Judicial Blitz

Judicial Blitz

Chief judges and court administrators make an eleventh-hour appeal over concerns about a shift in how taxpayers pay for the state's trial courts.

By David R. Corder

Associate Editor

By mid-February, Chief Judge Robert Bennett had spoken to just about anyone who would hear him talk about a pending shift in trial courts funding. He had met recently with every chamber of commerce in the 12th Circuit - DeSoto, Manatee and Sarasota counties. He also had talked with representatives at nearly every newspaper in the tri-county circuit. Along with Walt Smith, the circuit's court administrator, they've spoken with every member of the area's legislative delegation.

Bennett and Smith are not alone in their quest. In advance of the upcoming legislative session, judges and court administrators throughout the state have embarked on an eleventh-hour appeal to raise public awareness about the potential impacts of funding Revision 7 to Article V of the state Constitution.

"We've recognized the courts are a very low key entity, except when the high profile cases come through, and we wanted to make sure people recognize that the courts do play a role in daily life," says Elisabeth "Lisa" Goodner, Florida's state courts administrator, about this organized public awareness campaign.

Just less than six years ago, a majority of Florida's voters approved the constitutional amendment that shifted responsibility for trial courts funding to the state from the 67 county governments. That mandate takes effect on July 1.

But the pending shift comes during lean times. The state Legislature still is recovering from last year's chaotic budget-making session. The lingering impact of a national recession took a toll on most states' revenue production. The soft economy compounded Florida's problem of paying not only for essential state services but also new burdens - such as the costly constitutional amendments to reduce classroom sizes and develop a high-speed rail system.

It all has the judges and administrators on edge, particularly since they still don't know how to budget for the 2004-05 fiscal year. They won't know until the first few weeks of the 2004 legislative session next month how much money will be allocated by the House Subcommittee on Judicial Appropriations and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Article V Implementation and Judiciary. Those subcommittees still need final budget allocations from the House and Senate leadership and their appropriations committees. The subcommittee proposals then must pass a full House and the Senate vote - probably sometime in late April. Then the final legislative package still faces a gubernatorial review.

"That's one of the reasons why we're trying to do some planning now," Smith says. "We're in the process of planning and doing some 'what-if' scenarios. The big concern is: What if we lose the funding for our services in the family area? The result will be that we'll either have to delay family hearings or we'll have to use other judicial resources."

And a huge gap exists between the budget that Gov. Jeb Bush submitted and the one proposed by the state Trial Courts Budget Commission - an arm of the Florida Supreme Court.

Bush recommended a budget of about $99 million to cover the state's new responsibilities for just trial courts administration, according to estimates presented on Feb. 11 to the Senate appropriations subcommittee. But the trial courts seek about $167 million. That's a difference of about $68.1 million.

"What everyone is saying: 'The governor's budget was a good starting point,' " says Pinellas Circuit Judge Susan F. Schaeffer, who chairs the Trial Courts Budget Commission. "There was a good recognition of all the elements we had asked for, and all the elements that the House and Senate last year decided were items the state should fund. In other words, there was that recognition and acknowledgement from the governor."

Indeed, Bush has submitted a budget that exceeds proposed Article V funding requests for state attorneys and public defenders. He recommended about $17.8 million for state attorneys, about $666,768 more than requested; and about $18.4 million for public defenders, about $76,000 more than requested.

But the proposed trial courts budget is a different story. For instance, the trial courts seek about $23.6 million for administrative and staff support. Bush recommended about $17.7 million. The courts proposed about $12.1 million for judicial support and assistants. Bush recommended $2.3 million. The courts also seek about $25.8 million for law clerks and legal support. Bush recommended only $696,180.

The two sides agreed on $39.8 million for due process costs. That includes court reporter services, court interpreters, expert witness fees and costs for clincial evaluators. Bush also met the trial courts' request for about $12.5 million to pay for case managers, including domestic violence court and self-help services. They agreed on $10 million for alternative dispute resolution. But the two sides differ on two critical funding areas - general masters and hearing officers and contingency funding.

"Without that funding, we stand to lose some very important personnel in the family law division," Bennett says. "We have a traffic court hearing officer who hears over 300 cases a month that would otherwise appear on the county court docket. We have master/hearing officers who virtually handle all of our child enforcement and child support matters."

On the surface, it appears the legislative leadership has taken more than just a passing interest in the judicial concern over Article V funding. For instance, 13th Circuit Chief Judge Manuel Menendez recently met with House Speaker Johnnie Byrd, R-Plant City, to reinforce such concerns. Menendez says he left that meeting with a measure of confidence.

"Speaker Byrd assured us he wanted a quality courts system in Florida," Menendez says. "He said not to worry; that the courts will be funded. We certainly hope the rest of the House and Senate feel the same way."

Bennett is not so sure, however. He spoke with Menendez after meeting with Byrd. "The problem is you have to define adequate funding," Bennett says. "It is (Byrd's) concept of adequate funding. I don't know what that is, and I'm not saying that in a critical way."

That is why Bennett expresses so much concern about general masters, hearing officers and case managers. Each of them supports family, probate, dependency and juvenile courts. "Masters are doing quasi-judicial work," he says. "Case managers are getting everything. If that doesn't get done, that all falls on the judges and the judicial assistants."

Unless the gap narrows, the judges and the administrators say the burden of a budget shortfall would fall on the civil trial courts.

"Everybody realizes, and the Legislature realizes, if the courts are not adequately funded and fully funded, the division of the courts that would suffer the greatest would be civil," Bennett says.

That's why the judges have sought an audience with every business group in the state from the Florida Chamber of Commerce, to the Committee of 100, to the local chambers, Schaeffer says.

If the courts are forced to reassign civil judges to other critical court services, Schaeffer adds, the business community should expect longer delays to adjudicate civil issues such as foreclosures, tenant-landlord disputes, breach of contract and contract-and-indebtedness issues, medical malpractice. The list is extensive.

"It's not just the courts, the judges, speaking out now," she says. "It's the business community that's speaking out. When the business community joins us in speaking out, it helps to create a greater sense of urgency."