MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Seventy-First Session
March 8, 2001
The Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, Joint Subcommittee on General Governmentwas called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, March 8, 2001. Chairman William O’Donnell presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William O’Donnell, Chairman
Senator Lawrence Jacobsen
Senator Joseph Neal, Jr.
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman
Mr. Bob Beers
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. David Parks
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District 7
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst (Assembly)
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Senate)
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst
Cindy Clampitt, Committee Secretary
Chairman O’Donnell called the meeting to order and announced the Judicial Discipline budget would be heard first.
LEGISLATIVE –JUDICIAL – JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE (101-1497) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-43
Mr. Alan Rabkin, General Counsel and Executive Director, Commission on Judicial Discipline, and the Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics, stated Budget Account 1497 and the program itself was well-known. He explained he had assumed his post in October 2000.
Mr. Rabkin explained the Commission on Judicial Discipline was empowered with the responsibility to investigate, to conduct hearings, and to dispense discipline on allegations of judicial misconduct, violations of the code of judicial conduct, and addressing the disability of judges. Some of the forms of discipline allowable for judges included:
Mr. Rabkin acknowledged that the legislature set the standard, confidentiality, and other aspects of the commission.
Mr. Rabkin explained the commission served the public by providing a means for the public to express complaints regarding the perceived misconduct of judges. He added most complainants were members of the public and not always well versed in the judicial process. Mr. Rabkin noted the commission was often confused with an appellate court and the proscribed rules forbade them to act as such.
Chairman O’Donnell noted a request had gone to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) earlier in the biennium and asked if that approved funding currently appeared in the base budget. Mr. Rabkin replied the IFC funding had been requested for the previous fiscal year and was no longer required.
Chairman O’Donnell asked why the commission needed to hire outside legal counsel for certain occasions. Mr. Rabkin explained in public proceedings, the commission was required to retain prosecuting counsel to represent the commission. The prosecuting counsel prepared the statement of charges against a judge, presented the evidence to the commission, and then dealt with any appellate work related to the case. He added for many years the commission had reverted funds to the state because the caseload had been light, however, during the previous year, the caseload was heavy.
A state Supreme Court matter had been heard recently and there were two separate federal court actions underway. One case dealt with the standing committee hearing a matter regarding unfair election practices from an election two elections previous. The other matter dealt with a pending case related to a Supreme Court case. Because of those issues, the current budget had been nearly depleted. The same amount was requested for the upcoming biennium.
Chairman O’Donnell asked how much funding was requested. Mr. Rabkin explained the figure was split out between investigator costs, attorney costs, and some legal fees, pertaining to the standing committee. The amount was approximately $50,000 for legal fees, $50,000 for investigative costs, and approximately $10,000 for the standing committee. The Chair asked if the requested amounts agreed with the Governor’s recommendations. Mr. Rabkin replied affirmatively.
Senator Jacobsen asked for a short review of performance indicator information, although no specific performance indicators were included in the budget. Mr. Rabkin stated the commission received approximately 200 complaints per year and met 4 times per year to review complaints. Sometimes they were required to meet more frequently in special session. There could be between 30 and 50 complaints to be resolved at any meeting.
Complaints ranged from citizen complaints, to attorney complaints, to judges complaining about other judges. The commission consisted of seven members; three members appointed by the Governor, two members appointed by the state bar of Nevada, and two members appointed by the judiciary. Alternates were also appointed because judicial and attorney members frequently had scheduling conflicts.
At a meeting, commissioners received synopses of each matter to be reviewed. Files could range into the 100-plus pages category. Every complaint was reviewed and a decision was made to:
Over the past few years there had been several formal matters, some of which had been notable recently.
Mr. Rabkin stated the Supreme Court recently affirmed the commission’s decision in a case dealing with removal of a judge in Las Vegas. Most of the caseload was informal. He explained in informal cases, the commission members presented to the judge their concerns about conduct and attempted to gain cooperation from the judge to pursue additional education or some other remedy. Charges were usually resolved informally without the charges becoming public. He added the commission worked hard with a significant caseload, handled by a small staff including himself, one administrative assistant, and a part-time assistant, for the standing committee.
Mr. Rabkin explained the standing committee issued advisory ethics opinions to judges providing an opportunity to avoid misconduct charges. The committee also monitored election of judges, refereeing disputes between judges or judge aspirants during elections.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the commission meetings were all open to the public. Mr. Rabkin replied the meetings were closed according to the rules set by the legislature, as hearings were considered confidential. If, at some point in time, the commission decided the matter should become formal, the subsequent meetings were public. All proceedings and all file matters at that point became open. One such case was pending.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the commission questioned conduct of judges. Mr. Rabkin explained the commission investigated conduct and if it was found that the conduct violated the code set out by the Supreme Court, then the judge was requested informally to comply with the code. If the judge was uncooperative, or the matter was serious, the commission sought public charges.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the commission had the authority to question a decision set by a judge. Mr. Rabkin replied negatively, explaining the commission had no jurisdiction over the law of the case, only over misconduct of the judge.
Chairman O’Donnell stated the commission was also responsible for investigating allegations that were untrue or unfounded, and judges in those instances were exonerated. He asked if the commission also ensured a judge’s reputation was not besmirched. Mr. Rabkin responded that was an important responsibility of the commission and, in fact, if a matter became public prematurely, through the complainant revealing the complaint, the commission rules allowed its members to go public and explain the innocence of the judge until charges were actually filed. He added, at the dismissal of unfounded charges the commission issued a press release of explanation. Chairman O’Donnell expressed concern that the commission should maintain a balance. Mr. Rabkin replied the legislature had set an excellent balance on the confidentiality rules.
Senator Jacobsen asked if, when a complainant filed a complaint, they were sworn in, as they would be in normal court proceedings. Mr. Rabkin replied affirmatively, adding the complaint was verified and the commission did have perjury rights against any complainant who falsified a complaint.
Assemblywoman Chowning listed four questions:
1. Why everyone in an office seemed to need to go to every conference.
Mr. Rabkin replied certain continuing education activities were only conducted every other year and that was why the travel budget differed between the two years of the biennium. He added there was a yearly conference on Judiciary Counsel for Judicial Commissions, which alternated between the east and west coasts. Usually his position attended, as well as occasionally, the administrative assistant for courses pertaining to that position. Mrs. Chowning asked for confirmation that different material was covered at each conference and Mr. Rabkin confirmed that was the case.
Mr. Rabkin added in every other year the American Judicature Society, a national group dedicated to the improvement of the judiciary, met in Chicago, Illinois, which Mr. Rabkin’s position attended. Mrs. Chowning questioned if every staff member attended that conference and Mr. Rabkin replied, generally only his position attended.
2. Regarding the $50,000 per year for the standing committee, what she saw in the budget was $32,000 in the operating budget, $10,000 in legal, and $10,000 for contracts.
Mr. Rabkin replied the figures Mrs. Chowning was looking at, when totaled, were the approximate $50,000 figure he had used. The commission considered $50,000 necessary for attorney fees, approximately $50,000 for investigator costs, and approximately $10,000 for the standing committee. The total was close. Mrs. Chowning questioned if the two $10,000 figures were included in enhancements. Mr. Rabkin replied that was correct. He noted $45,000 had been reverted to the state at the end of the fiscal year. It was not possible to exactly compute the investigator and attorney costs. The budgeted amounts made easier access than going to the IFC and requesting additional funding. He added the funds were not used unless a case was particularly serious.
3. The budget included a request to relocate the office in Carson City and yet most of the complaints she had seen originated in Clark County.
Mr. Rabkin replied the relocation was already done and the office was located next to the Ethics Commission. He added the Commission on Judicial Discipline served the entire state including the rural counties as well as the two major metropolitan areas. Complaints were received from outside the state as well as inside the state. He noted the commission provided a regional service so where they were located was less important than the work that was done. Being close to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Library were very helpful. He added very modest in-state travel was required for commission meetings and to hear major matters dealing with the commission.
4. A Letter of Intent had been sent regarding separating budgets and Mrs. Chowning asked for a written response regarding whether the policies had been developed and if separating the budgets was problematic. She added Letters of Intent were serious requests for information.
Mr. Rabkin replied the information would be provided.
Senator Jacobsen asked if legislators could be invited to view the process of the Judicial Commission even though the meetings were generally closed. Mr. Rabkin replied legislators could view and review any public portion of the process, however, the actual deliberation of the commissioners was confidential as set in statute by the legislature.
Senator Jacobsen noted budget documents indicated the primary caseload was in the southern part of the state and sought Mr. Rabkin’s opinion on moving the office to Las Vegas. Mr. Rabkin replied it was his belief that the workload was not disproportionately in the south, rather based on population. A substantial number of rural county complaints were being received and there was also an increase in northern Nevada complaints.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on Budget Account 1497 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1494.
LEGISLATIVE - JUDICIAL- DISTRICT JUDGES SALARY (101-1490) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-25
Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, introduced Judge Gene Porter, Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District. She requested Budget Account 1490 be heard before Budget Account 1494. The Chair concurred.
