May 2003
A Big, Hairy, Audacious Scenario for Court Funding
by Jan Michels
WSBA Executive Director
janm@wsba.org
In long-range planning, "big, hairy, audacious goals" are encouraged. These are goals that represent the ultimate of where the planners want to be, uninhibited by reservations about feasibility, money or politics. These goals fit my definition of the future scenario I wrote about last month, so I'll bend the nomenclature a bit to discuss the "big, hairy, audacious scenario" (BHAS) for court funding. The BHAS for the future of Washington courts is "stable, adequate, long-term funding of Washington trial courts to provide equal justice throughout the state." This is a big, hairy, audacious scenario of the future we desire, and it is the scenario adopted by the Court Funding Task Force.
Beginning on page 18 of this issue, the immediate past-president of the Superior Court Judges' Association, Judge Deborah Fleck, reviews the history of this scenario and her important work in building it. The BHAS is set, and under the capable leadership of WSBA Past-president Wayne Blair, the Court Funding Task Force (CFTF) is developing action plans to get there. The Board for Judicial Administration, the WSBA, judicial associations, court managers' associations, and others are part of creating the reality we picture.
For the significant work ahead, the CFTF has appointed five workgroups (WGs): Problem Definition, Funding Alternatives, Courts of Limited Jurisdiction, Implementation Strategies and Public Education. The Problem Definition WG is tasked with defining, describing and quantifying the problem. The Funding Alternatives WG will then develop alternatives for stable and adequate revenue to support the courts' needs. Concurrent with the work of these WGs, the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction WG is working to analyze the unique issues surrounding district and municipal court structures, contracts, revenue and funding. With the findings and recommendations of these three WGs, the Implementation Strategies WG will take on the task of implementation planning. And throughout the process, the Public Education WG will bring the public into the scenario with education and public discussion.
Following is a snapshot of the work of the WGs:
Problem Definition Workgroup
This WG has met every two weeks in March and April, and will continue to meet in May, to accomplish its task of defining, describing and quantifying the problem. It has developed an overall approach, an outline of its report, an inventory of court functions, and preliminary recommendations about what court functions should be included under the "court funding" umbrella. In deciding to discuss the problem in terms of "court mission and court functions" as a whole, rather than maintaining previous distinctions of "core and noncore functions," the WG intends to demonstrate that court services are a continuum of public service, courtroom adjudication, appropriate dispute-resolution mechanisms and specialty courts, and the enforcement of court orders.
Defining the problem
The problem must be defined in compelling enough terms to rally citizen support and legislative action. The WG characterizes the issue thus: "Reckless funding cuts endanger our social contract to be governed, and the public's right to an objective forum for the resolution of disputes." For this element of their work, the WG solicited examples, anecdotes and horror stories about the results of funding cuts and constraints.
Concepts underlying this definition of the problem include the following:
• Social order depends on the rule of law;
• Citizens are guaranteed an objective forum for the resolution of disputes;
• Courts are a general government expense;
• Trial courts are state courts;
• Equal justice demands equal access;
• When all efficiencies are realized, further cuts are reckless of public safety and order; and
• Legislation and public expectation increasingly put courts as a last resort for the public in the role of social protector and service provider.
Describing "the courts"
To develop a description of the problem, the WG created an inventory of all court functions and developed a paradigm to explain to citizens the critical nature of these functions. The WG is in the process of developing recommendations to the CFTF about what is and is not included in "court funding." Obvious inclusions are such things as judicial salaries and support staff; less obvious but important inclusions are defense, probation and the enforcement of court orders. Still under consideration by the WG are valuable and important services such as noncourt dispute-resolution services and indigent civil representation.
Another issue being studied by the WG is the current myriad of patchwork funding streams, along with the imbalance among state, county and city funding for court functions, and how these mechanisms affect the mission of the courts.
Quantifying the problem
Following the determination of which court functions are included under the rubric of "court funding," the task of the WG becomes quantifying, in dollars and other resources, current expenditures, and projecting the levels needed for appropriate and adequate funding. There are many studies, analyses, flow charts and audit reports about current and historic funding levels, and there is great incentive for auditors, counties, and the state Office of Financial Management to cooperate in defining the current level and source of revenue for the courts. The challenge will be to credibly project the unmet need and recommend possible methods for periodic evaluation of changing needs. Once the problem has been defined, described and quantified, the burden will shift to the Funding Alternatives WG.
Funding Alternatives Workgroup
The Funding Alternatives WG's challenge is to document available funding sources and revenue streams. This WG is compiling information, and based on the Problem Definition WG's quantified extent of the problem, will search for a stable, adequate funding stream for Washington courts, which may include a variety of sources for various court functions.
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Workgroup
This WG's focus is on whether public policy is currently being uniformly administered, and determining the most effective structure for delivering services. The WG will determine where there are gaps in public access or service, and analyze whether these gaps can be addressed by additional funding or other changes. Toward this objective, various customers of the courts of limited jurisdiction are involved in the discussion (domestic-violence petitioners, the Bar and law enforcement). Another important perspective will come from city and county officials and executives. These groups will help decide which are the most important considerations in deciding how court services will be provided to their community. The WG reports demonstrable progress with these tasks. The findings and recommendations of the WG will be merged into both the problem statement and the funding-alternatives recommendations, and may involve other recommendations.
Implementation Strategies Workgroup
This WG is currently developing implementation "outlines" for three to four generic funding alternatives. This approach will help jumpstart the implementation-strategy process once concrete alternatives have been adopted. With the recommendations of the first three WGs, this WG will develop strategies for the achievement of the BHAS — stable and adequate court funding. This task will take high energy, tenacity and creativity.
Public Education Workgroup
The effort of this WG has begun with the education of court-related associations and individuals on the work of the Court Funding Task Force. As more specific definitions and recommendations are adopted by the other WGs, this WG will begin its primary effort to develop public information and legislative campaigns to achieve the scenario we picture.
Court Funding Task Force — The "Committee of the Whole"
The CFTF must hold the vision we have created and coordinate all the components. The task force is the ultimate arbiter for the final recommendation on "court funding." Members meet at critical junctures of WG-recommendation development to break through any hurdles or impasses among the WGs or posed by the public. Action plans are to define and quantify the problem, develop alternatives, blend in courts of limited jurisdiction issues, both short- and long-term, and develop implementation strategies by late fall 2003. Changing the funding and structure of court functions entails adjusting major social policy, and will take the attention and energy of many: first, judges, lawyers and our partners in the courts — clerks, administrators and other officers; then, local officials, the public and the Legislature.
We have our scenario and therefore know where we want to be. We're developing flexible strategies and garnering support. We can do it! There is too much at stake not to!
For more information on the CFTF, see http://www.courts.wa.gov.
Back to table of contents >>
