MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 5, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:07 a.m., on Friday, March 5, 1993, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Jan Evans
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard Perkins
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Robert E. Price (Excused)
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
SUPREME COURT - PAGE 75
The Honorable Robert Rose, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, introduced Justice Miriam Shearing; Mr. Don Mello, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts; Mr. Bill Maier, Chief of Financial Management; Mr. Mike Wall, Supervising Staff Attorney; Ms. Janette Bloom, Clerk of the Court and Ms. Susan Southwick, Law Librarian.
Justice Rose stated the Supreme Court was not proposing to cut its budget. He explained budget cuts would be irresponsible in light of the dramatic growth in caseload. He noted the Legislature had been very good to the Supreme Court. He expressed thanks for the new Supreme Court complex.
Justice Rose reported the Court requested only one new position in judicial education because it was currently at the optimum staffing level. Current staff was able to handle 1,000 to 1,100 cases. Additional personnel would not increase productivity significantly because all of the cases handled by staff still ultimately were funneled to the five justices. Additional staff would create a work load which the justices would be unable to handle.
Justice Rose noted in 1975 the Legislature had established a Judicial Commission to study the work loads in Nevada courts. The Judicial Commission had predicted a crisis in the Nevada Supreme Court if an intermediate appellate court was not established in the near future. The matter had been defeated by the voters in 1980 and again in 1992.
Justice Rose reported cases averaged approximately 100 per month. The Court was able to handle approximately 1,000 cases per year and productivity was falling behind. Most cases were disposed of by order. Opinions were written for 200 or fewer cases per year. Most other supreme courts wrote a greater number of opinions.
Justice Rose indicated the Utah Supreme Court was similar to Nevada's. The Utah court prioritized cases and processed the highest priority cases first. However, the backlog of cases in Utah grew to the point where it took several years to process some cases. Utah then legislatively established an intermediate appellate court which added 7 appellate justices to the court system.
Justice Rose stated Nevada's case load was similar to Utah's. One of the mechanisms the Nevada court was using to keep up was to issue orders dismissing appeal rather than writing opinions for each case. A second mechanism was to increase the number of staff attorneys and law clerks to do the preliminary work on opinions.
Justice Rose indicated the Court had now reached optimum productivity, however. As the caseload increased, the length of time to process cases would also increase. Caseload was projected to increase to 1,500 to 1,800 per year by the year 2000 and the backlog would become a colossal problem.
Mr. Marvel inquired about the cost to implement an appellate court. Justice Rose answered the ballot had indicated the fiscal impact would be $2.7 million to $3 million for a 3-judge court. Justice Rose estimated the cost would be under $2 million and it would be money well spent.
Mr. Marvel asked if the issue would be put before the voters again. Justice Rose responded the Court had been encouraged by the Senate Finance Committee to resubmit a bill for a constitutional amendment to provide for an appellate court. However, amending the constitution would be a 5-year process. The Court was looking at short-term measures to increase productivity but the larger cases would take 1 to 2 years to process.
Mr. Marvel questioned whether the Court had a system of prioritizing cases. Justice Rose replied cases were prioritized. Three-quarters of the cases were channeled through staff. One-quarter of the cases went directly to the justices and law clerks. Death penalty, child custody, attorney discipline and important social interest cases were given priority.
Justice Rose indicated increases requested in the budget included an increase in law clerk salaries as an enticement to lengthen their service commitment from one year to two years in order to increase productivity following the 6-month training period. Additionally, staff attorneys had lost salary parity with other state attorneys in the 1991-93 budget. In fact, some Supreme Court attorneys had taken salary cuts.
Mr. Wall explained the 1989 Legislature had undertaken to place all state attorneys on a scale of rough parity. The salary set for staff attorney IV positions was $45,500 each. At that time most of the Supreme Court attorneys had not reached level IV and were paid slightly less than $45,500. However, each was told they could achieve level IV as they acquired the necessary experience. The 1991 unclassified pay bill set the salary for one staff attorney IV at $47,000, for one staff attorney IV at approximately $45,000 and for each staff attorney III at $44,388. The Supreme Court staff already included three staff attorneys IV who were being paid $45,500. One of those attorneys received a salary increase to $47,000, one received a $500 decrease and one received over a $1,000 decrease. Within the next three months three additional attorneys achieved level IV but they were not able to move up to the $45,500 level and remained at the $44,500 level. Not only did they not receive the 4 percent increase provided to other state employees, they actually took a $1,000 decrease as the result of the 1991 legislation. The Court was now requesting modest increases for those attorneys to bring them all to the same salary level. He pointed out staff attorneys with equal experience and equal value to the Court were being paid at three separate levels, which contributed to poor morale.
