THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE of the Courts recently issued several press releases to set the record straight about how much funding the courts actually received this year, in response to criticism about recent cutbacks in the courts.

Reductions recently in district court security and in Superior Court jury trials in response to a reduced judicial budget have captured the attention – and the ire – of NH citizens both in and out of the legal system. But much of that ire is misplaced, according to the AOC: It says the courts are being criticized for their response to the budget because of a misconception about how much funding they actually received. The court system is now trying to overcome mistakes made by reporters and government officials in the initial reporting on judicial budget cutbacks.

In criticizing the Superior Court’s decision to suspend jury trials in five out of the next 15 months as a cost-saving measure, the governor, legislators and a Union Leader editorial all mistakenly contended that the courts had received a 15 percent budget increase over the biennium. In reality, the net appropriation to the court system totaled $52.8 million for fiscal year 2002, an increase of less than one percent, or $148,155 more than the net appropriation for fiscal year 2001.

According to Don Goodnow, executive director of the AOC, the Legislature appropriated $106 million of the $120.2 million requested by the judicial branch. The $14 million difference is the result of a cut of $9.4 million in the overall appropriation, plus cuts of $3 million from the operating budget that had been marked for computer technology and a $1.7 million cut in the court security line item. The Legislature did appropriate $3.5 million in capital funds for computer technology, but the effect was to reduce the operating budget, says the AOC.

The following year will be no better: The net appropriation for the judicial branch in FY 2003 is $53,187, 561 or $359,179 more than the net appropriation for FY 2002, which is also an increase of less than one percent.

Data first released last week by the Administrative Office of the Courts shows the Superior Court share of that appropriation increased by $263,972 or about two percent in FY 2002. The Superior Court share of the FY 2003 appropriation is expected to be approximately the same as in FY 2002.

The governor’s budget director, Linda Hodgdon, has reviewed these numbers.

Superior Court Chief Justice Walter L. Murphy, who last week announced that he had taken several measures to cut costs, including deferring some jury trials, said budget constraints present tough questions for every branch of state government.

"The courts recognize the fiscal situation in which the state finds itself. We take seriously our responsibility to conserve the financial resources made available to us while continuing every effort to insure that no one’s constitutional rights are jeopardized," Murphy said.

In an opinion article sent to newspapers and published on page 4 of this issue of Bar News, Murphy said it is unrealistic to expect any enterprise to operate normally with a 1 to 2 percent increase. Murphy also refuted the charge that eliminating jury trials for five of the next 15 months would "shut down" the courts, as some critics have charged. "Judge and staff time during those months will be dedicated to resolution of non-jury matters, such as domestic relations cases, which represent about 43 percent of the Superior Court caseload."

Subsequent to the jury announcement, the Superior Court was criticized for allegedly failing to follow proper procedures in spending $20,000 to furnish new administrative offices for the Superior Court. The court moved at the beginning of October from cramped quarters on North State Street in Concord to an office building on Chennell Drive for essentially the same rent. In a Concord Monitor article, Administrative Services Commissioner Donald Hill said the Superior Court used money from the court facilities improvement fund, which is funded by three dollars from each court fine levied, to outfit its new administrative offices. According to Hill, whose department oversees spending on court facilities (except for the Supreme Court and the Superior Court administrative offices), that fund is under his jurisdiction and shouldn’t be spent on facilities not under his oversight. The court system contends that it does have the authority to spend the money because the legislatively created Court Accreditation Commission approved it.

AOC officials are making efforts to explain the budget process for the courts; the judicial branch budget is handled differently from the budgets of many executive branch agencies. The judicial branch submits its request for funding to the Legislature. In recent years, the Legislature has approved all or almost all of the funds requested by the judicial branch in section I of the Budget Act, but has then reduced the appropriation in another section of the budget document. The Legislature has then directed the chief justice of the Supreme Court to allocate that reduction among specified line item appropriations in the judicial branch budget. In practice, the judicial branch Administrative Council (consisting of a Supreme Court justice, the chief justice of the Superior Court, the administrative justices of the district and probate courts and the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts) make recommendations to the chief justice, who makes the final decisions concerning how to allocate the reduction among the specific line item appropriations.

The net appropriation of $52,828,382 for the judicial branch for FY 2002 is an increase over FY 2001 of less than one percent, in part because the FY 2002 appropriation was reduced with the district court security budget cut and by moving the computerization request from the operating budget to the capital budget. The effect of those two moves was to reduce the Section I (gross) appropriation by $3.8 million, forcing the judicial branch to allocate the $4,418,101 reduction in Section 10 among fewer line item appropriations in a smaller budget, according to the AOC.

Although the court system did receive more money this year, the slight increase was almost entirely consumed by legislatively mandated salary increases, Goodnow said. Seventy-five percent of the judicial branch budget goes to salaries and benefits: 50 percent for non-judicial staff and 25 percent for judicial staff.

Because salaries and benefits are such a large part of the courts’ budget, those line items are expected to absorb much of the funding reduction. Non-judicial staff positions will be kept vacant for longer periods. Goodnow said that as of the beginning of October, there were 32 unfilled non-judicial positions in the judicial branch. Forty-nine new positions have been requested in court support staff; only nine have been filled so far.

The AOC pointed out the danger in continuing to understaff the courts: There will be delays in the issuance of judicial orders and the response to scheduling requests or changes, for example. "It’s important to keep in mind that every court depends on its support staff to docket pleadings, schedule hearings and trials and send out court orders. Without staff to perform these non-judicial functions in a timely way, the judges cannot discharge their responsibilities," the AOC wrote. "With insufficient staffing, there aren’t enough resources to reach all the people appearing before the court," added Goodnow.

In order to allocate the budget reduction "in such a way as to minimize the impact of the reductions on efforts to carry out constitutional and statutory mandates and on efforts to deliver effective constituent service at 67 court sites," the Administrative Council and chief justice considered many line item reductions. These included elimination of jury trials in district courts; reduction of the budget to hire part-time judges for probate and district courts and the family division; leaving positions vacant; and the elimination of five months of jury trials. After their review, part of the mandated reduction was allocated among appropriations for new equipment, jury fees, facilities, continuing education, current expense and several other line items. This includes the elimination of Superior Court civil jury trials in five of the next 15 months, which will save about $250,000, according to Superior Court Chief Justice Murphy.

Goodnow said that the Superior Court jury trial reductions are just one of the many cutbacks the court system must implement and citizens of NH will see as a result of the judicial branch being essentially flat-funded. A court facilities line cut could mean degradation in building maintenance. A request for $21,000 for alternative dispute resolution, which would have helped resolve matters outside of the courtroom, has been cut. Additional funding for interpreters is in jeopardy. And replacing outdated audio equipment with digital recording equipment is being put off – again. "The reductions we face now come after years of insufficient funding," said Goodnow.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer