to meet their
case management needs:
“Judges frequently voiced concerns about the accuracy of
case data reported to them by their county clerks… Several
circuits reported that while county clerks have assigned
dedicated staff to try to improve the accuracy of clerks’
data, the data was still inaccurate and sometimes internally
inconsistent… Judges also questioned whether
management reports generated from clerk data contained
all the information they needed to effectively oversee case
management… Previous studies have identified similar
problems and concerns with court data systems.”
OPPAGA Report No. 09-06
Conclusion
• Current division of responsibilities does not
provide opportunities for standardization that
could result in efficiencies and improved court
performance
• Courts do not have adequate case management
information to assess and improve performance