Mr. Spitler asked Mr. Wall to provide to the committee a breakdown of the pay schedule for current staff attorneys and the turnover related to the salary disparity. Mr. Wall agreed to do so.
Mr. Spitler inquired whether staff attorneys were on 8-hour or 7-hour work schedules. Mr. Wall answered the business hours of the Court Clerk's office were 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Staff attorneys were required to keep the 9:00 to 5:00 schedule. In addition they were required to work at least 40 hours per week. Some attorneys worked 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Others worked 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Missed hours were made up on weekends. He reported every staff attorney worked more than the 40 hours required.
Mr. Marvel asked what the rate of attorney turnover was. Mr. Wall replied he had lost 3 of 7 staff attorneys over the current biennium. He noted part of the turnover rate was due to the fact the position had traditionally been viewed as a 3-year position and part was due to the salary. The Court was trying to keep staff attorneys longer than 3 years.
Mr. Marvel inquired whether any Supreme Court attorneys had been lost to the Attorney General. Mr. Wall said attorneys had not moved to the Attorney General's Office recently. Three attorneys had been lost to district attorneys' offices and two went to private law firms.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Wall to also provide job descriptions for staff attorneys. Mr. Wall agreed to do so.
Justice Rose addressed the court computerization program. He explained an appropriation of $244,000 was made by the 1991 Legislature to implement the computer program. The Court consulted with IBM on a needs assessment. The needs assessment was now complete and the Court was in the process of screening software and hardware packages to implement the program. The Court was hopeful the system would be on-line in the summer of 1993.
Ms. Bloom said following the IBM needs assessment the Court had sought additional guidance from computer consultants. Vendor bids were as high as $400,000. The vendor selected bid $65,000. The Court had been working with that vendor for the past year to evaluate the various software packages used by the supreme courts and courts of appeal throughout the country. She noted there were not many commercial packages available for use at the appellate level.
Ms. Bloom explained the Court had delayed purchasing hardware until a software package was purchased. The evaluation study suggested a PC-based system would be most appropriate for the Court.
Chairman Arberry questioned why the Court needed a computer system. Ms. Bloom replied the system would automate case management and provide legal research capability similar to the NELIS system used by the Legislature. The system would permit automated indexing and cross-referencing of unpublished decisions and would provide computerized records storage and case histories for the Clerk's Office. The Court envisioned a system which would eventually make court records accessible to attorneys and the public through terminals in the Las Vegas and Carson City offices.
Chairman Arberry asked if additional staff would be required to operate the system. Ms. Bloom said existing staff could operate the system although some temporary data entry staff might be required to input information regarding closed cases.
Chairman Arberry asked when the system would be on-line. Ms. Bloom replied the legal research system would be on-line within the Court in the summer of 1993. The records storage system for the Clerk's Office would have to be customized and would be on-line sometime later. Public assess was a future goal.
Mrs. Evans asked what services were purchased for $65,000. Ms. Bloom responded the $65,000 paid for technical assistance in reviewing available software and to ensure flexibility in the system to accommodate future changes within the Court such as an intermediate appellate court and a network connecting the district courts throughout the state.
Mrs. Evans stated the Court was wise to procure expert assistance. She asked when it would be determined what software and hardware would be purchased and what the total cost would be. Ms. Bloom answered an implementation plan was expected from the consultant by the end of March 1993. Mrs. Evans asked Ms. Bloom to provide the plan to the committee. Ms. Bloom agreed to do so.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Bloom to provide to the subcommittee a description of the present computer system. She inquired whether there were currently any data processing staff within the Court. Ms. Bloom responded there were word processors on staff and one staff member who coordinated computer repairs.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she was curious why Supreme Court data processing staff had not been linked to the proposed reorganization. Ms. Bloom stated the Department of Data Processing had assisted the Court throughout the computer selection process.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Supreme Court could access the NELIS system. Ms. Bloom said the Court had explored linking its hardware to the NELIS system. She was not certain what the Legislative Counsel Bureau's position was regarding the computer link.
Ms. Tiffany asked what data base the Court would be using. Ms. Bloom stated the data base had not yet been defined.
Ms. Tiffany asked who the Court was working with in the Department of Data Processing to ensure uniform standards were followed. Ms. Bloom responded she was working with Karen Kavanau and Roberta McDonald. In addition the consultants had met with representatives of the Department of Data Processing. The Court was attempting to ensure its system would not be isolated from the state system.
Ms. Tiffany inquired whether a representative of the Department of Data Processing was involved in the evaluation process. Ms. Bloom responded affirmatively.
Ms. Tiffany asked how much of the $244,000 appropriation remained. Mr. Mello answered approximately $160,000 was remaining. Ms. Tiffany questioned whether $160,000 was sufficient to implement the system. Mr. Mello indicated additional funding was available from the Uniform Register of Actions budget. The Court was comfortable sufficient funding was available to complete the project.
Ms. Tiffany asked what the $244,000 one-shot appropriation was allotted for. Mr. Mello stated it was initially anticipated the cost of the system would be over $1 million. There was not $1 million available in the Uniform Register of Actions budget so the $244,000 one-shot appropriation was made to the budget. The one-shot appropriation was not intended to fund the entire project.
Ms. Tiffany asked how many PCs would be purchased. Ms. Bloom said approximately 30 Pcs would be purchased. Ms. Tiffany inquired what the total cost would be. Mr. Mello indicated the total cost should be under $500,000.
Justice Rose said he would like to address a study he had proposed in several budgets. He explained it was problematic for two reasons: 1) it would be difficult to locate funding for a judicial study and 2) there was currently a substantial shortfall in administrative assessment fees. He noted approximately 40 percent of the budget was comprised of administrative assessment fees, i.e., assessments made against criminal violators. As of January 1993 the shortfall in the total Supreme Court budget amounted to approximately $300,000. He distributed copies of graphs demonstrating the decrease in administrative assessment revenue (Exhibit C). He suggested there would have to be a dramatic recovery in administrative assessment revenue to maintain the status quo. He noted the Administrative Office of the Courts was developing alternative plans. Chairman Arberry requested copies of those alternative plans. Justice Rose agreed to provide the plans.
Mrs. Chowning said she was aware of one Municipal Court judge who, because of his anger at the administrative assessments, had substantially reduced fines and was providing alternative penalties which would be deposited into the judge's own fund for distribution as he saw fit. She asked how collection of administrative assessments were monitored.
Mr. Mello indicated each judge was autonomous with respect to collecting administrative assessments. He suggested a letter to the editor or to the city council would be appropriate. He explained one of the duties of the Administrative Office of the Courts was to examine the dockets and records of the various courts. Such an examination could reveal the judge's activity and legislation could be proposed to correct the situation. However, the Court did not have sufficient staff to perform the examination function.
Justice Rose stated a number of states had futures commissions to study the impact of growth on the judiciary and to project future needs. Many innovative programs had resulted from the studies, including easier access to courts, evening courts and more friendly court procedures. The courts and the people of the states had benefitted greatly. In addition, those states had plans for handling further growth.
Justice Rose suggested Nevada establish a 10-person commission comprised of representatives from the business community, labor, community activists, judges and attorneys. He noted the Supreme Court budget included $240,000 to perform a needs assessment to predict the course of the urban court system in Las Vegas-Henderson, Reno and Sparks for the next 10 years. He explained he did not include the remainder of the state in the assessment in the interest of cost. He noted a benchmark study had never been conducted in Nevada to determine whether the courts were meeting the needs of the people of the state.
Justice Rose said the National Center of Supreme Courts advised a needs assessment would cost approximately $50,000. Additional analysis of problem areas and processes within the various courts would bring the cost to $100,000. The budget included another $10,000 for travel costs and $10,000 for miscellaneous expenses. He pointed out the total $120,000 expense was placed in the second year of the biennium and would be funded primarily from administrative assessments.
Justice Rose stated both court administrators and most of the judges had expressed support for a needs assessment.
Mr. Humke questioned whether the study would deal with issues of legislative concern such as sentencing guidelines. Justice Rose replied the study would not address such concerns. It would only be a needs assessment and provide recommendations regarding the functions of the court and targeted problem areas. He expressed the hope that the study would be a first step in a series of steps by a commission to evaluate other important court issues and the rural courts.
Justice Rose noted Clark County was supportive of the study and might be persuaded to contribute money toward the cost.
Mr. Perkins said the study was a good idea. The court system and the government needed to be more efficient. He asked how the additional six family court judges in Clark County would impact the work load of the Supreme Court. Justice Rose replied any time the number of judges increased, more cases were decided at the district court level. A percentage of those cases would be appealed to the Supreme Court. He noted projections for future growth were low because increased work flow from the district courts was not taken into consideration.
Mr. Perkins said he assumed there was also a backlog at the district court level and increasing the number of judges would create an influx of people into the judicial and prison systems, which would impact the appellate courts as well as parole and probation. Justice Rose said that was a fair statement with the understanding that by increasing the number of district court judges the system had been able to keep up with the work load. The backlog at the district court level was not as great as it was at the Supreme Court level. The proposed study could analyze how large the backlog actually was. He noted criminal cases had to be processed within certain time constraints. The greatest backlog in the judicial system was in the Supreme Court.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Justice Rose to submit to the subcommittee an explanation of the dedicated telephone lines between Carson City and Las Vegas recommended in the enhancement budget, including the number of employees in the Las Vegas office, the need for those lines and travel savings which would result. She asked that the report indicate if there was any plan to curtail personal use of telephones and if charges for personal telephone calls were being repaid to the Court. Justice Rose indicated he had instituted a policy regarding personal telephone calls. Long distance telephone bills for each chambers were reviewed by the judge to ensure private telephone charges were reimbursed to the General Fund.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the justices currently worked out of the Las Vegas office. Justice Rose responded the justices worked out of the Las Vegas office when they were in southern Nevada. He noted he traveled to Las Vegas once every month to six weeks. In addition, senior judges conducted settlement conferences from the Las Vegas office.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the gender bias study had been completed. Mr. Mello replied it was an ongoing program and was funded privately. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a status report be submitted to the subcommittee.
Mr. Humke inquired whether the Supreme Court was being assessed $30,000 for use of the State Library services. Justice Rose said Mr. Humke was correct. Mr. Mello explained the assessment was based on the Court's presumed use of the State Library services. He stated it was the Court's contention it did not use $30,000 worth of library services. While the Supreme Court Law Library occasionally utilized the State Library it was not necessarily for the benefit of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Humke requested an explanation for the cost recovery system from the Budget Division. Mr. Don Hataway, Chief Assistant Budget Administrator, said he would provide an outline of the cost recovery plan to fiscal staff which would explain the components of the assessment to the Supreme Court. He noted the total assessment for fiscal year 1992-93 was approximately $50,000 but the Executive Budget reflected $18,000 for each year of the biennium as the Supreme Court's pro rata share of non-General Fund revenues. He explained the State Library did not break down the various components of time they provided information to the judiciary, which might account for the discrepancy.
Mr. Marvel asked if the Budget Division would provide cost recovery information for all agencies. Mr. Hataway said the statewide cost plan and the Attorney General's cost plan had been provided to fiscal staff.
BOARD OF PARDONS COMMISSIONERS - PAGE 81
Mr. Mello explained this budget account was used to pay the differential in salaries for the Supreme Court justices who had not stood for re-election since the last salary increase. In the coming biennium the Chief Justice's salary would be supplemented from this account.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether A.J.R. 22 was intended to supplement justices' salaries without this account and, if so, whether the public would be made aware of the intent of the legislation. Justice Rose said the intent was to supplement the justices' salaries. He indicated it might be helpful to explain the legislation to the voters. Mr. Mellow explained A.J.R. 22 would not result in salary increases. It would simplify the mechanism for supplementing salaries.
RETIRED JUSTICE DUTY FUND - PAGE 83
Justice Rose explained revenue was from administrative assessments. The purpose of the account was to fund the recall to service of retired justices and judges. The Court would be using the services of retired justices and judges more extensively in settlement conferences and to hear cases. He introduced retired Senior Judge Llewellyn Young.
Justice Young expressed thanks to the Legislature for providing computers to the Court.
Justice Young also asked the committee to consider the need for a constitutional amendment to allow trials to be heard in state facilities outside county seats.
Justice Young referred to a letter which he had sent to committee members in December 1992 (Exhibit D). He explained he had researched the cost of a district court judge in order to determine the cost savings of using the services of retired justices and judges. He found the total costs for a judge, staff and courthouse facilities were $840,429.
Justice Young indicated retired justices and judges could fill in for district court judges who were on vacation or sick leave.
Mr. Spitler noted Exhibit D provided an excellent explanation of the value of utilizing the services of retired justices and judges. He asked how many cases had been resolved with the help of retired justices and judges and whether other states had similar programs.
Justice Rose responded retired justices and judges were generally used as substitutes for district court judges. The Supreme Court used the services of retired justices less frequently. However, the Supreme Court had enjoyed great success using the services of retired justices in settlement conferences and would continue using those services to a greater extent in the future.
Justice Rose stated other states used their retired justices more extensively than Nevada had.
Mr. Spitler asked Justice Young to appear before the subcommittee to testify further on this budget. Justice Young agreed to do so.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES' AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS - PAGE 85
Mr. Mello explained the budget was constructed pursuant to statutory requirements. Funding was requested to continue the benefits for seven retirees, widows and children.
LAW LIBRARY - PAGE 87
Ms. Southwick stated the Supreme Court law library was the largest law library in Nevada and served as the primary legal research source for the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, the Legislature and other state agencies as well as local private attorneys and the public. The collections of the law library complemented those of other types of libraries with minimal duplication. Resources were shared statewide through an inter-library loan program.
Ms. Southwick explained while the Legislature had been very generous, the library's book collection had suffered from a combination of budget cuts and inflationary price increases. She noted the Supreme Court law library had fared the crisis better than some other law libraries, and as a result, people requiring access to legal information would have to rely more on the Supreme Court law library.
Ms. Southwick emphasized this was a maintenance budget. Inflation on the cost of law books was approximately 9 percent.
Chairman Arberry asked Ms. Southwick to explain the formula used to calculate the budget projections. Ms. Southwick responded she used a formula developed by the American Association of Law Libraries which calculated the upkeep of continuing publications as well as the purchase of new publications.
Chairman Arberry questioned whether fees for photocopies should be increased and if the vendor card system had been successful. Ms. Southwick answered the vendor card system had been very successful and eliminated the need to bill for photocopies. She said while the photocopy fee of 10 cents per page would offset the Court's cost it was low enough to encourage users to copy materials rather than physically remove them from the library.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS - PAGE 90
Mr. Mello explained this was a maintenance budget. Approximately 95 percent of the inflationary costs were associated with the new building, including increased building rent, additional telephone and insurance expenses. He noted the agency requested one salary increase in the base budget for the deputy director in order to raise the deputy director's salary above the classified employees' salaries. The budget also included funding for the court enhancement study.
Mr. Mello noted there was an error in the Executive Budget. Rate adjustments for fringe benefits appearing in the District Judges Travel budget should be contained in the Administrative Office of the Courts budget.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Mello to provide to the committee written descriptions of the duties and minimum qualifications of the deputy court administrator and chief of financial management positions. Mr. Mello agreed to do so. He noted the two positions resulted from a split in the accounting function. One position was responsible for payroll functions and building administration. The other position was responsible for general accounting functions.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the funding contained in this budget for the study of the court system would be combined with the funding contained in account no. 101-1494 (Supreme Court). Mr. Mello answered affirmatively.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired about in-state travel expenses. Mr. Mello responded in-state travel would cover the cost of travel for himself and another staff member to attend regional judicial meetings four times per year.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why travel trunks were necessary. Mr. Mello explained he served as secretary to the Commission on Judicial Selection. The trunks were used to carry confidential material associated with the selection process.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Mello to provide to the subcommittee the total difference in square feet for the new building versus the old office space as a means of explaining the increase in rent expense. Mr. Mello noted the difference was substantial.
Mr. Perkins noted the budget narrative indicated staffing and funding levels precluded accomplishment of statutorily mandated duties. He asked Mr. Mello to provide to the committee a list of the functions the Court was unable to perform. Mr. Mello explained the statement in the budget narrative had been carried forward from previous years. He noted his office was now able to perform significantly more of the 10 duties delineated in NRS 1.360 than it had been able to do in the past. He complimented his assistant, Bill Maier, for performing many of those duties. However, the office was still not able to perform items 1. and 2. of NRS 1.360--examine administrative procedures employed in the offices of the judges, clerks, court reporters and employees of all courts of the state and make recommendations through the Chief Justice for the improvement of those procedures. He said this duty represented an enormous undertaking. He noted this committee had advised him in the past funding for this budget was limited to administrative assessment revenues. Requests for appropriations to fund additional staff positions had always been denied in the past.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Mello to provide to the committee in writing an explanation of what he would require in order to perform the duties which were not being performed currently. Mr. Mello agreed to do so.
Chairman Arberry inquired about the request for a new position in the judicial education budget. Mr. Mello explained there was a need by judges for instruction specific to Nevada law which was not provided by the Judicial College. The maintenance budget of the judicial education account contained funding for a clerical assistant to the person currently managing judicial education.
Justice Rose indicated he had invited two justices of the peace to speak on this issue. He introduced Judge Ed Johnson, Justice of the Peace, Dayton, and Judge Doug Struthers, Justice of the Peace, Minden.
Judge Johnson stated justices of the peace were either elected or appointed and frequently came to the bench with no formal legal training. Therefore, the law required them to complete certain courses provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts. He noted the increasing training needs of the lower courts were imposing a substantial burden on the one staff person currently coordinating training seminars. He said he had benefitted tremendously from the training seminars over the years and supported the Court's request for additional staff.
Judge Struthers stated additional staffing was desperately needed. The work load was becoming greater than one person could handle. He indicated any assistance from the committee would be appreciated.
Justice Rose indicated Judge Robey Willis, Justice of the Peace, Carson City, was also present. Judge Willis agreed to forego his testimony in the interest of time and stand on the remarks of the other justices.
UNIFORM SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL RECORDS - PAGE 94
Mr. Mello reported the budget account was funded by administrative assessment fees. He said remarkable progress had been made in computerizing the various district courts. The Sixth Judicial District, which encompassed Humboldt, Lander and Pershing Counties, was currently being automated. Case management systems and computer networks were being installed to improve the efficiency of the courts. Automation of the clerks' offices in Storey and Mineral Counties was scheduled in the near future.
Mr. Mello explained funding was provided primarily for the court clerks' offices to improve the functions--both court-related and county-related--of those offices.
Mr. Mello stated it was hoped base-level computerization would be completed in all of the district courts within the next year. Enhancements could then be built on from the base level.
Mr. Dini asked how many counties had been completed. Mr. Mello estimated 15 counties would be completed by June 30, 1993. He explained some of the small counties were resisting automation but the ultimate benefit would be a computer link between all counties and the Administrative Office of the Courts.
DISTRICT JUDGES' SALARY - PAGE 96
Justice Rose explained this account was used to pay the district judges' salaries and benefits pursuant to statute.
Mr. Dini asked if family court judges' salaries and benefits were included in this account. Mr. Mello replied they were.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Mello to address the supplemental appropriation. Mr. Mello explained a bill had been drafted for a supplemental appropriation of $67,838 to pay the Public Employees Retirement System contribution for new district judges.
DISTRICT JUDGES' TRAVEL - PAGE 100
Mr. Mello said this account was proposed to be funded in the future totally from other revenues (i.e., peremptory challenge fees levied pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 48.1). In previous years the account was funded by an appropriation from the General Fund.
Mr. Mello noted the peremptory challenge fee had been increased from $100 to $200 in June 1991. The Executive Budget reflected an estimate of revenues to be generated from those fees.
Mr. Mello stated this account funded travel expenses for district judges and recalled retired judges.
JUDICIAL EDUCATION - PAGE 104
Mr. Mello stated the account was funded totally by administrative assessment fees. New programs included training of bailiffs and warrant officers and development of training videos to educate new judges regarding accounting procedures.
Mr. Marvel inquired about the rationale for cost recovery in this account. Mr. Mello responded cost recovery expense was to satisfy claims against the Court for use of the services of the Controller's Office and the Treasurer's Office. He said this was a reasonable expense item.
JUDICIAL SELECTION - 107
Mr. Mello explained one of his duties was to serve as secretary to the Commission on Judicial Selection. He indicated a bill had been requested seeking a $7,000 supplemental appropriation to cover unpaid expenses from the last selection process and for two anticipated future selections. He noted the number of future selections was unknown. Any surplus remaining in the account at the end of the biennium would revert to the General Fund.
Chairman Arberry noted agency expenses were estimated to be twice the budgeted amount. He asked Mr. Mello to address this issue. Mr. Mello stated there had been three judicial selections and a members' workshop conducted during the present biennium. A portion of the supplemental appropriation ($700) would be used to pay outstanding expenses remaining from the previous selection process. The balance was requested in anticipation of two future judicial selections.
Chairman Arberry asked what the average number of vacancies was. Mr. Mello said the number varied. Some years there were no vacancies. In previous bienniums the number had averaged one or two. He noted judges were reaching retirement age and the Commission might be called to duty more frequently in future years.
Mr. Marvel asked if vacancies were anticipated in the current biennium or the coming biennium. Mr. Mello said the anticipated vacancies would occur before June 30, 1993. If the supplemental funding was unused at that date it would revert back to the General Fund.
Chairman Arberry announced the remainder of the agenda items would be heard in subcommittee.
Justice Rose thanked the committee for its assistance. He invited committee members to tour the new Supreme Court facility.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:07 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
C. Dale Gray
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
March 5, 1993
Page 1