County Will Take Part in State Program to Ease Courts Burden

In a move that judges and court administrators predict will improve service to the public, San Diego County supervisors formally agreed Wednesday to participate in a program providing $30 million in state funding for trial courts during the next fiscal year.

Assistant Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen said the action paves the way for the addition of 27 judges and court-appointed referees and commissioners during the next 18 months. That expansion is expected to help relieve the severe crowding that has plagued the county’s court system, struggling in recent years with a mushrooming caseload.

“We are very pleased,” Superior Court Executive Officer William Pierce said after the hearing. “It has been a goal of the court to try to enhance the services we provide to the public, and this is a big step in that direction.”

Hours of Negotiations

The board’s unanimous vote, with Supervisor Susan Golding absent, capped hours of negotiations among county officials, judges and court administrators over how to fairly allocate the $30 million in state money provided during the first year of the program.

Under the agreement approved by the board, $9.6 million will go to the Municipal and Superior courts, the county clerk and the county marshal. An additional $8.4 million will be shared by the district attorney and public defender or spent on related costs, and the remaining $12.3 million will go into the county’s general fund.

Janssen said that, although the state program provides $212,000 for each new judicial position, relieving the county of that burden, that amount does not cover ancillary costs generated by the new judgeships, such as support staff. Local government still bears responsibility for those costs and for court operations, he said, estimating the county bill at $15 million to $20 million annually.

“Trial court funding is not going to be the panacea that some people in Sacramento seem to think it will be,” Janssen told the board as he recommended approval of the plan. “It is a very complicated bill. It will in the long run create a lot of problems. But it will at this time help us deal with the court requirements that the county lacks the resources to meet.”

Court officials greeted the board’s vote--taken after virtually no discussion--with enthusiasm.

“All right!” exclaimed Municipal Court Administrator Kent Pedersen. “God bless them.”

Several board members, catching the mood, responded in unison, “Merry Christmas!”

Court officials have been banking on the state funding bill for months, viewing it as a way to help a financially strapped county expand the bench to deal with an ever-growing caseload. To buttress their plea for new judicial positions, judges cite a study by the California Judicial Council estimating that San Diego County needs 91 Superior Court judges to handle its caseload. The court now does the job with 58 jurists, and two are expected to retire in the coming weeks.

A similar, year-old study of San Diego Municipal Court shows that it needs 37 judges to handle its caseload, which is now shouldered by 25 judges.

The supervisors’ vote came after both the Superior and Municipal benches polled their judges and found that a majority favored participation in the trial court funding program.

E. Mac Amos, who will take over as presiding judge of San Diego Municipal Court on Jan. 1, told the board that “the benefits that will accrue will be substantial in the future.”

Despite recommending approval of the program, Janssen cited several disadvantages. For starters, participation in the program binds the local government to funding the courts at or above the level established during the first year state funds are accepted.

Must Maintain Level

“That means, whatever we spend during this base year, we must maintain that level plus add the (cost-of-living adjustment) in subsequent years,” Janssen said.

Also, the legislation requires that the Municipal and Superior courts approve how the state funds are divided each year, thereby giving two new parties a hand in the budget process in San Diego County.

Janssen also predicted that the Legislature will use the trial court funding program as an excuse to burden the county with fiscal responsibility for programs previously funded by the state. The state Administrative Office of the Courts already has announced that it will no longer pay for the training of judges “because of the money the state gave us for trial court funding,” Janssen said.

Finally, the county was only allowed to participate in the program because voters approved the so-called Gann waiver, Proposition A, in November. The approval lifted the county’s appropriations ceiling, allowing them to spend more than a set limit. The waiver is good for four years and will have to be approved again by voters if trial court funding is to continue, Janssen said.

The county will receive the first funding installment Jan. 1. Meanwhile, the county’s General Services Department has been authorized to initiate a search for more space for the new judges and support staff.