 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - March 21, 2003 Courts' 'Critical Needs' Budget Seeks to Fill Clerical Vacancies By: Dan Wise Update: On April 17, 2003, the NH House passed a budget proposal that imposes even deeper cuts on the judicial branch appropriation than was discussed in the following article. The article provides an overview of the development of the judicial branch budget and the status operations and staffing under current austerity measures. For information on the potential impact of the House plan, see Chief Justice Brock's April 16 letter to House leaders. THE JUDICIAL BRANCH is asking for approximately $60 million per year in the biennium, a three percent net increase over the current fiscal year. The requested budget prioritizes the restoration of between 40 to 50 currently vacant positions. "Unfortunately, we are not providing basic services to our citizens," said Chief Justice David Brock in testimony at a Feb. 21, 2003, session of the House and Senate budget committees meeting jointly. Court officials said it is imperative that they be allowed to fill clerical positions that currently are vacant throughout the system – attrition and vacancies have had disproportionate effects on some courts, impairing the ability of those courts to handle cases in a timely manner. (See unfilled vacancy rates in various courts below.) These hires could alleviate paperwork and scheduling delays that are spreading throughout the court system, and could allow some courts to lift temporary austerity measures, such as early office closings or hours when telephones aren’t answered. The proposed budget also would allow the superior court to fill two marital master vacancies (a full-time position formerly held by Larry Pletscher and a half-time position created by the decision of Martha Copithorne to work half-time.) The proposed budget is a decrease from the court’s original budget request of $64 million and $65 million for the biennium. It will not, however, counteract some of the cost-cutting measures imposed in the past year, including the controversial elimination of jury sessions in certain months. (The court’s budget was scheduled for a second review by a segment of the House Finance Committee on March 18.) The judicial branch budget this year ($55.7 million) constitutes 1.4 percent of the state General Fund appropriation. According to the court’s budget presentation, the goal of the "critical needs" budget is to provide all courts with sufficient staff to: process documents on time; keep clerks’ offices open; answer telephones during business hours; and meet constitutional and statutory time mandates in criminal cases, children’s cases, landlord/tenant matters, domestic violence cases and domestic relations matters. Negotiated cost-of-living, merit or step raises, as well as increases in benefit costs, also must be accounted for, the budget presentation said, particularly in a budget where 75 percent goes toward personnel costs. The proposed budget won’t allow the courts to restore jury trials in all 12 months of the year. (Currently the superior court does not hold jury trials three months out of each year, saving on jury expenses and allowing staff to devote more time to processing paperwork in those months.) Nor will it restore the 10 percent reduction in district court sessions. The budget, as proposed, also would keep a tight rein on spending for replacement of equipment and court law library acquisitions, and would not provide full staffing in trial courts as prescribed in objective court workload formulas. Donald Goodnow, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), said the budget was crafted, at the instruction of Chief Justice David A. Brock, to reflect the difficult financial position the state is in while maintaining the minimum required level of service. "Our goal was to develop a budget that would have a minimum impact on the General Fund and maximize the service provided to litigants," said Goodnow. The budget reflects an actual spending increase of 5.5 percent over the current fiscal year, but the court system is also proposing a revision of motor vehicle fines that would direct an additional $1.6 million to the General Fund. Rather than being an across-the-board increase, the proposed fine increases reflect a comparison with similar fines in neighboring states, said Goodnow. "We found that we were a little low in some categories," said Goodnow. The court is also proposing a $7 increase in non-criminal filing fees to offset an increase of $580,000 in facility expenses. Goodnow said building operation budgeting is handled by the Department of Administrative Services, and, under instructions from the Benson administration, the judicial branch cannot reduce that figure. Instead the judicial branch is proposing a means of offsetting that increased line item. There is no place else to cut, Goodnow said, without sacrificing access to the courts. "The predominant means we have of providing services to our constituents is through our people – processing court orders and paperwork, helping people at the front desk – and if we have a choice of making cuts between staff and facilities, we usually decide in favor of the people." Not appearing in the General Fund budget figures is an additional expense of $600,000 the court is seeking to continue its automation of case management and other operations. The court system has been purchasing equipment and software to move all levels of the courts from DOS-based to Windows-based computer operating systems that will be networked. That figure will be "bonded," meaning it will be borrowed as it was in the current biennial budget. In the superior court, the proposed budget would allow 15 "full-time equivalent" positions to be filled, representing 7 percent of the non-judicial workforce. According to figures from the presentation, over the last six months of 2002, Carroll County Superior Court had a 20 percent vacancy rate in its small staff, while Rockingham and Hillsborough South courthouses had vacancy rates of 18 and 17 percent, respectively. The budget would also allow for increased marital master bench time in the Sullivan, Cheshire and Carroll courthouses. Currently, the clerical staff and marital master shortages have lengthened to three-and-a-half months the time it can take to get a temporary order in a divorce case. Several courts have also instituted early closing hours for clerks’ offices on some afternoons and imposed limitations on when phone inquiries will be answered. "This helps with reducing the document backlogs, but denies the public reasonable access to the courts," further states the budget document. The superior court said that as a result of the vacancies in some courts, as many as 500 orders were waiting to be processed as of Jan. 31, 2003. While personnel are sometimes shifted from one court to another to help with spot shortages, such practices are stopgap and inefficient, court officials said. Court Demand v. Supply There were 243,020 cases (excluding motor vehicle pleas handled by mail) disposed of by the various level of the courts in 2002. The "vacancy rates" listed below are derived from a comparison of the number of working days for budgeted positions and the number of working days left unfilled during the last six months of 2002. Superior Court Clerical Staff Vacancy Rates Carroll County: 20 percent District Court Clerical Staff Vacancy Rates Somersworth: 36 percent Another eight courts, according to a weighted caseload formula, have at least a 20 percent vacancy rate. Probate Court Clerical Staff Vacancies Systemwide, six positions vacant, including one position vacant in Rockingham County for 17 months. Merrimack County has a 16 percent vacancy rate. Family Division Clerical Staff Vacancies In Grafton and Rockingham counties, there are four unfilled positions, including two at the Derry location, according to Family Division administrator Heidi Boyack. (The Family Division’s figures did not appear in the judicial system budget presentation.)
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
