Justice in Jeopardy: The King County 2005 Court Budget
By John Cary
King County’s adoption of the 2005 budget just before Thanksgiving turned my attention from statewide court budget issues to the local situation.
Background
Court budgets are closely linked to fiscal situation of the county. Law and justice programs-sheriff, prosecutor, courts, public defender, jails and juvenile courts-currently take 71 percent of the county’s general fund. The percentage has increased constantly over the years-in 1992, it was 58 percent and in 2002, 68 percent.
The increase is not due to new or expanding programs. The programs have stayed the same but take a large portion of the general fund because other programs, e.g., parks, have been reduced or cut out. Superior Court amounts to about 6.5 percent of the general fund, District Court is 3.8 percent and the Clerk is 2.9 percent. Courts are funded primarily by the county; they receive little from the state.
County revenues have been limited by initiatives. Initiative 695 in 1999 ended the motor vehicle excise tax, a significant portion of which went to law and justice programs. Initiative 747 in 2001 set a limit of one percent on increases in property taxes, the largest source of general fund revenues.
By 2002, the county found itself with general revenues growing at two percent a year but general fund expenses growing at five to six percent a year due to the large increases in health care costs experienced by the entire economy and to modest cost of living increases. Moreover, the gap between income and outgo was structural: It could not be closed by an improving economic situation when the recession ended. Clearly, the situation could not be sustained for long. The county cut staff and administrative expenses, reduced or terminated programs and increased fees wherever it could.
Superior Court
Initiative 695 initiated the budget cutting era for Superior Court. The loss of revenue led the court to cut $350,000 out of its 2000 budget by seeking to terminate mandatory arbitration. KCBA, in conjunction with the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association, mounted a strong defense that saved mandatory arbitration but at the expense of a new $120 arbitration fee.
Each year thereafter brought ano-ther call for reduction. For 2001, the court had a target reduction of $340,000 which it met by a variety of cuts in administrative and rent overhead expenses. In 2002 the deficit bit with particular force. The court was required to cut $1.5 million. The target reduction developed a repetitious theme with cuts of $1 million required for each of 2003, 2004 and 2005.
Budget cuts have caused a myriad of small changes and reductions too numerous to list. Yet, the significant losses should be recalled: Limitation in the individual calendar case management system -the heart of the system to insure timely trials. Juvenile programs including secure visitation, mediation between offender and victim, and psychological evaluations, juvenile probation counselors, programs such as Stay in School and Parent Orientation. Family Law CASA (a program that recruited, trained and supervised volunteers from the community to investigate and report on the best interest of children in contested family law cases). Substitution of recording equipment for court reporters.
On the revenue side of the ledger, the arbitration fee was imposed for 2000 and then increased by another $100 for the 2002 budget. The fee for family court services was increased from $90 to $100 an hour.
Taking a more detailed look at the 2005 budget, we find that if the court were to operate in 2005 exactly as it had in 2004, but accounting for built-in cost increases such as COLAs, its budget would be $36.6 million. The County Executive asked the court to look for a reduction of $1 million from the status quo amount.
The court responded with a combination of efficiency measures, program cuts and additional revenue. Zero-based budgeting-described in Judges Eadie and Lukins’ June 2004 Bar Bulletin column -resulted in $119,000 in efficiency savings. Operational cuts included installing a recording system in Unified Family Court so that a court reporter’s position could be left vacant (a savings of $77,000) and substituting two full-time Spanish interpreters for hourly interpreters (saving $130,000). Revenue will be increased by $122,000 by charging for all ex parte orders presented by mail (some attorneys have avoided the fee by mailing directly to the judge rather than the clerk). An-other $100,000 will come from closer coordination with mental health, chemical abuse and dependency services in the human service department to identify time spent by court personnel for which federal reimbursement can be had.
In the end, the County Council approved a Superior Court budget for 2005 for $36.1 million. The 2005 budget cuts were, in relative terms, not as painful as in past years.
District Court
Mention of court usually brings to mind the Superior Court. But a resident of King County is far more likely to
appear in District Court than in Superior Court. As the venue for misdemeanors and civil cases up to $50,000, District Court is truly the “people’s court.” Through September of this year, 44,000 misdemeanors, 1,800 domestic violence, 18,000 civil, 5,400 small claims and 858 felony cases were filed in District Court. In addition, 183,000 traffic and 9,000 non-traffic infractions and 427,000 parking infractions were filed (a total of 688,000 filings).
In the same time period, 8,600 criminal, 33,000 civil, 6,400 domestic, 4,900 probate/guardianship, 2,100 adoption/paternity, 1,900 mental illness/alcohol, and 2,500 juvenile dependency cases (a total of 59,400 filings) reached Superior Court.
District Court faced not only the same budget crisis as Superior Court but also changing circumstances. Incorpora-tion of new cities and creation of new municipal courts changed the court’s workload. In mid 2002 the District Court was restructured by closing two courthouses and eliminating 44 staff positions. Over three years, $4.6 million was cut from its budget and 70 clerk positions were cut. (The loss of clerks clogged up the processing of filings. While some of the clerk positions have since been restored, it was not uncommon for six to eight weeks to pass before civil filings were returned.) The number of District Court judges is being reduced as vacancies come up, from 26 several years ago to a target of 21.
District Court dramatically changed its operations in the first years of budget cutting. In the last several years, it has been able more-or-less to maintain the status quo in budget terms. Its budget for 2005 is $21.3 million, $200,000 less than its status quo budget. However, structural and operation change will continue. The Executive and the Court started an operational master planning process in 2004 in order to conduct an in-depth examination of operations and func-tions. In the next two years, negotiations between the county and cities will determine whether the District Court will continue to provide municipal court functions for 13 cities in King County. The Trial Court Funding Task Force has proposed that District Court jurisdiction be increased to $75,000.
Jury District Legislation
In 2004, King County Superior Court proposed legislation authorizing the division of the county into two districts for the purpose of calling juries. Currently, jurors are drawn from a single jury pool for both courthouses. A North Seattle resident can be called for service in Kent while a Kent resident can be called to Seattle. The court estimates that 30 percent of jurors called to Kent live north of I-90 and vice versa for jurors summoned to the Seattle. The legislation would allow jurors to be called to the courthouse closer to their homes. It would not only increase convenience for the jurors but also decrease the amount paid by the court for mileage. Moreover, the court estimates that the number of jurors who actually respond to summons would increase by 25 percent. The savings for the court is estimated to be about $122,000 per year.
The legislation will be reintroduced in the 2005 session. KCBA supported the measure in 2004 and will do so again in 2005.
Budget Driven Studies for Further Changes
Changes driven by the budget are not at an end. One budget direction from the council (called a proviso) requires the Superior to participate in a preliminary work plan for a detailed master operational plan for juvenile, family law and supporting therapeutic courts. Although a tentative step, this study could lead to significant changes in family law practice.
Another proviso requires comprehensive review of court administrative functions and analysis of consolidating the administrative functions of Superior and District Courts. Consolidation of administrative functions is viewed as a way to gain most of the cost savings of trial court unification but without its problems. I understand that Yakima County has already taken this step.
Conclusion
For the past six years and, perhaps, the foreseeable future, the budget situation is aptly summarized by the Superior Court’s business plan: “Striving to preserve services in an environment of declining public sector resources.”
Unless there is fundamental change in the system for funding the courts, we can look forward to continued retrenchment and defensive budget actions. The reforms recommended by the BJA Court Funding Task Force and embodied in its Justice in Jeopardy legislative program offer such a fundamental change.
John Cary is KCBA president. He can be reached at caryj@att.net.
