[PDF] - S T A T E O F N E W H A M P S H IR E S U P R E M E C O U R T N PDF Document

SLIDE 1

S T A T E O F N E W H A M P S H IR E S U P R E M E C O U R T

L IN D A

S T E W A R T D A L IA N IS CHI£' .JUSTICE

J a n u a ry 4 ,2 0 1 3 H e r E x c e lle n c y , M a g g ie H a s s a n G o v e rn o r, S ta te o f N e w H a m p s h ire S ta te H o u s e C o n c o rd , N e w H a m p s h ire 0 3 3 0 1 D e a r G o v e rn o r H a s s a n :

N .H , S U P R E M E C O U R T O N E C H A R L E S D O E D R IV E C O N C O R D . N .H . 0 3 3 0 1 (6 0 3 ) 2 7 1 -3 7 5 1 F A X : (6 0 3 ) 5 1 3 -5 4 7 5

O n D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 2 , th e d e p a rtm e n t o f a d m in is tra tiv e s e rv ic e s in c lu d e d th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h w h e n it d is s e m in a te d y o u r re q u e s t th a t "a g e n c ie s .... s u b m it a b u d g e t re q u e s t fo r F Y 2 0 1 4 w ith fu n d in g a t 9 7 %

f th e a u th o riz e d /a d ju s te d

F Y 2 0 1 3 g e n e ra l fu n d , liq u o r fu n d , o r s w e e p s ta k e s fu n d a p p ro p ria tio n le v e l a n d a F Y 2 0 1 5 b u d g e t a t 1 0 0 %

f th e

F Y 2 0 1 3 a d ju s te d /a u th o riz e d le v e l fo r th e s e fu n d s ." O n D e c e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 2 , th e D e p a rtm e n t o f A d m in is tra tiv e S e rv ic e s a d v is e d u s th a t H ig h w a y F u n d s s h o u ld b e in c lu d e d in th e b u d g e t re d u c tio n p ro p o s a l. I h a v e a s k e d th e A d m in is tra tiv e O ffic e o f th e C o u rts (A O C ) to p re p a re a re d u c tio n p ro p o s a l c o n s is te n t w ith th e te rm s o f y o u r re q u e s t a n d th e re q u e s te d s p re a d s h e e ts a re a tta c h e d . T h e A O C a ls o p re p a re d n a rra tiv e d e s c rip tio n s

f th e

re d u c tio n s , in c lu d in g a d e s c rip tio n

f th e im p a c t o f th e s e

re d u c tio n s

n th e p e o p le

w e s e rv e . A s I s u b m it th e s p re a d s h e e ts a n d n a rra tiv e s

f re d u c tio n s

a n d im p a c ts , I a m m in d fu l o f p ro v is io n s in th e N e w H a m p s h ire C o n s titu tio n w h ic h s e p a ra te th e e x e c u tiv e , le g is la tiv e , a n d ju d ic ia l b ra n c h e s o f g o v e rn m e n t e v e n a s it re q u ire s th a t w e w o rk to g e th e r fo r th e b e n e fit o f th e c itiz e n s o f th e S ta te . S p e c ific a lly , s u p re m e c o u rt g e n e ra l c o u n s e l H o w a rd lib e l h a s d is c u s s e d th e p la c e

f th e ju d ic ia l

b ra n c h b u d g e t w ith in th e e n tire S ta te b u d g e t w ith y o u r C o u n s e l, L u c y H o d d e r. R S A 9 :4 -a p ro v id e s th a t th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h b u d g e t is to b e in c lu d e d in y o u r b u d g e t in th e a m o u n ts re q u e s te d ; h o w e v e r, y o u m a y p ro v id e s u c h c o m m e n ts a s y o u d e e m a p p ro p ria te . I p ro v id e th e s e m a te ria ls in th e s p irit o f c o o p e ra tio n a n d I w a n t to a s s u re y o u

f m y c o m m itm e n t

to w o rk w ith y o u o n m a tte rs o f S ta te s p e n d in g a n d o n o th e r is s u e s th a t w ill a ffe c t th e c o u rts ' re s p o n s ib ility to p ro v id e tim e ly , fa ir, a n d im p a rtia l a c c e s s to d is p u te re s o lu tio n s e rv ic e s .

SLIDE 2

H e r E xce lle n cy, M a g g ie H a ssa n Ja n u a ry 4, 2013 P a g e 2 O u r ch a lle n g e in th is b u d g e t re d u ctio n e xe rcise is to re d u ce o u r F Y 2014 b u d g e t re q u e $ ! fo r g e n e ra l fu n d s a n d h ig h w a y fu n d s b y $7,941,547.70

r 10.2%, to

re a ch th e g o a l o f 97% o f F Y 2013 a d ju ste d /a u th o rize d le ve l. A s th e a tta ch e d n a rra tive e xp la in s, w e h a ve id e n tm e d e ig h t m a jo r co st d rive rs th a t a cco u n t fo r $6,488,966.90 in a d d itio n a l e xp e n d itu re s re q u e ste d fo r F Y 2014. W h ile w e ca n co n tro l so m e o f th e se co st d rive rs, m o st o f th e co st d rive r e xp e n d itu re s a re b e yo n d o u r co n tro l. W e b e g a n th e 97% b u d g e t re d u ctio n e xe rcise b y re d u cin g e xp e n d itu re s in th e a re a s o f th e m a jo r co st d rive rs, to th e e xte n t _ p o ssib le . W e th e n re d u ce d e xp e n d itu re s in six a re a s o u tsid e th e m a jo r co st d rive rs. A fte r im p le m e n tin g a ll th e re d u ctio n s p o ssib le , w e w o u ld stilt fa ll fa r sh o rt ($ 2 .6 m illio n in F Y 2014 a n d $2.8 m illio n in F Y 2015) o fth e re q u e ste d re d u ctio n s. T h e o n ly w a y to m a ke u p th is g a p b e tw e e n your re q u e st a n d o u r b u d g e t re d u ctio n e ffo rts w o u ld b e to la yo ff a p p ro xim a te ly 4 0 n o n -ju d icia l e m p lo ye e s (o ve r 8 % o f o u r fu ll-tim e n o n -ju d icia l w o rkfo rce , a n d n e a rly 5 0 e m p lo ye e s w h e n w e a cco u n t fo r se ve ra n ce p a ym e n ts.) Y o u m a y re ca ll th a t w e re d u ce d o u r w o rkfo rce b y

72 n o n -ju d icia l e m p lo ye e s, m o stly th ro u g h la yo ffs, in F Y 2012 o n a cco u n t o f b u d g e t

co n stra in ts. T h e lo ss o f a n a d d itio n a l 40-50 n o n -ju d icia l e m p lo ye e s w o u ld m a ke th e to ta l re d u ctio n in fo rce 112-122. T h is re d u ctio n w o u ld b e o u t o f p ro p o rtio n w ith a n yth in g e xp e rie n ce d in th e re st o f S ta te g o ve rn m e n t. In co n n e ctio n w ith th e se la y-

ffs, w e w o u ld clo se so m e co u rts; lim it h o u rs o f p u b lic a cce ss in co u rts th a t

re m a in e d o p e n ; a n d su sp e n d ju ry tria ls in a ll b u t th e m o st se rio u s crim in a l ca se s. In sh o rt, m o st N e w H a m p sh ire citize n s w o u ld b e d e n ie d a cce ss to th e d isp u te re so lu tio n o p p o rtu n itie s p ro vid e d o n ly b y th e th ird b ra n ch o f sta te g o ve rn m e n t. In th e fa ce o f th e se d ire d e scrip tio n s o f h o w th e 9 7 % b u d g e ts w o u ld a ffe ct a cce ss to ju stice , m y co lle a g u e s a n d I a re co m m itte d to w o rkin g w ith yo u , yo u r sta ff, a n d m e m b e rs o f th e le g isla tu re to d e ve lo p a ju d icia l b ra n ch b u d g e tth a t re sp o n d s to litig a n ts' n e e d s a n d th a t re sp e cts th e re a litie s o f o u r S ta te 's fisca l circu m sta n ce s. I lo o k fo rw a rd to w o rkin g w ith yo u a n d m e m b e rs o f your sta ff o n th is critica l ta sk. S in ce re ly, L in d a S te w a rt O a lia n is C h ie f Ju stice

SLIDE 3

-------------------------------~.~.,_

.. -----.,

AMENDED 1/15/13.

N ew H am pshire Judicial B ranch F Y 2014-201597% B udget R eduction

Table of Contents

P age #

F Y 2014-2015 B udget R eduction C alculations for F Y 2014 and F Y 2015 F Y 2014-2015 M ajor B udget C ost D rivers F Y 2014 B udget R eduction P roposals B efore Layoffs F Y 2014 B udget R eduction Layoff C alculation F Y 2015 B udget R eduction P roposals B efore Layoffs F Y 2015 B udget R eduction Layoff C alculations F Y 2014-2015 A dditional and N ew P osition S chedule N arrative D escription

f M ajor C ost D river R eductions

A ppendix A - Judicial B ranch C ost S aving/E fficiency C hanges A ppendix B - H ighlights

f Im plem entation

bf Judicial B ranch Innovation C om m ission ' R ecom m endations N arrative D escription

f R eductions

O utside C ost D rivers

1 2

3 4 5

6

7 8-15

16

17-21 22-23

SLIDE 4

c

( ' ( ',

N H JU 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 D U C T IO N C A L C U L A n O N S F O R F Y 2 0 1 4 A N D F Y 2 0 1 5 . F Y 1 3 A d ju s te d A u th o riz e d G e n e ra l F u n d s H ig h w a y F u n d s

T o ta l

I2!ID

70,012,619.00

2,000,000.00 72.012,619.00

F Y 1 4

B u d g e t

R e d p c t l o n c a l c u l a t i o n : F Y 1 4 B u d g e t

8 S

S u b m l l t e d 1 0 1 0 1 / 1 2

G e n e ra l F u n d s H ig h w a y F u n d s

T otal

75,793,788.13 2.000,000.00 77,793.788.13

le s s : 9 7 % F Y 1 3 A d ju s t e d A u t h o r iz e d

G e n e ra l F u n d s H ig h w a y F u n d s

T otal

67.912,240.43 1,940,000.00 69,852,240.43

F Y 1 4

B u d g e t R e d u c l i o n s

G e n e ra l F u n d s

Highway Funds

!2!!!

7.881.547.701
60,000.00
7,941,547.70:

F Y 1 6 B u d g e t R e d u c t i o n c a l c u l a t i o n : . F Y 1 6 B u d g e t as S u b m it t e d 1 0 1 0 1 / 1 2

G e n e ra l F u n d s

Highway Funds

T o ta l

78.155.893.37 2.000.000.00 80,155.893.37

.•.••.

~ -"'= r-= ---_,.

---~ -.~ ----.

~ ~ = -= = --,= -= ; _ _ ,~ ,

--w;!.::-"'-,... -- -
--~ ---70,01i,619.00"-= - -._- ..•..
-.,....;.-.---

..

~ _= ;o_= _T _'_= - __ -

2,000,000.00 72,012,619.00

" - < '= =
- - - - - - - -
- - - - ,- -

"= ,.,..:::-;;;:;;;;;:;;;;= ------~ -----------------~ --:= :::]I

iFY 15

B u d g e t R e d u c t l o n s .

8 , 1 4 3 , 2 7 4 . 3 6

G e n e ra lF u n d s 0 .0 0 H ig h w a yF u n d s

8 ,1 4 3 ,2 7 4 .3 6

T o ta l

/8$$: 100%

F Y 1 3 A d ju s t e d A u t h o r iz e d

~ = = o O 'W -~ .

~ G en iriil F U ifd s ~ . -

_i-

- - -.

H ig h w a y F u n d .

T o ta l J a n u a ry 1 4 , 2 0 1 3

SLIDE 5

c

NH JUDICIAL BRANCH

F Y 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 6 B U D G E T

REDUCTION CALCULATIONS

F O R F Y 2 0 1 4 A N D F Y 2 0 1 6 N H J U D IC IA L B R A N C H F Y 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 8 M A J O R B U D G E T C O S T D R IV E R S N e w S ta ff A d d e d to F Y 1 4 1 1 5 B u d g e t F T C le ric a l S ta ff S a la rie s

judicial Salaries PT Salaries

S ta t! B e n e fits fo r N e w S ta ff J u d Ic ia l R e tire m e n t P la n (J R P ) B e n e fits fo r N e w J u d g e s S u b T o ta l

J R P In c re a s e fro m 4 1 o,{, to 8 4 .5 % fo r e x is tin g

J u d g e s A p p o in tm e n t

f L e g a l C o u n s e l fo r In d lg e n t

P a re n ts In A b u s e J N e g le c t C a s e s S u p re m e C o u rt C a s e M a n a g e m e n t S y s te m U p g ra d e N H R S R a te ln a e a s e fo r e x is tin g s ta ff fro m

10.08%

to 12.13% H e a lth B e n e flls R a te ln a e a s e fo r e x is tin g s ta ff F a c liitle s C h a rg e ln a 'e a S e fro m C A S E s tIm a te d Im p a c t

f c h a n g e In T ra v e l

R e im b u rs e m e n t R _ fo rJ u d g e s

T o ta f

f

M a jo r C o S t D rtv e ra

c

417,680.68 8 8 9 ,0 2 0 .0 0 129,784.30 4 5 0 ,2 5 4 .1 7

4#417 90

2,131,157.05

1,923,807.28 600,000.00 500,000.00 4 9 5 ,7 4 8 .2 7

448,761.31

223,204.00

168,289.~

8,488,966.90 2

c '

January 14, 2013

SLIDE 6

Class OMq1ption

10 Personal 8eM ces

Permanent Classified (non-Judlclal) 11 __ SefV l.e41Jncl

•• 1ftecI(Judges)

12 Personal

Selvlces UnctautfIed

(S r Actfve siatu. Judges) 16 PersonaI8ervices

Non-Classlflecl

(Manta! Masters) 18 OYertIme

2O C

E xpense

22 Rents4.eases Other than State 23 Heat - Electricity

Water

24 Malnt Other than Bldg! & Grounds 26 Organtzational Dues 27 Transfers to DolT 28 Transfers to General Services 30 Equipment New Replacement 37 Technology Hardware

38 Technology

Software 39 Telecommunications 40 Indirect Costs 41 AudltSet-AsldeFees

42 Additional

Fringe Benefits 46 Consultants

48 Contractual

Malnt

Bldgs & GrolI'Ids

49 Transfers to other state Agencies 50 Personal 8ervIces

Temp AppoInted

57 Books Periodicals SUbsaiptions

60 _Is

61 U nem ploym ent C om pensatJoo 62 Wor1<:ers' Compensation 66 E m ploy•• T raining 67 Training of Providers 66 R•••••••••••• 70 In-State Travel Relrnblnement 60 0\lI 01 S tate T ravel 104 C «tlflcatlon E xpense 106 R egulelclly H earing _e

108 Provider payments Legal Services 227 Jwy Fees and Expenses 229 Sherfft' Relmbu'wemenI 230 Interpreter 8ervices 235 TlWlSCI1ptlon Services 402 Court ServIce Compensation 502 Payments to Providers

535 Out of Home Placementa

(

NH JUDICIAL BRANCH

FY 2014-20115 BUDGET REDUCTION CALCULATIONS FOR FY 2014 AND FY 20115 NH JUDICIAL BRANCH

FY 201. BUDGET REDUCnDN PROPOSALS BEFORE LAYOFFS

Supd$uperlAOC .lH!l

417,680.88
551,216.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

41,975.76

0.00 0.00 ,3,300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35,000.00

0.00

500,000.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

122,880.00

0.00

703,808.00
41,384.30
133,701.00

.nO,922.33

0.00 0.00

95,000.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

300,000.00
124,104.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CtSecutffy

~

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

62,000.00

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

88,400.00

0.00

6,762.60

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

83,200.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Citcuit Court 8670

0.00

.551,218.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6,600.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

50,000.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

487,948.56

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(

!l!!l!I

417,680.68
1.102,432.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

41,975.76

0.00 0.00

9,900.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

147,000.00

0.00

500,000.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

.122,880.00

0.00

.703,608.00

129,784.30
133,701.00
1,245,633.49

0.00 0.00

95,000.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

300,000,00
124,104.00
83,200.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(

Line 49 Amended 1/15/13

[)esqIptJonJExp!aoatIon

00 not tlU poslllons

new to FY14115

budget Do not nn positions

new to FY14115

budget,

Do not tin 3 FT CC JUdgeShIps avail ttw u expired MM terms

Reduce current

expense

to around FY12 actual

levels Reduce malnt costs to FY12

actual

levels

Reduce equip eSpecially In Security Supreme Court IT Enhancements (Case Mgmt System Software Upgrades) Do not flll the 1 remaining vacant Consultant position

CAS Facilities

Charge Reduction Do not till positions new to FY14115 budget I [possibly remove $SOl( fr AU2034, ClsSO foreso Tralnlng) Reduce Law L1b1wy, Aoe, Superior, Supreme

& Circuit

Courts budget proportionately to get to $500,000 00 not fill positions new to FY14115 budget. Do not flll3 FT CC Judgeships 8Yl:111hru explred MM terTrl9 ElIminate all training Mldlng ($15K for JBEC, $20K for Judges, $&OK historical emcMIt) Reduce COl.I1-Appolnted Attorney Fees for Indigent Parents In Abuse & Neglect Cases Reduce Jwy Fees & Expenses to FY12 Aclualleveis

+ 25%

Increase (10 get $800,000) If we don't add 4 new Superior CI Judges (to go from 181022) rhen we won't need 4ldd'l balllfrl notal Reductions

Iteration

#1 - F Y i. General Funds

3,840,772.07
240,362.60
1,075,784.58

..fit 156.899.231

rY 1 4

8 _ Reduction 7_'

I

~ F unds .7,881,"7.70

Highway

Funds

60,000.00

!FYt. Rtductton Amount

R em .lnlng

(Genet'lll + HighwaY

Fundi)

2.7!4,148.""

3

January 14, 2013

SLIDE 7

( \

N H JU 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 D U C T 1 0 N C A L C U L A T IO N S F O R F V 2 0 1 4 A N D F Y 2 0 1 6 N H JU D IC iA l B R A N C H F Y 2 0 1 4 B U D G E T R E D U C T lO N L A Y O F F C A L C U L A T IO N

c'

Amended 1/15/13

c.

~

F Y 1 4 O rIg in a l (10101/12) P e rs o n n e l-R e la te d B u d g e t A llo c a tio n (C is 10150160) R e m a in in g F T H e

1 M 2 .2 Q M M 1 Q IQ !ll li.I2 !m

R e d u x a lic e

~

A O C S e c u rity S u p re m e C o u rt S u p e rio r C o IJrt C Irc u It C o u rt 4 ,3 2 1 ,6 4 2 .4 0 4 ,3 2 1 ,6 4 2 .4 0

2 ,7 1 5 .0 4 0 .5 5 2 .7 1 5 ,0 4 0 .5 5 2 ,5 5 1 .4 2 8 .8 4 2 .5 5 1 ,4 2 8 .8 4 1 0 .2 0 2 .9 4 5 .3 3 1 0 ,2 0 2 ,9 4 5 .3 3 2 2 .3 8 7 .4 0 4 .1 8 2 2 ,3 8 7 ,4 0 4 .1 8 1 7 .0 7 B ,0 1 6 .5 7 2 ,7 1 5 ,0 4 0 .5 5 2 2 .3 8 7 .4 0 4 .1 8 4 2 ,1 7 8 .4 6 1 .3 0

A d d ltlo ria lla y a ffs e s tim a te d If se v e fa n c e c o s ts a re to b e In c lu d e d In re d u c tio n ta rg e t: T o ta l la y o ffs e s tIm a te d If s e v e ra n c e "c o s ts a re to b e -In c lu d e d In re d u c tio n ta rg e t F Y 1 4 A v e ra g e n o n -J u d lc la l F u n . T im e C o s t (S a la rie s

+ B e n e fIts )

F Y 1 4 A v e ra g e n o n -J u d lc ia J P a rt-T im e C o s t (B a la rie s + B e n e fits ) 1 0 .2 %

2 8 5 ,3 1 8 .0 0
4

6 .4 %

1 7 9 ,2 4 9 .0 0
3

6 .0 %

1 6 8 ,4 4 7 .0 0
2

2 4 .2 %

6 7 3 ,6 0 5 .0 0
1 0

5 3 .1 %

1 ,4 7 8 ,0 3 0 .0 0
2 2

1 0 0 ,0 %

~ .7 8 4 .6 4 9 .0 0
4 1
.
SO

8 7 ,8 0 0 .0 0 3 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 4 J a n u a ry 1 4 , 2 0 1 3

SLIDE 8

Q!g DescrlDtlon

10 Personal Servtces Pennanenl Classified (non-Judlclal) 11 Personal Services Unclassified (Judges)

12 Personal Services UncIassiftltd (Sr ActIve Status Judges)

16 Personal Services Non-Classlfted (Martial Masters) 18 OvertIm e 20 Current ExPense 22 Renta--leases Other than State 23 Heat - EIecti1c1ty

W ater

24 Malnt Other than Bldgs & Grounds 28 Organizational Dues 27 Transfers to DolT 28 Transfers to General Services 30 EquIpm ent New Replacem ent 37 Technology Harcfware 38 T edm ology Soflw are 39 Telecom m unications 40 Indirect Costs 41 Audit Set-AsIde Fees 42 AddItional Fringe Beneffls 48 Consuftants 48 Contractual Malnt Bldgs & Grounds 49 Transfers to Other State Agencies 50 Pem ona! Services Tem p Appointed 57 Books Periodicals Subsaiptlons 60 Bena1Its •. 61 Unem ploym ent Com pensation 62 W orkers' Com pensation 66 Em ployee Training 67 Training of Providers 68 Rem uneration 70 In-State Travel Reim burSem ent 80 Out of State Travel 104 certification Expense 105 Regulatory HearIng Expense 108 Provider paym ents Legal SelVlces 227 Jury Fees and Expenses

229 Sheri" Reim bursem ent

230 Interpreter Services 235 Transcrlptlon 8ervIc:es 402 Court Service Com pensation 502 Paym ents to ProvideB 635

u t of Hom e Placem ents

c

NH JUDICIAL BRANCH

FV 2014-2015 BUDGET REDUCTION CALCULATIONS FOR FY 2014 AND FY 2015

NH JUDICIAL BRANCH

F Y 2 0 1 5 B U D G E T R E D U C T IO N P R O P O S A L S B E F O R E L A Y O F F S

SupdSupedAOC

lliQ

433,073.58
551,216.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

19,097.38

0.00 0.00

3,300.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

35.000.00

0.00

500,000.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .122,880,00 0.00

699,618,00
41,384.30

.133,701.00

..s02,271.68

0.00

0.90

95.000.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

300,000,00
124,104.00

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

C t Security

~

0.00 0.00

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

62,000.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

88,400.00

0.00

6,762.60

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

83,200.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

CJrr;uff Court 8670 0.00

551,216.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

6,600.00

0.00 0.00 0:00

50,000.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

477,123.28

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

c

I2!m

433,073.56
1,102,432.00

0.00 0.00

0.00

19,097.38

0.00 0.00

9,900.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

147,000.00

0.00

500,000.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

122,880.00

0.00

699,818.00

.129,784.30

133,701.00
1,288,157.56

0.00 0.00

95.000.00

0.00 0.00

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

300,000.00
124,104.00
83,200.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

c'

L ine 49 A m ended 1/15/13

DesqlptlonlExp!8Dation Do notflll positions new to FY14115 budget Do n o t fill positions n e w to FY14115 budget, Do not fill 3 FT CC Judgeships avail thru expired MM term s Reduce current expense to around FY12 actual levels Reduce m afnt costs to FY12 aduallevels Reduce equip especially In 8ectnity Suprem e Court IT Enhancem ents (Case Mgm t System Software Upgrades)

D o not fill the 1 rem ainIng vacant Consultant position

DAS Facilities Charge R8ductlon Do not fill positions new to FY14115 budget I (possibly rernove,$80K fr AU2034, CIs50 for eso Training) Reduce Law Library, AOC, Superior, Suprem e & Circuit Courts budget by sam e am ount as In FY14 Do not fill positions new to FY14115 budget. Do n o t fill 3 FT CC Judgeships avail thru expired MM term s Elim inate all training funding ($15K for JBEC, $2OK for Judges. $SOK hlstortcal am ount) _ ";0 -

'- _ ~

= _ _

Reduce Court-Appolnted Attom ey Fees for IndIgent Parents In Abuse & Negled Cases Reduce JurY Fees & Expenses to FY12

A c tu a l le v e ls + 25% Increase (to get $800,000)

If we don't add 4 new Superior Ct Judges (to go from 18 to 22) then we won' need 4 add'1 bailiffs ITotal Reductions - Iteratlon"

FY15 General Funds
3,880.845.92
240.382.60
1,084,939.28
6,185,947.80'

FY15 Budget Reduction TSfUSt

General Funds HlahwBv Funds .•• 143.274.36

1

0.00 IFY18 ~eaiictlonA m O U rifR 8m alnlnR (General + Highway Funds)

2,957.328.66'

5

January 14, 2013

SLIDE 9

c'

N H JU D ICIA L BRA N CH

F Y 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5 B U D G E T R E D U C T iO N C A L C U L A T IO N S F O R F V 2 0 1 4 A N D F Y 2 0 1 6

N H JU D ICIA L BRA N CH

F Y 2 0 1 8 B U D G E T R E O U C 1 1 0 N L A Y O F F C A L C U L A n O N

('

A m ended 1/15/13

c

~

F Y 1 5 O rtg ln a l (1 0 /0 1 /1 2 ) P e rs o n ~ R e la te d B u d g e t A 1 lo e a tio n .e e ls

10150160)

R e m a in in g F T H e

= ~

!l[1Q IJl!m

% T otal

R ed"" A im _

AOC

S e c u rity S u p re m e C o u rt S u p e rio r C o u rt C irc u it C o u rt

4,451,582.27 4,451,582.27

2,730.715.85 2.730.715.85

2 ,8 2 8 ,5 0 0 .1 3 2 ,8 2 8 ,5 0 0 .1 3

10.515,924.61 10,515,924.61

23,137,984.69 23.137.964.69 17,596,007.01 2.730,715.85 23.137,964.69 43,464,687.54

A d d m o n a lla y o ffs e s tim a te d If s e v e ra n c e c o s ts a re to b e ln c tu d e d In re d u c tio n ta rg e t: T o ta l la y o ffs e s tIm a te c llf s e v e ra n c e c o s ts a re to b e In c lu d e d In re d u c tio n ta rg 8 t: F Y 1 5 A v e ra g e ~ J c fa l F u ll-T im e C o s t (s a la rie s + B e n e fits ) F Y 1 5 A v e ra g e n o n -J u d lc la l P a rt.T lm e C o s t (s a la rie s + B e n e fIts ) 10.2%

302.885.00
4

8 .3 %

185,797.00
3

6.0%

178.842.00
3

2 4 .2 %

715,501.00
1 0

53.2%

1,574.301.00
2 2

100,0%

2.957,326.00
4 2

.-8

s o

70,100.00 3 1 ,6 0 0 .0 0

6

J a n u a ry 14, 2013

SLIDE 10

(

N H JU D IC IA L B R A N C H F Y 2 0 1 ""2 0 1 5 B U D G E T R E D U c n O N C A L C U L A T tO N S F O R F Y 2 0 1 4 A N D F V 2 0 1 5 N H JU O IC lA L B R A N C H F Y 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5 A D D m O N A l. A N D N E W P O S m O N S C H E D U L E F Y 2 0 1 . F Y 2 0 1 4 F Y 2 0 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 ~ E E L a st N !¥ !!O

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -

p o sitio n T lu e 1 2 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 5 0 1 8 8 0 4 1 ,3 8 4 ,3 0 3 ,1 8 5 .9 0 4 1 ,3 8 4 .3 0 3 ,1 6 5 .9 0 P ro je ct M a n a g e r (lo r S a n d y W e n tw o r1 h a t A O C w h o w ill b e g o in g P T In F Y 1 .) 9 0 3 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 5 0 2 0 3 < l 2 2 ,1 0 0 .0 0 1 ,6 9 0 .6 5 2 2 ,1 0 0 .0 0 1 ,6 9 0 .6 5 C o u 1 S e cu rIty O ffIce r - P e r D ie m

fo r th o e N e w ly A p p o in te d

C C Ju d g e tl 9 0 3 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 5 0 2 0 3 < l 2 2 ,1 0 0 .0 0 1 ,6 9 0 .6 5 2 2 ,1 0 0 .0 0 1 ,6 9 0 .6 5 C o lI1 S e a Jrlty O ffice r - P e r D iem

fo r th e 6 N e w ly A p p o fn te d

C C Ju d g e s 9 0 3 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 5 0 2 0 3 < l 2 2 ,1 0 0 .0 0 1 ,6 9 0 .6 5 2 2 ,1 0 0 .0 0 1 ,6 9 0 .8 5 C o u 1 8 e e u rlty

m c e r
P e r D ie m .

fo r th e e N e w ly A p p o ln te d C C Ju d g e s 9 0 3 0 V A C A N T -N E W .0 5 0 2 0 3 < l 2 2 ,'0 0 ,0 0 1 ,6 9 0 .6 5 2 2 ,1 0 0 .0 0 1 .6 9 0 .6 5 C o u rt S e cu rily O ffice r - P e r D Jem

fo r th e 6 N e w ty A p p o in te d

C C Ju d g e s 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 8 8 0 5 4 ,9 4 7 .8 2

2 6 ,4 2 1 .7 6

5 5 ,4 4 5 .5 2 2 7 .9 5 0 .4 8 L a w C le N S u p e rio r C o u rt - 2 n d Y e a r 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 8 8 0 5 4 ,9 4 7 .8 2

2 6 ,4 2 1 .7 6

5 5 .4 4 5 .5 2 2 7 ,9 5 0 .4 8 L a w C le rkIS u p e rio r C a u 1 - 2 n d Y e a r 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 8 8 0 3 0 ,8 5 4 .8 8 2 2 ,7 6 0 .6 6 3 2 ,3 4 3 .2 4 2 4 .4 8 5 .3 3 ca n C e n te r R e p re se n ta tive II 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 6 8 0 3 3 .1 4 3 .7 6 2 2 ,8 6 1 .1 6 3 4 ,7 4 6 .8 8 2 ."0 6 .5 3 C a ll C e n te r R e p re se n ta tive III 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 1 1 6 6 0 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 2 2 ,5 5 4 .6 8 1 3 7 .8 0 4 .0 0 1 2 5 .3 3 9 .9 8 Ju d g e s a n d A sso cia te s - N e w S u p e rio r C O U 't Ju d g e 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 1 1 8 8 0 1 3 7 ,a a ..0 0 1 2 2 ,5 5 4 .8 6 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 2 5 ,3 3 9 .9 8 Ju d g e s a n d A sso cia te s

N e w S u p e rio r C O lI1 .Ju d g e

2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 1 1 8 8 0 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 2 2 ,5 5 4 .6 6 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 2 5 ,3 3 9 .9 8 Ju d g e s a n d A sso cIa te s - N e w S u p e rIo r C O lI1 .Ju d g e 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 1 1 6 8 0 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 2 2 ,5 5 4 .6 6 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 2 5 ,3 3 9 .9 8 Ju d g e s a n d A sso cIa te s - N e w S U p e rfo r C o u rt Ju d g e 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 6 6 0 3 5 ,1 4 9 .9 2 2 3 ,0 5 7 .9 7 3 8 ,7 8 7 .9 2 2 4 ,8 1 2 .2 5 C o u rt M o n Ito rlA sststa n t (V a ca n t - F o r N e w S u p e n o r C O lI1 .Ju d g e B u d g e te d In 14115) 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 6 6 0 3 5 ,1 4 9 .9 2 2 3 ,0 5 7 .9 7 3 6 ,7 8 7 .9 2 2 4 ,8 1 2 .2 5 C o u rt M o n ito r/A ssIsta n t (V a ca n t - F o r N e w S u p e rio r C O U 't Ju d g e B u d g e te d In 14115) 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 8 8 0 3 5 ,1 .9 .9 2 2 3 ,0 5 7 ,9 7 3 6 .7 6 7 .9 2 2 4 ,6 1 2 .2 5 C o u rt M o n lto rIA ssI~ (V a ca n t - F o r _ S u p e rio r C o u rt Ju d g e B u d g e te d In ""'5 ) 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 8 8 0 3 5 ,1 4 9 .9 2 2 3 ,0 5 7 .9 7 3 6 ,7 8 7 .9 2 2 4 .6 1 2 .2 5 C o u rt M o n ito r/A ssista n t (V a ca n t. F o r N e w S u p e rio r C o u rt Ju d g e B u d g e te d In 14115) 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 6 6 0 2 5 ,7 9 6 .6 6 2 1 ,7 6 0 .1 4 2 8 ,9 8 5 .1 8 2 3 ,4 2 5 .5 1 C o u rt A ssista n t II (V a ca n t - F o r N e w S U p e rio r C o u rt Ju d g e B u d g e te d In 14115) 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 8 8 0 2 5 ,7 9 8 .8 8 2 1 ,7 8 0 .1 4 2 8 ,9 8 5 .1 8 2 3 ,4 2 5 .5 1 C o u rt A ssista n t II (V a ca n t - F o r N e w S u p e rio r C o u rt Ju d g e B u d g e te d In 14115) 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 8 8 0 2 5 ,7 9 8 .8 8 2 1 ,7 8 0 .1 4 2 8 ,9 8 5 .1 8 2 3 ,4 2 5 .5 1 C o u rt A ssista n t II (V a ca n t - F o r N e w S u p e rio r C o u rt Ju d g e B u d g e te d In 14115) 2 0 0 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 0 1 8 8 0 2 5 ,7 9 8 .8 8 2 1 ,7 8 0 .1 4 2 6 ,9 8 5 .1 8 2 3 ,4 2 5 .5 1 C o u rt A ssista n t II (V a ca n t - F o r N e w S u p e rio r C o u rt Ju d g e B u d g e te d In 14115) 9 6 1 0 V A C A N T -N E W 0 1 1 6 6 7 0 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 1 8 ,9 8 7 .1 4 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 1 9 ,2 8 0 .8 2 Ju d g e s a n d A sso cia te s. N e w C ircu it C o u rt Ju d g e T o ta ls. b y S a la rie s a n d B e n e fIts b y F isca l Y e a r 1 ,2 3 8 ,4 8 4 .9 8 8 9 4 ,8 7 2 .0 7 2 ,1 3 1 ,1 5 7 .0 5 9 2 8 ,3 1 5 .1 0 T o ta ls. b y F Isca l Y e a r 2 ,1 3 1 ,1 5 7 .0 5 3 ,0 5 9 ,4 7 2 .1 5 F Y 2 0 1 . F Y 2 0 1 4 F Y 2 0 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 ~ E E L ilt N w n e

~ ~ ~ - ~ -

p o sltlc!] D U e 9 0 2 0 V A C A N T -N E W 1 1 6 6 7 0 1 3 7 ,a a ..0 0 1 1 8 ,9 8 7 .1 4 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 1 9 ,2 6 0 .9 2 M a rita l M a ste r (C ro S l) F u lly C o n ve rte d b y F Y 1 . S ta rt 9 3 1 0 V A C A N T -N E W '1 1 6 6 7 0 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 1 8 ,9 8 7 .1 4 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 1 9 ,2 8 0 .8 2 M a rita l M a ste r (B m b e I) F u lly C o n ve rte d b y F Y 1 . S ta rt 9 9 2 0 V A C A N T -N E W 1 1 6 6 7 0 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 1 6 .6 6 7 .1 . 1 3 7 ,8 0 4 .0 0 1 1 9 ,2 8 0 .8 2

..-1 M a ste r (F C lm Ist) F u lly C o n ve rte d b y F Y 1 .

S ta rl

T o ta f •• b y S Ill •••• M e l B en el'ItII b y F I_ I v •••..

413,412.00

3 5 0 ,9 6 1 .4 1

413,412.00

3 5 7 ,8 4 2 .4 5 T o ta ls. b y F Isca l Y e ti 7 8 4 ,3 7 3 .4 1

n1,254.45

7

Ja n u a ry 1 4 , 2 0 1 3

SLIDE 11

i

i ,

'I

i Section 4 Amended

1/15/13

T h e S ta te

f N e w

H a m p s h ire J u d ic ia l B ra n c h N a rra tiv e D e s c rip tio n

f M a jo r C o s t

D riv e r R e d u c tio n s

J a n u a ry 4 ,2 0 1 3 B a c k g ro u n d T h e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h p ro v id e s c o re g o v e rn m e n ta l s e rv ic e s to th e p e o p le

f

N e w H a m p s h ire . S ta te c o u rts a d ju d ic a te d is p u te s a s re q u ire d b y th e N e w H a m p s h ire C o n s titu tio n a n d a s s p e c ifie d in N e w H a m p s h ire s ta tu te s . T h e th ird b ra n c h

f S ta te

g o v e rn m e n t h a s n o p ro g ra m s

u ts id e

th o s e C o n s titu tio n a l a n d s ta tu to ry m a n d a te s . T h e

n ly

e x c e p tio n is th e a lte rn a tiv e d is p u te re s o lu tio n p ro g ra m w h ic h is d e s ig n e d to re s o lv e d is p u te s m o re q u ic k ly a n d a t le s s c o s t to litig a n ts th a n c o n v e n tio n a l litig a tio n . F u rth e rm o re , th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h h a s n o a u th o rity to lim it o r o th e rw is e c h a n g e th e ju ris d ic tio n a l a u th o rity , a n d re la te d re s p o n s ib ility ,

f a n y

c o u rt. In s te a d , th e c o u rts p ro v id e d is p u te re s o lu tio n s e rv ic e s to th e b re a d th a n d d e p th

f C o n s titu tio n a l

a n d s ta tu to ry re q u ire m e n ts . E ig h ty p e r c e n t

f th e ju d ic ia l

b ra n c h b u d g e t re q u e s t fo r F Y 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5 s u p p o rts s a la rie s a n d b e n e fits

f ju d g e s

a n d n o n -ju d ic ia l p e rs o n n e l. J u d g e s h o ld c o n s titu tio n a l a p p o in tm e n ts a n d th e s u p re m e c o u rt c a n n o t la y th e m

ff.

T h e s u p re m e c o u rt c a n c u rta il u s e

f s e n io r

a c tiv e s ta tu s ju d g e s in th e s u p e rio r a n d c irc u it c o u rts a n d c a n a ls o c u rta il u s e

f p e r d ie m

ju d g e s in th e c irc u it c o u rts . S in c e m o s t ju d ic ia l tim e is p ro v id e d b y fu ll-tim e ju d g e s , a s ig n ific a n t b u d g e t , re d u c tio n , s u c h a s th e

n e

re la y e d b y th e D e p a rtm e n t

f A d m in is tra tiv e

S e rv ic e s '

n

D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 2 , w ill re s u lt in th e la y o ff o f m a n y (n e a rly 4 0 , a n d ' a p p ro x im a te ly 5 0 w h e n w e a d d s e v e ra n c e c o s ts ) n o n -ju d ic ia l p e rs o n n e l. T h o s e la y o ffs w o u ld c rip p le th e th ird b ra n c h

f s ta te

g o v e rn m e n t a n d d ra s tic a lly re d u c e " s e rv ic e to th e p u b lic . T h e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h h a s a lo n g a n d a c tiv e h is to ry in e m b ra c in g c h a n g e in

rd e r

to in c re a s e e ffic ie n c y a n d c o n tro l c o s ts . A p p e n d ix A , e n title d "J u d ic ia l B ra n c h C o s t S a v in g /E ffic ie n c y C h a n g e s ," id e n tifie s fo u rte e n m a jo r in itia tiv e s s u c c e s s fu lly u n d e rta k e n in th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h in re c e n t y e a rs . T h is A p p e n d ix illu s tra te s

u r lo n g s ta n d in g

c o m m itm e n t to in n o v a tio n a n d c h a n g e . In M a rc h 2 0 1 0 , th e N e w H a m p s h ire S u p re m e C o u rt a p p o in te d s ix ty p e o p le fro m p riv a te in d u s try , n o n -p ro fit

rg a n iz a tio n s ,

th e N e w H a m p s h ire B a r A s s o c ia tio n , a n d th e c o u rts to a n e w ly c re a te d J u d ic ia l B ra n c h In n o v a tio n C o m m is s io n . T h e C o u rt c h a rg e d m e m b e rs w ith m a k in g re c o m m e n d a tio n s th a t w o u ld b o th re d u c e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h e x p e n d itu re s a n d im p ro v e s e rv ic e to th e p e o p le

f o u r

S ta te . T h e C o m m is s io n w a ,s c h a ire d b y E ric H e rr, a re tire d p riv a te

8

SLIDE 12

business executive. T he C om m ission released its report of 28 recom m endations in January 2011, and court officials have been busy im plem enting those recom m endations, w ith success unprecedented in S tate governm ent. A ppendix B , entitled "H ighlights

f Im plem entation
f Judicial

B ranch Innovation C om m ission R ecom m endations," sum m arizes bur efforts to becom e m ore efficient and, at the sam e tim e, provide better dispute resolution services to the

,I

people w e serve. I .

~

In S ection 11 of C hapter 223 of the Law s of 2011 (the F Y 2012-2013 budget), the legislature called

n the judicial

branch to reduce the num ber

f full-

tim e non-judicial em ployees from approxim ately 560 to few er than 500. W e m et this challenge in good faith and today have a full-tim e non-judicial w orkforce

f

482. In reducing

ur full-tim e

non-judicial w orkforce by fourteen per cent, w e had to im m ediately im plem ent an adm inistrative restructuring that w e had planned to do by attrition. O ur non-judicial full-tim e w orkforce w as reduced by 72 em ployees through a com bination

f retirem ents,

resignations, and lay-offs. In addition, w e increased reliance

n part-tim e

em ployees and use of off-hours em ployees. W e w ere successful in reducing the num ber

f full-tim e

em ployees and successful in reducing personnel-related state expenditures. A lthough w e have not exhausted the opportunities to reduce salaries and benefits expenditures for non-judicial em ployees, w e have reached a phase

f

dim inishing returns and, despite

ur continued

efforts, few cost-saving

pportunities

rem ain. O utlined below are eight m ajor cost drivers that collectively account for $6,488,966.90

f the increase

in the F Y 2014 judicial branch budget request. It is im portant to note that the F Y 2014 judicial branch budget request related to general funds and highw ay funds increased bY ,only $5,781,169.13 w hich is less than the am ount

f these

cost drivers. .

II

i $3,166,316.84 in m ajor cost driver increases are beyond

ur control

and an additional $168,289 m ajor cost driver is required by fundafT Iental fairness. T hus, w e have identified 3,334,605.84 in increases that m ust be included in our F Y 2014 request. T his m akes im plem entation

f the 97%

budget reduction proposal im possible, w ithout resorting to large scale layoffs

f non-judicial

staff.

Major Cost Drivers in FY 2014-2015 Judicial Branch Budget Request

1. N ew judges, staff, and related expenditures. S uperior C ourt S uperior C ourt Judges: In 2002, at our request, the N ational C enter for S tate C ourts conducted a w orkload study and reported

n the num ber
f judicial

and non-judicial full- tim e equivalents needed to provide tim ely access to justice in N ew H am pshire

,

9

SLIDE 13

courts. A lthough that study is dated, it is the best objective indication

f the

need for judicial and non-judicial resources available to us and w e continue to rely on the N ational C enter's recom m endations, both to objectively assess the need for judicial resources and to allocate those resources am ong the trial courts in proportion to the need at each court site. The N ational C enter study calls for 25.78 full-tim e judges in the superior court. The num ber

f superior

court judges is lim ited by session law to eighteen during this biennium . Thus, the superior court is currently staffed at 70% per cent of the need dem onstrated in the N ational C enter's w orkload study. In order to address the shortage in superior court judicial tim e, w e requested funding for four appointm ents to the superior court bench in FY 2014 to bring superior court judicial FTE 's to the level authorized in R S A 491 :1 w hich is still only 85% per cent of the need found by the N ational C enter for S tate C ourts. P ostponem ent

f filling these

vacant judicial positions w ill force the superior court to continue to allocate scarce judicial resources to the m ost serious crim inal and civil cases and trigger delays in

ther trials and hearings.

S uperior C ourt S upport S taff: It w ould be counterproductive to add judges to the superior court w ithout providing those judges w ith necessary support staff. In support

f the

additional judges requested by the superior court, w e also requested funding for tw o law clerks, four court m onitors (operators

f electronic

recording equipm ent), and four court assistants (trial court staff w hose responsibilities include case processing). W e have also provided for bailiff security support in the security budget. If funding for the judges is cut, these positions w ill be unnecessary. The superior court is planning to route to the C all C enter all calls that are currently m ade to one of the eleven superior court clerks' offices. To handle these calls, the superior court requested funding for tw o call center representatives. If these positions are not funded, superior court call center plans w ill be jeopardized. C ircuit C ourt The N ational C enter study calls for 50.98 full-tim e equivalent judges in the circuit court. The circuit court schedules 41 FTE 's of judge tim e am ong the district, probate, and fam ily divisions. This is 80% of the need show n by the N ational C enter for S tate C ourts w orkload analysis. Those assignm ents are filled w ith 30 full-tim e circuit court judges, 21 part-tim e circuit court judges, and six full- tim e circuit court m arital m asters.

10

SLIDE 14

T here are nine full-tim e circuit court judicial positions vacant and six part- tim e circuit court judicial positions vacant. W e have elim inated from

ur F Y 2014

97% budget proposal all circuit court judicial salary and benefits funds in excess

f the funding

needed to support the circuit court's 80% scheduling plan. additional full-tim e judicial appointm ent. C ircuit C ourt S upport S taff: In connection w ith the request for circuit court judicial appointm ents, w e requested funds in the F Y 2014-2015 budget for four additional per diem court security

fficer

positions. F unds for those position appear in the S ecurity P A U of

ur budget.

A dm inistrative O ffice of the C ourts (A O C ): W e requested funding for a full-tim e project m anager to take the place of a long-tim e em ployee w ho has reduced her hours to part-tim e. T he total cost of the new judges, staff, and related expenditures requested by the courts in F Y 14-15 and outlined above is $2,131,157.05. T hat am ount w as cut in our 97% proposed budget. 2. S uprem e C ourt C ase M anagem ent S ystem U pgrade. T he N ew H am pshire S uprem e C ourt relies on a case m anagem ent system that w as developed in 2002. T he product has been sold tw ice and the current

w ner

is the dom inant provider

f appellate

court case m anagem ent system s but no longer w ishes to support the old version

w ned

by the suprem e court. Instead, the vendor has offered to configure its current case m anagem ent system product to N ew H am pshire S uprem e C ourt needs and provide that product to us at an approxim ate cost of $500,000 in integration costs, saving the judicial branch approxim ately $1,000,000 in licensing fees. T he new version

f the case

m anagem ent system w ill provide the court w ith (1) better standard m anagem ent inform ation about its w orkload; (2) perform ance m etrics to assist in resource allocation; and (3) a m ore intuitive and efficient user interface for suprem e court staff. T he vendor's

ffer is very attractive.

T o accom plish the 97% budget reduction exercise, w e could fund this upgrade through the judicial branch inform ation technology dedicated fund. T he vendor has agreed to accept paym ents

ver three

years. T he consequence

f

taking $500,000 in unplanned expenditures from the inform ation technology dedicated fund w ill be postponem ent

f som e judicial

branch hardw are refresh cycles. W e rem oved this item in the F Y 2014 97% budget reduction proposal. 3. E stim ated Im pact of C hange in T ravel R eim bursem ent R ules for Judges.

11

SLIDE 15

E ffe c tiv e A u g u s t 2 ,2 0 0 9 , R S A 4 9 0 :1 8 , R S A 4 9 0 -0 :1 5 , R S A 4 9 1 :6 -a , R S A 5 0 3 -A :6 -c , a n d R S A 5 4 7 :2 2 -b w e re a m e n d e d to a llo w ju d g e s to b e re im b u rs e d fo r m ile s d riv e n in e x c e s s

f fifty

m ile s e a c h w a y fo r c o m m u tin g to a c o u rth o u s e . A s a c o s t s a v in g m e a s u re , th e s u p re m e c o u rt a d o p te d S u p re m e C o u rt A d m in is tra tiv e O rd e r 2 0 0 9 -0 8 w h ic h a p p lie s th e fifty m ile c o m m u tin g m ile a g e re im b u rs e m e n t b a n to a ll trip s d riv e n b y ju d g e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith w o rk . T h is

rd e r

m a d e ju d g e s th e o n ly s ta te

ffic ia ls

a n d e m p lo y e e s w h o w e re n o t fu lly re im b u rs e d fo r m ile s d riv e n in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e ir w o rk . N o ju d g e s d riv e S ta te v e h ic le s . E ffe c tiv e A p ril 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 , th e s u p re m e c o u rt re s c in d e d th e

rd e r

th a t lim its ju d ic ia l m ile a g e re im b u rs e m e n t to m ile s d riv e n in e x c e s s

f fifty

m ile s e a c h w a y . T h is w a s d o n e

u t o f fa irn e s s

to ju d g e s a n d e n title s th e m to m ile a g e re im b u rs e m e n t a t ra te s a p p ro v e d b y th e In te rn a l R e v e n u e S e rv ic e , ju s t a s o th e r S ta te

ffic ia ls

a n d e m p lo y e e s a re e n title d to re im b u rs e m e n t. N o te th a t s ta tu te s c o n tin u e to p ro h ib it ju d g e s fro m b e in g re im b u rs e d fo r c o m m u tin g m ile s d riv e n in e x c e s s

f fifty

m ile s e a c h w a y . T h e re s c is s io n

f S u p re m e

C o u rt A d m in is tra tiv e O rd e r 2 0 0 9 -0 8 m e re ly e n title s ju d g e s to m ile a g e re im b u rs e m e n t in c o n n e c tio n w ith n o n -c o m m u tin g m ile s d riv e n in c o n n e c tio n w ith w o rk . T h e c o s t o f m a k in g ju d ic ia l tra v e l re im b u rs e m e n t p a ra lle l to o th e r S ta te e m p lo y e e s ' m ile a g e re im b u rs e m e n t is e s tim a te d a t $ 1 6 8 ,2 8 9 . T h is a m o u n t h a s n o t b e e n re m o v e d fro m

u r F Y 2 0 1 4

9 7 % b u d g e t re d u c tio n p ro p o s a l. 4 . F a c ilitie s C h a rg e In c re a s e F ro m D e p a rtm e n t

f A d m in is tra tiv e

S e rv ic e s .

(This section amended 1/15/13)

T h e le g is la tu re a p p ro p ria te s g e n e ra l fu n d m o n e y to th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h fo r c o u rt fa c ilitie s ; th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h tra n s fe rs th o s e fu n d s to th e B u re a u

f C o u rt

F a c ilitie s in th e D e p a rtm e n t

f A d m in is tra tiv e

S e rv ic e s . (D A S ) T h e D A S B u re a u

f C o u rt

F a c ilitie s m a n a g e s c o u rt fa c ilitie s . J u d ic ia l b ra n c h

ffic ia ls

a ls o m e t w ith D A S

ffic ia ls

to d is c u s s w a y s to re d u c e fa c ilitie s e x p e n d itu re s in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e 9 7 % b u d g e t re d u c tio n p ro p o s a l. S in c e th e re q u e s t fo r $ 8 ,8 3 7 ,2 6 3 re p re s e n ts 9 .7 %

f th e to ta l ju d ic ia l

b ra n c h re q u e s t fo r g e n e ra l fu n d a n d h ig h w a y fu n d re v e n u e , w e w ill h a v e to re d u c e fa c ilitie s e x p e n d itu re s to m e e t th e 9 7 % re d u c tio n . T h e b u re a u

f c o u rt

fa c ilitie s c a lc u la te d th e fa c ilitie s re d u c tio n a t a b o u t $ 7 0 4 ,0 0 0 . T h e b u re a u

f

c o u rt fa c ilitie s a n a ly z e d (1 ) d is ta n c e s tra v e le d to v a rio u s c o u rt fa c ilitie s fro m th e c o m m u n itie s s e rv e d b y th o s e c o u rth o u s e s ; (2 ) th e n u m b e r

f c o m m u n itie s

th a t w o u ld b e a ffe c te d b y d iffe re n t fa c ility c lo s in g s c e n a rio s ; a n d (3 ) th e c a p a c ity

f

c e rta in

th e r fa c ilitie s

to a b s o rb th e c o u rtro o m a c tiv ity a n d s ta ff fro m fa c ilitie s th a t m ig h t b e c lo s e d .

12

SLIDE 16

In 2009, then G overnor Lynch proposed to consolidate several court facilities. T he legislature closed

nly the sm allest

district court facility and m ade clear its intention not to consolidate

r close other courts.

In light of this clear legislative intent, D A S officials and court officials did not com e to any conclusion concerning closing court facilities. In developing

ur 97%

budget reduction proposal, w e rem oved $703,608 and $699,618 in F Y 2014 and F Y 2015, respectively, from

ur general

fund facilities appropriation. 5. Judicial R etirem ent P lan (JR P ) increase from 41 % to 64.5% for E xisting Judges. U ntil July 1, 2003, the S tate of N ew H am pshire provided full-tim e judges w ith retirem ent benefits under a non-contributory plan that w as created by statute, w ith the benefits paid directly from the judicial branch budget. T he legislature found that a non-contributory system w as not sustainable and replaced that plan w ith the current contributory JR P found in R S A 100-C . U nfortunately, a num ber

f factors

have com bined to cause the JR P actuary to recom m end that the em ployer contribution rate to the JR P fund increase from 41 % of active m em bers' salaries to 64.5%

f active

m em bers' salaries, effective July 1, 2013. T his represents a $1,923,807.26 annual increase in the em ployer (S tate

f N ew H am pshire,

judicial branch) contribution to the JR P fund. T hree factors probably contributed to this dram atic increase in the em ployer contribution rate: a. T he actuary had assum ed annual m arket returns

n invested

JR P funds in the range of 8% per year. W ith the stock m arket decline related to the current recession, the JR P fund has not benefited from returns in the range of 8% annually. b. In the past, judges

ften w orked

beyond their retirem ent eligibility dates. In recent years, several judges have elected to retire and begin receiving retirem ent benefits before their m andatory retirem ent dates. T hus, som e judges have paid into the JR P only for the m inim um num ber

f years

necessary to trigger eligibility to receive benefit paym ents. c. S ince the plan's inception, governor and council have appointed several relatively

lder attorneys

to the bench. T his has entitled judges to retire after serving (and contributing to the JR P ) for few er years than w ould be required

f younger

appointees. T he judicial branch has a statutory responsibility to m ake the em ployer's contribution to the JR P . W e are unable to elim inate this am ount from

ur F Y

2014-2015 budget request.

13

SLIDE 17

6. In recent years the judicial council, an executive branch agency that is independent

f the judicial

branch, made payments to attorneys who represented indigent parents of children who were the subject of abuse and neglect proceedings in New Harnpshire courts. Effective July 1, 2011, the legislature prohibited the judicial council from making those payments, prl'lviously in the range of $1 ,200,000 annually. The courts ceased appointing attorneys to represent indigent parents in abuse and neglect cases. An indigent parent who had been denied appointed counsel at state expense appealed the denial to the supreme court which found that indigent parents in abuse and neglect proceedings are entitled to be represented by counsel at state expense in some circumstances. (See In re C. M., 163 N.H. 7681 decided June 29, 2012.)

I

The 2011 legislature appropriated no funds for payment to attorneys who represent indigent parents in abuse and neglect cases. Nor did the legislature assign responsibility for payments to attorneys in these cases. In the absence

f

a statutory

bligation
f some entity to pay these

attorneys, responsibility falls on the judicial branch under RSA 490:31. Courts are actively managing appointments

f counsel

in these cases and, once an appointment is made, courts are carefully

verseeing

payments to those attorneys. W hen we prepared the FY 2014-2015 judicial branch budget request in August 2012 we included $600,000 annually for payments to attorneys who represent indigent parents in abuse and neglect proceedings. Experience since June 29, 2012 shows that our efforts to manage appointments and payments are more effective than forecast. In connection with our 97% budget reduction proposal, we have reduced

ur

request by $300,000 in each fiscal yearin expectation that the remaining $300,000 will be sufficient to cover attorney payments

n behalf of indigent

parents. This new forecast depends entirely

n our continued

active management

f appointments

and payments. 7. Retirement Benefits Increase

n Existing

Staff. All full-time non-judicial employees

f the judicial

branch are members

f

the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) which sets the employer contribution rate at the same rate as executive branch agencies pay on behalf of their full-time employees. That rate increased from 10.08% of salaries to 12.13%

f salaries.

Although we are increasing

ur use of part-time

employees who do not participate in NHRS, that transition is gradual and the new rates will increase

ur NHRS employer

contribution by $495,748.27 annually. These payments are required by statute and we have not reduced this part of our FY 2014-2015 budget request to meet the 97% budget reduction proposal.

14

SLIDE 18

8. Health Benefits Increase on Existing Staff. DAS provides the judicial branch with health benefit, dental benefit and life insurance rates for full-time employees, at the same rates as for full-time employees

f agencies

in the executive branch of state government. These rate increases are projected to add $446,761.31 to judicial branch expenditures in FY 2014. Because these expenditures are required by statute, we have not eliminated them from our FY 2014-2015 budget request as part of the 97% budget reduction proposal. . "

15

SLIDE 19

Appendix A

JUDICIAL BRANCH COST SAVING/EFFICIENCY CHANGES

Well before the Innovation Commission Ij{eport of 2011, the judicial branch had embarked on numerous operational changes that have yielded cost saving and greater efficiency. These changes continue to yield savings and improved efficiency in judicial branch operations. Below is a list, in approximate chronological

rder, of the changes implemented

before the Innovation Commission Report of 2011. Migration to digital audio recording Elimination

f superior court transcription

center

I

Implementation

f circuit court dictation center

'i II

Supreme court accepts virtually all appeals, instead of conducting labor-intensive review process Replace court reporters with court monitors

l.t

Elimination

f Saturday arraignments

Use of independently developed judicial and clerical workload studies Reviews of judge travel reimbursement pOlicies'l Outsource interpreter services' Outsource transcription services Change presumption

f an unspecified

misdemeanor from class A to class B Automate transcription services Use of dragon dictation voice recognition software Co-location

f superior court administrative
ffices and circuit court administrative

~~s

I

,

16

SLIDE 20

Appendix B

HIGHLIGHTS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDICIAL BRANCH INNOVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

CIRCUIT COURT

1. Establish the Circuit Court: HB 609 in the 2011 legislative session established the circuit court, combining the former district courts, probate courts, and judicial branch family division into a single administrative structure. Governor Lynch signed the bill on May 16, 2011, and the circuit court was

perational
n its July 1, 2011 effective date.

2. Circuit Court Judicial Restructuring: The circuit court legislation allows the supreme court to certify judges to sit in circuit court divisions

ther than those to

which the judge was initially assigned. The supreme court has adopted Supreme Court Rule 61 to govern these certifications. Several circuit court judges are now certified to sit in more than one division, allowing for greater efficiency in judicial assignments. 3. Circuit Court Management Restructuring: Prior to the establishment

f the

circuit court, fifty-one clerks and registers of probate served the former district courts, probate courts, and judicial branch family division. On the July 1, 2011 effective date of the circuit court, this number was reduced to eighteen. The restructuring

f management

and other personnel changes have resulted in an annual savings of over $2 million in personnel costs which were realized in the FY 12-13 budget. 4. More Efficient Processing

f Speeding

Cases: The original innovation commission recommendation was to transfer jurisdiction

ver speeding

cases to the department

f safety.

When that proved more costly than judicial branch handling of the cases, the circuit court began pre-trial hearings in speeding cases to identify those cases that would actually go to trial. That has resulted in more efficient scheduling and savings to state and local police departments in the costs of having officers attend court for speeding cases. 5. Establish a Circuit Court Call Center: The call center began operation in early 2012 and has now been implemented throughout the circuit court. The 2011 capital budget included $57,500 for the call center. The circuit court call center has proven highly successful in handling an average of 2,600 calls per day. Almost 70% of the calls are totally handled by the call center without transfer to the local courts. This provides more efficient customer service and frees staff in the local courts to be able to process cases more efficiently. The

17

SLIDE 21

call center has proven so successful that, as detailed below , plans are underw ay to expand it to cover the superior court in 2013. 6. E stablish a C ircuit C ourt C entral Filing C enter: This recom m endation has not been im plem ented. W ith the on-going N H e-C ourt P roject, discussed below , the im plem entation

f this recom m endation

w ill not be necessary. 7. E stablish S pecialized C ase P rocessors: 'tr"hecircuit court has established tw enty part-tim e specialized case processing positions, tw o of w hich are currently vacant. Tw elve

f these

positions are for evenihg w ork. The specialized case processors w ork in five courts: B rentw ood, D erty, M anchester, N ashua, and Laconia. They concentrate

n case processing;

providing greater efficiency since they are not interrupted by w orking

n the counter
r by telephone

calls. 8. Im plem ent V ideoconferencing: The 2011 i!caP ital budget included $541,085 for "P risoner V ideo C onference." Im plem entation in both court and county and state facilities is ongoing. The goal is to com plete im plem entation by June 30, 2013. For those participating in the videoconferencing project, use of video is saving prisoner transport costs and im proving safety in public courthouses. In O ctober 2012,701 hearings w ere conducted statew ide by video conference. 9. V irtual Inform ation C enter: Im plem entation

f this

recom m endation has been put on hold as the judicial branch's efforts in this area have focused

n the

N H e-C ourt P roject, discussed below . 10. E xpansion

f the

Fam ily D ivision D ictation C enter: B efore the im plem entation

f the circuit court, the fam ily

division had established a dictation , center w here judges and m asters could dictate

rders

to a centralized dictation center. The dictation center is now available to all circuit court judges. E ach

rder that is dictated

is one that staff m em bers in a court house, or the judges them selves, do not have to type, creating m ore efficient processing

f court
rders.

M oreover, the superior court is im plem enting the use of D ragon dictation softw are to bring about the sam e efficiencies in that court. 11. U se of Judicial R eferees to A djudicate C ertain C ase Types: The circuit court statute allow s for the use of referees to hear certain types of cases. The prim ary use of the referees has been to hear and determ ine tem porary issues related to the involuntary com m itm ent

f individuals

to the N .H . H ospital and to conduct child support hearings. They have also been used to address routine m atters in the probate division. U se of referees saves m oney since the cost of a referee is substantially less than that of a judge. 12. Transfer/C entralize/P rivatize Fine C ollec~ion: N o action has yet been taken

n this

recom m endation. i

i

18

SLIDE 22

1 3 . M o v e C e rta in J u ris d ic tio n to N o n -J u d ic ia l F o ru m s : N o a c tio n h a s y e t b e e n ta k e n

n th is

re c o m m e n d a tio n . 1 4 . D ire c t P u b lic A c c e s s to C o u rt R e c o rd s : T h is e n d e a v o r is p a rt o f th e N H e -C o u rt P ro je c t, d is c u s s e d b e lo w . 1 5 . R e m o v e C o -s ig n a tu re R e q u ire m e n t

n

N o n -D is p o s itiv e R e c o m m e n d a tio n s

f

M a rita l M a s te rs : N o a c tio n is a n tic ip a te d

n th is

re c o m m e n d a tio n ; h o w e v e r, a s a re s u lt o f th e c irc u it c o u rt a n d s u b s e q u e n t le g is la tio n , th e p o s itio n s

f s e v e n

m a rita l m a s te rs h a v e b e e n c o n v e rte d to fu ll- tim e c irc u it c o u rt ju d g e s h ip s u p o n th e re tire m e n t

r th e

e n d

f th e te rm s
f th e

s e v e n m a rita l m a s te rs . C u rre n tly , s ix m a rita l m a s te rs re m a in h e a rin g c a s e s in th e fa m ily d iv is io n .

SUPERIOR COURT

1 . C o n s o lid a tio n

f

M a n a g e m e n t

f S m a lle r

S u p e rio r C o u rts a n d R e c la s s ific a tio n

f

C le rk C o m p e n s a tio n : A re g io n a l c le rk n o w m a n a g e s th e s u p e rio r c o u rts in G ra fto n a n d C o o s C o u n tie s , B e lk n a p a n d C a rro ll C o u n tie s , a n d C h e s h ire a n d S u lliv a n C o u n tie s . T h is h a s re d u c e d th e n u m b e r

f s u p e rio r

c o u rt c le rk s b y th re e , re s u ltin g in a n a n n u a l s a v in g s

f a p p ro x im a te ly

$ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 . N o n e w c le rk s h a v e b e e n h ire d s o th e c o m p e n s a tio n re c la s s ific a tio n is o n h o ld . In a d d itio n , in th e 2 0 1 2 le g is la tu re , th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h s o u g h t to c o n s o lid a te th e H ills b o ro u g h N o rth a n d H ills b o ro u g h S o u th S u p e rio r C o u rts in to a s in g le c o u rt in M a n c h e s te r. T h a t in itia tiv e w a s d e fe a te d in th e H o u s e . 2 . D iv is io n

f C a s e

P ro c e s s in g a n d C u s to m e r S e rv ic e F u n c tio n s : A fte r v ie w in g th e

p e ra tio n
f th e

c irc u it c o u rt c a ll c e n te r, th e s u p e rio r c o u rt h a s fo c u s e d its e ffo rts a t m o re e ffic ie n t c a s e p ro c e s s in g

n s tu d y in g

a n d im p le m e n tin g a c a ll c e n te r fo r in c o m in g s u p e rio r c o u rt c a lls . C u rre n t p la n s a re fo r th e s u p e rio r c o u rt to b e g in jo in in g th e c a ll c e n te r in A p ril 2 0 1 3 a n d to h a v e th e fu ll c o u rt p a rtic ip a tin g in th e c a ll c e n te r b y th e e n d

f 2 0 1 3 .

3 . N e w J u ry M a n a g e m e n t S y s te m : $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 h a s b e e n in c lu d e d in th e ju d ic ia l b ra n c h 's 2 0 1 3

p e ra tin g

b u d g e t fo r th e a c q u is itio n a n d in s ta lla tio n

f ju ry

m a n a g e m e n t s o ftw a re . A n R F P h a s b e e n is s u e d , a n d a v e n d o r d e m o n s tra tio n to o k p la c e in D e c e m b e r. L a w y e rs e x p e rie n c e d in ju ry s e le c tio n a tte n d e d th e v e n d o r d e m o n s tra tio n a n d g a v e in p u t. T h e g o a l is to a u to m a te a n d c e n tra liz e th e in te ra c tio n b e tw e e n th e s u p e rio r c o u rts a n d p ro s p e c tiv e ju ro rs . 4 . In c re a s e d U s e

f

P a rt-T im e E m p lo y e e s : In a n e ffo rt to re d u c e p e rs o n n e l c o s ts , w h e re a p p ro p ria te , s o m e fu ll-tim e s u p e rio r c o u rt p o s itio n s h a v e b e e n s p lit in to p a rt-tim e p o s itio n s . C u rre n tly , th e s u p e rio r c o u rt h a s e ig h t p a rt-tim e rs in its e m p lo y .

19

SLIDE 23

INFORMATION TECNOLOGY

1. Transforming

into a Paperless E-System: As a result of the innovation commission, the judicial branch has embarked

n an ambitious

five-year plan to digitize all aspects

f case processing.

This project is now known as the NH e- Court Project. An initial capital appropriation was made by the legislature in 2011

f $1,951,000,

slightly less than half of the estimated cost of the project at that time. The implicit assumption was that an additional capital appropriation would be made by the 2013 legislature in the FY 14-15 capital budget. Early in the life:

f the project, the project manager

determined that the initial estimated cost of the project did not include document management

r integration

software, both of which were necessary to the project. .In 2012, the judicial branch sought a supplemental capital appropriation

f $1.2 million in an attempt to keep on

schedule with a pilot project scheduled for implementation in the superior court in 2013. Unfortunately, the supplemental appropriation died in a conference committee in May. The judicial branch has decided that the best use of the currently appropriated funds would be to implement a different pilot project, still in 2013, for one case type rather than for a full court. The case type selected is small claims, which amounts to roughly 15,000 cases per year. This pilot will be limited to electronic filing, payment

f fees, signatures,

notices, document management, and activities at the judge's bench. The development

f these

systems will eventually be applicable to all case types. W ith additional capital appropriations, all other case types in all New Hampshire courts, state agency electronic data exchanges, and electronic access to public documents will be added to the e-Court system. Committees are yurrently working

n redesigning
ur business

process for the electronic world a~d on designing a system

f public

access. Meetings have been held with various participants in the justice system, including state agencies, public and private lawyers, and other business partners. Consultants have been retained to assist with the new business process design and with the architecture

f the e-Court

system!1 This is truly a unique and exciting project - making an entire state's justice system digital.

I

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

1. Review

f the Administrative

Office

f the Courts:

In early 2011, the State Justice Institute awarded a grant to the judicial branch to fund a review of the AOC by experts from the National Center for State Courts. The National Center just issued its final report. 2. Update Human Resources and Payroll Administration Systems: The judicial branch human resources and payroll administrative systems are twenty- years old and were written in COBOL, an outdated programming language. Data. are stored in Btrieve, a database that is no longer supported by the vendor. W e are changing

ur human

resources and payroll administrative systems to keep pace with state and federal law changes, to adjust to judicial branch human resources and payroll rules and practice changes, and to reduce our dependence!

!

20

SLIDE 24

n software

that is no longer supported by the vendor. W e project delivery

f

"m ust have" functionalities in the second quarter

f calendar

year 2014. 3. Review Auditing/Accounting Functions: This recom m endation was put on hold pending the hiring of a new fiscal m anager. That hiring has occurred; however, m uch of her tim e since being hired has been spent fam iliarizing herself with the judicial branch budget and participating in the draft of the budget for the upcom ing biennium . The review will resum e as soon as possible. 4. Review IT Departm ent: W e sought the independent review

f our IT

departm ent by experts from National Center for State Courts. This review was supported by State Justice Institute grant funds. The National Center assessed the AO C IT departm ent

n 41 topics

in 6 categories. The AO C IT departm ent m anagers are im plem enting recom m endations, as appropriate and as tim e perm its. Notable changes already im plem ented include: a. introduction

f the Agile

Developm ent M ethodology; b. periodic presentations by the Chief Technology O fficer to the Judicial Branch Adm inistrative Council in order to review IT priorities and solicit inform ation and strategic advice; and c. upgrading the security

f judicial

branch inform ation technology system s. W ork

n the National

Center recom m endations is ongoing.

SUPREME COURT

1. Shared Service Centers for Back O ffice Activity: The suprem e court plans to review the call center operations to determ ine if it should be expanded to include som e suprem e court operations. 2. Interface between Trial Court and Suprem e Court Case M anagem ent System s: This recom m endation is being addressed as part of the NH e-Court Project. 3. Possibility

f Establishing

a Single Bar Adm ission O peration for New Ham pshire, M aine, and Verm ont: The suprem e court has recently established a separate O ffice of Bar Adm issions to handle all functions related to adm ission to the bar. Som e of these were previously handled by court staff. The new O ffice

f Bar Adm issions

is supported by fees paid by bar applicants. Now that the office is established, the court intends to explore increased cooperation with its neighboring Northern New England states. 4. Consider Consolidation

f Concord-Located

Law Libraries: The suprem e court has entered into discussions with the University

f New Ham pshire

School

f Law library

about increased cooperation between the libraries. No decisions have yet been m ade.

21

SLIDE 25

T he S tate of N ew H am pshire Judicial B ranch N arrative D escription

f R eductions

O utside C ost D rivers

January 4,2013 P roposed judicial branch budget reductions are set out on the third and fifth spreadsheets w hich are entitled "F Y 2014 B udget R eduction P roposals B efore Layoffs" and "F Y 2015 B udget R eduction P roposals B efore Layoffs." T hose reductions include som e m ajor cost drivers; they do not include all proposed reductions. T he item s below are on the third and fifth spreadsheet but are not am ong the m ajor cost drivers. 1. C urrent E xpense. W e propose to reduce current expense by alm ost $42,000 to approxim ate F Y 2012 actual current expense expenditures. 2. M aintenance O ther T han B uildings and G rounds. W e propose to reduce m aintenance

ther than

buildings and grounds by alm ost $10,000 to approxim ate F Y 2012 actual expenditures. 3. E quipm ent N ew R eplacem ent. W e propose to reduce

ur equipm ent

new replacem ent request by $147,000. M uch

f this

reduction w ill com e from elim ination

f planned

security equipm ent expenditures. If this reduction is im plem ented, courthouses w ill be less safe because w alkthrough m agnetom eters and hand held m etal detectors w ill not be prom ptly replaced w hen they break dow n and their useful life is exhausted. T his reduction w ould also m ake it im possible to purchase 13 autom atic external defibrillators (A E D ) each year. W e train

ur

court security

fficers

in use of A E D 's so they can com e to the assistance

f

som eone w ho has cardiac issues w hile attending court. 4. B ooks P eriodicals S ubscriptions. W e propose to reduce books periodicals subscriptions by approxim ately $134,000 in F Y 2014 to bring this line dow n to $500,000, alm ost $48,000 less than the F Y 2013 appropriation. T his reduction is larger than it appears because the cost of legal research services has been increasing at rates greater than 10% annually. Judges depend

n the availability
f up-to-date

and accurate legal m aterials as they determ ine the constitutional, statutory, and com m on law

22

SLIDE 26

rig h ts o f th e p a rtie s th a t a p p e a r b e fo re th e m . B o o ks p e rio d ica ls su b scrip tio n s a re th e "to o ls

f th e tra d e "

fo r ju d g e s. W ith o u t a cce ss to cu rre n t a n d a ccu ra te le g a l re so u rce s, it w ill ta ke ju d g e s lo n g e r to so rt o u t p a rtie s' rig h ts a n d lia b ilitie s a n d th e ju d g e s su re ly w ill b e le ss co rre ct in th e ir a p p lica tio n

f th e

la w to th e fa cts p re se n te d b y litig a n ts in N e w H a m p sh ire co u rtro o m s. 5 . E m p lo ye e T ra in in g . In th e p a st, th e L e g isla tu re h a s re co g n ize d th e n e e d to p ro vid e tra in in g fo r' ju d g e s a n d n o n -ju d icia l e m p lo ye e s a n d h a s a p p ro p ria te d a s m u ch a s $ 2 3 0 ,0 0 0 a n n u a lly fo r th is p u rp o se . In re ce n t ye a rs, th a t a p p ro p ria tio n h a s sh ru n k to a s little a s $ 9 0 ,0 0 0 a n n u a lly. T o ca rry o u t th e 9 7 % b u d g e t re d u ctio n e xe rcise , w e h a ve e lim in a te d fu n d in g fo r tra in in g .

I

T h e ju d icia l b ra n ch w o rkfo rce co n sists

f o ve r 8 0 0

p e o p le . T h is w o rkfo rce in clu d e s 7 4 ju d g e s (a n d th e re a re n in e fu ll-titn e ju d icia l va ca n cie s), 4 7 4 fu ll- tim e n o n -ju d icia l e m p lo ye e s (a n d th e re a re e ig h t va ca n t fu ll-tim e n o n -ju d icia l p o sitio n s), 1 1 5 p a rt-tim e n o n -ju d icia l e m p lo ye e s (w ith se ve ra l p a rt-tim e p o sitio n s in re cru itm e n t), a n d 1 4 2 p e r d ie m co u rt se cu rity

ffice rs

(a n d w e a re co n tin u o u sly re cru itin g in th is a re a .) T ra in in g is e sse n tia l fo r a w o rkfo rce

f

th is size a n d va rie ty, e sp e cia lly sin ce ju d icia l b ra n ch e m p lo ye e s a re ch a rg e d w ith p ro vid in g fa ir, im p a rtia l, p ro m p t, a n d sa fe a d ju d ica tio n

f co m p lica te d

le g a l rig h ts. T ra in in g in cre a se s th e p ro b a b ility th a t a ju d g e w ill re n d e r th e co rre ct le g a l d e cisio n in a ra p id ly ch a n g in g le g a l e n viro n m e n t. T ra in in g a lso p re p a re s ju d g e s a n d n o n -ju d icia l e m p lo ye e s to b e tte r se rve th e S ta te a n d litig a n ts w h o m u st b rin g th e ir le g a l d isp u te s to N e w H a m p sh ire co u rts

r b e

d e n ie d th e ir rig h ts. F u rth e rm o re , w ith ju d g e s a n d e m p lo ye e s lo ca te d a t 4 1 fa cilitie s a ro u n d th e S ta te , tra in in g is e sse n tia l if w e a re to e xp e ct th a t re sid e n ts

f a ll co m m u n itie s

w ill e n jo y co n siste n t a p p lica tio n

f a ll N e w

H a m p sh ire la w s, irre sp e ctive

f w h e re

th e ir d isp u te is h e a rd . T ra in in g is e sse n tia l to a n e ffe ctive ju d icia ry a n d to th e ru le o f la w in N e w H a m p sh ire . 6 . Ju ry F e e s a n d E xp e n se s. In re ce n t ye a rs w e re d u ce d ju ry e xp e n d itu re s to sa ve m o n e y a n d th e S ta te ,

f N e w

H a m p sh ire re ce ive d n a tio n a l a tte n tio n , a ll o f it n e g a tive , w h e n th e . su p e rio r co u rt su sp e n d e d ju ry tria ls fo r fo u r m o n th s in e a ch su p e rio r co u rt. W e p ro p o se to re d u ce ju ry fe e s a n d e xp e n se s b y a p p ro xim a te ly $ 1 3 5 ,0 0 0 a s p a rt o f th e 9 7 % b u d g e t re d u ctio n p ro p o sa l. T h is re d u ctio n w o u ld fo rce th e su p e rio r co u rt to su sp e n d ju ry tria ls in so m e co u n tie s fo r so m e m o n th s d u rin g b o th ye a rs

f th e

b ie n n iu m . T h e co n se q u e n ce w ill b e ju stice d e la ye d fo r a ll,. e xce p t fo r d e fe n d a n ts ch a rg e d w ith th e m o st se rio u s crim e s. C ivil litig a n ts w ill b e a r th e b ru n t o f th is e xp e n d itu re re d u ctio n in th e fo rm

f d e la ye d

ju ry tria ls.

23

SLIDE 27

c

:A T E G O R Y 0 2 A D M IN O F J U S T IC E A N D P U B L IC P R T N IE P A R T M E N T

00010

J U D IC IA L B R A N C H

, C'

STATE qFNEW HAMPSHIRE

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY

c

F Y 2012 F Y 2013 F Y 2014 F Y 2015 A C T U A L A D J U S T E D M A IN T E N A N C E C H A N G E R E Q U E S T M A IN T E N A N C E E X P E N S E I . A U T H O R IZ E D

CHANGE

R E Q U E S T

:urrent Penn anent Positions

,

Personal Services-Penn. Classl

22,600,988 22,383,880 22,971,001 22,971,001 23,276,568 23,276,568

P e rs o n a l S e rv ic e s -U n c la s s ifie d

8,979,753 9,786,t62 10,189,715 10,189,715 10,571,236 10,571,236

Personal Services Non Classified

1 475,Q81 959,166 857,945 857;945 335,779 335,719

'otal Current Pennanent Positions

33,055,822 33,129,808 34 024 661 34,024661. 34183583 34,183,583

.

)ther Personnel Costs. Overtime

89,193 30,900 30,900 30,900 30,900 30,900

Personal S e rv lc e ~ T e m D /A o D o in te

3,860,708 4,937,e69 . 5,116,783 5,116,783 5,208,059 5,208,059

rotal Other Personnel Costs

3,949,901 4,968569 5,147,683 5,147,683 5,238,959 5,238,959'

I

)ersonnel Services Benefits

I

Personnel Services Benefits

16,653,193 18,161,529 21,871 207 21 871 207 23081 314 23,081,314

rotal Personnel

Services. Benefits

16653,193 18,161,529 21,871,207 21,871,207 23,081,314 23,081,314

~ a J o r O p e ra tin g E x p e n s e s

1,840,~56 .

Current Expenses

1,762,689 1,765,059 1,765,059 1,765,579 1,765,579

Rents-Leases Other Than State

236,152 272,089 271,841 271,841 287,365 287,365

M a in t.O th e r T h a n B u ild .- G m d s ~ -~ _ ._

.:

,

254,252 254,~89

.Co260,901

O.

~~260,901
t

267,297-

. -

. 257,297

O rg a n iz a tio n a l D u e s

99,871 104,,80 122,231 122,231

1

126,811 126,811

,

Equipment New/Replacement

536,819 623,592 496,700 496,700

~

436,850 436,850

T e c h n o lo g y - H a rd w a re

1,204,674 780,710 407,459 407,459

i

407,459 407,459

T e c h n o lo g y -S o ftw a re

540,365 742,221 1,352,509 1,352,509

1,352,509

1,352,509

1

Telecommunications

152,815 240,000 391,354 391,354

I

391,354 391,354

Consultants

13,281

i

481,573 481,573

f

. 481,573 481,573

Contractual Mafnt,-Build,.Grnds

7,662 7,661 7,664 7,664 7,684 7,664 547,580 547,~53 633,701

,

Books, Periodicals, Subscriptions

,

633,701

1-

658,890 656,890

Employee training

59,137 60,000 95,000 95,000

,

95,000 95,000

Training of Providers

2,336. : 2,500 2,500

,

2,500

I

f

2,500

In-state-Travel Reimbursement

473,975 658,~11 851,700 851,700

~

851,700 851,700

O u t-O f S ta te T ra v e l

\

5,266 2,~68 5500 .5500 5,500 5,500

rotal Malar Onsratlna Exnenses

5896,874

6,134030 7,151692 7151692

,

7138051 7136,051

,

I

~

:

:ontracted expenditures. ,

i

. Contracted Excenditures

25,749 46,,'780 635,000 635,000

i

635,000

,

635,000

ro ta l C o n tra c te d E x p e n q ltu re s

25,749 46,~80 635000 635000

,

635,000 635,000

. ~

~--'"

~ ,

' -

I
~

1: ,

SLIDE 28

c

A T E G O R Y 0 2 A O M IN O F J U S T IC E A N D P U B L IC P R T N 'E P A R T M E N T

00010

J U D IC IA L B R A N C H

c .

STATE qF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY .

c'

F Y 2012 F Y 201 a F Y 2014 F Y 2015 A C T U A L A D J U S T E iD M A IN T E N A N C E C H A N G E R E Q U E S T M A IN T E N A N C E C H A N G E E X P E N S E A U T H O R IZ E D R E Q U E S T

lther Expenditures

!

O th e r E x p e n d ~ u re s

3,252,327 3,573,094 3,751,927 3,751 927 3,754,127 3,754,127

'o la l O th e r E x n e n d ltu re s

3,252,327 3,573,094 3,751,927 3,751,927 3,754,127 3,754,127

i I

ransfer of Appropriations

I T ra n s ie rs T o O it .

1,038 5,$98 10,181 10,181 10,181 10,181

Transfers To General Services

23,844

i 0

350 . 350 350 350

T ra n s fe r to O th e r S ta te A o e n o !

9038,921 8636,401 8859605 . 6,859605 9129,047 9,129,047

'otal Transfer

f A l'm ro n ~ la tlo n s

9,063,603 6,642,399 8,870136 8,870136 9,139,578 9,139,578

. I

:

!

la l

D e n a rtm e n t

00010 71,897,469 74,656,209 81,452306 81452,306 83170,612 63,170,612 ,ouree of Funds 69,464,!l26

General Fund

.

68,965,336 75,793,788 75,793,788 78,155,893 76,155,893

F e d e ra l F u n d

55,cioo 325,190 325,190 325,190 325,190

H ig h w a y F u n d

2,000,qoo 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

O th e r

2,932,133 3,136,363 3,333326 ,3,333,328 ..•. 2,689,529.

'.

.~~ 2,689,529

a la i

71,897,469 74,656209 81,452,306 81,452306 83,170,612 83,170,612

1

I

f