New Hampshire Judicial Branch Division I House Finance Monday, - - PDF document

SLIDE 1

New Hampshire Judicial Branch

Division I House Finance

Monday, March 4, 2013

SLIDE 2

Judicial Branch FY 2014/2015 Budget Request Budget Schedule Headings Explanation

B ecause the Judicial B ranch is a separate branch of governm ent, the G overnor does not m ake line by line reductions

to our original budget subm ission, bu.t rather suggests a single G eneral Fund reduction

am ount (S ection 9 of the P R O P O S E D B U D G E T S E C TIO N Sat the end of the G overnor's budget) for FY 's 2014 and 2015. S ee R S A 9:4-a

We have allocated

the G overnor's proposed reduction to im plem ent the back of the budget reduction am ong budget

• lines. In order to see the reducecLbudget line by line, we have provided
• ur budget in the sam e form at

as the G overnor's budget, but in three phases, w ith the follow ing colum n headings for each: P h a se 1 ) O rig in a l b u d g e t su b m issio n 2 ) R e d u ctio n s p ro p o se d b y th e Ju d icia l B ra n ch to im p le m e n t b a ck o f th e b u d g e t re d u ctio n s 3 ) R e d u ce d b u d g e t (P h a se 1 + P h a se 2 )

P a g e 1

H e a d in g

G O V E R N O R 'S R E C O M M E N D E D B A C K O F B U D G E T R E D U C T IO N R E D U C E D B U D G E T

H o u se F in a n ce D iv I C o m m itte e M e e tin g M a rch 4 , 2 0 1 3

SLIDE 3

PR O PO SE D B U D G E T SE C T IO N S

1

com m ittee

• f the

general court, and the governor and council

• n

a quarterly

2

basis.

3

Section 9 .Judicial B ranch; G eneral Fund A ppropriation R eductions.

4

1. T he judicial branch shall reduce state general fund appropriations by

5

$4,505,461 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014 and by $4,467,039 for the

6

fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. T he branch shall not reduce the transfers to

7

the departm ent

• f

adm inistrative services for court facilities unless the 8 reduction is agreed to by the com m issioner

• f adm inistrative

services and the

9

chief justice

• f the

suprem e court.

10

Section 10 D epartm ent

• f

H ealth and H um an Services; R eduction in

11

A ppropriation. T he departm ent

• f health

and hum an services is hereby directed

12

to reduce state general fund appropriations from adm inistrative salary and 13 benefit class lines by $4,500,000 for the biennium ending June 30, 2015. T he

14

departm ent shall provide a quarterly report

• f

reductions m ade under this

15

section to the fiscal com m ittee

• f the

general court and the governor and council.

16

Section 11

17

E stim ates

• f U nrestricted

R evenue.

18

G E N E R A L FU N D

19 20

B U SIN E SS PR O FIT S T A X

21

B U SIN E SS E N T E R PR ISE T A X

22

SU B T O T A L B U SIN E SS T A X E S 23 M E A L S A N D R O O M S T A X

24

T O B A C C O T A X

25

T R A N SFE R FR O M L IQ U O R

26

IN T E R E ST A N D D IV ID E N D S T A X

27

IN SU R A N C E

28

C O M M U N IC A T IO N S T A X

29

R E A L E ST A T E T R A N SFE R T A X FY 2014 $258,200,000 70,000.000 328,200,000 248,100,000 129,800,000 132,400,000 93,000,000 86,900,000 66,500,000 69,100,000 FY 2015 $276,200,000 70,800,000 347,000,000 259,600,000 125,900,000 135,800,000 97,000,000 115,300,000 63,300,000 76,000,000

Page 2 House Finance Div I Committee Meeting March 4, 2013

SLIDE 4

Judicial Branch FY 2014/2015 Budget Request Salary Expenditure Class Lines Clarification

TheJudicial Branch budgets its salaries in class lines asfollows (benefits for all classes of employee are budgeted in Class060 Benefits):

Class Line I State Description 010 Personal Services-Perm. Classified 011 Personal Services-Unclassified 012 Personal Services-Unclassified 2 016 Personal Services Non Classified 050 Personal Services-Temp/Appointed

Page 3

Judicial Branch Description Full-Time Clerical Judicial Salaries (FT, PT and Per Diem) Senior Active Status Judges Marital Master Salaries Part-Time Clerical

House Finance Div I Committee Meeting March 4, 2013

SLIDE 5

Judicial Branch FY 2014/2015 Budget Request Governor's General Fund Reduction Recommendation

Section 9 of the PRO PO SED BUDG ET SECTIO NS of the G overnor's Budget stipulates the Judicial Branch G eneral Fund reduction proposed by the G overnor in the back

• f the budget:

FY 2014 FY 2015

Back of the Budget Reduction Proposed by G overnor (Section 9 of HB1)

The Judicial Branch has proposed the following G eneral Fund reductions:

G eneral Fund Appropriations Reduction

W ith the following Variance (Negative is unfavorable):

Variance Biennial Variance

• $4,505,461
• $4,350,949
• $154,512
• $4,467,039
• $4,940,204

$473,165 $318,653

Page 4 House Finance Div I Com m ittee M eeting M arch 4, 2013

SLIDE 6

J u d ic ia l B r a n c h F Y 2 0 1 4 /2 0 1 5 B u d g e t R e q u e s t Im p a c t

• f

M a r it a l M a s t e r B ill ( H B 6 4 8 )

If the pending Marital Master bill (HB 648) passes, we could achieve the following additional General Fund savings:

G eneral F und S avings from M arital M aster bill (assum es no retirem ent

• f

the 6 rem aining M arital M asters)

F Y 2014

• $255,335

F Y 2015

• $279,545

N ote: If one or m ore M arital M asters retire, w e w ill need funds to convert those positions to full-tim e judicial positions.

P age 5

H ouse F inance D iv I C om m ittee M eeting M arch 4, 2013

SLIDE 7

Judicial Branch FY 2014/2015 Budget Request Items Not Funded

This reduced budget does not include funding for the following items, which are important to providing access to justice: Cost to Restore to Budget:

Additional Circuit Court Per Diem Days (500 additional days, to cover for illnesses and other absences) Continuing Education Jury Feesat 100% of Need (budgeted in FY14/15 at 80% of estimated need) Law Library at 95% of Need (budgeted in FY14/15 at 80% of estimated need) Total FY2014 $250,000 95,000 124,104 100,000 $569,104 FY2015 $250,000 95,000 124,104 100,000 $569,104

Page 6 House Finance Div I Committee Meeting March 4, 2013

SLIDE 8

Judicial Branch FY2014/2015 Budget Request Impact of Items Not Funded

A d d itio n a l C ir c u it C o u r t P e r D ie m D a y s

As discussed in our p-resentation of February 26, the current Judicial Branch budget estim ates a shortfall in Circuit Court coverage (based on 80% of the weighted caseload) of 847 days each fiscal year. Additional funding would allow for an additional 500 days with per diem Judges.

C o n tin u in g E d u c a tio n

The G overnor's proposed budget reduction would leave no funds for continuing education. W e m ust provide training specific to the subject m atter needs (Superior Court, District, Probate and Fam ily Divisions) for judicial and non-judicial staff. Furtherm ore, changes related to Innovation Com m ission recom m endations, especially the New Ham pshire eCourt Project, require a workforce trained in new technologies.

J u r y F e e s a t 1 0 0 % of N e e d ( b u d g e te d in F Y 1 4 /1 5 a t 8 0 % of e s tim a te d n e e d )

Additional funding for jury fees would pay for the juries needed to sit in trials across the State. The result will be to relieve the length of retention

• f detainees

in county correctional facilities.

L a w L ib r a r y a t 95%

• f N e e d ( b u d g e te d

in F Y 1 4 /1 5 a t 8 0 % of e s tim a te d n e e d )

The law library provides periodicals, books and reference services for legal research to the legal com m unity and the people of the State. The cost of subscriptions to m any of these periodicals and services continues to increase. As the State's only public law library, to the extent we cannot fund these m aterials and services, we lim it access to justice.

Page 7 House Finance Div I Com m ittee M eeting M arch 4, 2013

SLIDE 9

Judicial Branch FY 2014/2015 Budget Request Staffing

The Governor's proposed reduced budget would not cause any additional layoffs of staff over those we implemented

in FY 2011.

It does not provide funding for any additional staff other than the following:

FY2014 FY2015 1 Superior Court Justice $260,022 $262,447 1 Superior Court Jus~ice 262,447 1 Court Monitor 57,872 61,155 1 Court Monitor ~155 Total $317,894 $647,204

Page 8 House Finance Div I Committee Meeting March 4, 2013

SLIDE 10

Judicial Branch FY 2014/2015 Budget Request Impact of Further General Fund Reductions

TheJudicial Branch has worked diligently over the past several years to identify General Fund reductions that would permit us to operate within our apprapriations. We have:

• reduced our workforce

by 72 positions in the FY12/13 biennium through restructuring and reorganization

• im plem ented

furloughs representing 2 weeks of unpaid tim e for Judges and non-judicial em ployees

• suspended jury trials
• closed courthouses to the public
• Suprem e Court created the Innovation

Com m ission in M arch, 2010. The following Innovation Com m ission recom m endations were im plem ented

• r are in progress:
• Call Center
• Video Conferencing
• Circuit Court restructuring
• Superior Court adm inistrative

changes

• eCourt
• m igration

from a Full-Tim e to Part-Tim e workforce

Page 9 House Finance Div I Com m ittee M eeting M arch 4, 2013

SLIDE 11

NH Judicial Branch Full-Time Clerical Headcount and Cases Filed* 2008 Actual through 2015 Budget

700 614 600 500 400

• Case/Charges

Filed (1000s)

• FT HC at PP26

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 FY2013 Pro] FY2014 Bgt FY2015 Bgt

* Cases Filed are for each calendar

year through 2012 and are in 10005 Page 10

SLIDE 12

Judicial Branch FY 2014/2015 Budget Request Impact of Further General Fund Reductions

W h i l e w e m a y b e a b l e t o i d e n t i f y a d d i t i o n a l G e n e r a l F u n d r e d u c t i o n s a s t h e f i s c a l y e a r p r o g r e s s e s , i t i s n o t u s u a l l y p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y

• r q u a n t i f y

t h e m a t t h e b e g i n n i n g

• f

a f i s c a l y e a r . S h o u l d a n a d d i t i o n a l G e n e r a l F u n d r e d u c t i o n b e e n a c t e d , i t w i l l r e s u l t i n a f u r t h e r r e d u c t i o n i n f o r c e b e y o n d w h i c h w e i m p l e m e n t e d i n F Y 2 0 1 1 w h i c h w i l l i m p a c t a c c e s s t o j u s t i c e . W h i l e a f u r t h e r r e d u c t i o n i n f o r c e m a y b e a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h d e l a y i n g t h e f i l l i n g

• f p o s i t i o n s

a s t h e y b e c o m e v a c a n t , t h e G e n e r a l F u n d s a v i n g s a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h t h i s p r o c e s s m a y n o t b e a d e q u a t e

to s a t i s f y

t h e G e n e r a l F u n d r e d u c t i o n e n a c t e d . I f t h e G e n e r a l F u n d r e d u c t i o n e n a c t e d i s m u c h g r e a t e r t h a n

• u r

c u r r e n t r e d u c t i o n , w e w i l l n e e d to a c h i e v e a f u r t h e r r e d u c t i o n i n f o r c e t h r o u g h l a y o f f s .

Page 11 House Finance Div I Committee Meeting March 4, 2013

SLIDE 13

Judicial Branch FY 2014/2015 Budget Request Impact of Further General Fund Reductions

A further reduction inforce achieved through layoffs would primarily involve full-time clerical staff.

The average salary and benefits cost for a non-managerial full-time clerical staff person in the Judicial Branch is asfollows: .

N o n -M a n a g e ria l F u ll-T im e C le ric a l S ta ff P o s itio n (S a la ry + B e n e fits )

FY2014 $67,354 FY2015 $69,571 Toput it into perspective, a $ 1 million additional General Fund reduction would translate into a 3 % staff reduction,

• r approximately 15full-time clerical staff.

P a g e 1 2 H o u s e F in a n c e D iv I C o m m itte e M e e tin g M a rc h 4 , 2 0 1 3

SLIDE 14

W h a t is a w e ig h te d c a s e lo a d ? A w e ig h te d c a s e lo a d s tu d y is a n e m p iric a lly b a s e d a n a ly s is

• f th e tim e

re q u ire d to d is p o s e

• f c o u rt c a s e s .

T ria l c o u rts d e v o te m u c h le s s tim e to s p e e d in g c a s e s th a n to h o m ic id e c a s e s . C o n s e q u e n tly , a w e ig h te d c a s e lo a d s tu d y a s s ig n s d iffe re n t tim e s (w e ig h ts ) to d iffe re n t c a s e ty p e s : T h e p ro d u c t o f a w e ig h te d c a s e lo a d s tu d y is a s c h e d u le

• f c a s e ty p e s

a n d th e a v e ra g e a m o u n t

• f tim e

(a g a in , a w e ig h t) th a t th e c o u rts d e v o te to a s in g le c a s e in e a c h d is tin c t c a s e ty p e . T o d e te rm in e th e re s o u rc e s n e e d e d in a p a rtic u la r c o u rt s ite , w e s im p ly m u ltip ly th e w e ig h t a s s ig n e d to e a c h c a s e ty p e b y th e n u m b e r o f c a s e s

• f th a t ty p e

a n d c o m p ile th e re s u lts . J u d ic ia l w o rk c o n d u c te d

• n c a s e s

is v e ry d iffe re n t, in k in d a n d in tim e , th a n n o n - ju d ic ia l w o rk c o n d u c te d

• n th e s a m e

c a s e s . C o n s e q u e n tly ,

• u r ju d ic ia l

w e ig h te d c a s e lo a d s c h e d u le s h o w s th e ju d g e tim e n e e d e d to d is p o s e

• f a n a v e ra g e

c a s e o f e a c h ty p e . W e u s e a s e p a ra te c le ric a l w e ig h te d c a s e lo a d s c h e d u le to re fle c t th e tim e .

• u r n o n -ju d ic ia l

e m p lo y e e s s p e n d

• n a n a v e ra g e

c a s e in e a c h c a s e ty p e . R S A 4 9 1 -A :3 h a s re q u ire d th a t th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h e s ta b lis h a n d u s e a w e ig h te d c a s e lo a d s y s te m s in c e J u ly 1 , 1 9 8 7 . It p ro v id e s , in p a rt: F o r p u rp o s e s

• f c a lc u la tin g

th e a n n u a l s a la rie s

• f p a rt-tim e

d is tric t c o u rt ju s tic e s a p p o in te d a fte r J u ly '1 , 1 9 8 7 , th e s u p re m e c o u rt s h a ll e s ta b lis h a n d re v is e a s n e e d e d a w e ig h te d c a s e v a lu e , re la tin g th e ju d ic ia l tim e re q u ire d fo r e a c h ty p e o f c a s e in c lu d e d in th e c o u rt's ju ris d ic tio n , w h ic h w h e n m u ltip lie d b y th e c a s e lo a d

• f

e a c h c o u rt w ill p ro d u c e th e n u m b e r

• f w e ig h te d

c a s e u n its fo r th a t c o u rt. J u d ic ia l w e ig h te d c a s e lo a d s h a v e b e e n in u s e c o n tin u o u s ly s in c e 1 9 8 7 . T o e n s u re th a t th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h w e ig h te d c a s e lo a d s c h e d u le s a re o b je c tiv e a n d a c c u ra te ly re fle c t tria l c o u rt w o rk , w e c o n tra c te d w ith th e N a tio n a l C e n te r fo r S ta te C o u rts (N C S C ) to c o n d u c t s tu d ie s

• f ju d ic ia l

w o rk lo a d a n d n o n -ju d ic ia l w o rk lo a d . N C S C c o m p le te d its "N e w H a m p s h ire J u d ic ia l N e e d s A s s e s s m e n t" re p o rt in 2 0 0 5 a n d th e le g is la tiv e fis c a l c o m m itte e a p p ro v e d th e N C S C -re c o m m e n d e d w e ig h ts N o v e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e N C S C a ls o c o m p le te d th e "N e w H a m p s h ire C o u rt S ta ff N e e d s A s s e s s m e n t S tu d y " in 2 0 0 5 . B o th re p o rts a re in u s e to d a y . T h e N C S C w o rk lo a d s tu d y m e th o d o lo g y is re c o g n iz e d a n d u s e d a ro u n d th e c o u n try . A t le a s t 2 5 s ta te s a n d tw o te rrito rie s re ly o n N C S C w o rk lo a d s tu d ie s to p ro v id e

• b je c tiv e ,

p ro fe s s io n a l, a n d e m p iric a lly b a s e d re p o rts o f re s o u rc e s n e e d e d to p ro v id e th e ir c itiz e n s w ith tim e ly a c c e s s to ju s tic e .

P a g e 1 3

SLIDE 15

How does the judicial branch use its weighted caseload studies?

Judges and administrators use the best available

• bjective and empirically

based information to manage courts. The weighted case load schedules are tools used for that purpose. The schedules are used in at least four ways: (1) As noted above, RSA 491-A:3 requires that we use our judicial weighted caseload to determine the salaries of part-time judges appointed after July 1, 1987. (2) We use judicial weighted caseload to determine how much judge time to assign to each court in both the superior and circuit court. It permits us to allocate scarce judicial resources among different courts, according to the work related to cases filed in those courts. (3) We use the judicial weighted case load to determine how many judge days are needed throughout the circuit court to provide timely access to justice at every court site. Judges Kelly and King have determined that, in light of scarce state resources, they are able to continue to provide opportunities to bring most cases to disposition within a reasonable amount of time, using 80%

• f the judicial need demonstrated

by the 2005 judicial weighted caseload study. With only 18 authorized court judges, the superior court operates with about 70% of the judicial need demonstrated by the weighted caseload. (4) We use our clerical weighted caseload studies to allocate non-judicial resources among court sites in both the superior and circuit courts, according to the non-judicial work related to cases filed in each court. The weighted caseload studies replace anecdote, rumor, and other subjective and unreliable information with objective and empirically based assessments

• f judicial

and clerical workloads. They help the judicial branch to be a good steward of scarce state resources.

Page 14