Judge Hilyer and Judge DuBuque may be reached for comment at bruce.hilyer@kingcounty.gov and joan.dubuque@kingcounty.gov, respectively
King County is facing a budget crisis of unprecedented proportions. The King County Executive has estimated that the shortfall in the county’s operating budget will be $60 million in 2009 and that the problems will continue at least through 2011.
The executive’s Budget Office has informed the King County Superior Court that it must reduce its operating budget by 8.65% for 2009. With a base general fund (this is called “CX”) budget of approximately $44 million, this reduction amounts to a budget cut of more than $3.8 million. The Department of Judicial Administration (or more commonly, the “clerk’s office” or “DJA”) is facing a budget cut of almost $1.5 million, for a total cut of more than $5.2 million. These cuts confront the court with the most difficult challenges it has faced in decades.
These dramatic budget cuts are being analyzed by the Superior Court Budget Committee, chaired by Judge Joan DuBuque, through a rigorous “zero-based” budget process. Every significant expenditure will be examined and scrutinized to determine if the service is statutorily mandated or otherwise essential to the efficient and fair administration of justice. Given the magnitude of these cuts, our court must carefully scrutinize how we conduct our business, squeeze out any remaining “fat” (if we can find any), and consider new, more cost-effective approaches to our delivery of judicial services.
At the beginning of the process, the Budget Committee considered, but rejected, a strategy of “belt tightening” across the board, including adopting the Oregon solution of reducing the court week to four days. While this method does share the pain equally, it also ignores the court’s responsibility to perform its mandated functions in a competent manner.
Instead, the Budget Committee has adopted criteria recognizing that statutory mandates must be prioritized over non-mandated programs or services. To reach the target reductions, entire programs must be scrutinized. In addition, the court will be considering whether imposing fees or changing business practices will permit us to continue to operate in a reasonable fashion.
In addressing the budget cuts, it is important to understand that 73% of our CX budget is for salaries and benefits. The rest of our CX budget includes internal charges (e.g., items like the facility rental charge for use of the courthouse), some service charges and supplies. This means the court and DJA must start looking at some of the larger programs and services, such as the Ex Parte Department, Family Court Services and drug court, for budget reductions and/or increased revenues. While each of these services is important, and arguably essential to the court’s efficient operation, none of these three is statutorily required.
Drug court is a much-cherished program because it provides a way to treat drug addiction through treatment as an alternative to incarceration. Judges who have worked in drug court have seen some amazing results with successful treatment for defendants who would have otherwise just sat in the King County Jail or in prison.
However, as beneficial as it may be, not only to offenders but to our community as a whole, drug court is not a mandatory service. Drug court participants do pay a nominal fee to participate and significant funding for treatment is provided to the program from the state.
The social workers in Family Court Services provide evaluations that help judges decide cases involving domestic violence and child custody. It is used almost exclusively by persons of relatively limited means. The ability of judges to make the best decisions possible in cases involving children and allegations of family violence would be severely impacted without these resources.
A strong argument could be made that these services are essential to the fair and efficient adjudication of family law cases, but the services are not statutorily mandated and therefore their value must be weighed against other budget items that are required. Recipients of many services at Family Court Services do pay fees for the parenting seminar, mediations and evaluation services, but they cannot pay the full cost of the services or they would be unaffordable.
The Ex Parte Department, which provides services downtown, in Kent at the RJC and on the Eastside weekly, processes more than 70,000 orders per year. Although the court is required to address the matters currently handled by the commissioners sitting in ex parte, there is no requirement that the court provide the walk-in service currently enjoyed at both the RJC and the Seattle courthouse.
The cost of providing this service is more than $800,000. The only fee assessed for ex parte services is the clerk’s processing fee for mail-in orders. Given the budget situation, the court must consider either closing this optional, non-mandated service or charging fees to all users.
All three of these services serve important needs in Superior Court.
Until the 2009 budget is adopted at an all-judges meeting in late June, it is too soon to tell which of these unpleasant choices will confront us this year. But, according to the executive’s Budget Office, large deficits in the county’s general fund are forecast to continue through at least 2011 and there are no indications matters will improve substantially after that. Therefore, even if cuts in these programs can be forestalled for 2009, they will confront us again in the 2010 and 2011 budgets.
During the upcoming budget process, King County must also be mindful that, unlike many county services, the obligation to adequately support the court system as a separate, co-equal branch of government is constitutionally required. At a minimum, the county must adequately fund those things that are necessary for the “efficient and effective administration of justice.”
Perhaps it is just human nature to take what we treasure the most for granted. But given the King County budget situation today, our court system is seriously in danger of lacking the resources to do the job, not only required by our state and federal constitutions, but also the job that our citizens have justifiably come to expect.
From the vantage point of the King County Superior Court, we are counting on our fellow professionals who make up the King County bar to become actively involved in the budget process and to express your opinions to the Executive and County Council. If you wish to comment or discuss anything regarding the Superior Court’s 2009 budget, please contact Judge Hilyer or Judge DuBuque by email as listed above. Thank you.