Last Piece of Budget Package OKd : Legislature: The bill, to finance local trial courts, was fashioned so fast that it did not carry an author’s name. After acting, the Senate recesses.

The Senate on Thursday sent to Gov. Pete Wilson for his expected signature the last major piece of the state budget package--a $205-million state aid bill for the financing of local trial courts.

The Senate then followed the Assembly’s lead and recessed for a four-week vacation. The legislative session will resume Aug. 19 when the No. 1 issue will be redrawing political district lines of the Legislature, the U.S. House of Representatives and the State Board of Equalization.

The court finance bill, fashioned so hastily over the last two days that it did not even carry an author’s name, is intended to repair a series of legal glitches that occurred earlier during confusion over enacting the new state budget.

The bill will restore millions of dollars for trial courts in Orange County, money that officials had feared they would lose, according to county officials. It would make up for a projected $4.5-million to $5-million shortfall in the court operating budget and actually deliver a surplus of about $12 million.

“That’s great for us,” said county budget director Ronald S. Rubino. “We needed something.”

Even with the unexpected bonus from Sacramento, however, Rubino added that the county still faces a $63-million shortfall in its overall budget next year. He is scheduled to meet with supervisors’ aides this morning to brief them on the state of the budget, and the supervisors will begin their formal hearings Tuesday.

New law requires the state to gradually assume full financing of local judicial operations. But because of budget miscalculations and other errors, courts throughout California faced the prospect of operating without state funds unless the Legislature acted.

Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, characterized the bill as non-controversial. He said that earlier issues had been smoothed over by Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento), Wilson Administration representatives, judges, county supervisors, officials of cities and others.

Lockyer said it was important to send the bill immediately to Wilson or disruption of local court functions would result.

Lockyer, who conceded that he had not participated in crafting the last-minute bill, ran into a buzz saw of skeptical questioners who were bewildered by the fact that no legislator’s name appeared as the author of the proposal. He said there simply was not enough time before recess.

Sen. Charles M. Calderon (D-Whittier) complained: “We have a bill on the floor and no member has put his name to it (including Lockyer), who said it’s important to pass. What are we doing?”

Sen. Robert B. Presley (D-Riverside), one of the earliest proponents of state financing of local courts, stepped forward and offered to author the bill, “since no one wants to claim it.” But no one took him up on the offer.

Sen. Ralph C. Dills (D-Gardena), who first was elected to the Legislature in 1938, said he had seen many extraordinary things in the Capitol but never an “orphan” bill without an author.

Secretary of the Senate Rick Rollens said lawyers had investigated the issue and found that an authorless bill did not violate the state Constitution or any statute. As it originally passed the Senate, the bill dealt with liquor taxes. Its contents were stricken in the Assembly, including the name of the original author, Sen. Milton Marks (D-San Francisco), and it was made the court funding measure.

The bill went to Wilson, 27 to 7, and the senators left for vacation.