Iowa Judicial Branch

FY 2010 Mid-Year Budget Cuts

FAQ

(November 12, 2009)

How much is the cut in the judicial branch budget?

$11.4 million (7.1% of the judicial branch operating budget)

Why isn’t the judicial branch taking a 10% cut like the executive branch?

As a separate branch of government, the judicial branch is not subject to the governor’s 10% across-the-board cuts for executive branch agencies. Nonetheless, legislative leaders have indicated to court officials that the legislature expects the judicial branch to take substantial cuts. The 10% across-the-board reduction was designed to build up a cushion that could be reallocated to critical executive branch agencies and to hedge against future cuts. The supreme court initially considered making 10% cuts, but later decided to go with 7.1%. The 7.1% cut in the judicial branch budget corresponds with the state’s revenue shortfall as estimated by the State Revenue Estimating Conference last month. Given the vital nature of court services, the court concluded a 7.1% cut at this time was more prudent and would still be sufficient to help meet the current revenue shortfall.

Why do the budget cuts appear to hit the courts more than state departments and agencies?

Typically, budget cuts have a disproportionate effect on the judicial branch because it has no reserve funds to tap and no programs to eliminate. Because 95% of the judicial branch budget is devoted to personnel expenses—salaries and benefits for judges and staff—any budget cut over 1% to 2% requires cuts in personnel. Even though the judicial branch is cutting its budget less than the cuts imposed on most state agencies, the judicial branch will lay off more employees, cut more vacant jobs, and require more unpaid leave than most state offices and departments, including the regents.

Will the court close clerk of court offices in small counties?

No. The judicial branch will continue to maintain a clerk of court office in every county. However, offices in 23 counties will operate on a part-time basis to some extent, and as a general proposition, clerk of court offices throughout the state will have reduced public hours.

What’s the point of reduced public hours?

Reduced public hours will give clerks’ offices a block of uninterrupted time so they can concentrate on addressing backlogs. Experience has shown that this arrangement makes a difference and helps facilitate case processing.

How did the court determine what positions to cut?

With one exception, the court reduced all components of judicial branch operations—court administration, clerks, and court reporters—to 12% below staffing formulas or ratios. The court cut juvenile court services by 9% to lessen the impact the cuts will have on children and young people.

Were there staff cuts at every level of the court system?

Yes. In addition to the staff cuts throughout the judicial districts, the supreme court, court of appeals and the state court administrator’s office cut staff.

Did the court cut rural clerk of court offices more than urban offices?

No. The cuts in clerk of court staff were uniformly applied according to the clerk of court staff formula, which is based upon a weighted workload. Every clerk of court office is staffed 12% below the formula.

How many employees were affected by the cuts?

The judicial branch laid off 105 employees; reduced the hours of 58 employees; and cut 100 vacant positions.

Will the judicial branch cut judicial positions?

State law allows the judicial branch to hold open judicial vacancies (not magistrate vacancies) for up to six months. The judicial branch is exercising this option. The judicial branch does not have authority to eliminate judicial or magistrate positions.

Will judges continue to travel to provide judicial services to all counties?

Yes. However, the court has suspended the requirement that every county see four different trial judges during the year.

Why do the courts close down on unpaid leave days? Why not stagger unpaid leave?

Requiring everyone take unpaid leave at the same time is easier to implement within the constraints of the collective bargaining contracts and is a better arrangement for small clerk of court offices that have two or less employees. To minimize the impact of closures on the public, the judicial branch scheduled court closures for days that are the least busy day of the week in most courthouses. Experience from two previous times of unpaid leave (FY 2005 and February—May 2009) shows that arranging unpaid leave with court closures works reasonably well in most counties.

Why is the judicial branch moving forward with EDMS when it is cutting staff?

The funds for this project are off-budget funds, specially earmarked by the legislature for court technology. In addition, these funds are contractually committed. This commitment occurred last year before the budget downturn. Finally and most importantly, EDMS is essential for the future of our court system. It is the most effective way to maintain statewide access to the courts in the face of shrinking resources. It will help understaffed clerk of court offices keep up with the caseload. EDMS will help keep employees in the smaller counties because they will be able to take on some of the case processing work of the larger counties. It will improve judicial efficiency because judges will not have to waste time running down a case file or searching for documents that did not make it into the files because of delays in the clerk’s office. In short, EDMS is a long-range solution that will allow the judicial branch to better manage its growing workload in the face of dwindling resources.

What about emergency matters on closure days?

The judicial districts will assign magistrates and judges to be available to handle emergency matters when the courts are closed. This arrangement is similar to the way courts handle emergencies on weekends and holidays.

What if I have a filing deadline on a day that the courts are closed?

Iowa Code section 4.1(34) provides flexibility when filing deadlines occur on a closure day. This statute extends the period for filing until the next day the court is opened.

Why is the court studying digital audio recording?

Given the successful use of digital recording in other jurisdictions and the serious condition of the state’s finances, the judicial branch cannot ignore any technology that might enable the courts to operate more efficiently and affordably. Digital audio recording may have this potential. Even so, the court has not made a decision for or against DART. Even if the DART committee submits a favorable report, the court will have other considerations to weigh before it reaches a conclusion about the use of digital audio recording as an alternative to court reporting. The availability of skilled support staff for judges will be a primary consideration in reaching any conclusion about the use of digital audio recording technology.

Why should the courts be spared from budget cuts?

The judicial branch recognizes that it must do its part to reduce the state's operating expenses. To this end the judicial branch has cut its workforce by 9.3%, ordered unpaid leave for all employees, judges and magistrates, and instituted other expense reduction measures. These measures are in addition to cost-cutting measures taken earlier this year. Nonetheless, the administration of justice is indispensable to the function of governing; it is one of the reasons government exists. Cuts in court funding threaten public access to justice.

What permanent cuts did the judicial branch make in previous economic downturns?

In addition to implementing a wide range of efficiency measures over the years, the judicial branch has been required to significantly reduce its workforce. Today, the judicial branch staffing level is 15% percent less than it was at its peak in FY 2002. In contrast over the same period, the executive branch staffing levels have remained about the same and the regents staffing levels have grown by 8%. Among the cost-cutting measures made in the past, the courts have eliminated all funds for hospitalization referees, reduced the number of training and education programs for judges and court employees, eliminated funds for the juvenile restitution program, cut the CASA program, reduced or dropped certain travel expenses, reduced the hours of nearly 70 employees, demoted 79 supervisory employees, and eliminated 155 staff jobs. At the same time, demands for court services have increased.

Why not address the budget problem by reducing expenses through efficiency measures?

Iowa's court system is highly efficient. Over the years, the judicial branch has implemented a wide range of efficiency measures that have enabled the courts to do more with less, and the judicial branch will continue to search for ways to operate more efficiently. But the simple fact is that efficiency measures alone cannot solve a multi-million dollar budget shortfall. The judicial branch operating budget is largely devoted to labor costs (95%) so a budget cut will require downsizing the court system workforce, including judges. A workforce reduction will result in widespread delays throughout the court system.

Would higher and new court fees fix the budget shortfall?

Raising court fees has eased past budget shortfalls and may be useful again. However, raising fees is not a sure-fire solution and it could be counter-productive. First, most court fees are statutory so changing them requires legislative approval. Because the legislature approved significant fee increases in 2009, it may not be inclined to do so again in 2010. Second, as a general proposition, nearly all court fees end up in the state general fund for disbursement by the legislature so there is no guarantee such revenue would aid the courts. Third, if raised too high, court fees can block public access to justice for people who do not have the financial means to pay them. Having said all this, the judicial branch is open to discussions about raising court fees.

Why not cut court administration more?

While cutting "administration" is a great sound bite, cutting administration would shift work and create problems elsewhere in the court system. The primary role of court administration is to serve the judiciary by handling administrative matters so judges can devote their time to cases. Taking a hatchet to court administration would ultimately shift more work to judges, leaving them less time for judicial duties. Moreover, court administration represents a small fraction—only 3%—of the entire judicial branch budget, so cuts in this component would reduce expenses by a nominal amount. Nonetheless, the judicial branch has reduced its administrative staff. Among other things, the judicial branch recently reduced and realigned its finance and personnel component and is holding a number of administrative positions vacant.

Why not freeze the salaries of court employees and judges as a way to reduce overhead?

With regard to judges, the legislature did not raise judges' salaries this year and will probably not raise them next year. In fact, this year judges saw their net pay decrease because they had to contribute more to their retirement system, and their retirement contribution will continue to climb over the next few years. With regard to court employees, the supreme court would prefer to freeze employee salaries across the board as a way to contain costs. But the judicial branch must comply with the terms of its collective bargaining agreements with two unions. These agreements call for, among other things, certain types of salary increases over the next two years. For the current fiscal year, the supreme court decided to give similar increases to employees not covered by union agreements as a matter of equity and prudent management.

Why not make judges and court employees travel for free?

All state officials and employees receive reimbursement for part of the travel expenses they incur to conduct state business. For example, the state reimburses legislators, the governor, DHS workers, DNR employees, public defenders, area prosecutors, and others for their work-related travel expenses. The mileage reimbursement rate for both the executive and legislative branches is $.39 per mile; the judicial branch reimbursement rate is $.35 per mile. Most of the judicial branch travel budget is for the cost of reimbursing judges and employees who use their own cars to provide court services in all 99 counties. Eliminating the mileage reimbursement would disproportionately hit juvenile court officers, judges and court reporters who provide services to Iowa's rural communities. Some judges, particularly those who work in judicial districts composed of a small number of counties, have expressed a willingness to travel for free. They may do so. Nonetheless, judges in large judicial districts who travel thousands of miles a year to serve rural counties would incur thousands of dollars of out-of-pocket expenses if the state did not reimburse them. Requiring judges and employees to travel at their own expense would ultimately create a disincentive to travel that would in turn affect services to rural communities.

What happens now?

Given the severe depletion of the judicial branch workforce and other court resources, Iowans cannot realistically expect the courts to return to business as usual. The judicial branch must reengineer its practices and procedures. The judicial branch is already planning along this line. For example:

· With advice from judges and clerks, the supreme court will develop lists that rank cases and duties in order of priority. These lists will provide clerks, judges, and other employees with guidance about which cases and duties to address before others.

· It has asked employees, judges and advisory committees to identify changes in business practices and court rules that would streamline practices and procedures. The supreme court welcomes suggestions from lawyers and others who are knowledgeable about the courts.

· The supreme court has asked each district to convene a collaborative process after the cuts that brings together representatives of all court components and levels of the bench with lawyers, local government officials, and other key stakeholders to search for ways to improve court operations.

· The judicial branch will work with legislators to obtain statutory changes that will streamline procedures, eliminate obsolete practices, reduce expenses, increase revenue, and make the court system’s statutory framework more efficient and effective.

· As mentioned earlier, the judicial branch will continue to explore the use of technology that will increase efficiency and productivity without impairing the quality of its work.