Iowa Judicial Branch Budget

Frequently Asked Questions

(October 23, 2009)

 

 

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 courts' 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 helped ease 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. 

 

Could the state save money by closing clerk of court offices in small counties?

On the surface, closing clerk of court offices in Iowa's smallest counties might appear to be a likely way to save millions of dollars. In realty, however, savings, if any, from this measure would be nominal. Why? The courts do not pay for the cost of operating and maintaining courthouses—counties do. The cost of running a clerk's office is largely the cost of personnel. Even if the judicial branch were to close clerk of court offices in the 36 smallest counties, the net savings would be about $1 million because other clerk of court offices would need more staff to pick up the workload. Also, without a clerk of court office in a county, the courts would incur additional costs such as transporting case files, exhibits and equipment to that county for the purpose of holding hearings and trials. In addition, closing a clerk of court office would shift more costs to litigants and counties. For these reasons, closing clerk of court offices may not be prudent.

Would hammering harder on people who owe fines and fees solve the budget problem?

This question is complex. Iowa's courts already devote substantial taxpayer resources to the task of collecting fines and fees. For example:

·         Clerks of court send out two warning notices to each person who has unpaid debt,

·         Clerks of court send data to Revenue and Finance to trigger offset of income tax returns for unpaid court debt and state court administration handles citizen questions about offsets,

·         Clerks of court send debt and case information to the State's Central Collections Unit to enable it to pursue debtors,

·         Magistrates and judges hold regular show cause hearings to compel debtors to pay fines and fees,

·         Clerks of court send data to county attorneys to facilitate their collection efforts 

·         The courts send data to county treasurers to trigger a procedure for withholding renewal of vehicle registrations for unpaid court debt,

·         The courts send data to the DOT to trigger driver's license suspension procedures.

In return, these efforts generate considerable revenue for the benefit of the state, cities and counties. In FY 2009, court-generated revenue added a total of $143 million to the coffers of state and local governments. Even so there is a significant amount of debt for unpaid fines and court fees that has accumulated over many years. Why? Many of the people who don't pay their fines frequently move from place to place and from job to job; most are poor; many are irresponsible, which is why they ended up in the courts in the first place, and many are in prison. For these reasons, it is unrealistic to view the ledger of old unpaid court debt as a gusher just waiting to be tapped. Rather than squandering taxpayer dollars on a dry well, the court system must focus its limited resources on its primary function--resolving cases. Diverting too many resources from cases to debt collection efforts would ultimately come at the expense of litigants. Finally, too much emphasis on debt collection could backfire. As has happened in other states in "justice of the peace courts," over reliance on fines and fees to support the justice system could call into question the fairness of fines.

 

Why should the courts be spared from budget cuts when most state funded entities and programs are being cut?

The judicial branch recognizes that it is must do its part to reduce the state's operating expenses. 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 the peoples' access to justice. 

 

What are the consequences of court budget cuts?

The lasting effects of previous expense cuts, along with the impact of higher expenses and growing responsibilities, makes it impossible to significantly reduce the judicial branch budget without affecting vital services to the public. The judicial branch already operates with too few judges and minimal court staff. Consequently, more cuts in court funding will result in reduced services, widespread delays, fewer trial dates and longer waits to get to trial. To comply with constitutional speedy trial requirements courts must give criminal cases top priority. As a result, litigants involved in civil cases such as couples fighting over child custody and support, accident victims seeking compensation for their injuries, estates waiting to close, and business owners needing to resolve contract disputes will feel the brunt of the budget cuts. Cuts will also jeopardize the quality of justice as judges and court staff triage cases to keep them moving through the system.  

 

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 seven 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 does the clerk of court in my town make more than the other county officials?

In some smaller counties, the salary of the clerk of court is more than the salary of some county officials such as the county recorder and county treasurer. Statewide, however, the salaries of clerks of court are about the same as salaries for those county officials. As a state employee, the salaries of the clerks of court are driven by state comparable worth laws as well as regular salary increases given to all state employees. In contrast, the salaries of county officials are set by the board of supervisors of each county. Clerks' salaries used to be tied to the salaries of other county officials but the legislature did away with this connection nearly twenty years ago in favor of treating clerks of court like other state employees. 

 
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 it 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. 

 

Why not cut the salaries of judges and magistrates?

Naturally, cutting judicial salaries would be one way to cut expenses. Judges took one day of unpaid leave in 2009. Permanent salary cuts, however, would have a negative, long-term effect on the quality of justice because low judicial salaries will discourage high-caliber lawyers from seeking judicial positions and encourage judges to leave the bench for higher paying law jobs. In the long run, reducing the number of judges and magistrates would be a more effective cost-cutting measure.