Judge Porter provided prepared testimony (Exhibit C). He introduced Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Maupin, President of the Nevada District Judges’ Association; and Current Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District Court, Janet Berry; and from the Administrative Office of the Courts, Ms. Karen Kavanau, Director; and Ms. Judy Holt, Manager Budget and Finance.
Judge Porter continued with introductions of Mr. Rick Loop, the Eighth Judicial District Court, and Mr. Lee Iglodi, law clerk.
Judge Porter noted his position was charged with the oversight of over one-half of all trial judges within Nevada. As a result, it was his responsibility and honor to speak on behalf of the entire Nevada trial and appellate judiciary concerning S.B. 184.
Senate Bill 184: Relating to the Judicial System; adjusting prospectively the salaries of Supreme Court justices and district court judges; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. (BDR 1-517)
Judge Porter explained judicial salaries were drawn from the General Fund. The judiciary consisted of 54 district court judges and seven Supreme Court justices. More than one-half (30) resided in Clark County. He further explained district court judges’ salaries were set at a base of $100,000, plus longevity of 2 percent per year after 4 years to a maximum of 22 percent 11 years after that.
Supreme Court justice salaries were $107,600 with the same longevity benefits as district court judges. The last base salary increase occurred in 1995 when compensation for district court judges rose from $79,000 to $100,000 annually for judges taking office after the 1996 election.
In November 2000, Governor Guinn impaneled a salary compensation task force to examine and recommend appropriate pay levels for certain elected public officials. Members of the task force were:
· Bill Martin, Chairman, President, Nevada State Bank;
· Bill Bible, Executive Director, Nevada Resort Association;
· Pat Shalmy, President, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce;
· Sally Tracy, Executive, Donrey Outdoor Media; and
· Jim Kelly, a private attorney, Hale, Lane, Peek, Dennison, Howard and Anderson
Judge Porter noted the task force accepted testimony from the judicial and legislative branches of government, as well as representatives of elected county officials, and submitted its final report to the Governor in January 2001. Judge Porter added S.B. 184 contained the recommended salaries for the judicial branch as determined by the task force. Through task force efforts the requests of S.B. 184 were contained in The Executive Budget.
Judge Porter noted the traditional focus of legislative bodies in setting judicial and public sector salaries had been to compare them with similarly situated positions in other states. Such an analysis made the assumption that the workload and productivity of each position was the same. A premise was also present that, after all, “this was indeed working for the government.”
Using the traditional approach appeared to indicate that Nevada judges were similarly compensated, although still somewhat behind those in neighboring states. Judges in Washington, California, and Arizona received higher salaries. Judges in Utah received almost identical salaries while judges in Idaho received less. At the appellate level, only Idaho paid its judges less than Nevada.
Using the traditional method the profound changes that had occurred in Nevada during the past five to ten years were ignored. Judge Porter suggested the legislature use the private sector approach to compensation based on workload and productivity.
Judge Porter stated comparing Nevada to sister states revealed that the Eighth Judicial District Court, which comprised over one-half of the entire Nevada judiciary, were among the most productive and underpaid in the country. He provided the subcommittee with a Judicial Salary Survey and Survey of Other Related Positions (Exhibit D), page 2, which reflected superior court judges in Los Angeles County enjoyed a yearly take-home pay of $163,822. That county had 238 judges to cover a population of 9.2 million or roughly 38,655 citizens per judge. He added the average judge in Los Angeles County had an average caseload of 1,244 cases and disposed of 943 cases annually.
Exhibit D, page 3, indicated superior court judges in Phoenix (Maricopa County), Arizona, received a take-home pay of $120,750. The county had 82 judges for a population of 2.8 million or roughly 34,146 citizens per judge. The average judge in Maricopa County had a caseload of 1,395 cases and disposed of 1,252 cases annually.
Exhibit D, page 4, reflected the ratios for San Diego County, California. Superior court judges received annual take-home pay of $143,852. There were 71 judges for a population of 2.9 million or approximately 40,845 citizens per judge. The average judge had a caseload of 1,474 cases and disposed of 1,408 cases annually.
Judge Porter returned the focus to Nevada referring to Exhibit D, page 5, which reflected comparative information for Clark County. A Clark County judge received an average take-home pay of $108,667 annually. When figures became available in 1999, there were 27 judges to cover a population of 1.3 million people or approximately 48,148 citizens per judge.
In January 2001, three judges were added to the Family Division of the Eighth
Judicial District Court. The average judge in Clark County had a caseload of 2,254 cases and disposed of 2,025 cases annually. Judge Porter noted the caseload was nearly double that of other jurisdictions.
Exhibit D, page 6, compared workload and productivity and salary. The cost per filing, per judge, was $132 in Los Angeles County, $98 in San Diego County, $87 in Maricopa County, but only $48 in Clark County.
Exhibit D, page 7 made the same comparison utilizing dispositions. The actual work done by each judge found the cost per case in Los Angeles County to be $174, Maricopa County $96, San Diego County $102, but only $54 in Clark County.
Judge Porter referred to Chief Justice Maupin’s speech to the legislature earlier in the legislative session, stating at the close of calendar year 1997, the Supreme Court pending case inventory was 2,521 cases, one of the five largest inventories in the country. Three years later, at the end of calendar year 2000, 1,720 cases remained pending, a reduction of 801 cases. Judge Porter suggested reduction came from a combination of the legislative body working in harmony with the Judicial Branch by expanding the Supreme Court to seven justices in 1997. The wisdom of that decision, Judge Porter noted, was borne out by the hard work undertaken by the Supreme Court during the previous 24 months.
Judge Porter noted the judiciary had not only been active in productivity. They had published the first ever, Annual Report of the Nevada Judiciary (Exhibit E), which contained uniform caseload statistics for every district, justice and municipal court in Nevada. In 2000 a strong chief judge requirement was established in the Second and Eighth Judicial Districts. Comprehensive case management rules had been adopted and had already paid great dividends by continuing to increase the productivity and accountability to the people of the state. The Nevada Judicial Council had been upgraded to develop uniform standards for judicial administrative performance, court security, and court facilities. The Supreme Court formed a committee of judges, law enforcement representatives, and family advocates, to develop standards, including forms, to be used in domestic violence cases, and had ordered all courts to utilize the new forms. A manual had been developed for trial courts to improve collections on all levels. With the help of the private bar the judiciary was nearing completion of an appellate manual to aid lawyers and their clients with the complex process of appellate litigation. Rules had been enacted to implement a “short trial” program, passed as part of the Nevada Arbitration Act by the 1999 Nevada Legislature. A blue-ribbon committee had been appointed to revise and modernize the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and to create more user-friendly trial courts. The judiciary continued to review and improve the court annexed arbitration system, in place since July 1992.
Judge Porter advised the subcommittee that Nevada judges were constitutionally prohibited from receiving an increase in salary during their term of office, meaning a pay raise occurred only every six years. He added all judges, with a few exceptions, were required to sit for reelection in 2002. The salary decided upon by the 2001 legislature would be the salary in effect until 2009.
Judge Porter provided perspective to the time since the last pay adjustment in 1995. Bill Clinton was in his first term as president, the 49ers were champions of professional football, and the Internet was just becoming the informational tool currently relied upon by so many. He added since that time the population of Clark County had increased by 400,000 and the judges’ caseload was among the heaviest in the nation. He explained the 1995 pay increase was 4.5 percent per year over the six-year pay cycle.
Judge Porter related the Governor’s recommendation endorsed by the judges, of one-half of one percent increase in the base salary per year over the last salary adjustment. Judge Porter assured the subcommittee that whatever the outcome, the Nevada judiciary stood ready, willing, and committed to fulfilling the needs of all Nevadans who sought access to justice in the twenty-first century.
Mrs. Chowning stated the comparisons of numbers of cases and case dispositions were very daunting. She compared judges with teachers who were paid a salary and yet no one took into account the extra time spent each day and evening. She asked, with a caseload of 2,025 cases, how much time could really be spent per case in preparation. Judge Porter replied he would prefer to state he was able to donate as much time to each file as he would like, but he could not. In the “real world” decisions had to be made as quickly as possible to keep the files moving. Judge Porter noted a growing area of the caseload came from construction defect litigation. Judge Porter added, in such a case there were 200 plaintiffs because the cases were typically brought by a homeowner’s association who sued the general contractor, who in turn sued every person who “picked up a hammer” on the project.
