MINUTES OF THE
JOINT Subcommittee on
General Government
of the
Senate Committee on Finance
AND THE
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-second Session
February 27, 2003
The Joint Subcommittee on General Government of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 27, 2003. Chairman Sandra J. Tiffany presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Bob Coffin
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Stout Chowning, Chairman
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Joshua B. Griffin
Ms. Kathy A. McClain
Mr. David R. Parks
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Julie Brand, Program Analyst
Michael Archer, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Deborah A. Agosti, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator
Judy Holt, Manager, Budget and Finance, Office of Court Administrator
Janette M. Bloom, Clerk of the Supreme Court
Archie E. Blake, District Judge, Third Judicial District, District Courts of Nevada
Kathleen Harrington, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library
JUDICIAL BRANCH, SUPREME COURT– OVERVIEW
Supreme Court – Budget Page COURTS-3 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 10-1494
Deborah A. Agosti, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court:
We originally anticipated using administrative assessments to meet the 3 percent reduction requested by the Governor. In fiscal year (FY) 2002, however, there was a downturn in revenue because fewer misdemeanor and traffic citations were written. Though the courts had a collection rate of 85 percent, there was less to collect. Since September 11, 2001, law enforcement has shifted away from traffic control toward security issues. Also, the Nevada Highway Patrol has had a reduction in staff.
Compounding this problem, the Supreme Court did not receive $350,000 in court assessment allocated in the last budget. As a result, we requested a Contingency Fund allocation from the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) of approximately $200,000. In FY 2003, we have not yet received $700,000 in court assessments allocated to us.
In this budget we are requesting four technology positions, as described on the last page of handout Supreme Court (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library). The addition of these positions will allow us to upgrade our case management system to support the size and complexity of our operation. Enhanced technology will make us more efficient.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
This budget represents an increase of 76.4 percent. You must prioritize your positions and needs. Can some items that serve other courts, like the Supreme Court Web site, and the case manager position, be funded from administrative assessments rather than the General Fund?
Chief Justice Agosti:
The Web site is now a Supreme Court function. Eventually, other courts may use it. Nevada is the only state Supreme Court that does not publish their decisions on the Web. The Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) has been doing that for us in the past, but may have to discontinue.
The case manager position will not be needed until next year. Our case management system manages only Supreme Court cases and does not benefit other courts. The business system analyst and program information specialist positions would only benefit Supreme Court case management.
Senator Tiffany:
Will the positions be paid from administrative assessments and not the General Fund?
Chief Justice Agosti:
Yes, if Senate Bill (S.B) 106 passes.
SENATE BILL 106: Authorizes county clerks to impose additional fees for filing of certain actions and responses thereto in district courts to offset portion of costs of providing technology to courts. (BDR 2-614)
Senator Tiffany:
Describe the systems you use.
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator:
We have the Nevada appellate case management system on page 3 of (Exhibit C) and the Nevada Rural Courts System (NRCS), which uses Courtview, described in handout Uniform System for Judicial Records(USJR)(Exhibit D). In addition, we have the integration projects, which allow law enforcement, district attorneys, and courts to share data. But these are not case management systems. Clark County, North Las Vegas, and Henderson will be using the Courtview case management system, but it will be funded locally. We are able to coordinate with them because they use the same software as NRCS.
Senator Tiffany:
Does the case manger position assist these other entities, or is it strictly for the Supreme Court?
Mr. Titus:
It will be used only for the Supreme Court.
Senator Tiffany:
When will you be moving into the Regional Justice Center?
Chief Justice Agosti:
We may have to wait until the next biennium.
Senator Tiffany:
In this budget, why do the assessments show no growth, even though the population is growing?
Chief Justice Agosti:
We are not precisely sure. The primary assessment is from the misdemeanors. These crimes result in a fine and also an administrative assessment. The assessments have gone down by 15 percent this year.
Senator Tiffany:
Have you collected statewide data to determine what is causing these declining revenues?
Mr. Titus:
As indicated in handout Administrative Assessment (AA) Analysis (Exhibit E), we are studying this. Chief Justice Agosti is forming a commission that would have the lower courts standardize reporting procedures. However, there are legal problems regarding Supreme Court jurisdiction in this area.
Senator Tiffany:
Do you have a chief financial officer to make sure your revenues are guaranteed?
Mr. Titus:
Yes, that person is Judy Holt.
Senator Tiffany:
By your next report date in June 2003, will the commission be able to give us greater understanding of your revenue situation?
Chief Justice Agosti:
We will not have all that information available by June. When the commission is concluded, we will not only have that information, but a plan to provide uniformity and consistency among all the courts in the way they make assessments. This should be completed by the end of the year.
Senator Tiffany:
Will you know by May 2003 whether you need money for the Regional Justice Center?
Mr. Titus:
We will have that information. As it appears now, we will not be requesting our move funds soon.
Senator Tiffany:
Why do you show that you are achieving a 3 percent cut through vacancy savings, and yet you want to add four positions in this budget?
Judy Holt, Manager, Budget and Finance, Office of Court Administrator:
In addition to position vacancy savings, we delayed implementation of the court interpreter program, which had been budgeted for this year. We have also reduced training for our staff, and eliminated travel by our settlement judge. We put on hold a project to photocopy our records to medium other than paper. We have turnover in our attorney positions; if we bring in replacements at a lower step, we create some salary savings.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
If you are not spending all of the funds previously budgeted for the Regional Justice Center, why does your request for this biennium show an increase?
Ms. Holt:
The request for this biennium is nearly identical to the last one. The increase is in the rent on the new building, and is mostly attributable to maintenance and operations. We received that estimate from Clark County.
Senator Tiffany:
You are requesting furniture, computers and software totaling $500,000. You have 88 positions. That comes to about $4000 per person. What are you getting, and why is it necessary?
Mr. Titus:
There are several large items in that request, including the replacement of two computer servers at a cost of $40,000 each.
Ms. Holt:
Additionally, we need to replace printers, fax machines, switches, and desktop computers. The furniture request includes replacement of the court clerk’s aging recording equipment, which will cost $9000. These items are critically needed.
Last session, on behalf of the capitol police, we spent $36,000 on upgrades to our security equipment. We are asking for that in the current budget.
Senator Tiffany:
While there is no additional cost in this budget due to the realignment of staff, will this have an impact on future budgets due to salary equalization?
Janette M. Bloom, Clerk of the Supreme Court:
This proposal protects three attorneys in the Supreme Court. The court attorneys are divided into three divisions, the clerk’s office, central staff civil division, and central staff criminal division. We propose to reclassify one of the positions in the clerk’s office to a chief assistant clerk position. In each of the other two divisions, we want to upgrade one staff attorney position to a deputy-supervising position.
The clerk’s office currently has more of the higher paid supervisory positions. This would give a person in each of the other divisions responsibly for that division when the supervisor is away, and compensate them for performing those duties.
Our proposal would equalize the Supreme Court attorney salaries with those of the Office of the Attorney General. It will have no impact on the current budget, but would cost $59,000 in the next biennium.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
We need a prioritized list of the equipment you need to replace. Also, is it a requirement for you to go by the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) cost estimates? Are you returning money from last session’s appropriations?
Mr. Titus:
We will prioritize our list for you. We follow the schedule of costs provided by DoIT. Our plan is to return about $100,000 to the General Fund from last year’s appropriation. That amount is not included in our 3 percent reduction. Our budget had actually suffered a 4 percent reduction due to the decline in administrative assessments.
I will read the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) budget in the Executive Budget.
Administrative Office of the Courts – Budget Page COURTS-12 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 10-1483
The AOC is funded entirely by administrative assessments. Because of the decrease in revenues from the assessments, we will need additional funding to carry us through the next biennium. We are relying on the passage of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 242 to provide these funds.
ASSEMBLY BILL 242: Increases amount of certain administrative assessments and requires imposition of administrative assessment when imprisonment or community service is ordered in lieu of fine. (BDR 14-613)
Assemblywoman McClain:
What will you do if A.B. 242 does not pass?
Mr. Titus:
If the bill does not pass, we will be laying off employees by FY 2005.
Senator Tiffany:
Are there other alternatives? What do other states do to pay for their Supreme Courts?
Mr. Titus:
One alternative is to fully fund the judiciary out of the General Fund. Many states are going to this, because unequal funding of courts produces unequal justice, and they are trying to remedy this. The other means of funding is by fees and assessments. Oklahoma recently enacted an emergency fee on court filings.
Senator Tiffany:
Can the assessment fee actually be larger than the fine?
Mr. Titus:
Yes, we have to calculate the breaking point. In double-fine situations we already get many complaints. People tend to fight these tickets, consequently tying up the courts.
In California, the assessment rate is 170 percent of the fine. Washington and Arizona are comparable to Nevada, at 70 percent of the fine. We have looked at restructuring our administrative assessments. But, we have little information on this, and are afraid it might backfire and bring in less money.
Senator Tiffany:
Have you looked at the impact of periodic amnesty programs on your assessments?
Mr. Titus:
No, we have not. That is under the authority of the local courts.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
What percent of increase in the administrative assessment would occur as a result of BDR 14‑613?
Mr. Titus:
A flat assessment, which includes a basic $35 facility fee, is currently about 60 percent of the fine amount. With our proposed $10 assessment, it would increase to a high of 70 percent. A.B. 29 is asking for a $15 assessment for specialty courts. If that passes, it could increase to nearly 80 percent.
ASSEMBLY BILL 29: Provides for additional administrative assessment to be collected in certain cases involving misdemeanors to pay for certain programs established by district courts. (BDR 14-130).
Senator Tiffany:
What are the three positions you are requesting?
Mr. Titus:
We need an attorney position for AOC, a personnel analyst, and a management analyst to assist with the judicial council.
Senator Tiffany:
Will the vacancy savings we see in the Supreme Court budget impact the AOC in any way? If these three positions are soft, have you considered taking the money to reduce the General Fund obligation as opposed to adding staff?
Mr. Titus:
The vacancies in the Supreme Court budget do not impact the AOC. If the administrative assessment increase passes, the General Fund will get $1.5 million. The General Fund pays for 64 percent of our current budget. It will go down to 51 percent if BDR 14-613 passes.
Senator Tiffany:
Why is the Retired Justice Duty Fund necessary? What are the senior judges’ workloads like?
Chief Justice Agosti:
We are using senior judges in lieu of hiring more district judges. However, the hours they can work are limited by a formula based on their annual pension amount.
Mr. Titus:
The proposed administrative assessments will bring in about $85,000 for the Senior Program.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Why does this budget show your total personnel as 216 people, but only 18 in FY 2005?
Ms Holt:
The FY 2005 figure is a typographical error. It should be 187. The reason for the decline from 216 to 187 is because we no longer make pension payments for retired judges and justices. The Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) assumed that responsibility in January 2003.
Mr. Titus:
I will read the Executive Budget, Division of Planning and Analysis, page 16.
Division of Planning and Analysis – Budget Page COURTS-16 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 10-1484
Senator Tiffany:
Can the two positions, identified by the Legislative audit, be funded out of the administrative assessments rather than the General Fund?
Mr. Titus:
We view the audit as a Legislative mandate. But these positions will be of no use to us unless we also get the technology.
Senator Tiffany:
Why do you show such a steep increase in travel?
Mr. Titus:
We must travel to make sure the courts are following proper procedures.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
You show a deputy administrator position that has been vacant over a year. Can you tell us why this is still needed if you haven’t needed it for a year?
Mr. Titus:
That was kept open for General Fund salary savings. It was my old position, and I have been performing those duties in addition to my own. We still need the position filled.
Senator Tiffany:
Is the Uniform System for Judicial Records operational yet?
Mr. Titus:
Although we briefly discussed it earlier, I will now cover B/A 1486, the Uniform System for Judicial Review.
Uniform System for Judicial Review – Budget Page COURTS-21 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 10-1486
The statistical portion of the USJR has four components. The only one now operational is the inventory program, which counts the number of cases filed and completed. The other components, which identify the type of case, how it was disposed, and how long it took to complete, are not yet in operation. They will not come about unless we get the position.
The funding is 100 percent administrative assessment. The major program in this system is the Nevada Rural Courts System (NRCS). This will provide state‑of-the-art case management systems to any court in the State, through software called Courtview. We assess the various courts $2500 per user. We have had to slow down the implementation, because of the decline in revenue. Without additional funding, it could take several more years to get the system installed throughout the State.
Senator Tiffany:
Is anybody paying the $2500 now? How many courts will that come from? How many users per court?
Mr. Titus:
Three courts are paying it now. Eventually, 25 to 30 courts will use the system, but not until it is fully installed.
Ms. Holt:
We anticipate a total of 25 users in this fiscal year.
Senator Tiffany:
Assuming implementation continues to be delayed, will you need all five positions?
Mr. Titus:
Acquiring the technology is the key to the administrative assessments. Everything else hinges on getting the system fully operational.
Senator Tiffany:
How much revenue will you generate from the fee increase called for in this budget?
Ms. Holt:
We will generate an additional $200,000 per year.
Mr. Titus:
I will cover B/A 1487.
Judicial Education – Budget Page COURTS-25 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 10-1487
We will cut back training for individual judges by 50 percent.
Archie E. Blake, District Judge, Third Judicial District, District Courts of Nevada:
I will discuss B/A 1495.
Supreme Court Rural Drug Court – Budget Page COURTS-31 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-1495
We have had 140 participants since September 2001. If this program were not in place, 62 percent of them would have gone to prison for a minimum of one year. This has saved the State about $700,000. We want to establish family drug courts, and expand our services into Mineral County. We anticipate being able to do this with the $150,000 per year we are requesting. We get some funding from a federal grant.
Senator Tiffany:
When did you receive that grant? And how long will it last?
Judge Blake:
It is a 3-year grant that began in 2002.
Senator Tiffany:
If you expand your programs now, will you need more money from the State later when the federal grant runs out?
Judge Blake:
If we do, it will not be needed to replace that federal grant. The grant provided most of the technological infrastructure, from which we will continue to benefit.
Senator Rhoads:
Do other rural counties have drug courts?
Judge Blake:
Yes, White Pine County has a drug court, and other counties are interested because the program is cost efficient.
Senator Tiffany:
Would the increased administrative assessments in A.B. 29 help to reduce your General Fund obligation?
Judge Blake:
It would be helpful to us as long as the assessment amounts are not reduced from the increases proposed in the current legislation
Ms. Holt:
I will review B/A 1493.
District Judges Travel – Budget Page COURTS-33 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-1493
This is funded entirely through district court peremptory challenge fees, and provides travel funds and expenses for district court judges, senior judges, and drug court judges.
Kathleen Harrington, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library:
I will discuss B/A 2889.
Law Library – Budget Page COURTS-40 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2889
The law library budget is so lean that when the Governor asked for a 3 percent cut, the Supreme Court absorbed our share. The current funding will not increase, or maintain, our necessary book collections.
Senator Tiffany:
Why do you show a 7 percent inflationary cost, when the University libraries show only 3 percent?
Ms. Harrington:
I am not sure.
Senator Tiffany:
Will the Regional Justice Center have its own law library? If not, what are they going to do?
Ms. Harrington
It will not have its own library. They are currently using the Clark County Law Library. They also use electronic resources, and we fax them information upon request.
Ms. Holt:
I will read B/A 1491.
Judicial DST Judges and Widows Pension – Budget Page COURTS-1 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-1491
This budget exists because we must provide a conduit for an annual payment to PERS for the unfunded liability share of the pension system. This is simply a transfer budget.
Senator Tiffany:
This meeting is adjourned at 10:18 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Michael Archer,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Chairman
DATE:
Assemblywoman Vonne Stout Chowning, Chairman
DATE: