HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 2016-23 - Governor - Legislature - Judicial CouncilCITY OF PALM DESERT
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-23
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2016- 23 , A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT URGING THE GOVERNOR, LEGISLATURE AND JUDICIAL
COUNCIL TO WORK TOGETHER TO REALLOCATE JUDICIAL
RESOURCES TO ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS.
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
DATE: March 10, 2016
CONTENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2016- 23
2. Judicial Council 20014 Update of the Judicial Needs Assessment
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2016- 23
Background
One of the highest priorities for Inland Empire courts has been to increase the number of
judges. According to the Judicial Council's 2014 update of the Judicial Needs Assessment,
San Bernardino Superior Court has a verified need for 143 judges but only has 86, a need
of 57. The same holds true for Riverside Superior Court with a verified need for 127 judges
but a current complement of only 76, a deficit of 51. These two counties alone rank first and
second respectively in terms of judicial need throughout the state. This fact, against the
backdrop of a population that has grown by 37 percent over the last 15 years, results in
severe delays and a lack of access to justice for the citizens of these counties.
Senate Bill (SB) 229, introduced by Senator Richard Roth, was the latest in a series of bills
to fund new judgeships in California. This bill would have appropriated $5 million from the
General Fund for the purpose of funding 12 superior court judge positions currently
authorized by the Legislature but never funded. San Bernardino probably would have
received four judgeships through this bill and Riverside probably would have received three.
The bill passed both houses of the Legislature without a dissenting vote; however the
Governor vetoed the bill on October 8'h. The Governor wrote, "I am aware that the need for
judges in many courts is acute — Riverside and San Bernardino are two clear examples.
However, before funding any new positions, I intend to work with the Judicial Council to
develop a more system wide approach to balance the workload and the distribution of
judgeships around the state."
In his proposed budget released in January, the Governor proposed working with the
Judicial Council to reallocate up to five vacant superior court judgeships, together with
funding for staff and security complements needed to support and implement the proposal.
Staff Report: Resolution No 2016- 23 (Reallocate Judicial Resources)
March 10, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Such action would shift judgeships where the workload is highest without increasing the
overall number of judges statewide. Staff respectfully requests approval of the attached
Resolution that urges the Governor, Legislature and Judicial Council to work together to
create and implement an acceptable methodology, which allocates funded judicial positions
where they are most needed in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact to the City of Palm Desert General Fund by approving this
resolution.
Submitted By:
Li
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk eager
J M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 2016- 23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
URGING THE GOVERNOR, LEGISLATURE AND JUDICIAL COUNCIL
TO WORK TOGETHER TO REALLOCATE JUDICIAL RESOURCES
TO ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS
WHEREAS, the population of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties has grown 37
percent over the last 15 years, but funded judicial positons have not increased
sufficiently to meet the increased need, resulting in lengthy delays for the residents of
these counties in accessing justice through their courts; and
WHEREAS, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have two of the highest caseload
ratios per judge in the State; and
WHEREAS, the Chief Justice and Judicial Council, through modification of the
Workload Allocation Funding Model, have taken significant initial steps to promote equal
access to justice by creating a model to allocate funding more equitably to the trial
courts; and.
WHEREAS, according to the 2014 Judicial Needs Assessment, San Bernardino County
has a need for 57 additional judges, and Riverside County a need for 51 additional
judges, more than any other counties in the State and ranked first and second,
respectively, in terms of need; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, SB 229, which would have funded 12 additional judgeships in
California, including 4 in San Bernardino County and 3 in Riverside County, was passed
by the legislature unanimously but vetoed by the Governor; and
WHEREAS, in his veto message, the Governor stated: "I am aware the need for judges
in many courts is acute- Riverside and San Bernardino are two clear examples.
However, before funding new positions, I intend to work with the Judicial Council to
develop a more system wide approach to balance the workload and the distribution of
judgeships around the state"; and
WHEREAS, the Governor's 2016-17 budget proposes to reallocate up to 5 vacant
judgeships and the staffing and security compliments needed to support them to areas
where workloads are highest.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT HEREBY URGENTLY REQUESTS THAT THE GOVERNOR,
LEGISLATURE, AND JUDICIAL COUNCIL WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE AND
IMPLEMENT AN ACCEPTABLE METHODOLOGY, WHICH ALLOCATES FUNDED
JUDICIAL POSITIONS, WITH FUNDING FOR SUPPORT STAFF AND COURT
SECURITY, WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED MOST URGENTLY IN RIVERSIDE AND
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, SO THAT ALL CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS CAN
ENJOY EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, on this 101h day of March, 2016, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
The Need for New
Judgeships in the
Superior Courts:
2014 Update of the
Judicial Needs
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
69614(C)(1)&(3)
NOVEMBER 2014
C1 °F�
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
o
OF CALIFORNIA
�}
WORKLOAD ASSESSMENT
1976
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Please address inquiries to:
Judicial Council of California
Office of Court Research
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
research@jud.ca.gov
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
Chief Justice of California and
Chair of the Judicial Council
Martin Hoshino
Administrative Director
Jody Patel
Chief of Staff
OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS DIVISION
Curtis L. Child
Chief Operating Officer
COURT OPERATIONS SERVICES
Donna S. Hershkowitz
Director
Leah Rose -Goodwin
Manager, Office of Court Research
Primary Author of Report
Access to Justice Requires Having Sufficient Judicial Resources
Government Code section 69614(c)(1) requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature
and the Governor on or before November 1 of every even -numbered year on the need for new
judgeships in each superior court, using the uniform criteria for the allocation of judgeships
described in Government Code section 69614(b). Government Code section 69614(c)(3) requires
the Judicial Council to report on the status of the conversion of additional subordinate judicial
officer positions to family or juvenile assignments.
The public's right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources
in every jurisdiction. The number of judgeships authorized and funded by the Legislature has not
kept pace with workload, leaving many courts with serious shortfalls —as high as nearly 70
percent —between the number of judgeships needed and the number that have been authorized
and filled.
Securing new judgeships is one of the core elements of the Chief Justice's Three -Year Blueprint
for a Fully Functioning Judicial Branch and has been a top priority for the Judicial Council for
many years. t
Quantifying the Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts
California is a pioneer in the measurement of judicial workload -based need, having been the first
state to use a weighted caseload methodology to assess the need for judicial officers, beginning
in 1963.2 Since then, weighted caseload has become a nationally accepted methodology for
measuring judicial workload. The current methodology used to assess the need for judicial
officers in the superior courts is based on a time study conducted in 2010, in which over 500
judicial officers in 15 courts participated. The time study findings resulted in the development of
a set of caseweights that quantify the amount of case processing time needed for different case
types, taking into account the full range of possible case processing outcomes and their relative
probability of occurrence. The caseweights that resulted from the 2010 time study were approved
by the Judicial Council in December 2011.
The caseweights are used to estimate judicial officer need by multiplying each caseweight by a
three-year rolling average of filings for that casetype and dividing by the available time in
minutes that judicial officers have to hear cases. The result is expressed in full-time equivalent
judicial positions (FTEs).
1 See, for example, Judicial Council reports from August 24, 2001; October 26, 2001; August 27, 2004; February 23,
2007; October 24, 2008; October 29, 2010; and October 25, 2012.
2 henry 0. Lawson and Barbara 1. Glente, Workload Measures in the Courts (Williamsburg, VA: National Center
for State Courts, 1980).
2014 Statewide Judicial Need Shows a Critical Need for New Judgeships
Consistent with reports submitted in previous years, the 2014 Judicial Needs Assessment shows
that there is a critical shortage of judges relative to the workload needs in California's trial
courts. Table 1 summarizes the statewide judicial need compared to available resources based on
a three-year average of filings from fiscal years 2010-2011 through 2012-2013, showing that
2,171.3 FTE judicial officers are needed statewide, compared to 1,963.3 FTE authorized and
funded positions. While Assembly Bill159 (Stats. 2007, ch. 722) authorized 50 new judgeships
for the superior courts, those positions have neither been funded nor filled.
Table 1 shows the total assessed statewide need for judicial officers has declined by 5 percent
since the 2012 Judicial Needs Assessment. Lower overall filings counts in recent years account
for the slight decline in statewide assessed judicial need.
Table 1: Statewide Need for Judicial Officers, 2012 and 2014 Judicial Needs Assessments
Authorized and
Funded Judgeships
and Authorized
Authorized Judicial Subordinate Judicial Assessed Judicial
Year Positions (AJP)' Officer Positions Need (AJN)
2012 2,022 1,972 2,286.1
20142 2,013.3 1,963.3 2,171.3
Chan a (2012 to 2014) -8.7 -8.7 -114.8
'Includes the 50 judgeships that were authorized by AB 159 (Slats. 207, ch. 722) but never funded nor filled.
2 AJP changed since the last assessment because the Superior Court of California, County of San Bemardino, was authorized to
add two SJO positions in FY 2011-2012 based on workload need. Also, several courts requested that the Judicial Council's
Executive and Planning (E&P) Committee approve changes in the number of authorized commissioner FTEs following a refresh of
that data In September 2014 These changes, which are reflected In the table, are mostly requests for reductions in FTEs and were
confirmed by E&P at its October 9. 2014 meeting.
Nearly 270 Judicial Officers Needed Statewide to Meet Workload Demand
Judicial need is calculated by taking the difference between the assessed judicial need in each
court and the number of authorized/funded positions in each court. The assessed judicial need in
each court compared to the number of authorized and filled positions is shown in Appendix A.
Calculating the statewide need for judgeships is not as simple as subtracting the number of
authorized and funded positions from the assessed judicial need. That calculation would show a
need of just over 200 judgeships; however, net statewide calculations of judicial need do not
accurately identify the branch's need for new judgeships because judgeships are not allocated at
the statewide level but are allocated to individual trial courts.
By way of illustration, the branch's smallest courts are statutorily provided with a minimum of
two judgeships and are authorized to have at least 0.3 FTE of a federally funded child support
commissioner, for a total of 2.3 FTE judicial officers, even though the workload need in those
courts may translate to a much smaller number of judge FTEs. As Appendix A shows, under a
pure workload analysis, one of California's two judge courts would need only 0.2 FTE judicial
officers, but it has 2.3 FTE authorized positions. That court thus shows a negative number in the
Page 2
need for new judicial officers. This negative number does not and should not offset the 57
judicial officers that San Bernardino needs to meet its workload -based need. In other words, the
fact that some courts may have more authorized positions than assessed judicial need under a
pure application of the weighted caseload methodology does not take away from the needs in
other courts. As a result, a net calculation of need, adding these positives and negatives, provides
an artificially low estimate of judicial need in California courts.
The actual statewide need for new judgeships is calculated by adding the j udicial need among
only the courts that have fewer judgeships than their workload demands. Based on the 2014
Judicial Needs Assessment, 35 courts need new judgeships, for a total need of 269.8 FTEs (Table
2). This is nearly 14 percent higher than the 1,963.3 authorized and funded judicial positions.
The need estimate does not include judicial vacancies, resulting from retirements, elevations, or
other changes, that have not yet been filled.3
Table 2: Need for New Judgeships, by Court
Authorized
2014
FundedAJN•
%need
Judicial
Assessed
AJP
overAJP
County
PosMons'
Judicial Need
(6-A)
(C/Ig)
Amador
23
2.7
0.4
19%
Butte
13.0
14.2
1.2
9%
Calaveras
2.3
2.8
0.5
20%
Del Norte
2.8
3.7
0.9
34%
El Dorado
9.0
9.9
0.9
10%
Fresno
49.0
60.7
11.7
24%
Humboldt
&0
10.6
2.6
33%
Imperial
11.3
13.8
2.5
22%
Kern
43.0
58.0
15.0
35%
Kings
8.6
11.4
2.8
33%
Lake
4.8
5.2
0.4
9%
Lassen
2.3
3.2
0.9
40%
Los Angeles
585.3
629.5
44.2
8%
Madera
9.3
10.9
1.6
17%
Merced
12.0
16.7
4.7
39%
Monterey
21.2
21.8
0.6
3%
Napa
8.0
8.2
0.2
3%
Orange
144.0
155.6
11.6
8%
Placer
14.5
19.4
4.9
34%
Riverside
76.0
127.4
51.4
69%
Sacramento
72.5
81.8
9.3
13%
San Benito
2.3
2.8
0.5
23%
San Bernardino
86.0
143.0
57.0
66%
San Joaquin
33.5
42.3
8.9
26%
San Luis Obispo
15.0
17.9
2.9
19%
Santa Crux
13.5
14.2
0.7
5%
Shasta
12.0
16.4
4.4
36%
Solano
23.0
25.0
2.0
9%
Sonoma
23.0
26.1
3.1
14%
Stanislaus
24.0
32.6
8.6
36%
Sutter
5.3
6.7
1.4
27%
Tehama
4.3
5.8
1.5
34%
Tulare
23.0
25.9
2.9
13%
Ventura
33.0
40.4
7A
22%
Yuba
5.3
5.6
0.3
5%
Total need:
269.8
' Indudes author, led
and funded prdaeshlps.
not mrfudi nt,uoaeshlps itlat were
a uthonzed under AS 159. Also ind udes authonzed subordinate judicial
officer
positions
' Judicial vacancies are reported monthly here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/15893.htm
Page 3
Status of Conversion of Additional SJO Positions to Family and Juvenile
Assignments
As directed by Government Code section 69614(c)(3), this report also addresses the
implementation of conversions of additional subordinate judicial officer (SJO) positions (above
the 16 authorized per year) that result in judges being assigned to family or juvenile assignments
previously held by SJOs (as authorized by Gov. Code, § 69615(c)(1)(C)).
Conversions of additional positions were authorized for fiscal year 2011-2012 (Gov. Code,
§ 69616). Under this authority, four SJO positions were converted to judgeships —one each in
the Superior Courts of Alameda (June 2012), Los Angeles (January 2012), Orange (January
2012), and Sacramento (March 2012) Counties. At the time of the 2012 Judicial Needs
Assessment, the Governor had not yet appointed judges to fill those newly created judgeships;
however, the courts in which the conversions took place committed to assigning judges (whether
the newly appointed judges or other sitting judges) to either family or juvenile calendars that
were previously presided over by subordinate judicial officers. The courts who converted those
positions have confirmed that those family and juvenile calendars are now presided over by
judges.
Conversions of 10 additional positions were authorized for fiscal year FY 2013-2014 (Gov.
Code, § 69617). No SJO positions were converted under this authority.
Lack of Adequate Judicial Resources Is a Barrier to Access to Justice
The public's right to timely access to justice should not be contingent on the resource levels in
the county in which they reside or bring their legal disputes. All Californians deserve to have the
proper number of judicial officers for the workload in their jurisdiction. This report highlights
the critical and ongoing need for new judgeships in the superior courts.
Page 4
Appendix A: Assessed Judicial Need Compared to Authorized Positions
I A I B C D
Authorized
2014
Funded AJN-
% need over
Judicial
Assessed
AJP
AJP
County
Positions
Judicial Need
(B-A)
(C/B)
Alameda
85.0
70.1
-14.9
n/a
Alpine
2.3
0.2
-2.1
n/a
Amador
2.3
2.7
0.4
19%
Butte
13.0
14.2
1.2
9%
Calaveras
2.3
2.8
0.5
20%
Colusa
2.3
1.6
-0.7
n/a
Contra Costa
46.0 1
42.5
-3.5
n/a
Del Norte
2.8
3.7
0.9
34%
El Dorado
9.0
9.9
0.9
10%
Fresno
49.0
60.7
11.7
24%
Glenn
2.3
2.0
-0.3
n/a
Humboldt
8.0
10.6
2.6
33%
Imperial
11.3
13.8
2.5
22%
Inyo
2.3
1.6
-0.7
n/a
Kenn
43.0
58.0
15.0
35%
Kings
8.5
11.4
2.8
33%
lake
4.8
5.2
0.4
9%
Lassen
2.3
3.2
0.9
40%
Los Angeles
585.3
629.5
44.2
8%
Madera
9.3
10.9
1.6
17%
Marin
12.7
11.8
-0.9
n/a
Mariposa
2.3
1.3
-1.0
n/a
Mendocino
8.4
7.3
-1.1
n/a
Merced
12.0
16.7
4.7
39%
Modoc
2.3
0.8
-1.5
n/a
Mono
2.3
1.1
-1.2
n/a
Monterey
21.2
21.8
0.5
3%
Napa
8.0
9.2
0.2
3%
Nevada
7.5 i
5.4
-2.2
n/a
Orange
144.0
155.6
11.6
8%
Placer
14.5
19.4
4.9
34%
Plumas
2.3
1.4
-0.9
n/a
^�-Riverside
76.0.
127.4
51.4
68%
Sacramento
72.5
81.8
9.3
13%
San Benito
2.3
2.8
0.5
23%
San Bernardino
86.0
143.0
57.0
66%
San Diego
154.0
153.3
-0.7
n/a
San Francisco
55.9
53.8
-2.1
n/a
San Joaquin
33.5
42.3
8.8
26%
San Luis Obispo
15.0
17.9
2.9
29%
San Mateo
33.0
31.1
-1.9
n/a
Santa Barbara
24.0
23.4
-0.6
n/a
Santa Clara
89.0
69.6
-19.4
n/a
Santa Cruz
13.5
14.2
0.7
5%
Shasta
12.0
16.4
4.4
36%
Sierra
2.3
0.2
-2.1
n/a
Siskiyou
5.0
3.4
-1.6
n/a
Solano
23.0
25.0
2.0
9%
Sonoma
23.0
26.1
3.1
14%
Stanislaus
24.0
32.6
8.5
36%
Sutter
5.3
6.7
1.4
27%
Tehama
4.3
5.8
1.5
34%
Trinity
2.3
1.6
-0.7
n/a
Tulare
23.0
25.9
2.9
13%
Tuolumne
4.8
4.3
-0.5
n/a
Ventura
33.0
40.4
7.4
22%
Yolo
12.4
11.2
-1.2
n/a
Yuba
5.3
5.6
0.3
5%
I Authoreed judicrl ra ... rdude bath j,rdsethiosand sA di-t. judaalnK- posnons Authunted
rada.dups-t 10thtw todded.tC,rwerament cove uttr.ut 69hao mrayh 6%11 pus fne Sr lydaeclux
th.t o en.uthorwil and funded wltA Sa S6 (suts.2006, dt. 390) but not the 501udgeships that overt . d-ked
with A! 159 but never funded. since 2006. there hawe been a few dunan to AIP resul0ny tom darWn In
authedc.d suberdm.t. rydim off In Fy 11 12, end suparier Court of CaVow", County el San So-4-
was author ued to add two 510 Pmr - baed on worried reed. Also, m Seutembn 2014, hdwl Courul staff
rehashed the ."lied commnsonar a 1 F, and went tarn haw• requited that the t..tut- and Penney
Committee of the ludicial Council approve cunipts-mostis reductions- in the rumher of authanred
cmnsiss onar FTE T%e uble has been updated to reflect thou r iql ted dunan, wh ch were approved by ESP
at the. October 9, 1014 rn.c:ina
Page 5