Mrs. Chowning stated there were unknowns not stated in the comparisons with counties in other states, such as state income tax. She asked if the other states paid retirement or other factors that were a part of the packages for judges in Nevada. Judge Porter replied California was rather unique in that the superior court judges received a portion of their compensation from the county. He stated the base salary in California was $133,052. Depending on the county of residence, that county provided a supplemental income, which explained why Los Angeles County was higher than San Diego County.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani referred to the comparison charts in Exhibit D and asked how many of the counties in the comparisons had longevity benefits built in. Judge Porter replied the salaries reflected were strictly the base salary. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it was known whether the other counties had longevity or other benefits built into the salary package. Judge Porter replied Los Angeles County might have something similar in their “Mega Flex.” Ms. Giunchigliani noted, in Nevada longevity pay was provided computed at 22 percent over base salary with 11 years of service. Judge Porter agreed. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what was included in the flex terminology and Judge Porter referred her to the contact phone numbers provided in Exhibit D.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the comparisons also considered the numbers of caseload growth based on the population growth in the counties and whether the number of cases was higher than the year before. Judge Porter replied absolutely. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it was known if the other counties had similar kinds of growth. Judge Porter replied Las Vegas was highest in population growth in the country.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted Maricopa County had some growth, but not a lot. Judge Porter stressed Maricopa County also had 82 judges. Judge Porter stated Exhibit E was prepared using a formula of salary divided by number of cases.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if all judges in Clark County carried the same caseloads. Judge Porter responded three years previous the county had specialized the civil and criminal divisions in addition to the existing family division. Recently a hybrid change had occurred where some of the judges went back to hearing half civil and half criminal cases. There were also two judges who heard business court matters as well as civil cases. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for confirmation that the previous practice of some judges carrying a heavier load had somewhat evened out.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Maupin stated from 1991 to the current time, the civil filings in Clark County had almost symmetrically increased. In 1991 there had been approximately 12,000 civil filings and in 2000 that number had increased to nearly 17,000 filings. The growth in the number of criminal filings had also increased, but at a lower rate. Case management and court specialization had increased productivity on substantive disposition of cases. Trial dates usually provided the leverage in crafting a settlement in most cases.
Chief Justice Maupin added, Las Vegas also had an artificial population increase not experienced by most other cities. Many of the civil cases involved visitors to the area. That was a population not counted in the census.
Chairman O’Donnell opined the number of cases was not the issue to track in justifying a salary increase. The number of cases determined the number of judges needed. If numbers of cases increased there should be a correlating increase in the number of judges allowing judges to devote the time and energy necessary in cases to effect swift and fair justice. The Chair stated his vision as a legislator was to create an atmosphere that made it attractive to become a judge versus entering private practice.
Chairman O’Donnell stated a proper salary comparison would be between judges and that of a privately practicing attorney, which would reveal that judges were underpaid. He added the legislative body was very sensitive to the need of having the best quality people working in the judiciary that could be found. Something needed to be done to allow attraction of quality staff. Judge Porter stated he was only trying to show that a true comparison could not be made between judges in one area versus judges in another.
Chairman O’Donnell stated it was well known that Nevada judges did work very hard and something needed to be done in way of compensation, however, tying caseload to the salary was a mistake. There needed to be an increase in the number of judges based on the caseload. Judge Porter stated another bill was coming during the legislative session requesting an increase in the number of judges.
Chief Justice Maupin testified that everyone who became a district court judge or Supreme Court Justice knew they were not going to make a salary commensurate with that of a senior partner in a major law firm and expectation of such parity was unrealistic. He noted Nevada judges were currently drawn from a good balance of public and private sector lawyers. He added many middle management positions in the Clark County District Attorney’s Office made more money than some district court judges. Chief Justice Maupin related a law clerk had left his service two years earlier to go to the Silicon Valley and immediately made $40,000 more than Chief Justice Maupin was making at the time. He concluded a different motivation existed to cause a lawyer to take a cut in salary by becoming a judge.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated it was the job of the legislature to balance the needs of the judges with that of the state employees, teachers, and other organizations and groups as well. A 30 percent increase in salary gave a negative connotation. Judge Porter stated the proposed raise was 5 percent each year over a six-year term and Ms. Giunchigliani replied it was still perceived as a 30 percent raise by the public. She added, at some point discussions had to center around where the revenue could be found, how to enhance recruitment, and also retention issues. She noted a case had been built by current testimony that more judges were needed.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many new judgeships were being requested in the next biennium. Judge Porter responded A.B. 109 requested five additional judges. The judiciary had held negotiations with the county and he said the county might be prepared to fund operating costs for three of the judges.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the northern part of the state was requesting any new judges. Judge Porter replied the north was requesting one new position and two were requested for the south.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked if the caseload data for Washoe County and the rurals was available. Judge Porter responded he did not have that information.
Chairman O’Donnell stated he did not believe the caseload was less in Washoe County and Ms. Leslie rebutted she believed it was. Judge Janet Berry, Second Judicial Court, referred to Exhibit E, the Annual Report of the Nevada Judiciary, and directed subcommittee members to pages 30 and 31. She stated the Washoe County District Court carried a caseload less than that of Clark County based on population. Washoe County had 11 judges, 3 of whom were designated for the family court and 7 judges in the general jurisdiction doing all criminal and civil cases. Judge Peter Breen heard thousands of cases in the Drug and Probate Courts. The Washoe County caseload exceeded the nationally recommended average. She opined the caseload in Clark County was inhuman.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if it would be possible to move the one judgeship requested for the north to the south. Judge Berry replied the northern family court had a substantially higher case population and the new position was requested in that area. She added there were new federal requirements regarding child placement and the Judicial Branch was moving into a more therapeutic jurisprudence modality. A new pilot mental health court was being launched as well.
Judge Berry added it took seconds to send someone to prison, but it could take 20 to 40 minutes to work through 1 mental health case, 1 drug case, or 1 case involving an 18-year-old girl pregnant with her third or fourth child in the family drug court.
Judge Berry testified judges were not just dealing with a defendant, but with the defendant’s family and ancillary agencies supporting the defendant. She noted a substantial workload was being shifted to the judiciary, who was doing a wonderful job, but certain cases were becoming “time hogs.” Washoe County would be vigorously before the legislature requesting the additional family court judge.
Senator Jacobsen stated, looking at district caseloads, it was apparent that the majority of cases were traffic and parking violations. He asked if something was missing in current traffic laws that might help that part of the caseload. Judge Berry commented it was an area that needed to addressed.
Senator Jacobsen referred to the one-shot appropriation of slightly over $500,000 to increase the security system at the Supreme Court. He asked if the increased security was truly needed, recognizing that in today’s environment, even schools were a major security concern. Chief Justice Maupin responded he went through all the current security measures to enter and leave the building each day, and noted there were some problems with the camera systems, so the request was primarily for updating the security system.
Chief Justice Maupin referred to the earlier discussion regarding figures for Washoe County and judges around the state. He stated Washoe County had a normal urban caseload, which was very serious. However, the county had taken very aggressive case management measures. On the civil side, most cases were resolved within one year of filing, largely because of a “no continuance” policy in civil cases. To meet the needs of the family division, the general side had rotated in and out to assist. Thus, the Supreme Court endorsed the need for one additional judge in Washoe County.
Chief Justice Maupin stated the need in Clark County was less discreet in terms of raw numbers. He noted the rural caseloads were smaller, however, as in the Sixth Judicial District that included Humboldt, Lander and Pershing Counties, those two judges had to travel to all three counties to hear their cases. He added the judges in Churchill and Lyon Counties had to go back and forth between Fallon and Yerington.
Judges in the Fifth District had to travel around the state between Tonopah, Goldfield, and Hawthorne. Judges in White Pine County, which had the lowest caseload statistics, had the next farthest distance to travel within the counties of Eureka, White Pine, and Lincoln, and heard the same kinds of cases as those in the urban areas.
Chairman O’Donnell stated Chief Justice Maupin had just proven the Senator’s point, that although the caseload in White Pine County was lower, those judges would receive the same pay raise as those serving in the urban areas.
Senator Neal referred to Budget Account 1494, decision unit E-350, which indicated the court system dealt with nearly every language in the world. He asked if there were sufficient interpreters in the variety needed to properly aid individuals who appeared before the courts. He asked if the bench was sufficiently schooled in all the languages. Chief Justice Maupin noted Judge Valerie Vega had been scheduled to appear and talk about the Court Interpreters Program, which was a very important function of the Administrative Office of the Court, but had been unable to attend the hearing.
Senator Neal asked about the program Elgin Simpson had been part of. He noted Mr. Simpson was to study the disparity of race in the judicial system. Chief Justice Maupin responded that was the former Supreme Court Commission to study gender, economic, and racial bias in the courts. He stated after several years of work, the commission prepared a very comprehensive report. The commission changed its focus after compiling the report to focus on implementations of recommendations made in the report. When that occurred, the task force focus could no longer be affiliated with the Supreme Court because they were going to be encouraging the litigation of a number of issues that would come before the Supreme Court. The task force chaired by Mr. Simpson was currently independent and had been obtaining eleemosynary funding and would perhaps seek legislative funding. They had already been before the Interim Finance Committee.
Senator Neal asked if the program still had the support of the court and Chief Justice Maupin replied, absolutely. Senator Neal commented a review of death row inmates revealed there were currently 92 on death row, 51 percent were minorities, and of those the highest percentage was black. He asked if the task force program was having any effect on the bench. Chief Justice Maupin added the task force implementation was just beginning. Recent work had been done with the public defenders in the state to study the mechanism for defense of indigent persons accused of crimes. He added most persons charged with first degree murder, where the death penalty was sought, were defended either by public defender agencies or by appointed counsel.
Judge Berry supplemented she had served on the Simpson task force and Frannie Forseman, the federal public defender, had brought those issues forward very vigorously. Judge Berry stated in her last conversations with Mr. Simpson, the task force wanted to review the issues of ensuring, regardless of race, whoever was charged with the death penalty or a serious crime had trained, competent public defenders. They were also looking at racial profiling.
Senator Neal asked if the training was ongoing. Judge Berry replied, yes, and added it was based at the National Judicial College. Other states were looking at Nevada to bring their people that needed training in death penalty cases.
Chief Justice Maupin stated he and nearly every member of the Supreme Court attended the course the previous year at the Boyd Law School. Another issue the task force was working on was that of the jury selection process. The entire jury selection process was under review. Those would be long-term study processes.
Chairman O’Donnell stressed justice was a reflection of the jury selected and, when every possible person with a job was exempted from the jury pool, clients became a victim of judicial system injustice because of the jury pool. He added if anything, a study was needed of how to make the jury pool more reflective of ordinary citizens. He noted the jury pool was becoming less educated and less reflective of average citizens.
Chief Justice Maupin replied he was passionate about the fact that the jury system was the one defining characteristic of democracy that set the United States apart from almost every country in the world. He added there were isolated times when strange jury verdicts had been given. He added the problem needed to be examined, but his view of the process was that for the most part, it still did its job. He stressed jury verdicts were still a function of the ability of lawyers to communicate. Chief Justice Maupin stated when he had been a district judge, he had conducted post-service interviews with all jurors in which he asked them three things:
1. Tell me how we can make it better.
2. Tell me what you thought of your jury service.
3. Tell me a little of what you thought about what went on in the courtroom.
Chief Justice Maupin stated with one exception, during his career, jurors started out being disgruntled about being empanelled and ended up being better citizens.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if Chief Justice Maupin felt the issue of jury pools needed to be revisited. Chief Justice Maupin replied he felt the methods of jury pool selection should be constantly revisited. He added what the United States had was the best there was, but it was in constant need of review.
Judge Berry attended the first Jury Summit ever in New York State and then Chief Justice Robert Rose, Court Administrator Rick Loop, and she attended the conference presided over by the Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, Judith Kaye. The findings were similar to the previous discussion. She noted Nevada ranked among the top states in number of jury exemptions, and in so doing citizens were exempted from serving. She listed well-known entities who had spoken at the summit about their jury service.
Chairman O’Donnell noted everyone wanted to get out of jury duty until they were the ones who were being accused, and then they wished there was someone “like them” sitting on the jury. He stressed the issue should be reviewed by the legislature.
Assemblyman Hettrick agreed. He added, it would be beneficial if more people were available to serve on juries. He related his experience serving on a federal jury in Nevada a number of years ago. He had been selected as an alternate, so he sat through the entire trial and yet did not participate in making the jury decision. He explained the case dealt with a prison inmate. Later he learned from the lawyers what evidence they held that could not be introduced because of certain laws or rules. Fortunately the verdict had come out as Mr. Hettrick thought it should.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the issue of jury exemptions might be one that could be addressed by the Committee on Elections, Procedures and Ethics. She commented, at one time it had seemed only teachers appeared to be in the pool during summer months and while that was not bad, it did not provide a proper mixture of individuals to sit on a jury. She suggested perhaps jury “duty” should be redefined as jury “privilege.”
Chairman O’Donnell agreed wholly with Ms. Giunchigliani’s comment that serving on a jury was indeed a privilege rather than a duty. Ms. Giunchigliani commented jury service was a learning experience.
Chief Justice Maupin commented there was always at least one person in the jury pool who was angry about being called and tried to poison attitudes of the people around them. He explained that type of person typically would raise their hand for every exemption, and his practice as a judge had been not to call on them. He said he would wait to excuse the most obnoxious one until the end of the day and pretty soon everyone began to get the idea. He reaffirmed that jury pool selection was a major concern in the judiciary. He stated the system must maximize fairness.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on Budget Account 1490 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1494.
Ms. Kavanau begged the indulgence of the subcommittee for a few more minutes as Senator Dina Titus, Clark County Senatorial District 7, wished to testify regarding the Certified Court Interpreters’ Program discussed earlier.
Senator Titus stated she was lending her support to the Supreme Court request for funding of a statewide Certified Court Interpreters’ Program. She noted she had introduced S.B. 329 of the Sixty-Eighth Session to establish such a program. She added, with the assistance of an advisory committee appointed by the Chief Justice, the courts had developed program parameters to ensure the interpreters in Nevada courts were both qualified and competent.
She noted an effective program had been in place for several years in Clark and Washoe Counties, but the program needed to expand, a stable source of funding was needed, and it needed to be statewide. She noted growth was seen in both number of needs and in diversity.
She stressed, understanding legal jargon and rhetoric was difficult in a person’s primary language, but trying to navigate judicial waters in a foreign tongue was both intimidating and inherently discriminatory. To provide the accused a fair trial, witnesses needed a clear understanding of the questions being asked them, and victims the opportunity to effectively tell their stories; the judicial system needed qualified interpreters in the courtroom.
LEGISLATIVE - JUDICIAL - SUPREME COURT (101-1494) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-1
Ms. Kavanau introduced, Ms. Judy Holt, Manager, Budget and Finance, and Mr. Ron Titus, Deputy Court Administrator and Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Ms. Kavanau provided subcommittee members with the “Detailed Report on USJR Projects,” (Exhibit F) and “Court Interpreters Certification Program” (Exhibit G) (On file at the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Library). She noted the documents would be referred to as the various budgets were discussed.
Ms. Kavanau stated the Supreme Court was the highest court of record in Nevada and reviewed appeals of judgments of orders from district courts, provided admittance and oversight to the legal profession in the state, and provided administrative oversight to Nevada courts.
Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau to move directly to maintenance and enhancement decision units in the budget.
Ms. Kavanau stated decision unit M-100 covered inflation and per-unit adjustments made by the Budget Office.
M-200 included a request for a new position of a Case Management Systems Specialist. Ms. Kavanau stated, installation of the court’s case management system was completed in 1998 and at that time the court had no support staff to maintain the system. During the 1999 Legislative Session, the court had requested two Information Systems Specialists and was approved for only one.
Ms. Kavanau stated the incumbent had done a wonderful job, but simply could not keep up with the number of modifications being requested by the courts because day-to-day maintenance was taking up most of the time. She added a number of modifications needed for the system were already defined but could not be done because of lack of time. She stated the requested position would support the current system program and perform database maintenance and repair, repair end-user documentation, track and address end-user software problems, and provide training materials and ongoing training to the users.
Ms. Kavanau stated the request included normal expenses associated with the position including: quarterly travel to Las Vegas to train justices and staff regarding use of new modifications, operating, employee bond and torte liability insurance, telephone and executive office setup, normal office hardware including a computer, printer and telephone. Category 30, Training, included a request for funding of attendance at courses offered by the Institute for Court Management and one computer course each year. She specified costs included $180, plus $695 for an institute for court management registration.
Chairman O’Donnell referred to decision unit M-203 and asked how the request figure of $175,000 had been determined. Ms. Kavanau replied the figure was an estimate based on technical staff’s experience in similar projects. The courts did not have detail for the item. It was simply an estimate from database issues that had been done before. She stated Mr. Titus had computed the amounts based on the elements needed and what would be charged by a consultant to assist the courts.
Mr. Titus stated the courts were currently working on a project in Clark County developing specifications for which the costs were $200,000 to $300,000. Another project was contracted locally to do specifications related to case management systems, which had cost around $200,000.
Assemblyman Beers observed that the state should have the ability to research other states and find a case management system that was already working effectively in a Supreme Court and simply purchase it. Ms. Kavanau replied, unfortunately, because the Nevada Supreme Court was designated as the appellate court in Nevada, there were almost no case management systems available. She stated she was aware of one in Alaska that the state bragged about on their Web site. She stated judiciary representatives had visited Alaska and when their administrators were behind “closed doors,” they admitted the system did not work all that well. She added Nevada was participating in a national study with the National Center for State Courts to develop functional specifications for use as standards for an appellate case management system.
Mr. Beers asked if a tool set had been selected to build and store the project. Mr. Titus replied the current system had a back end sequel server with a front end of access defined in 1991 or 1992. He added the front end access to the database did not fit the application the court case management system needed. Mr. Titus stated the sequel server was still useable. The functional requirements of the courts needed to be reassessed. The system was currently being patched, however, there were 16,000 trial courts in the United States, making a good market for management system vendors. Probably no more than 100 appellate courts existed. That marketplace was much smaller.
Mr. Titus stated his experience had included courts being given software from other courts that wound up costing much more than development of a system from scratch. Mr. Beers opined the environment had changed with tool sets being much easier to use and far more portable.
Mr. Titus stated the court system was in the process of working at a national level to develop standard functions in appellate courts. He added there was still a problem of courts not having uniform standards.
Mr. Beers stated he was not a legal scholar and ignorant of what idiosyncrasies were involved with appellate courts. He perceived a chain of lower court to higher court path of cases that could at any time be backed down a level from above. He added, from any point in the system there was a court above and a court below except for two points. He asked why Nevada could not just purchase Supreme Court management software and tell the system that appellate courts were synonymous with Nevada district courts. Ms. Kavanau deferred to Ms. Janette Bloom, Clerk of the Supreme Court, to answer the question.
Ms. Bloom stated she had been with the case management system development since its inception in 1989. A nationwide search for a case management system was done and at the time such software was in transition. She added Nevada was so far behind everyone else that other states were looking at a second generation of systems while Nevada was searching for its first generation.
Ms. Bloom stated currently there were one or two vendors who specialized in management systems at the appellate level. She noted what could be purchased from another state would be a similarly homemade product. She stated the current system was limited in its abilities, although the entire Clark County docket was up on the Internet. She commented the clerk’s office was not able to perform their work until it was broadcast to the entire court. She noted the clerk’s office was the primary data source for the case management system from every hearing.
Ms. Bloom explained the courts had also looked at a trial court system that might be adapted to the appellate court, however, some of what was done at the appellate level was very diverse. She stressed some notable differences were that of the jury system at the lower courts; in a lower court each case went before one judge, while at the appellate level, a multiple-member court was used. All information needed was provided to several people involved in deciding each case.
Mr. Beers stated the issue of the appellate court not needing the jury module of a management system was inconsequential. The issue of a multiple-member court was an issue. He asked why a $500,000 study needed to be done when there was on average underfunding of $1,000 per student in Nevada schools. Ms. Bloom responded, she could not speak to the number of dollars, only to the amount of work done in the clerk’s office. She stated they were very fortunate with the current management system because the project had drug on for years, but the court had a vendor who was very committed to the courts, and who had worked without payment because they were held to the contract. Ms. Bloom stated Ms. Kavanau had told her she did not understand how the team was able to get the vendor to work on the project without compensation to make it functional.
Ms. Bloom stated the vendor had been very supportive in helping the staff in maintenance of the system. She concluded, to serve the public and the courts better, the system must be upgraded.
Ms. Kavanau suggested the budget item be deferred; the court could draft a request for proposal, receive some bids, and bring the item back to the IFC when they were ready to go forward. The Chair stated the subcommittee concurred with the request. Mr. Beers commented, knowing the project would come before the IFC, a set aside should be made when crafting the IFC budget.
Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau the status of the new Clark County Regional Justice Center. Ms. Kavanau stated the county hoped to open the center in August or September 2002. Decision unit E-205 provided for the move (one-time costs) and occupancy of the Supreme Court portion of the new center. Ms. Kavanau stated the line item in The Executive Budget listed as the Las Vegas Office encompassed the ongoing expenses. Included in that line item were:
· Parking spaces;
· Insurance;
· Rent;
· Maintenance; and
· Operations.
Ms. Kavanau stated the budget line item listed as Regional Justice Center contained the one-time expenditures to occupy and set up the office. Those costs included:
Ms. Kavanau stated the item listed as new furnishings had an estimated cost of $110,000. She explained the amount was estimated because the judiciary assumed they could use all the furniture currently in the Bridger Street location, but when specific areas were measured out, it was possible not everything would fit. If not, further funds might be required. She added the estimated costs had been cut by two-thirds. A professional furniture/equipment person was working with Clark County and the project manager.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if the estimated occupancy date was still June 2002. He asked if the new office would be fully occupied and functional by September 2002. Ms. Kavanau responded she would report back to the subcommittee as soon as the judiciary knew for sure. She added it was felt the function of moving would begin in early summer and be complete in September. She noted the one-time fixed costs would fall in FY2002. Ms. Kavanau noted if the projected dates should slip, the judiciary would need to go before the IFC and explain the one-time costs could not be spent in FY2002 and would still be needed in FY2003. She stated the judiciary had received no official word from the contractor that the project was not on schedule. The Chair stated the subcommittee would need the information just as quickly as possible to continue with the budget crafting process.
Mrs. Chowning asked how many capitol police officers were budgeted for the Las Vegas facility and how many the judiciary felt would be needed. Ms. Kavanau replied only two were requested in the budget and that was the same number the office currently retained. Mrs. Chowning asked it the two positions would still be needed in the new building. Ms. Kavanau replied the court believed the positions would still be needed. She added the court had decided to wait until the move was complete and beyond for a six-month period, then, if the positions were no longer needed, the court would come back to the legislature or IFC and request the change.
Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau to present decision unit E-300. Ms. Kavanau stated the decision unit provided for the creation, implementation and maintenance of a Web site to serve the Supreme Court and the Nevada state court system. She noted the court currently used the legislature’s Web page to post its opinions and court rules. Information about the Supreme Court law library and a photograph of each of the justices was available on the Cooperative Libraries Automated Network (CLAN). That Web page also provided links back to the legislative Web page. In both cases the sites offered one-way information without the opportunity to communicate back and forth with the Supreme Court, the Administrative Office of the Courts, or the statewide court system.
Ms. Kavanau added, because the courts were using Web sites maintained by outside entities, there were limitations on what information could be placed on the sites. A Web site of their own would improve access to and information about the court system. She stated the courts envisioned the site as a central point of contact to the Nevada Judicial Branch. It would also serve as a distribution point for statewide court information, standardized forms, statistical uniform system for judicial reporting, schedules of judicial education, and judicial schedules. Ms. Kavanau stated a Web site of their own would dramatically enhance what was currently available to the courts.
Chairman O’Donnell exclaimed $165,000 for a Web page was excessive. He added, knowing that two or three members of the subcommittee had vast experience with Web pages, it was very hard to swallow the requested amount for establishment of a Web page. Ms. Kavanau stated a large portion of the request would be labor costs. She added the budget requested a full-time position in conjunction with the Web site. Ms. Kavanau stated the courts had recently had an experience in which the state bar had asked if they could post the annual report (Exhibit E) on their Web site and it had taken two weeks to make it happen.
Mr. Beers stated thus far the project sounded like approximately one hour of work. Mr. Titus stated the example given by Ms. Kavanau had driven the point home with him, that once something was placed on a Web site, that information had to be maintained and ensure needed responses could be made. He added a Web site was not just a place to post data, but a place to publish a document. Exhibit E had taken three months to ensure it met with the policies of the court and the data was accurate. He added the state bar had made the offer, but the courts had decided a more appropriate place would be the CLAN system. However, the CLAN system did not have the eight megabytes of space to hold the file. The courts had explored having the document posted on the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) site and DoIT had agreed. Then a decision had been made that it not only needed to be on a Web site, but a page of explanation also needed to be included. After that it was determined there needed to be a way for the courts to be contacted with questions.
Mr. Beers interpolated the project appeared to be approximately six hours of work at that point and added he did not believe eight megabytes of space being a problem. Mr. Titus responded, the CLAN site administrators had stated they did not have the space for an eight-megabyte file. Mr. Titus stated Mr. Beers was forgetting about the policy issues of getting the verbiage approved for placement on a Web site.
Chairman O’Donnell stated the cost of a 12-gigabyte drive would only be approximately $100. Mr. Beers noted technicians did not approve verbiage. Mr. Titus stated language was drafted and approved. He added, neither the Supreme Court nor the trial courts had a presence on the Web.
Chairman O’Donnell stated any objection was not the fact of whether or not a Web site was needed, but rather an objection to the cost involved. Mr. Titus respectfully asked how many staff supported the Legislative Counsel Bureau Web site. Mr. Beers commented he supported about 25 charity Web sites in his spare time, and one commercial site for his company.
Ms. Kavanau commented the staff person requested by the courts would spend hopefully, a minimal amount of time on maintenance, but he/she would also be the “traffic cop” for all the information being traded back and forth. The court system expected if they posted a Web site, it would generate a great deal of “hits” and the position requested would monitor the questions and if they could not answer the question themselves, then direct them to the appropriate entity. The position needed to be equipped to know how to route or answer questions posed on the Web site.
Mr. Hettrick asked for confirmation that the Supreme Court currently had a partial Web site up and being run by someone. Ms. Kavanau responded the only current Web exposure was through the legislative site and the court clerk monitored that information.
Mr. Hettrick pointed out someone was currently monitoring the information already on the Internet. Ms. Kavanau noted the current exposure was one-way with information traveling out only. Mr. Hettrick asked if the clerk was posting everything that needed to be on a Web site. Ms. Kavanau replied the items being posted currently were only the court rules and Supreme Court decisions. She added there was nothing anywhere for the statewide court system. She commented the system got approximately ten telephone calls a day wanting to know such things as: How many drug courts Nevada had, and were there mental health courts. Mr. Hettrick asked how the current requests were being answered and Ms. Kavanau replied they were being answered verbally. Mr. Hettrick stressed, that meant someone was already answering with information that would be requested through a Web site, only via telephone.
Mr. Hettrick commented the budget request was for a Web site to serve the entire court system, but the request was being made to the legislature to fund the entire position through the Supreme Court General Fund budget. He asked why the position could not be funded from the budget for the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). Ms. Kavanau responded Budget Account 1494, the Supreme Court operating budget, contained only five of the eight positions being requested. She expressed her feeling that the Administrative Assessments (AA) were meeting the legislature half way. She added 47 percent of the Supreme Court budget came from AA. Mr. Hettrick rebutted the function of the position seemed to be 100 percent from the AOC and should be funded from that budget.
Chairman O’Donnell stated for clarity of discussion he would assign the name “Kim” to the requested technical support position. He stressed his belief that “Kim” was in multiple budgets, multiple times.
Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau to review decision unit E-350. Ms. Kavanau stressed the purpose of the court interpreter program was not to build a cadre of interpreters because those already existed. She explained the courts were trying to ensure that interpreters used in the courts were competent and qualified by passing through a certification process.
Ms. Kavanau introduced Cecelia Nino de Guzman, Court Interpreter, Reno Municipal Court, who could respond to any interpretive questions. Ms. Kavanau stated in accordance with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 1.510, instead of not doing anything since the last legislative session, the Chief Justice reappointed his advisory committee and they had met regularly to develop guidelines. Hundreds of hours had been volunteered to begin the program and help pare down the costs. Ms. Kavanau stated the advisory committee did not feel costs could be lowered any further. Ms. Kavanau stated the decision unit E-350 requested one position to create and coordinate the program.
A brief discussion ensued between Chairman O’Donnell, Assemblywoman Chowning, and Ms. Nino de Guzman in Spanish.
Chairman O’Donnell commented for those present who did not speak Spanish, that was how a Spanish-speaking person felt in the courtroom.
Mrs. Chowning commented interpreters in many languages were needed and asked what the pay scale was for interpreters. She asked if there were national standards regarding interpreters. Ms. Kavanau replied the NRS stated that the court could determine the cost of interpreters because it varied from place to place. Ms. Kavanau added the National Center for State Courts had compiled tests in approximately ten languages and for Nevada to create their own tests would be extremely expensive and unnecessary because the National Center for State Courts had already done so. The ones created to date seemed to include those Nevada would most likely need. Ms. Kavanau commented the tests created by the center were being used by 25 other states. She noted, Nevada courts would not have to defend tests created by the center, whereas, if the Nevada judiciary created the test they would be required to defend the test.
Mrs. Chowning asked for staff to work with the judiciary regarding the budget requests for the program. She concurred with Mr. Hettrick’s earlier comments, that if the program would benefit all courts, it should not be 100 percent funded through the General Fund. She asked if Administrative Assessment funds could be used, at least for a portion of the funding needed. Ms. Kavanau reiterated, because 47 percent of Budget Account 1494 was funded through Administrative Assessments, the judiciary felt they had already met the funding requirement half way.
Chairman O’Donnell referred to one-shot appropriations and noted “Kim” (the technical services position requested) seemed to appear again. Ms. Kavanau stated when the decision unit requesting “Kim” was submitted to the Budget Office, that office had recommended the items listed in the one-shot area were costs that would only be experienced one time.
Chairman O’Donnell requested confirmation that $32,700 would cover the equipment for a system-wide Web site. Ms. Kavanau replied the items included were:
· A digital camera $2,500;
· Netware and GroupWise licenses $13,800;
· Server $15,000;
· Uninterruptible power service $500; and
· A scanner $900.
Chairman O’Donnell asked why a $2,500 camera was needed. Ms. Kavanau responded the cost was for a digital camera. The Chair rebutted digital cameras could be purchased for $800. Mr. Titus interjected the specific camera being considered was a high-end digital camera. The Chair requested the courts to provide a list of the appropriations to staff and Ms. Kavanau stated it would be done.
Mrs. Chowning noted that in nearly every one of the court budgets, salary increases were requested over and above the 4 percent and 9 percent Governor recommendations. She noted in Budget Account 1494, the request for a salary adjustment of the Chief Deputy Clerk amounted to $1,126 per month. In another position, the salary went from $66,000 to $108,000. She reminded subcommittee members that the highest judges’ salaries were $107,000. In some budgets the requests were higher than some agency administrators. She requested comparisons from the court budget salary requests to those of other state agencies.
Ms. Kavanau responded, when the court system had originally submitted their budgets they had been unaware of what the Governor’s recommendations would be.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing for Budget Account 1494 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1483.
LEGISLATIVE – JUDICIAL – ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS (101-1483) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-9
Ms. Kavanau stated Budget Account 1483 requested no new positions. She directed subcommittee members to the maintenance and enhancement decision units.
Ms. Kavanau stated decision unit M-100 was the budget requests for inflation.
M-300 was fringe benefit adjustments, made by the Budget Office. She added M-301 and M-305 were salary increases consistent with the Governor’s plan.
Ms. Kavanau stated decision unit E-710 included equipment purchases proposed for FY2002 and FY2003. Those were replacement of a copier and scheduled computer replacements. She noted the court system had tried to make computer replacements every three years, but replacements were working out to be every four or five years. She noted six computers were identified to specific staff in FY2002. Eight computers were requested for FY2003. The decision unit would also provide for replacement of certain modems, printers, and an uninterrupted power source.
Ms. Kavanau noted her position, as Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, was one of the unclassified pay changes reflected in the budget. She acknowledged the overall salary did raise considerably when all factors were brought together. She explained the court would like to bring her salary up to be on par with some other department heads in the court system and because the duties of the position warranted the salary recognition. Ms. Kavanau added the increase was especially important in the current situation, because she would be leaving at the end of the year.
Chairman O’Donnell stated the reserve balance at the end of the 2001-2003 biennium was reflected as $479,000, compared to $189,000 at the beginning of 1999. He added the budget reflected more expenditures to be taken from the General Fund rather than the Administrative Assessments. He asked if some of the requests currently directed at the General Fund could be moved to Administrative Assessments funding. Ms. Kavanau stated the amounts showing in the documents to which the Chair referred were in error. She explained those figures reflected the balances six to eight months previous during the budget preparation process. She stated the reserve balance for 2001 as shown in The Executive Budget was $326,182. The actual amount of reserve at the end of FY2001 would be $115,000.
Chairman O’Donnell asked how the drop in the projected reserve balance had occurred. Ms. Kavanau replied the courts had spent more, explaining if one compared FY2000 against what had been projected for FY2001 several months earlier, expenditures in FY2001 had been underestimated. She explained that occurred because the Supreme Court and the AOC did use Administrative Assessments for unplanned expenses such as study committees and printing of standardized forms. She added the court had a number of special court-appointed committees consisting of people from all around the state meeting to determine ways to improve the court system. She noted the ending reserve balance for FY2003 was currently projected to be $267,894. Ms. Kavanau noted the balance would be much lower than that because there were still two fiscal years to be dealt with full of unknowns.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if collections were up, or down, in the court assessment funds. Ms. Kavanau replied collections were up, over that of projections. She explained collections were currently running about 10 percent above projections and had been pretty good over the last couple of years.
Ms. Kavanau stated it would be very reasonable to ask the court to reconsider its request for three positions when hearing Budget Account 1484 later, if S.B. 139 was to allow the court to retain 51 percent of the assessments collected; the budget could be reviewed with the idea of moving more of the funding to Administrative Assessment funds.
Mr. Hettrick stated the problem was that if the courts retained 51 percent of the Administrative Assessments and the courts were still allowed to return to the General Fund for any shortfall, the position would be similar to that with the Distributive School Account. The courts could not have it both ways. The state could not be liable for the shortage and allow the courts to use the overages as well.
Ms. Kavanau stated the courts should go back and revisit the issue because over the past four or five years, when budgets had been short, Administrative Assessment funds had been used and the courts had not requested additional funds from the General Fund for shortages. She noted approximately $95,000 had been pulled from Administrative Assessments in the previous fiscal year. Mr. Hettrick stated the courts needed to tell the legislature if such a consideration was on the table because the amount in reserve was a concern. Ms. Kavanau stated the revenue estimated an increase of 7 percent increase in Administrative Assessments and it could be as much as 10 percent. She continued, the economy had begun to slow down.
Chairman O’Donnell stated when the economy went down, the general trend was for court assessments to go up because there was more unemployment and more crime. Ms. Kavanau explained 80 percent of court assessments came from the lower courts in the form of traffic citations.
Mr. Hettrick reiterated the court could not have both sides of the revenue. Chairman O’Donnell directed the courts to reassess court assessments and see if there was a way to use more funding from that source rather than from the General Fund.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on Budget Account 1483 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1484.
LEGISLATIVE - JUDICIAL DIVISION OF PLANNING AND ANALYSIS (101-1484, BUDGET PAGE COURTS-13
Chairman O’Donnell asked if “Kim” appeared in Budget Account 1484 and Ms. Kavanau replied, “she” did appear to be present.
Ms. Kavanau explained the Division of Planning and Analysis was created to research and report on the statewide judicial system through the collection, analysis, and publication of court workload statistics. She explained the annual report (Exhibit E) was produced from Budget Account 1484. She noted it was responsible for the establishment of the uniform system, which the legislature had requested for quite some time. Ms. Kavanau noted the budget account also administered some grants.
Ms. Kavanau noted the budget had been created in 1995 on the premise that the courts would seek some federal funding. She added three positions were allocated to the budget and explained one of those positions was currently completely immersed in grants. She noted the position was no longer available to do some of the planning and research projects, largely due to the success in accessing federal grants to fund the position. She explained the current federal commitment was for $1.1 million to assist courts in automation.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if that funding had been allocated through the IFC or whether the legislature had been informed of receipt of federal funds. Ms. Kavanau replied it had not, and asked if there was a requirement to do so. The Chair replied, according to the constitution, all funding had to pass through the legislature, even if it was simply a matter of reporting receipt of funds. Ms. Kavanau replied the courts would be happy to do that in the future.
Ms. Kavanau explained Carson City District Judge Michael Griffin had applied for a federal grant in 1995 and when it had been awarded, he had asked the AOC to use the funds to create an integrated justice system between four counties: Churchill, Lyon, Storey, and Carson City. She stated, Mr. Titus had obtained further grants to help pay for such projects.
Mr. Titus stated the federal grant funds were awarded to the courts through the Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) and would have reported the funding in their budget processes.
Ms. Kavanau referred to decision unit M-200 that contained the three positions requested. One position would assist the one existing position to compile and analyze statistics. Ms. Kavanau explained the courts were lucky to have the current employee who was spending so much time dealing with the courts on a day-to-day basis on reporting procedures; she had found no time to analyze the data. Ms. Kavanau acknowledged the legislature had desired the division to analyze the accumulated data. The Management Assistant I, otherwise known as the Court Research Analyst, was to support the current position in the AOC.
Ms. Kavanau stated the Management Assistant III, grade 37, was a position to assist the trial courts select the correct case management systems and implement those to yield requested data in statistical reporting. She noted the first annual report (Exhibit E) contained only the number of filings. The next annual report would contain dispositions as well, and the report would contain more information each year. She commented all the information being gathered was very important and would benefit both the legislature and the Supreme Court.
Ms. Kavanau stated the third position would assist the trial courts with their hardware and network access. Chairman O’Donnell asked if that position represented “Kim.” Ms. Kavanau stated the position was not “Kim.” Ms. Kavanau stated the concern of the AOC was, they had been very successful in getting some automation out into the trial courts, and most of the rural courts had no access to technical support, so if their systems failed, the entire statistical reporting program went away.
Chairman O’Donnell stated it seemed that the AOC, Division of Planning and Analysis, just kept expanding and becoming more bureaucratic. He asked how many people actually requested the statistics captured through the division. Mr. Titus stated a bill requested by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, would be coming from the Senate that requested funding to establish analysis of crime data. He noted half of the information captured by the AOC division was crime data and without that data, the university would not be able to determine the statistics they needed. He added there was more and more need for the data captured by the division and the information could not be captured by the courts without technology. He stated it would not be accurate or timely without the technology.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if the entire budget for the division was crafted around the anticipated Senate bill. Ms. Kavanau stated that had only been an example. The division was really created in response to the legislature’s mandate for statistical data. She added A.B. 51 of the Seventieth Session was enacted as a result of the interim family court study between 1997 and 1999. The bill required every court in the state to provide certain information through the AOC to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. She stated the positions being requested simply reflected an effort to provide that information in a timely manner.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if the information was meaningful and what was done with the data. Ms. Kavanau replied the information was produced in the form of the annual report. Mr. Titus interpolated, the information had been used during the current hearing. He added the current report only included filings. Dispositions could not, currently, be verified.
Mr. Titus stated a lot of activity centered on trial courts, including how many cases went to trial and how many cases were disposed of before trial. He commented, if information had not been available and then it was possible to get specific information, it was rarely possible to go back to dealing without the information.
Mrs. Chowning related to her earlier comments stating if it was determined the information was needed the funding mechanism would need to be determined as well.
Ms. Kavanau stated the statistical data was really a measurement tool for the legislature on the performance of the courts. It was the best way to determine how well or how poorly the judicial system was working as compared to each other and to other courts outside the state.
Chairman O’Donnell stated the annual report (Exhibit E) was produced using a certain amount of funding. The current requests would add to the document, if his understanding was correct. He asked what was being added and why. The Chair stated he was not interested in holding the courts back from doing their job, but he was interested in holding the line on the number of employees that continued to be added to state government. He commented Nevada had remained as rural as it was because the legislature only met every two years for 120 days. He expressed his wish that the courts could appreciate the fiscally conservative opinions of the Chair.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on Budget Account 1484 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1486.
LEGISLATIVE – JUDICIAL – UNIFORM SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL RECORDS (101-1486) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-18
Ms. Kavanau referred to Exhibit F entitled “A Detailed Report on USJR Projects.” She stated, when the courts had provided their budget overview to the full joint committees in January 2001, they were asked to explain why there was such a rise in what had been spent in FY2000 and what was anticipated in future years. She commented Exhibit F provided that information in detail and the numbers were larger than what had been reported previously.
Ms. Kavanau noted the bottom line of the report stated $306,840 was spent in FY2000 and in FY2001 that figure would be $474,525. She stated the projects represented requests from the trial courts to date. The intended expenditures in FY2002 and FY2003 were $925,000 and $640,000, respectfully. She noted that entire funding would come from court assessments. She added the courts were trying to supplement funding through federal grants and other sources. She explained the courts were proud they were able to automate 91 trial courts, up from zero, and have them all appear in the first annual report.
Ms. Kavanau explained the projects were not only funded, but also managed, by staff who traveled around the state. She added in most cases, Mr. Titus, or one of his small staff, managed individual projects with good success.
Chairman O’Donnell asked for a total amount of technology requests for improvements in Nevada courts. Mr. Titus replied Exhibit F listed all projects that had been worked on since FY1999 and reflected USJR funding of $2.7 million, all from court assessments.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if the figures reflected statewide expenditures and Mr. Titus concurred. Mr. Titus noted Clark County had been very active recently. Exhibit F, page 1, reflected Clark County projects. Ms. Kavanau stressed the amount shown reflected the amount contributed by the AOC through court assessments, but in almost every case, local jurisdictions provided some funding as well. She commented the $5 million project for the Clark County Justice Courts - case management system purchase - would only be funded approximately 10 percent from the AOC. She added Clark County and other jurisdictions involved in the project would be contributing to the costs as well.
Ms. Kavanau explained Supreme Court policy based preference for funding of a project on two criteria: (1) It must be a multi-court project, thus maximizing the expenditure; and (2) The local jurisdiction must contribute significantly to the project as well.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if the loan repayment from Lovelock had ever been received. Mr. Titus replied the loan repayment had been received. The Chair stressed those funds must be allocated in The Executive Budget, in terms of staff being notified. He asked if the entire loan had been repaid. Ms. Kavanau stated the loan was repayable at $2,000 per year.
Bob Atkinson, Fiscal Program Analyst, stated staff just needed to verify that the Lovelock loan repayment was built into The Executive Budget for each year of the next biennium. He stated his understanding was that the loan would be repaid in full in the coming year and asked if the amount should be reflected in the FY2003 budget. Ms. Kavanau replied it could be removed from the FY2003 budget.
Mr. Hettrick asked for clarification that the total needs of the courts regarding USJR projects was reflected in Exhibit F, page 3, totals. Ms. Kavanau replied, Exhibit F only reflected the projects of which the courts were currently aware. Mr. Hettrick asked exactly what the total needs necessary were to satisfy the computer requirements of the courts statewide. Ms. Kavanau replied that would be impossible to guess. The courts had used a philosophy to spend “what they had.” The only way to determine the exact amount of need involved a laborious assessment by going to each court and determining their current level of technology, what they needed, and establish prices for each package. She stressed only three or four staff worked on the project. She commented the AOC allowed the projects based on what funding they knew was available from the assessments and any grant funds obtained. Mr. Hettrick replied, that statement was what bothered him because the “courts spent what they had.” He likened the projects to a wish list and noted at the same time, the legislature needed some idea of where the end might be.
Ms. Kavanau stated NRS 176.059 designated that 9 percent of all Administrative Assessments received by the AOC must be used to implement and maintain a uniform system for judicial records and that was what they were doing. She assured the subcommittee that Mr. Titus had developed a rigorous application process. She noted the AOC currently had technically competent staff, so courts were required to demonstrate a real need before they received financial assistance.
Mrs. Chowning referred to the Uniform Domestic Violence Study Committee and stated her understanding that the committee was supposed to be a one-time data repository project. She asked why additional costs were still being requested. She requested a written response to staff for that issue and her further two questions.
Mrs. Chowning noted “statewide projects” was a new category requesting $220,000. She asked what kind of projects were intended and how they differed from judicial grants, and if they would need continued funding. She asked, if the projects were continued, how would they be funded. She noted the item was not in The Executive Budget.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted the uniform judicial system had been before the subcommittee for the past eight years and each separate court was asking for appropriations. She noted her appreciation for the attempts made to provide some type of uniform system. She asked if part of the plan included a recommendation to the courts for a specific uniform type of computer system. Ms. Kavanau stated Mr. Titus had done a great deal of work in developing a statistical model. He had found the majority of courts were so grateful for guidance along those lines there was no resistance. Ms. Kavanau added, the lower courts were required to agree to provide specific information in a specific format before they received any funding.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the overall plan would be produced so future legislatures could anticipate requests and progress. Mr. Titus replied USJR grant guidelines were already published. They included a definition of USJR and acceptable criteria for funding requests. He offered to provide the guidelines to the subcommittee members.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked what areas of the state were fairly current in their technology needs. Mr. Titus replied the guidelines only dealt with request requirements. Ms. Kavanau stated the problem was that currently the only requirements were for filing and disposition data to be provided to the AOC. She added every system in the state, whether manual or automated, must produce at least that information and provide it to the AOC. She added there was further information required under statutes that was not yet being provided. Ms. Kavanau stated every time a system needed modification to accommodate a request for further information, more money would be necessary to make the change. She added funding was needed, whether it must be paid for through the Uniform System for Judicial Records, the local jurisdiction, or a combination of both.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated she understood the problem to be that there were rural systems that had no technology and other instances where computers were present, but they could not communicate with other computers as needed. She stated her understanding was that part of the goal was to get all jurisdictions to a similar technology base so that further modifications could be accomplished more easily. Mr. Titus responded, no one county was “up to par.” The AOC was working with Clark County to bring them current. There was also a project with 30 rural courts to bring them onto one system as well.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on Budget Account 1486 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1487.
LEGISLATIVE – JUDICIAL – JUDICIAL EDUCATION (101-1487) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-21
Ms. Kavanau stated the Judicial Education account provided for the continuing education of district court judges, justices of the peace, municipal court judges, and court personnel. She commented both the legislature and the Supreme Court imposed training on judges and required a variety of mandated education. In addition, judges must obtain education in new issues to remain current with the information presented to them by litigants.
Chairman O’Donnell noted the budget reflected a substantial increase in funding for the work program. He stated it reflected an aggressive educational endeavor and asked if the AA funding was sufficient to cover the costs. He noted figures for the actual were $546,509 and the work program reflected $842,000. He asked for confirmation the funding came completely from court assessments. Ms. Kavanau concurred that the complete funding came from court assessments. She added the figures in The Executive Budget reflected an increase in the educational needs of the judiciary.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if there was going to be a $300,000 savings if the same work program was maintained as for FY2000. He asked if the courts planned to spend $842,000 in FY2001. Ms. Kavanau replied, that was the plan. She added the mainstay of that budget was judicial conferences and there had not been as many conferences for the district judges and the Nevada Judges Association. She commented the district judges were currently meeting in their annual conference and it was known they would be making a request for another conference. The federal judges had asked the Supreme Court Justices to meet with them, so an additional day was being added to the district judges’ conference, which would cost more. Additionally, a lot more responsibility was being taken in the training of court staff. A tremendous need existed to provide training to those people who served the courts. She noted court clerks were placed under the supervision of county clerks, but worked for the courts and needed an understanding of the court system. She reiterated her belief it could all be accomplished with the three existing staff members.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was any additional compensation beyond salaries for judges attending conferences. She asked if there was a separate conference for court clerks. Ms. Kavanau replied court clerks had a conference of their own.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked the court to furnish the number of conferences/classes currently being held and what increases were planned for the future.
Chairman O’Donnell noted the intent that there was going to be 54 percent more money used in FY2001 than in FY2000. He asked if there was any way to legitimately increase the court assessment reserve to enable money to be drawn for some items from the reserve in the final budget process instead of from the General Fund. Ms. Kavanau replied negatively, explaining that the reserve was managed fairly carefully and when there had been a turnover in her position, there had been a hesitancy to spend anything from the reserve. In 1998-1999, reserves reached new highs. She noted certain expenses were required to be met, although court assessments traditionally came in slowly at the beginning of a new fiscal year.
Chairman O’Donnell stated the subcommittee was concerned about reserve amounts in accounts supported by court assessments. He asked if training could be kept at the level of the previous fiscal year or perhaps provide only a small increase. He noted a 54 percent increase did not seem reasonable. Ms. Kavanau stated the judiciary would review budget requests and return the issue to the subcommittee. Ms. Kavanau stated she was confused because there was currently $50,000 in the reserve and there would be $100,000 by the time the increases were needed, but they would review the requests again.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on Budget Account 1487 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1491.
LEGISLATIVE – JUDICIAL – DISTRICT JUDGES’ AND WIDOWS’ PENSION (101-1491) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-28
Mrs. Chowning noted the budget account title should be changed to “Widows and Widowers . . .” because there were currently female judges. Ms. Kavanau noted it had already been changed on her copy of the budget.
Ms. Kavanau stated the budget provided for district court judges and surviving spouses’ benefits. There were currently 26 recipients in the account.
There being no questions from the subcommittee, the Chair closed the hearing on Budget Account 1491 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1492.
LEGISLATIVE – JUDICIAL – SUPREME COURT JUSTICES’ WIDOWS’ PENSIONS (101-1492) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-30
Ms. Kavanau stated the budget account was very similar to that of district court judges. She noted there were currently eight recipients.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on Budget Account 1492 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1493.
LEGISLATIVE – JUDICIAL – DISTRICT JUDGES’ TRAVEL (101-1493) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-32
Ms. Kavanau stated Budget Account 1493 provided for district court judges’ travel and other reasonable and necessary expenses of district judges and senior justices and judges. It also funded one position that served as the statewide court program coordinator.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if “Kim” was present in Budget Account 1493. Ms. Kavanau replied “she” was not. The Chair noted the budget called for “designing and updating the current statewide court Web page” and asked if that was not “Kim.” Ms. Kavanau replied the position’s responsibility was to determine what information was to be contained on the Web page. The Chair asked for confirmation that the person referenced was not “Kim.” Ms. Kavanau replied the funded position was one already on staff.
Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau to explain the new position requested. Ms. Kavanau stated the statewide court system realized that several of its courts had innovative programs and the information about the creative programs was not being shared in an expedient way. It had been agreed with the district judges that a position should be created and a person was selected with the assistance of the district judges and the Nevada Judges Association (lower court judges). Ms. Kavanau stated Bill Gang was the incumbent and one of the people responsible for the production of the annual report.
Ms. Kavanau stated the front half of the annual report (Exhibit E) was produced by the position and that person also visited each of the courts to ascertain what new programs they were developing. She commented the position was becoming the AOC’s expert on how to establish a drug court.
Chairman O’Donnell noted the actual amount for FY2000 was $101,435. For FY2001, there was a $490,000 work program. He stressed that represented a 388 percent increase. He asked if the courts would be able to do that and noted it seemed, since the budget account was a travel fund, an increase of $394,000 was unrealistic.
Mrs. Chowning stated it appeared the purpose of the account had previously been travel, but it was being changed to a totally different focus. She suggested, at the very least, the account needed to be renamed.
Chairman O’Donnell noted preemptory challenge fees for travel use had funded the budget account and it seemed the account had been “morphed” into an account for anything that did not fit in another account. Ms. Kavanau stated all other travel and senior judges’ expenses were still posted to Budget Account 1493, and the AOC would return to the subcommittee with details of the changes in activities included in that account.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on Budget Account 1493 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1496.
LEGISLATIVE- JUDICIAL – RETIRED JUSTICE DUTY FUND (101-1496) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-35
Ms. Kavanau noted that retired judiciary members were called in to work to expedite judicial business and assist in district courts with congested calendars. They acted for judges that were disqualified or unable to perform. The AOC had reassigned a position to assist in management of the account by trying to find and use sitting judges wherever possible. She stressed the AOC was dangerously close to running out of money in that account in the previous year. Ms. Kavanau stated the need for assistance in the courts on a spot basis had greatly increased.
Mrs. Chowning stated, if the revenues were increasing, but there was a spending restriction, something needed to change. Ms. Kavanau stressed her point that there was no reserve in the account and when a judge passed away, the court needed to continue business and money needed to be present to fund a judge for that position. She added even though judges were, in effect, put on budgets it did not have an impact on the need. The AOC was simply trying to manage the account by finding other sitting judges who could temporarily replace or assist in another court.
Mrs. Chowning requested the AOC to inform the subcommittee what an appropriate reserve should be.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on Budget Account 1496 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 2889.
LEGISLATIVE – JUDICIAL LAW LIBRARY (101-2889) BUDGET PAGE COURTS-38
Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Kavanau to explain decision unit E-806. Ms. Kavanau noted the position upgrade for Susan Southwick, Law Librarian, was requested from the courts based on comparisons with other positions.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if the raise was in line with the Governor’s recommendations. Ms. Kavanau replied, as with other accounts, the raise was written into the budget before the Governor’s recommendations were known.
Mrs. Chowning referred to decision unit M-101 and noted the kind of inflation built into that module did not appear in the State Library or university library budgets and stated she did not feel it was appropriate in the Law Library budget. She requested staff to work with the courts.
Ms. Susan Southwick, Law Librarian, commented the Governor’s budget instructions had provided, if there was an inflationary item that was much larger and applied to only one agency, it could be provided for. She noted the Judicial Branch was not subject to the Governor’s restrictions on the State Library. She stated the inflation rate for law book publishing was on the increase imposed by the consolidation of the law book industry. She noted inflation in the previous year had been 8 percent and that was how the budget had been crafted. She reported she had just recalculated the figures based on the current fiscal year, and the current inflation rate was 6 percent. She offered to provide updated information to staff.
There being no further testimony, Chairman O’Donnell adjourned the meeting at 10:57 a.m.
Cindy Clampitt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William O’Donnell, Chairman
DATE: