The Joint Subcommittee on General Government of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Vonne S. Chowning, at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, March 4, 1999, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William R. O’Donnell, Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. (Excused)

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani

Mr. David E. Goldwater

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Johnnie L. Willis, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Susan Southwick, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library

Robert E. Rose, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court, introduced Michael R. Griffin, District Judge, First Judicial District Court, Carson City and Robey B. Willis, Judge, Carson City Justice/Municipal Court.

Judge Griffin said he wished to speak concerning several aspects of the budget that affect him as district judge. He said there is a "great feeling" among the district judges about the direction the Supreme Court is taking now. He said the district judges are very hopeful and encouraged by the present composition of the court and think the divisiveness of the past is disappearing. Judge Griffin said he has a great deal of respect for the intellectual ability of the present members of the court as well as their ethics and their judicial capabilities.

Judge Griffin stated that in the past many things that affect the district judges have been done without input from the district judges. He said that, for example, the district judges were not included in the planning of the district court travel and education funds’ policies and procedures, and were not asked what plans they may have had for travel or for what they may wish to include in the education funds’ policies and procedures. He said this has been changing. Judge Griffin said Chief Justice Rose is breathing new life into an entity called the State Judiciary Council. He said that as a result the district judges would have input on those things that affect them.

Judge Griffin noted he comes from Carson City, which is small, and smaller counties have a different environment than the large counties (Clark and Washoe Counties). He said smaller counties have unique needs that are very different from the larger counties’ needs.

Judge Griffin stated the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is asking for more technical support. He noted the AOC has in the past 2 years performed the first statewide assessment of all the hardware and software available in all the counties in the state including the sheriffs’ offices and all the justice courts. He said the AOC is also implementing the state judicial standard for record reporting. Judge Griffin asserted this will help all the courts and law enforcement facilities report information to the AOC and to the Nevada Criminal Justice Information Services (NCJIS) for centralizing records that are pertinent to all the courts and law enforcement offices.

Judge Griffin explained he has a project developing in four counties that will make it possible for his rural court to access and disburse information to and from depositories of the AOC and the NCJIS. He said the system should eliminate dual and triple data entry. Judge Griffin pointed out that at this time the rural areas do not have personnel with the expertise to run this system. He claimed that part of the difficulty is the number of enforcement and legal offices that must be included in the access and distribution of the information. He said the sheriffs’ offices, municipal court police, district attorneys’ offices, justices of the peace, and all other "law enforcement" bodies are being coordinated. Judge Griffin noted the project should be near completion by September and said it should be easy to install the system in every rural county once it is up and running. He said that with this system, if a person were arrested in a rural area such as Elko, that information would be transmitted to the NCJIS. The NCJIS would make it immediately available to all enforcement authorities throughout the state. Judge Griffin pointed out that with the current system there can be a substantial time delay before this information is made available to other law enforcement agencies.

Judge Griffin explained the computerization of the courts has always been done piecemeal. He said that consequently, systems from court to court cannot talk to each other. He asserted the AOC is trying to remedy the situation. Judge Griffin stated the only way the situation can be changed across county lines is through the AOC. He noted the Legislature passed a bill 2 years ago to create a drug court pilot project in the rural counties. Judge Griffin said he and Judge David Gamble, Ninth Judicial District, tried to start the pilot project but were unable to do so because they did not have the resources to speak to all of the counties in order to coordinate the funding and to resolve the cooperation problems. Judge Griffin said the AOC is helping to research on how to connect all the counties to the system.

Judge Griffin said he was appreciative of the efforts that Karen Kavanau and the staff of the AOC have made to open communications between the Supreme Court, the AOC, and the lower courts. He said it has been a refreshing change which makes everyone feel there will be more cooperation between the courts.

Robey B. Willis, Municipal Court Judge, Carson City Justice Municipal Court, and President, Nevada Judges Association for the Limited Jurisdiction Courts, said he was speaking on behalf of the AOC. He stated that a few years ago, the lower court judges would not have spoken on behalf of the AOC. Judge Willis asserted things have changed. There is a new spirit of cooperation and collegiality between the lower courts and the Supreme Court. Judge Willis noted a lot of this "new spirit" has to do with Chief Justice Rose and with the hiring of Karen Kavanau. He said Ms. Kavanau keeps in touch with all the courts and this has changed the "veil of secrecy" that prevailed before. Judge Willis said Ms. Kavanau keeps everyone informed and tries to keep the lines of communications open when there are changes that affect the lower courts. He noted that if legislation is coming up that will affect the lower courts, Ms. Kavanau calls to let them know about it.

Judge Willis stated that Chief Justice Rose and Justice Cliff Young have always been champions of the lower courts. He said Justice Young even wrote a book called From Kings’ Courts to Justice Courts. He stated Justice Rose has always asked the lower courts for their input. Judge Willis said four of the five newer judges elected in the last few years have started in the limited jurisdiction courts.

Judge Willis said the Rose Commission was to meet the next day for the first time in a couple of years and, as a member, he would be attending. He mentioned the commission would be meeting in Las Vegas for a "futures" meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to plan where the courts want to be and how the commission can improve the Nevada courts. Judge Willis asserted the commission will have recommendations for the future, if not this session then definitely in the 2001 session. He said these recommendations will concern strengthening the judicial council and helping the courts work more closely together. Judge Willis stated the courts working together is what Chief Justice Rose wants and that is what the commission will be striving to accomplish.

Judge Willis stated he definitely supports the AOC and Chief Justice Rose’s efforts to establish better communications with all the law enforcement agencies throughout Nevada.

Chief Justice Rose stated he wished to emphasize two things: (1) the court’s role, and (2) why additional assistance is needed. He said that in the simplest terms, what the Supreme Court does is determine whether the results reached in the lower court are reliable. He noted "the Supreme Court needs to ascertain whether the decision was achieved in an impartial process according to the rules without any undue prejudice to either party." He said it sounds simple but in reality is very complicated. Chief Justice Rose explained it is a process whereby a case is appealed, law clerks look at it, and then it is considered by "each" judge, not one judge. He said the judges may consider the appeal together or separately, or maybe only once, or maybe many times, and each judge uses his or her legal wisdom to decide whether the judgment should stand, be modified, or be reversed.

Chief Justice Rose further stated the system is a "plow-horse-type system," not speedy or flashy or quick. He emphasized the process is slow and deliberate. He said the system has been modified by adding the fast-track program and the civil settlement program, to help expedite cases. Chief Justice Rose said the court has also added to the full-court panel system a panel that has only three judges to hear the majority of the cases. He said the basic process the Constitution requires is nevertheless the same. He restated it is not a "race-horse type of system," but a "plow-horse type of system." Chief Justice Rose said the addition of programs results in a process that allows the courts to get more out of the caseload and to get through it quicker. He stated that in the end, to attack the backlog the court must add personnel.

Chief Justice Rose stated he did not wish to seem ungrateful for the contributions of the Legislature in the past. He said the court was very thankful. Chief Justice Rose stated the Legislature recognized the court’s needs and gave it a substantial increase when the court was expanded, and the court also received support staff for the additional two justices. However, he said, the caseload historically increases 10 percent a year, and the state had a period of 30 years where there was benign neglect in keeping up with the caseload as it grew. Chief Justice Rose noted that time span was from 1968 to 1998. He said the court expanded to 5 judges in 1968 and had 247 cases that year. He explained that for 30 years no other state justices were added to the court. However, 30 additional district court judges were added. Chief Justice Rose noted the district courts are where the Supreme Court gets its work. He said the number of district judges was increased 2½ times with no increase of appellate personnel until this year. He asserted this shows there has been an unequal rate of increase of caseload additions compared to personnel additions. Chief Justice Rose said that "over the long haul" there has not been much assistance on a year-to-year basis. He declared that all the Supreme Court was asking for at this time was some additional personnel to handle the caseload, attack the backlog, and fill in the niches that were created by the 30-year period of benign neglect.

Chief Justice Rose explained the Supreme Court was not sure which direction it is going as it always assumed there would be an intermediate appellate court. He said, "Waiting for the intermediate appellate court is like waiting for Godot." Chief Justice Rose noted the Supreme Court in 1993 did not ask for much staff at all, and this resulted in the court’s indecision because it wanted to see what would happen with the intermediate appellate bill in 1994. He said that now, however, the Supreme Court knows the intermediate appellate court is "somewhere in the future" and it needs to handle the caseload of today. Chief Justice Rose said that when the Legislature gives the court additional personnel, the addition translates into additional performance. He asked that the subcommittee hear the court’s presentation of its need. He said the court realizes it is a difficult year "for finances."

Senator O'Donnell asked when the intermediate appellate court would be initiated. Chief Justice Rose answered the court has asked the Legislature not to follow through with the second leg of initiating the intermediate appellate court this session but to submit the proposal in the year 2001. He stated that would give the court 2 years of operation under the panel system to review in the next legislative session. He said if the court is "holding the line" at that time with the panel system and the full court, then it would not need an intermediate appellate court for a while and could possibly wait 4 or 5 years. Chief Justice Rose noted the new program the court wants to install will provide the Legislature with a lot more numbers to support any future needs. He said that in 2001, if the court perceives the need for the intermediate appellate court then this proposal could go on the ballot in 2002. At that point, the Supreme Court would have 2 years of data to evaluate the caseload need. Chief Justice Rose said if the bill were enacted in 2002 and funded in 2003. With the judges running for election in 2004 it would be at least 5 years before an intermediate appellate court could be opened. He mentioned the courts want that "safety gap" in this session because much can happen in 5 years. He said one thing that will happen is the caseload will increase by another 1,000, which is 10 percent a year.

Chief Justice Rose stated that when considering the caseload increase, the Legislature needs to review those years which have a high fluctuation (such as in 1996 when the caseload went up 650 cases) and then flatten out after that. He noted, however, that if the state were to experience in the next year or two a sharp increase like the one in 1996, the court would have to be extremely concerned about handling the caseload. He stated that it is not projected, but it could happen.

Chief Justice Rose indicated the soonest the intermediate appellate court could be in place is 5 years, but if its initiation is deferred the court would probably not be in place for at least 8 to 10 years. He said the court considers it the final, long-term solution to the appellate case handling in the state of Nevada, but the state does not want to initiate it until it is absolutely necessary.

Senator O'Donnell inquired the growth rate of the caseload. Chief Justice Rose answered the caseload of the court is growing at an average of 10 percent a year. He explained there were 900-plus cases when he joined the court 10 years ago and the court has just under 2,000 cases now, which averages out to 10 percent a year. He said it would probably be even more if the population growth in Las Vegas in the last 5 years were included. Chief Justice Rose said the number of court cases directly reflect the growth of the population. He explained that if the subcommittee were to examine the population explosion and the percentage of increase throughout the state, it would have an idea of what to expect in the next 5 years.

Senator Jacobsen commented that Chief Justice Rose had "painted a picture" for the subcommittee. He remarked it would be beneficial if all seven of the Supreme Court judges attended a hearing and the legislators could meet them. He said the legislators would like to know something about each of the presiding judges. The senator explained to Chief Justice Rose that the court officials need to state what the Supreme Court needs explicitly, since the Legislature has no other way of knowing what is happening in the various departments of the government. He commented Nevada’s government is getting so large the Legislature cannot keep track of everything and it needs the input from the departments.

Chief Justice Rose indicated that given "the numbers" and the increasing statistics, two of the Supreme Court’s goals are better communication and better accountability. He said Karen Kavanau would give more details in her presentation. Chief Justice Rose stated:

Chief Justice Rose said the court’s staff would explain to the subcommittee how those numbers were calculated. He said the case volume statistics are used to evaluate the effectiveness of each staff member and those staff members will be held to a standard within the known parameters. Chief Justice Rose said that by combining the criminal cases and the civil cases, one staff person could handle about 65 cases a year. He stressed that it would take an increase in personnel of about 10 persons to handle a 650-case increase. He said the system is a slow, steady process and although it can be "speeded up" somewhat, it can only be hastened so much. Chief Justice Rose reiterated the court’s staff would give the subcommittee a more detailed explanation of what the court is proposing and said he felt it important to go through the logic and numbers that led to the court’s requests.

Mrs. Chowning inquired why the subcommittee has a figure for 1998 of 4.9 percent for the caseload increase, the projection says 12 percent, and the justice is saying there is a 10 percent caseload increase. Chief Justice Rose responded he was using 10 years of performance for an average of 10 percent a year. He stated, "Sometimes there are jumps and then the caseload increases flatten off for a few years and then there is another jump." He said that for instance the caseload was between 900 and 1,000 for a year or two then jumped to 1,300, stayed there for a year or two and then jumped to 1,900. Chief Justice Rose maintained there is no steady percentage rate year by year.

Chief Justice Rose concluded his testimony and then introduced Karen Kavanau, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts. (Ms. Kavanau’s complete written testimony [Exhibit D] is on file in the Research Library.) Ms. Kavanau, referring to illustration No. 1 of the "Nevada Supreme Court Budget Presentation March 4, 1999" (Exhibit C), stated this is a diagram of the Nevada court system. She said the court constructed this budget proposal on four basic "premises" (objectives), which are: (1) to address the court’s pending and incoming cases, (2) to accommodate the court’s expansion to seven justices and conversion to the panel system, (3) to increase the AOC staff to help keep pace with the AOC’s two primary customer bases (the Supreme Court and the state court system), and (4) to respond to legislative audits.

Ms. Kavanau, referring to illustration No. 2 in Exhibit C, said the court has prioritized the positions requested as shown in the illustration. She testified the court is proposing 20½ new positions. She explained the court proposed and received 21 new positions last session which were either attorney positions or were directly related to case-processing. She said most of the positions in this proposal are administrative and their addition will provide adequate infrastructure and support to the Supreme Court and the state court system. Ms. Kavanau mentioned that pursuant to Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) 176.059, the Supreme Court receives 51 percent of all the administrative assessments collected and forwarded to the state by the trial courts. She noted that in Fiscal Year (FY) 1998, the Supreme Court received approximately $4.5 million in administrative assessments. She stated the purpose of administrative assessments is to pay for court improvements and capital purchases for the state court system. Ms. Kavanau said 4 of the court’s 12 budgets are funded by administrative assessments. Those four are the Judicial Education, the Uniform System of Judicial, the Retired Justice Duty Fund, and the Administrative Office of the Courts budgets. She said administrative assessments are also used to offset the General Fund appropriations in the Supreme Court’s primary operating budget.

Supreme Court – Budget Page COURTS-1 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-1494

Ms. Kavanau explained the Supreme Court is the only appellate court in Nevada and consequently all appeals are mandatory, meaning the Supreme Court must consider them all. She said the expenditure levels in this budget are determined by the caseload and by the complexity of the law in those cases.

Ms. Kavanau pointed out the left side of illustration No. 4 (Exhibit C) reflects that during the 30-year period between 1968 and 1998, the number of Nevada’s district court judges increased from 18 to 48, which is a 167 percent increase. She explained the right side of illustration No. 4 reflects the Supreme Court’s caseload. She pointed out that in 1968 the caseload was 288 cases, whereas in 1998 it was 1,928 cases. Ms. Kavanau noted no additional justices were added to the Supreme Court during that 30-year period. She said the growth of the court’s pending caseload or backlog is directly related to the sizeable increase in cases without an increase of personnel to handle a much larger caseload.

Ms. Kavanau stated that illustration No. 5 (Exhibit C) compares Nevada’s appellate court workload to the comparable workloads in nine other western states. She said the spike in Nevada’s caseload in 1996 and continuing into 1997 can be attributed primarily to the huge increases in population that started about 10 years ago. She explained that in 1997 Oregon’s caseload per appellate judges was 292, which is more than double the caseload in any of the other eight states yet is still 26 percent lower than Nevada’s.

Referring again to illustration No. 5 (Exhibit C), Ms. Kavanau said the second page of this illustration, near the bottom, shows the number of trial judges per appellate judge in each of the 10 western states. She noted Nevada led again in 1997 with 9.6 trial judges to each Supreme Court justice. She stated the trend of increased filings per year is continuing. Ms. Kavanau said illustration No. 6 shows the Supreme Court’s actual and projected caseload filings by fiscal year. She said the court’s caseload increases an average of 12.5 percent per year, and the court is anticipating over 2,500 new filings in FY 2000 and 2,825 in FY 2001. She stated these numbers represent a 42 percent increase in the court’s workload for FY 1998 to FY 2001, compared to a 28 percent increase in proposed funding for this budget using the same time frame.

Ms. Kavanau noted the Supreme Court has implemented a number of changes in the past 2 years in an attempt to handle more effectively the increased caseload. She documented the changes as the increase in number of justices from five to seven, the conversion from a strictly "en banc" format to a panel system along with the en banc system. She explained the en banc system is where all seven justices hear a case, and the panel system is where only three justices hear a case.

Ms. Kavanau said another change in the Supreme Court includes the division of the central legal staff into civil and criminal areas, which allows attorneys to specialize in one or the other area and results in more efficient processing of appeals.

Ms. Kavanau testified the Fast Track and Settlement Conference programs have also been implemented by the court to improve its efficiency. She explained the Fast Track program is an abbreviated case-processing method that permits the court to isolate less complicated criminal cases and process them much faster. She said the Settlement Conference program requires all civil cases, except the termination of parental rights, to go to an experienced attorney designated by the court as a settlement judge whose role is to try to settle the case.

Ms. Kavanau noted the court is proposing the four support positions not awarded in the 1997 budget proposal for FYs 1998 and 1999. She said the positions are a Deputy Clerk, a Principal Attorney, a Staff Attorney, and a Judicial Executive Secretary. She stated that although the requested positions have been ranked 1 through 4 in illustration No. 2, the court feels all four are critical and of equal value.

Ms. Kavanau said this budget includes a number of training requests to increase the staff’s knowledge, skills and abilities in the areas of appellate court clerk operations, appellate court staff attorney operations, legal writing, capital cases, capital punishment, and basic personal computer applications and functions.

Ms. Kavanau explained budget account 101-1494 includes costs for justices’ chambers, the clerk’s office, and central legal staff for both the criminal and civil divisions. She stated this budget is funded by a combination of General Fund appropriation and administrative assessment fees.

Ms. Kavanau said this module provides funding for inflation for tort and property/content insurance, maintenance contract, publications and periodicals.

Ms. Kavanau explained this module provides funding for operating supplies, printing and copying, postage, telephone, and publications. She said the court is also requesting in this unit funds for increased cost for professional services attributable to caseload growth in the court’s Settlement Conference program.

Ms. Kavanau said this module proposes funding for a Judicial Executive Secretary and associated costs. She expressed the opinion that with the increase of the court to seven justices, the services of a third "floating" Judicial Executive Secretary is required. She explained this unit also includes funding for four trips a year to Las Vegas for the secretary position in order to absorb overflow work produced by the southern panel. She noted this position will also support justices who are traveling from the north to participate in the southern panel.

Ms. Kavanau said this module requests five new positions for the central legal staff for the civil and criminal divisions. She said the court is requesting 1 Principal Attorney, 3 Staff Attorneys, and 1 Paralegal, along with associated costs and funds for remodeling to accommodate the new personnel.

Ms. Kavanau said one of the staff attorneys and the principal attorney is for the civil division of the central legal staff. She noted the civil division had difficulty keeping pace and had an increase of 13 percent in the civil division’s year-end caseload. She said the division had actually lost ground.

Ms. Kavanau explained the other two staff attorneys will be assigned to the criminal division. She said one of these positions, in addition to making the newly implemented oral presentations to the panels, will fill in on criminal division teams as needed, and will assist in the processing of writs, rehearings, petitions, motions, and jurisdictional and procedural matters. Ms. Kavanau noted this position will also assist in completing time-consuming special court projects involving the study, review, and drafting of new or amended court rules and operating procedures.

Ms. Kavanau said the second staff attorney for the criminal division will be added to the Fast Track team. She explained this team has new screening and issue-tracking responsibilities because of the implementation of panels, similar to those mentioned for the civil division.

Ms. Kavanau stated the paralegal position will provide basic jurisdiction screening, statistical compilation, legal research, and administrative tracking for the central legal staff. She said these tasks are currently performed by attorneys and having a paralegal would free up the attorneys’ time for more cases. She said a paralegal also cost less than paying attorneys to do the same work.

Ms. Kavanau said this module also includes funding for personal computer (PC) training for all five positions.

Ms. Kavanau stated this unit requests funding for a Deputy Clerk position and a half-time Marshal/Bailiff position and associated costs. She noted the implementation of the panel system and the addition of two new justices have overburdened the clerk’s office. She also noted the clerk’s office is responsible for calendaring arguments and scheduling court sessions and meetings. She said the tracking of cases has increased in both complexity and volume.

Ms. Kavanau stated that the original projection was for 1 full-time Deputy Clerk. However, since the addition of the new justices and with the settlement conference program and the attendant increased volume of cases handled, the court has realized it requires 1½ Deputy Clerks to handle the workload.

Ms. Kavanau pointed out to the subcommittee that currently the Supreme Court operates without the services of a trained bailiff. She said the duties to be assigned to the bailiff are currently performed by the court clerk. She stated these services include maintaining order in the courtroom during court sessions, ensuring the courtroom is properly set up for the session and secured while out of session, coordinating the maintenance and repair of courtroom equipment and facilities in two locations, and setting policy for the Capitol Police concerning security. Ms. Kavanau explained the court’s concerns regarding security during the court sessions require a uniformed presence in the courtroom. She said that additionally, the increased demands on the clerk’s office have impaired the clerk’s ability to perform these functions properly. She explained the bailiff will also assume other duties currently performed by the clerk’s staff such as coordinating public tours of the Supreme Court building in Carson City, facilitating attendance at oral arguments by school groups visiting from throughout the state, and arranging education programs for interested tour and school groups.

Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau to summarize the enhancements the Supreme Court is requesting.

Ms. Kavanau said this module proposes funding for an annual financial audit of the Supreme Court by an outside consultant. The court was very concerned because of the 1997 legislative audit of the AOC and wishes to avoid any future "unpleasant surprises" by implementing an annual financial audit of its departments.

Ms. Kavanau stated that in response to unfavorable audits by the Legislature, this module proposes funding for an Internal Auditor position and associated costs including one trip per month to observe the trial courts. She said the internal auditor would also be available to assist the AOC in its review of the financial operations in the trial courts, so it would be a two-pronged position.

Senator O'Donnell asked whether the Legislature provided funding for an internal auditor last session. Ms. Kavanau said it did not, to her knowledge.

Ms. Kavanau said this module proposes funding to lease a new copier/fax for central legal staff and chambers to replace existing equipment. She stated the existing small copier can no longer be repaired because parts are not available.

Ms. Kavanau outlining this unit said it provides funding to replace a copier in the clerk’s office and to upgrade the court’s sound system in the courtroom. She asserted the Buildings and Grounds Division had tried to repair the sound systems but was unable to do so.

Ms. Kavanau said this unit proposes funding for the clerk’s office to accept credit cards for document copies. She noted the funding would cover the machine rental phone line and 3 percent transaction charge paid to the bank for accepting credit card payments. She explained that at present, document copies have to be paid for in advance, and having the option to use a credit card will make the process much easier.

Ms. Kavanau said this module proposes funding for a Principal Attorney position. She explained the duties of this position will include conducting prebriefing conferences to advise the panels on matters such as the contents, preparation and transmission of the trial court record, the scheduling and conduct of oral arguments, stipulations of facts, and simplification of legal issues. She explained this position will also assist the chief assistant clerk in the supervision of attorneys in the clerk’s office.

Mrs. Chowning asked who is performing these duties at present. Jeanette M. Bloom, Clerk of the Supreme Court, responded these functions of the appellate commissioner are not being performed. She said these are extra duties taken on by the clerk’s office. Ms. Bloom explained the prebriefing conferences were recently adopted by the court for capital cases. The prebriefing conferences have been part of the rules for civil cases for many years, but the prebriefing conferences have not been performed. Ms. Bloom said this position would relieve some of the pressure on the justices by simplifying the cases as much as possible before they are reviewed by the justices.

Ms. Bloom explained that on occasion an attorney will raise, in defense of his or her client, every error the court committed, which could be anywhere from 50 to 100 items. She said this position would review those arguments with the attorneys and have them focus on the most important issues that are significant to the cases. Ms. Bloom said that without this position the justices must look at all 50 to 100 issues and make a decision on each one.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she could see no justification for this position since its functions are "more tied to" the intermediate appellate court and that court may not come into being for 5 to 6 years. Ms. Bloom indicated she was not following Ms. Giunchigliani’s logic. Senator O'Donnell said the subcommittee has a description that says "appellate commissioner." Ms. Giunchigliani said the subcommittee was under the impression the court was tying the position to the intermediate appellate court and Chief Justice Rose has indicated the Legislature should not implement that court for the time being. Ms. Bloom responded the request for this position was downgraded because it is more of an advisory position than a decision-making position. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the court wanted this position to be able to read some of the briefs to help the judges. She said she could appreciate that distinction, but she did not think the justices should get into a position where they do not do their own work and their own reading.

Senator O'Donnell indicated Ms. Guinchigliani’s point reflects his own reservations about this position and asked whether the court could get into a situation where the appellate commissioner would be deciding cases. Ms. Kavanau responded, "No, sir." Senator O'Donnell asked, "How can that be, if the appellate commissioner is going to read all of the cases and determine which ones are meritorious and which ones are not meritorious?" Ms. Kavanau responded the appellate commissioner position would be an advisory position to the justices. She said in response to Ms. Giunchigliani’s question about the intermediate appellate court that the Supreme Court is the appellate court in Nevada. Ms. Bloom said there are many intermediate decisions that are made within a case before the final decision is made. She said the person in this position would not make the final decision. Ms. Bloom stated that having the appellate commissioner make such decisions is not what the court is proposing to do with this position. She cited as an example of the type of decision the appellate commissioner would make, the ruling on a motion filed by an attorney for relief of some sort.

Mrs. Chowning asked whether the justices have been capable of making decisions without this assistance so far. Ms. Bloom responded yes, but the addition of the appellate commissioner is designed to help the court keep up with the caseload. She said the court is trying not to "just throw people at the old system" and hope it keeps working. She explained the court is reevaluating what it does and how it does it and is trying to implement new procedures to handle the caseload.

Mrs. Chowning commented the subcommittee appreciates the innovative ideas for handling the caseload, but the state is not in a surplus budget session. She stated the overall increase in the budget is 33 percent and the growth rate projected by the Economic Forum is only 8½ percent. She said the Legislature cannot fund a 33 percent budget increase from the General Fund.

Mrs. Chowning, referring to E-125, inquired why the Supreme Court needed an in-house auditor to perform a yearly audit and wondered why the court could not use the legislative auditor. Ms. Kavanau pointed out that when this budget was constructed last summer the information on the projected budget crunch was not available. She said the court understands the dilemma the Legislature is in, but "the degree to which the Legislature grants the court’s requests is the degree to which the court can attack the caseload." Ms. Kavanau said this is a request for an outside auditor and the only reason the court wants an outside auditor is to get an objective viewpoint. She said the court does understand that the legislative auditor performs financial audits, but the court is presently "under the gun" to develop internal controls. She noted the court has made a commitment to have the internal controls in place by the end of the calendar year and will consider the option of using the legislative auditor.

Ms. Kavanau said this module proposes funding for 2 Information Systems Specialist positions to support the court’s various software applications including the recently installed case-management system. She said the court has no such expertise on staff at present. She stated that until recently the case-management system has not been operational and the court did not realize it needed this support. Ms. Kavanau noted the court has also recently implemented an automated issues-tracking system to support the panels. She stated both the case-management and the issues-tracking systems require qualified professional support. She said that in the prioritization of the positions the court ranked the senior position high and the junior position low because the court definitely needs the more skilled position.

Ms. Kavanau said the E-131 module also requests funds for the cost of four trips a year by one or the other of the positions to travel to Las Vegas, and the cost of both positions to attend a specialized training course in their field each year.

Senator O'Donnell inquired why the court did not use DoIT (the Department of Information Technology) for this support. Ms. Kavanau replied DoIT does not have case-management application skills. She said DoIT personnel are not familiar with the case-management system. Senator O'Donnell inquired whether this was the reason the court wanted its own support personnel. Ms. Kavanau replied, "Yes, sir." She said the court does use DoIT for a Master Services Agreement (MSA) contract, and has asked DoIT on occasion to provide services. She stated DoIT was not able to provide support in this case.

Mr. Beers asked whether the case-management system is new. Ms. Kavanau responded that in functionality it is a new system, but the project was begun about 8 years ago. Mr. Beers inquired whether the court personnel need training. Ms. Kavanau replied, "No." Mr. Beers asked whether the court needs to change the programming for the case-management system. Ms. Kavanau answered the system may need changes and will definitely need support to keep it going. She said it is a large complex system that has no support. She stated it was her belief the reason the various computer systems for the state have so many problems with implementing and running the numerous different systems is that there is no one with enough expertise in each system to keep the systems going.

Mr. Beers said he was still a little "fuzzy" on what this position’s duties are. Ms. Kavanau reiterated this position is to support the program and to monitor whether or not it is working as it was designed to. She said the court has signed off on the system and to get the vendor to supply the needed support would cost "big bucks."

Mr. Beers said that in his experience, when the system has been signed off by the vendor it should be complete and only the users need to be trained. Ms. Bloom responded the program is run by the clerk’s office and as the court changes its process to meet the demand of the caseload, the case-management program needs to be adjusted to take in the procedural changes. She said also the requests for information from the program are constantly changing and the program needs to adapt to deliver the different kinds of information requests. She added that to extract the new kind of report from the information system is difficult and requires a programmer.

Mr. Beers said the report-generation function definitely needs ongoing support. He said if serious programming is required to support this system then the court may have signed off on this program too soon and may be "headed down an unpleasant, repetitive path." Ms. Kavanau replied that 8 years ago, when the court signed the contract with the developer, the contract defined what was needed for the case-management system; however, in 8 years the court has almost completely changed everything it does. She said the current case-management system does not support the panel system that was recently implemented. It also does not support the central legal staff’s split into civil and criminal sections. Ms. Kavanau said the developer did exactly what the contract called for, but the system has changed from what it was 8 years ago.

Mr. Beers asked whether the court felt that one or two people could handle the level of change required to reprogram the system. Ms. Kavanau responded the court does not know the answer. She said the court has just started using the system and has concluded it must have a minimum of one support position.

Senator O'Donnell asked whether the court wants to spend $150,000 to find out what needs to be changed, and then hire a person to make the changes. Ms. Kavanau answered that by FY 2001 the court should have an idea of what changes need to be performed and, depending on the skill level of the person hired, whether or not the court will need to hire an outside consultant to do the actual programming.

Senator O'Donnell asked what kind of system the program runs on. Ms. Kavanau answered it runs on the Gateway PC networked through a file server. Senator O'Donnell inquired whether the state owns the program code. Ms. Kavanau responded yes. She said the court has only had the software since November 1998. Senator O'Donnell asked what the code was written in. Ms. Kavanau replied, "Access Sequel Server, from 8 years ago."

Senator O'Donnell said he would be more likely to grant the court the staff personnel rather than the contractor. He stated the state has had many problems with outside contractors that have no "ownership in the product" and cannot be controlled. He stated the court now owns an 8-year-old program that cannot be used because it does not work the way the court wants it to work. He said the Legislature is "tired of spending dollar after dollar hiring contractors to come in, program, and go." Senator O'Donnell said the state has to learn that "the intellectual property that the state employs needs to stay in the state with the property it builds." He asserted the court would do better to use the contract fee to employ a second programmer. Ms. Kavanau stated that in her 10 years of experience in the industry she has found that what is missing is the skill to properly plan and manage a project. She said, "It is very difficult to plan and manage a vendor, and if you do not have those skills going in [to the contract] you are dead."

Mrs. Chowning stated that historically this type of position has been funded from court administrative assessments. She said she would like to know why the court is switching methods now. Ms. Kavanau replied the court has never looked at it that way, and she felt she would have to take exception to that statement because there is a position in budget account 101-1494 that is funded from the General Fund. She said asking for these positions was not a departure from the norm.

Ms. Kavanau stated this module proposes funding for new Supreme Court brochures for the public and the school groups that visit the court every year. She said the existing brochures are outdated and do not accurately reflect the current court.

Ms. Kavanau said module E-132 also provides funding for travel expenses for members of the Nevada judiciary to testify before the 2001 Legislature, if necessary. She explained that trial court judges and court personnel occasionally request financial assistance to travel and testify before the Legislature on court-related issues. She stated district judges can be reimbursed from the court’s District Judges’ Travel fund, but there is no such funding for the limited jurisdiction judges.

Ms. Kavanau noted this module also provides funding for a "onetime" contract for a telecommunications network infrastructure consultant, in anticipation of new technology considerations by the court. She stated the court recognizes the need to evaluate emerging technologies to improve court operations such as teleconferencing between the Carson City and Las Vegas offices. Ms. Kavanau stated this is another opportunity wherein if the court hires the right person for the Information Systems Specialist III position then that individual could handle the future technology possibilities as well.

Ms. Kavanau testified that E-133 proposes funding for a consultant to work with court staff to document technical and functional specifications to bring the court’s case management system into concert with the court’s current practices. She noted this is another module the functions of which could be absorbed by the selection of an individual who possesses the right skills to fill the Information Systems Specialist III position.

Ms. Kavanau said this module also proposes funding to replace individual PCs and other electronic equipment.

Senator O'Donnell inquired whether this is a contract position. Ms. Kavanau replied yes.

Ms. Kavanau said this unit requests funding for a Death Penalty Resource Attorney, and associated cost, to be assigned to the AOC. She stated this position would be intensively trained as a capital-case litigation specialist to provide support to trial judges in capital cases throughout the trial, sentencing and initial postconviction proceedings. This position would be located in Las Vegas because most of the caseload is there, but would travel throughout the state as needed. Ms. Kavanau noted this position would help to ensure accuracy and fairness in capital proceedings to minimize occurrence of reversible error in trial court proceedings, lessen the likelihood of federal habeas corpus relief based on state error, and keep the Nevada judiciary informed of new developments in the fast-changing area of the law.

Ms. Kavanau explained the module proposes funding for out-of-state travel for the 76 positions in this budget account.

Ms. Kavanau explained this module proposes funding for one set of Nevada Revised Statutes and one set of Nevada Reports to be shared by the floating judicial executive secretaries.

Ms. Kavanau said the court is also requesting in this module to replace a leased copier for the chambers area, a fax machine for each justice, two new workstations for floating judicial executive secretaries, standard PC-software training for the chambers staff, and training for the new law clerks at the National Judicial College Writing Class for Law Clerks.

Ms. Kavanau said this module proposes funding for various training for existing staff assigned to the central legal staff.

Senator O'Donnell inquired whether it was the court’s intention to send all of the court staff to Microsoft training. Ms. Kavanau responded, "Yes, either to send the staff or bring in someone to teach the staff in-house." Senator O'Donnell asked whether the court has a contractor to bring in. Ms. Kavanau answered, "Not in mind." She said legislative staff had asked why the court could not use the two network administrators the court already has to perform this task. She explained the reason the network administrators were not able to train the court staff is that they do not have skills to train on the applications. She said that is not their expertise. Ms. Kavanau emphasized the network administrators are already working overtime trying to keep the networks up and running.

Ms. Kavanau stated E-177 provides funding for the clerk’s office staff training.

Ms. Kavanau said this module proposes funding to send six people to the National Judicial College’s capital punishment course in each year of the biennium.

Senator O'Donnell asked what these individuals would learn in the capital punishment course. Michael Bell, Judicial Education Coordinator, Administrative Office of the Courts, answered the National Judicial College started a program made up of 40 representatives which included prosecutors, defense attorneys, public defenders, and judges. He said that in this mixed training setting those who handle capital cases review case law and evaluate the appeal process of the death penalty for capital cases. Mr. Bell stated the individuals learn how the process works and have a chance to develop efficiency in handling appeals. He commented the cases seem to be handled with "more rancor that with competence." He stated the Legislature has expressed concern about how the capital cases are processed.

Mr. Bell explained the court has already had one training for four or five judges who have had capital cases and have had no other resource for training in how to handle capital cases and for learning what issues are appealable. He said having all the judges, prosecutors, public prosecutors, and defense attorneys together at the same time makes it easier for the judges and the central staff to do the work necessary to expedite the cases. Mr. Bell declared this training reduces the amount of resources used to process capital cases by helping establish accepted procedures. He stated that to process a capital case already takes an incredible amount of resources at the district level. He said the National Judicial College is a repository of knowledge and is an organization for training on capital cases.

Mrs. Chowning, referring to module E-177, asked the court to provide staff with information about the kind of training the court is proposing for the clerk’s office and why this training is only available out of state.

Ms. Kavanau stated this module requests funding for modular furniture for the Las Vegas office.

Ms. Kavanau said this decision unit requests funding for three new positions for the AOC. She said the first position is a Senior Information Systems Manager. Ms. Kavanau said this position would evaluate the implementation of any new technologies, would serve as the project manager for any technology projects, and would help develop productivity and effectiveness through technology. She said the person would help the court improve communication with external sources.

Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau whether it was her recommendation to fund these positions out of the General Fund instead of from court assessments. Ms. Kavanau responded the account from which these positions should be funded has been "topped out" and cannot sustain another full-time position.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Kavanau to tell the committee about the $400,000 reserve account. Ms. Kavanau answered the court has a reserve account but she did not believe the AOC’s reserve account was that large. She noted the court keeps a 4-month operating reserve.

Ms. Kavanau pointed out the AOC has had three directors in the last 2 years. She said the previous acting director and she spent a lot of time learning what the accounts are used for as well as what they should be used for, and making sure the court developed appropriate policies and procedures for the distribution of these funds. She said the administrative assessment funds are supposed to be dedicated to the "statewide program," not the Supreme Court. She stated the original intent of administrative assessments was to fund capital acquisitions and court improvements in the statewide court system. Ms. Kavanau said that over the years the court and the Legislature have balanced the needs in the Supreme Court’s budget by using some administrative assessment funds. She stated the entire AOC operating budget is paid for by administrative assessments.

Ms. Giunchigliani said her concern is that last session the court received 25 new positions, and this session the court is asking for 20 new positions. The requested new positions are scattered throughout the General Fund obligations rather than being funded through administrative assessments. This results in a 75 percent increase in General Fund revenue going to the courts "no matter which budget it is in."

Ms. Giunchigliani said she also did not believe the case numbers the courts have given to justify the need for the additional positions. She said the actual caseload increase is 4.9 percent, and the court is asking for a 12.5 percent increase in funding. She asserted that to match the 12.5 percent the court would need a 49 percent increase for the biennium. Ms. Giunchigliani said the Legislature wants to help the courts where possible, but is under a budget constraint. She said part of what the subcommittee needs to set is a percentage of increase for the court, then let the court decide within that set parameter what its priorities are without the Legislature dictating what the court will or will not get.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she would not support a 20 to 35 percent increase in funding for the court even though the court has a backlog that needs to be addressed. She the court has had a backlog, and the Legislature needs to assess what the court needs to function, "and function appropriately, without impeding the handling of the backlog."

Senator O'Donnell said he would "echo" Ms. Giunchigliani’s remarks. He said the Legislature must balance the cost of justice with the budget constraints that are present. The senator stated it is unfair for the Legislature to look at the Supreme Court as an autonomous entity that has no effect on the rest of the government. He said the state has social programs, computerization programs, and many other programs that need funding.

Senator O'Donnell said he hopes the court will work with the subcommittee to achieve a compromise to balance justice with the budget constraints.

Ms. Kavanau stated 4.9 percent is just for 1 year; from 1996 to 1997 the caseload increased 42 percent, so to make a fair evaluation there has to be an averaging of the years.

Senator O'Donnell stated the Legislature gave the court a lot of funding last session. Ms. Kavanau agreed and said the court is very appreciative of that and understands the constraints the Legislature is working under this session.

Senator O'Donnell said the growth factor in Las Vegas is 4.9 percent and as the population increases, so does the length of the Supreme Court docket. Ms. Kavanau replied that is true "except for several years later when it may increase significantly."

Senator O'Donnell stated the Legislature needs to look at General Fund appropriation versus administrative assessments. He said that hopefully the Supreme Court will work with the Legislature to "spend down" the assessment account instead of the General Fund account. Ms. Kavanau stated the court’s proposed budget does spend down the reserves and in fact, as shown in Exhibit C the court has revised accounts to show that it plans to spend down those reserves. She said those reserves are very large. Ms. Kavanau reiterated the administrative assessments are to be used for the state court system, not the Supreme Court. She stated the AOC historically has focused most of its attention on the Supreme Court at the expense of the state court system. She said the AOC is now looking at NRS 1.360 as it should have been doing all along. Ms. Kavanau said the court is now trying to implement the things the AOC should have been doing and it needs those administrative assessments.

Ms. Kavanau said the second position the court is proposing is an Accounting Clerk to process travel claims, invoices, paychecks, pensions, and settlement conference judges’ reimbursements.

Ms. Kavanau explained the third position is a Facilities Manager. She said the court needs a full-time person to troubleshoot and maintain the building to avoid serious problems. This position would also work with construction vendors as modifications to the Supreme Court building are required. Ms. Kavanau said this position would also help make routine repairs, move furniture, and inspect the building as needed.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the court is not happy with the Buildings and Grounds Division. Ms. Kavanau said it takes Buildings and Grounds too long to respond. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Kavanau to provide documentation, because the Legislature does not know where the problem areas are with Buildings and Grounds. She said that maybe something that can be resolved, but the state has a buildings and grounds unit for all state buildings including the Supreme Court building.

Senator O'Donnell inquired where on the list of priorities the facilities manager position falls. Ms. Kavanau replied it is number 15 on the list.

Senator O'Donnell inquired as to which position is number 16. Ms. Kavanau replied it is the junior-level application development position. Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau whether she was saying the janitor is more important than the application development position. Remarking she knew that question was coming, Ms. Kavanau said prioritizing the list was very difficult and the rationalization was that if the court could get the senior information systems position that would serve for the moment. She said the buildings and grounds issue is a significant one.

Senator O'Donnell said Ms. Kavanau had "struck a chord" with the subcommittee. He wondered whether, in light of the trouble the court is having, the rest of the capital complex agencies might be having similar problems with their buildings. He stated that perhaps the Legislature should look into the entire management of the Buildings and Grounds Division.

Ms. Kavanau said the daily cleaning maintenance has been good, "it is the incidental items that are a major problem." She said that for example, about 3 weeks ago the temperature in the AOC was around 85 degrees; a call was put in to Buildings and Grounds to correct the problem and it took 3 days to get a response. She said working under these conditions affects productivity and increases the incidence of illness, which she remarked can be a major problem.

Mr. Goldwater asked Ms. Kavanau to tell the subcommittee how adding these positions would help the court reduce its backlog of cases. Ms. Kavanau explained there are two factors that contribute to the backlog of cases. She said one factor is the quantity of the cases that are appealed, and the other is the complexity of the cases that are appealed. She stated it is very difficult to evaluate how these positions would impact the backlog.

Mr. Goldwater commented that the court has a lot of experience evaluating the backlog of cases. He stated there is a trend occurring that the court should be aware of. The assemblyman asked whether adding these positions would help process the cases any faster, and directed Ms. Kavanau to use that as a litmus test. He said if the answer is yes, the added positions will help process the cases faster, then the Legislature should look at adding them. But if the answer is no, then the Legislature should not grant the positions, Mr. Goldwater declared. Ms. Kavanau replied the court prioritized the first four positions based on case processing. She said that on the second level of prioritizing are four infrastructure positions. Ms. Kavanau explained processing the caseload is the bases for the prioritization list.

Ms. Kavanau noted this module provides funding to upgrade and improve the security system in the Supreme Court building on the advice of the Capitol Police, who provide security to the court.

Ms. Kavanau said E-376 provides funding for various security equipment for the Las Vegas office. She said the U.S. Marshal’s Office, upon request of the court, did a security assessment. She explained the marshal’s office returned a long list of needed changes and the court significantly pared the list. Ms. Kavanau said there is a need for a hand-held metal detector and one walk-through metal detector.

Ms. Kavanau, reciting from written text, said this module proposes funding for two replacement typewriters and two chairs for central legal staff.

Ms. Kavanau noted this module requests funding for five replacement typewriters and collating tables for the photocopy room of the clerk’s office.

Ms. Kavanau said E-720 requests funding for a shredder and book carts for central legal staff.

Ms. Kavanau explained this unit requests funding for four book carts, 11 keyboard trays, and modular furniture for three positions in the clerk’s office.

Ms. Kavanau said this module provides funding for bookcases and a computer table for the Las Vegas office and stated this concludes the court’s presentation for budget account 101-1494.

Mrs. Chowning requested in reference to decision unit E-375, regarding the security check by the U.S. Marshal’s Office, that staff be given an overview of why additional security is needed in a building that has not had it before. She said she would like to know the details of the planned security improvements. Ms. Kavanau said the court did give staff a complete report on the security items needed.

Ms. Giunchigliani said that if the cameras the court has were working correctly, perhaps there would be no need for extra cameras.

Ms. Giunchigliani declared that last session the Legislature was told there would be a minimal need for remodeling, yet throughout the budget there is a great deal of remodeling for all the staff. She stated the court seems to want to remodel everything and wondered what the rationale was. Ms. Kavanau replied the court has run out of space. Ms. Giunchigliani responded that occurrence should have been predicted and is reason not to allocate additional staff. She expounded that if the plan did not include future growth when the state paid for a building as large and as expensive as the Supreme Court building, then the state should not be "eating" new costs for expanding so soon after construction.

Senator Jacobsen asked what kind of facility the Las Vegas office is housed in. Ms. Kavanau replied it is leased space and is on the second floor above a delicatessen. She said the court has one courtroom, a conference room, and two justice offices. The personnel housed there are two justices, three clerks, two law clerks for each justice, and one judicial executive secretary. She said the facility is about 5,000 square feet. Ms. Kavanau said the panels conduct oral hearings in the courtroom just as the northern panels conduct their hearings in the Supreme Court. She said those cases that have to be heard by all seven justices are always heard in Carson City.

Mrs. Chowning asked for an overview of the regional justice center. She asked, "What are the long-term plans? What has been spent so far? What are the short-term costs and the long-term costs? What is the liability?" She stated there was over $300,000 appropriated for design, and the subcommittee needs to know whether that has been spent. She said it was her understanding there is a 20-year nonescalating lease. Ms. Kavanau responded all the information will be made available to the legislators if and when that bill draft request gets drafted. She said that the court is asking for a resolution to allow the court to enter into a 20-year flat-rate lease. She said Justice Becker is currently negotiating with Clark County on behalf of the court. Ms. Kavanau said the $385,000 has been spent. She explained those funds were for the out-of-pocket expenses that the county would have paid if the court had not reimbursed them. She noted the court occupies only 4 percent of the entire building. She said the $385,000 needed to be paid so the county could avoid the accusation that it is "paying for state costs."

Mrs. Chowning requested the court to provide staff with a list of the cost allocations so that the Legislature can evaluate how the funds are to be spent. She noted the Legislature needs to know this information before the final billing comes in. Ms. Kavanau replied the court can provide what it has, but the final cost allocations are not available at this point.

Senator O'Donnell inquired what the file server is to be used for that the court is requesting. Ms. Kavanau replied it is for the planning and analysis division. She said it will serve the Statewide Court Statistics Program and the Uniform Justice System for Judicial Records.

Administrative Office of the Courts – Budget Page COURTS-15 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-1483

Ms. Kavanau referred the subcommittee to Exhibit C, illustration No. 7, and said this chart illustrates the various functions performed by the AOC, the number of existing employees assigned to each function, and the budget account from which the salaries of the employees are funded.

Ms. Kavanau explained the Administrative Office of the Courts provides administrative support to the Nevada Supreme Court which includes payroll, personnel, budget development and monitoring, legislative liaison, accounting, and information technology. She said the Supreme Court staff has increased from 47 individuals in 1995 to 75 individuals in 1999, which is a 60 percent increase. However, Ms. Kavanau said, the AOC has added no new staff during the same time frame with the exception of staff for the Division of Planning and Analysis.

Ms. Kavanau stated that historically Nevada’s AOC has limited its attention to the Supreme Court, but NRS 1.360 indicates the Legislature expects the AOC to work more closely with the trial courts. She said this budget’s proposed addition of staff will help the AOC to meet the expectations indicated in NRS 1.360.

Ms. Kavanau said the module provides funding for travel and per diem for the AOC’s director and deputy director to attend the bimonthly meetings of the Nevada Judicial Collections Task Force. She said this is in response to the 1995 legislative audit, which revealed that some of Nevada’s trial courts were not imposing and/or collecting funds effectively or consistently. The suggestion was that the AOC could help improve collections statewide by identifying "best practices" used by the state courts and nationwide courts.

Mrs. Chowning inquired why the funding source was changing to General Fund. Ms. Kavanau responded the budget is not funded by General Fund appropriation, it is funded from administrative assessments. Mrs. Chowning asked whether the travel is funded from the General Fund. Ms. Kavanau replied budget account 101-1484, which is the account for the Division of Planning and Analysis, is entirely funded by General Fund appropriation. She said that division of the AOC is focused on court statistics. Ms. Kavanau explained the staff from that division should also attend Nevada Judicial Collections Task Force meetings and that is where the General Fund dollars would be used. She said there are 30 to 40 people throughout the state who need to attend this meeting.

Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau whether the Administrative Office of the Courts is funded completely from administrative assessments. Ms. Kavanau replied, "Yes it is."

Division of Planning and Analysis – Budget Page COURTS-19 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-1484

Ms. Kavanau introduced Ron Titus, Manager, Division of Planning and Analysis, Administrative Office of the Courts, and stated he would present the planning and analysis budget.

Mr. Titus said NRS 1.360 reflects the Legislature’s expectations of the AOC to compile and report statewide court caseload statistics. He said Nevada probably ranks last among the 50 states in reporting statewide court statistics.

Mr. Titus stated the planning and analysis division of the court system was created by the 1995 Legislature to research, plan, implement and maintain a statewide system of court statistics. It is also an analysis and planning resource for the Nevada judiciary. Mr. Titus explained that the division’s primary responsibility is to develop the Uniform System for Judicial Records (USJR). He noted that nowhere was the USJR defined. He stated it only appears once in the NRS and that is in NRS 176.059, which sets aside a percentage of assessment fees for this system.

Mr. Titus stated the division has now defined the USJR and now has a goal against which to measure the Nevada courts’ achievements. He said USJR is not a single system but a group of systems that can communicate and share standardized information. He noted the definition of USJR is as follows:

Mr. Titus stated the court is seeking to improve the collections of fines, fees, and forfeitures through a collection task force. He said this module proposes funding for the travel expenses related to the task force and a consultant to facilitate the meetings and perform research.

Mr. Titus stated that NRS 1.510 requires the state court administrator to establish a program for the certification of court interpreters. He said the module requests funding for a centralized Court Interpreter Certification Program.

Mr. Titus said this module also provides funding for one new Management Analyst position, consultant funding to assist in setting up the program, and funding for membership in the National Center for State Courts Court Interpreter Consortium.

Senator O'Donnell inquired whether last year’s budget was $81,000 and whether the year before was $74,000. Mr. Titus answered, "That sounds about right." Senator O'Donnell asked why the subcommittee was now "looking at over a half a million dollars" for this budget. He asked how the division justified going from $81,000 to over a "half a million dollars" in the division’s budget. He wondered whether this was a new program and whether the Legislature had approved it to start in the year 2000. Ms. Kavanau answered that the 1995 Legislature created the planning and analysis division in response to the chief justice’s desire not to be the last state in the union to have statewide statistics for the courts. She said the division did not get "kicked off" for about a year and a half.

Ms. Kavanau explained the Legislature allocated three positions on the condition that one of those positions would work on a federal grant which would help fund the division in the first 3 years of its existence. She stated the division has had no benefit from that position, because 75 percent of the position’s tasks have been dedicated to the federal grant. Ms. Kavanau explained the federal grant has nothing to do with the court’s statistics project.

Ms. Kavanau stated it was the court’s understanding the Legislature would be willing to fund those three positions out of the General Fund. Senator O'Donnell asked for confirmation that was the court’s understanding. Ms. Kavanau affirmed it was. She said the division will work on two interim studies from a previous session, Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 32 of the Sixty-Seventh Session, and Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 10 of the Sixty-Seventh Session.

Ms. Kavanau stated that "both of the interim finance committees" concluded it is imperative that Nevada have statewide court statistics in order to measure the performance of the statewide court system. She said that, unlike the courts in most other states in the union, Nevada’s courts have not been providing these statistics to the Legislature and that is why the planning and analysis division was created.

Ms. Giunchigliani wondered why the court was requesting a 640 percent increase in this budget. Ms. Kavanau answered that the way the division was first set up would not achieve the objective of the division. Senator O'Donnell said that "in other words, it was underfunded." Ms. Kavanau responded the position that works under the federal grant needs to be funded so that this position can direct its attention to the designated work of the division. She stated that if the Legislature gave the division nothing this would not stop the division from doing what needs to be done; the work would just not get done in a timely manner.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the subcommittee understands the timing issue but was probing to make sure the division can still do the job without impediment, and "maybe capturing the backlog and timing issues when the budget is in better condition." She requested that the division submit a breakout of what is actually needed now versus trying to deal with timing issues.

Senator O'Donnell stated this budget, if analyzed, should convey the fact that all of the court will be affected by this data collection, and yet all of the funding for this budget is coming out of the General Fund when it could be argued that some of the funding could come from court assessments. Mr. Titus replied this budget was constructed to respond to several issues and items that have arisen over the last several years, primarily from the 1995 Legislative Audit. He said the audit was very critical of the AOC for not creating the USJR. He stated that significant progress has been made in those areas.

Mr. Titus said the division is also trying to respond to several current issues such as those addressed by S.C.R. 10 of the Sixty-Seventh Session. He stated that throughout those hearings there were problems with a lack of data. Mr. Titus also cited the A.C.R. 32 of the Sixty-Seventh Session study regarding family law, which had the same problems in regard to a lack of data. The result was the creation of the Division of Planning and Analysis by the Senate Committee on Finance during the 1995 Legislative Session. He said the current bill, A.B. 51, requires the Nevada courts to report some very detailed information.

Mr. Titus said this budget calls for funding to pay the full staffing costs of the division, which have previously been partially paid by a federal grant.

Mr. Titus said that as far as the funds in the Uniform System of Judicial Records budget (101-1486) that go back to the trial courts, the court is trying to maximize those funds. He noted the funds go directly to the trial courts or to projects that directly impact the USJR.

Mr. Titus explained that a bill which requires the court to report to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History will be coming before the legislators soon. He stated there is no funding in that bill. He said the bill dovetails very nicely with the division’s strategic plan. Mr. Titus noted the division has built guidelines for the use of the requested funding. He stated that the majority of budget account 101-1486 is returned directly back to the district courts, and budget account 101-1484 responds to issues that are coming from the Legislature itself.

Senator Jacobsen asked what funds are still outstanding. Ms. Kavanau answered the legislative audit set the amount of approximately $12 million. She stated the court disagreed with the assessment. Senator Jacobsen asked whether the court would provide information on how much of the $12 million is not collectable. Ms. Kavanau said she did not know how to assess how much of the debt was not collectable. She said the information has not been collected, recorded, or reported, and different courts report in different ways.

Mrs. Chowning stated that $44,000 is being transferred from one budget to another, which means those costs associated with the task force are paid from the General Fund now. Ms. Kavanau stated there was an agreement between the court and the Legislature last session to supplement funding from the AOC’s budget account to the planning and analysis budget account. She said there have been discussions between the AOC and the justices on this subject. She emphasized the AOC collects the administrative assessment on behalf of the state court system and those funds need to be returned to benefit the state court system.

Mrs. Chowning asked the court to provide information on the court interpreter program and wondered whether there are other programs already established. She also wanted the Division of Planning and Analysis to provide an overview of activities and plans of the USJR program that will be initiated or completed in this biennium.

Steven Bremer, Manager, Budgets and Finance, Administrative Office of the Courts, said the deduction that shows in this module is due to the reclassification of the division manager’s position from a grade 41 to a grade 42. He said the grade 42 is a more appropriate level that is consistent with the position’s role and responsibilities in the division. Mr. Bremer said the reclassification from a classified position to an unclassified position results in a deduction in the position’s salary and benefits costs.

Senator O'Donnell inquired whether this was a permanent reduction. Mr. Bremer said that was dependent upon whether or not the Legislature granted the 20 percent increase in salary for the director and deputy director of the AOC. Senator O'Donnell inquired where the 20 percent salary increase shows in the budget. Mr. Bremer replied the increase is not reflected in the budget, it will be handled through the unclassified pay bill.

Ms. Kavanau stated the court wants to upgrade Mr. Titus’ position from a grade 41, in fairness to him, since a grade 42 reports to him.

Judicial Education – Budget Page COURTS-28 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-1487

Brian Dorn, Deputy Court Administrator and Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, said E-125 provides funding for the AOC staff to attend specialized training on current issues such as court collections, technology, and state statistical programs. He added that the staff should then be able to use the knowledge to provide similar training to Nevada judges and court personnel. He said the module also proposes funds for the expansion of the Limited Jurisdiction Judges’ Benchbook, a publication of procedures for judges in the limited jurisdiction courts, and for creation of a benchbook for general jurisdiction judges.

Mr. Dorn explained this module also proposes funding to conduct specialized training at Regional Judicial Council meetings, funding for district court judges to attend training on capital punishment cases, funding to significantly expand education offered to court administrators, funding to expand the training opportunities for settlement conference judges, and funding to initiate a "Communities and the Courts" program to educate the public about Nevada’s court system.

Mr. Dorn noted that with the growing dependence on technology to facilitate exchanges of data between Nevada’s courts and law enforcement and those entities and the AOC for statistical reporting purposes, judges and court personnel require training in all aspects of technology, from planning to acquisition to implementation to utilization and evaluation of effectiveness. He said the AOC proposes two such training sessions a year including PC-based labs for hands-on training, and also proposes funding for PC training for the two existing judicial education employees.

Mr. Dorn stated this budget is entirely funded by administrative assessments.

Senator O'Donnell inquired whether the travel and training in this budget are for the same programs listed in the previous budgets. Mr. Dorn replied the training needs addressed in this budget are courtwide, and the other budgets’ training needs pertain to the AOC and its staff or the Supreme Court and its staff. He said there is some overlap, but this budget’s training request is for the entire court system.

Ms. Kavanau said this budget account covers the training for district judges, municipal judges, justices of the peace, court administrators, court clerks, court representatives, and other staff working in the courts.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the enhancement module training differs from the base budget training. Ms. Kavanau replied the enhancement module training is new. Ms. Giunchigliani directed Ms. Kavanau to provide the subcommittee with a list of training that is provided in the base budget versus the proposed new training.

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired about what the courts have done in regard to the gender bias and race bias training that had been recommended to the court in the past. Ms. Kavanau responded that several years ago the Legislature funded a task force on gender and economic bias in the court system. She said that in FYs 1998 and 1999, instead of legislative General Fund appropriation the Legislature approved the Supreme Court paying $120,000 a year out of this fund for that task force to continue its work. She explained the study committee has completed its assessment work, but the court believes there should be a separation of the task force from the Supreme Court because of potential conflict between the task force and the court.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether any of the task force’s recommendations for training were included in any parts of the presented budgets. Ms. Kavanau replied yes. Ms. Giunchigliani requested Ms. Kavanau to "asterisk" those recommended training courses when she provided the base budget "versus the proposed new training list."

District Judges’ Travel – Budget Page COURTS-38 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-1493

Ms. Kavanau said the budget account has in the past had a very high reserve account balance. She said illustration No. 13, Exhibit C, documents a revision for this account. She noted the revision is downward for this reserve account and said she could provide the reasons why this is so. Senator O'Donnell instructed Ms. Kavanau to provide the information to staff so that the legislators could review it at a later time.

Law Library – Budget Page COURTS-43 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-2889

Susan Southwick, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library, said this unit requests funding to allow one staff member to travel to Las Vegas, on a quarterly basis, to provide training and technical assistance to the new justices, their staff, and other Las Vegas office staff. She said the library in Las Vegas is completely on-line and does require additional training.

Ms. Southwick said this unit also requests funding for the expansion of services to the court in the form of licenses for CD-ROM uses the library now provides. She said the library wants to expand the licenses from stand-alone licenses to multi-user licenses which would permit networking of the data.

Senator O'Donnell asked whether the library had planned to use the networking in Las Vegas. Ms. Southwick responded that the library could do so , and that it was just a technical issue of how the library could manage to do it. Senator O'Donnell suggested the library try to network with Las Vegas since there are a lot of individuals in Las Vegas who need that research access. Ms. Southwick said the library would certainly try, but whether or not it was possible would depend on the technical support the AOC is currently able to provide.

Senator O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 11 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Johnnie L. Willis,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William R. O’Donnell, Chairman

DATE:

Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning, Chairman

DATE: