Lack of compliance in paying fines and fees denies a jurisdiction revenue and, more important, calls into question the authority and efficacy of the court and the justice system. Tight operating budgets, the search for additional funding for courts, and a continuing desire that court orders command the respect of defendants have combined in recent years to increase interest nationwide in collection of fines and fees.
Courts that have been the most successful in collecting have (1) adopted a philosophy that active, if not aggressive, collection is the right approach to take; (2) decided to improve community perceptions; and (3) dedicated some staff and other resources to the collection effort. Courts that have not made progress in fine collection have probably not yet grappled with these issues.
The preceding paragraphs are excerpts from a new publication by the National Center for State Courts entitled "Current Practices in Collecting Fines and Fees in State Courts: A Handbook of Collection Issues and Solutions" (2nd Ed.). It is available on the Center's website, www.ncsc.org, and more specifically here. (Warning slow download.) The OCA Collection Improvement Program, which is featured in the National Center's report, is another resource.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Annual Statistical Report
As noted on November 10, we delayed publication of this report so that it could be previewed by Judicial Council and we would have time to add in some new features. Those features are salary and turnover information on Texas judges, pp. 17-20; Annual Reports of Judicial Boards, Agencies and Commissions (OCA, Judicial Council, TFID, JCIT etc.), pp. 63-79, and summary information on several areas of required reporting to OCA, pp. 61-62:
- Hate crimes
- Vexatious Litigants
- Appointments and Fees
- Capital Case Jury Charges, and
- Security Incidents.
Check out the 2009 report at http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/AR2009/AR09.pdf.
Friday, December 4, 2009
State Budgets and Courts
The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities is projecting that state deficits will total $178 billion in 2010 with 41 states looking at shortfalls. State court budget reductions have been widespread, as reported recently with regard to Massachusetts in particular, in the New York Times editorial page. Ten states are actively looking at reengineering their services: Alabama, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont. They are looking at staffing to the most efficient level, using technology to the utmost, and tackling structural and governance issues that might be politically untouchable in better times.
Utah is a particularly interesting and dramatic example. Doubling filing fees there in the last legislative session allowed them to sustain "only" a 5% decrease in their unified state court budget, but they have gone much further to examine every aspect of their delivery of court services. They have accelerated e-filing, e-payments, e-documents and e-warrants; radically reorganized their clerk of court operations; downsized by 12% and reorganized their administrative office of the courts (the counterpart to OCA); instituted remote hearings, meetings and training; automated administrative functions in human resources, payroll and purchasing; required evidence-based practices in the provision of services, particularly juvenile justice treatment; and eliminating court reporters in favor of digital recording. Their Judicial Council has begun to look closely at contoversial judicial productivity issues, such as moving judicial vacancies to areas of greatest need, restructuring the use of senior judges by building them into the regular calendar, training judges in mediation and structured judicial settlement conferences to move their civil dockets more rapidly, and providing judges with cross-jurisdiction for domestic and juvenile cases. They propose to mandate by rule that all citation cases be filed electronically by law enforcement by a date certain in the near future, tied to automating their justice of the peace courts. They are going to contract with interpreters for a 40 hour week rather than case-by-case, working remotely and saving travel costs. They are consolidating all jury coordination services, and eliminate seperate clerk counters for district and juvenile courts. And, the are going to limit filing sites to one per county and eliminate or transfer personnel, and are further looking at reducing from 54 sites to 8 sites statewide. They are studying jurisdictional changes to use justice courts more efficiently, consolidating administrative districts to provide better distribution of resources and eliminate duplicate administration, and consolidating warrant issuance to a statewide function.
With the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts advising that our sales tax revenue in October 2009 is down almost 13% from 2008, these issues may become increasingly relevant for us. Much more information is available on this topic at the National Center for State Courts' Budget Resource Center.
Utah is a particularly interesting and dramatic example. Doubling filing fees there in the last legislative session allowed them to sustain "only" a 5% decrease in their unified state court budget, but they have gone much further to examine every aspect of their delivery of court services. They have accelerated e-filing, e-payments, e-documents and e-warrants; radically reorganized their clerk of court operations; downsized by 12% and reorganized their administrative office of the courts (the counterpart to OCA); instituted remote hearings, meetings and training; automated administrative functions in human resources, payroll and purchasing; required evidence-based practices in the provision of services, particularly juvenile justice treatment; and eliminating court reporters in favor of digital recording. Their Judicial Council has begun to look closely at contoversial judicial productivity issues, such as moving judicial vacancies to areas of greatest need, restructuring the use of senior judges by building them into the regular calendar, training judges in mediation and structured judicial settlement conferences to move their civil dockets more rapidly, and providing judges with cross-jurisdiction for domestic and juvenile cases. They propose to mandate by rule that all citation cases be filed electronically by law enforcement by a date certain in the near future, tied to automating their justice of the peace courts. They are going to contract with interpreters for a 40 hour week rather than case-by-case, working remotely and saving travel costs. They are consolidating all jury coordination services, and eliminate seperate clerk counters for district and juvenile courts. And, the are going to limit filing sites to one per county and eliminate or transfer personnel, and are further looking at reducing from 54 sites to 8 sites statewide. They are studying jurisdictional changes to use justice courts more efficiently, consolidating administrative districts to provide better distribution of resources and eliminate duplicate administration, and consolidating warrant issuance to a statewide function.
With the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts advising that our sales tax revenue in October 2009 is down almost 13% from 2008, these issues may become increasingly relevant for us. Much more information is available on this topic at the National Center for State Courts' Budget Resource Center.
Travels
I have been deblogged lately by travel. The week before Thanksgiving I had the opportunity to go to D.C. for my first meeting on the board of the Conference of State Court Administrators, and to attend the Rehnquist Dinner where an outstanding state jurist is honored each year in the reception hall of the Supreme Court of the United States. (The honoree was Timothy Evans, the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois.) The week of Thanksgiving my family and a family of friends visited Athens, Greece and Istanbul, Turkey, an amazing trip. And this week I have my COSCA midyear meeting in St. Augustine, Florida. But I am getting back in the swing, hopefully to post more soon.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Annual Statistical Report
As any readers probably know, OCA collects and publishes statistics on judicial activity in Texas. Probably the best web page to refer you to is:
http://www.courts.state.tx.us/oca/required.asp
Please be advised that the published version of the Annual Statistical Report for the Texas Judiciary will be released later than the usual (statutory) date of December 2. I have asked staff to make a variety of changes this year, including consolidating reports and incorporating content from other reports also produced by OCA. These changes will take a little extra time to implement. In addition the Texas Judicial Council meets on December 11 and I would like to have them adopt the consolidated report. We anticipate publishing the report in January and hope that you will find it even more informative and useful. In the meantime if you have any questions please contact me at 463-1626 or carl.reynolds@courts.state.tx.us, or our manager of judicial information, Angela Garcia, at 936-1358 or angela.garcia@courts.state.tx.us.
http://www.courts.state.tx.us/oca/required.asp
Please be advised that the published version of the Annual Statistical Report for the Texas Judiciary will be released later than the usual (statutory) date of December 2. I have asked staff to make a variety of changes this year, including consolidating reports and incorporating content from other reports also produced by OCA. These changes will take a little extra time to implement. In addition the Texas Judicial Council meets on December 11 and I would like to have them adopt the consolidated report. We anticipate publishing the report in January and hope that you will find it even more informative and useful. In the meantime if you have any questions please contact me at 463-1626 or carl.reynolds@courts.state.tx.us, or our manager of judicial information, Angela Garcia, at 936-1358 or angela.garcia@courts.state.tx.us.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Ethics Advisory Opinion 484
An issue that has my attention this week is an opinion that came out of the Texas Ethics Commission in August, EAO-484, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of reimbursing elected officials (judges, for my purposes) for their expenses to attend or speak at educational conferences. To quote the opinion, "the provision of transportation, meals, and lodging to an officeholder to facilitate the officeholder’s attendance at the event would constitute an officeholder contribution if the expenses are not reimbursable with public money."
[Emphasis added]
So the key is whether the expenses in question are reimbursable with public money. The hardest part of that regimen is reimbursing food expenses. As the Comptroller's "Purchase Policies & Procedures Guide" states: "The attorney general has said that the Texas constitution prohibits a state agency from purchasing food, coffee, cream, sugar and similar items that employees of or visitors to the agency would consume."
I will advise if I hear more on this issue, which has sent a shiver through the purveyors of judicial branch education.
[Emphasis added]
So the key is whether the expenses in question are reimbursable with public money. The hardest part of that regimen is reimbursing food expenses. As the Comptroller's "Purchase Policies & Procedures Guide" states: "The attorney general has said that the Texas constitution prohibits a state agency from purchasing food, coffee, cream, sugar and similar items that employees of or visitors to the agency would consume."
I will advise if I hear more on this issue, which has sent a shiver through the purveyors of judicial branch education.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Local Administrative Judges
As you may know, there are nine regional presiding judges in Texas, who are the backbone of judicial administration in the state. In addition, every county in Texas has a local administrative district judge and, if there is a county court at law, a local administrative CCL judge, serving a two-year term in that position. Most duties of LAJs are enumerated in §74.092 Government Code:
1.implement and execute the local rules of administration, including the assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of cases;
2.appoint any special or standing committees necessary or desirable for court management and administration;
3.promulgate local rules of administration if the other judges do not act by a majority vote;
4.recommend to the regional presiding judge any needs for assignment from outside the county to dispose of court caseloads;
5.supervise the expeditious movement of court caseloads, subject to local, regional, and state rules of administration;
6.provide the supreme court and the office of court administration requested statistical and management information;
7.set the hours and places for holding court in the county;
8.supervise the employment and performance of nonjudicial personnel;
9.supervise the budget and fiscal matters of the local courts, subject to local rules of administration;
10.coordinate and cooperate with any other local administrative judge in the district in the assignment of cases in the courts' concurrent jurisdiction for the efficient operation of the court system and the effective administration of justice; and
11.perform other duties as may be directed by the chief justice or a regional presiding judge.
See more on the duties of LAJs on Texas Courts Online.
1.implement and execute the local rules of administration, including the assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of cases;
2.appoint any special or standing committees necessary or desirable for court management and administration;
3.promulgate local rules of administration if the other judges do not act by a majority vote;
4.recommend to the regional presiding judge any needs for assignment from outside the county to dispose of court caseloads;
5.supervise the expeditious movement of court caseloads, subject to local, regional, and state rules of administration;
6.provide the supreme court and the office of court administration requested statistical and management information;
7.set the hours and places for holding court in the county;
8.supervise the employment and performance of nonjudicial personnel;
9.supervise the budget and fiscal matters of the local courts, subject to local rules of administration;
10.coordinate and cooperate with any other local administrative judge in the district in the assignment of cases in the courts' concurrent jurisdiction for the efficient operation of the court system and the effective administration of justice; and
11.perform other duties as may be directed by the chief justice or a regional presiding judge.
See more on the duties of LAJs on Texas Courts Online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
