LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 37, as amended, Evans. Courts omnibus bill: public
safety. Budget Act of 2009.
(1) Existing law authorizes the Director of Finance to defer
payments of General Fund moneys in July through September of 2009, in
an amount not to exceed $750,000,000, appropriated to the University
of California in the Budget Act of 2009, as specified. Existing law
also authorizes the Director of Finance to defer payments of General
Fund moneys in July 2009, in an amount not to exceed $290,000,000,
appropriated to the California State University in the Budget Act of
2009, as specified. Existing law specifies the schedule of payments
for these deferred amounts.
This bill would additionally authorize the Director of Finance to
defer payments of General Fund moneys owed in February 2010, in an
amount not to exceed $250,000,000, appropriated to the University of
California in the Budget Act of 2009. The bill also would authorize
the Director of Finance to defer payments of General Fund moneys owed
in February 2010 in an amount not to exceed $250,000,000, and owed
in March 2010 in an amount not to exceed $150,000,000, appropriated
to the California State University in the Budget Act of 2009, as
specified. The bill would specify a schedule of payments for these
deferred amounts.
(2) Existing law defers, until October 2009, the disbursal of
payments of General Fund moneys for July 2009, in an amount not to
exceed $200,000,000, appropriated to the Board of Governors of the
California Community Colleges for apportionments to community college
districts.
This bill would additionally defer, until May 2010, the disbursal
of payments of General Fund moneys for March 2010, in an amount not
to exceed $100,000,000, appropriated to the board for apportionments
to community college districts.
(3) Existing law requires state excise fuel tax revenues to be
deposited in various accounts and to be allocated, in part, for
various purposes, including the cost of collection and authorized
refunds. Existing law requires the balance of these funds remaining
after authorized deductions to be transferred to, and deposited
monthly in, the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax
Fund. Existing law provides for annual and monthly apportionment by
the Controller of specified revenues in the Highway Users Tax Account
to cities, counties, and cities and counties for the transportation
purposes authorized by Article XIX of the California Constitution.
Existing law, pursuant to Chapter 23 of the Fourth Extraordinary
Session of the Statutes of 2009, requires transfers of those revenues
from the Highway Users Tax Account to counties or cities that would
otherwise be made during certain months of 2009 to instead be
deferred and made after January 1, 2010.
This bill would instead provide for the apportionments for the
months of July and August of 2009 to cities, counties, and cities and
counties to be paid in September 2009, and apportionments for
November and December of 2009 and January, February, and March of
2010 to be paid on or within 2 working days of April 28, 2010, with
specified exceptions. The bill would also authorize the affected
local agencies to use specified transportation bond funds and other
available funds to meet certain cash obligations.
(4) Existing law provides for the State Supplementary Program for
the Aged, Blind and Disabled (SSP), which requires the State
Department of Social Services to contract with the United States
Secretary of Health and Human Services to, on behalf of the state,
make combined state and federal payments to SSP recipients to
supplement Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments made available
pursuant to the federal Social Security Act.
Existing law provides that the contract with the United States
Secretary of Health and Human Services requires the state to pay the
secretary an amount equal to expenditures made by the secretary as
supplemental payments to SSP recipients less amounts payable by the
federal government.
This bill would, upon the order of the Director of Finance,
require the Director of Social Services to defer the above-described
payments to the federal government in February 2010, and March 2010,
and, instead, make payments for those months after April 20, 2010,
but no later than May 31, 2010.
(5) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare
a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session
for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a
fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on
December 19, 2008.
This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency
declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008,
pursuant to the California Constitution.
(1) Existing law sets the fees at $15 or $20 for various court
services, including, but not limited to, issuing a writ for the
enforcement of an order or judgment, issuing an abstract of judgment,
recording or registering any license or certificate, issuing an
order of sale, and filing and entering an award under the Workers'
Compensation Law.
This bill would increase those fees by $10, and would provide that
the $10 fee increase shall be transmitted quarterly for deposit in
the Trial Court Trust Fund and, commencing July 1, 2011, used by the
Judicial Council for implementing and administering the civil
representation pilot program described in (5) below.

(2) Under existing law, $25 of each specified filing fee in
connection with certain civil proceedings is required to be used for
services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings.

This bill would increase the amount of those filing fees required
to be used for services of an official court reporter in civil
proceedings to $30.
(3) Under existing law, to the extent that a memorandum of
understanding for trial court employees designates certain days as
unpaid furlough days for employees assigned to regular positions in
the superior court, the court may not be in session on those days
except as ordered by the presiding judge.
This bill, until July 1, 2010, would authorize the Judicial
Council to provide that the courts be closed for the transaction of
judicial business for one day per month, which would be treated as a
judicial holiday, and to adopt court rules to implement these
provisions, subject to specified conditions. The bill would authorize
a judge or justice to sign a form, to be prepared by the
Administrative Office of the Courts, stating that the judge or
justice voluntarily agrees to irrevocably waive an amount equal to
4.62% of his or her monthly salary, as specified. The bill also would
require a reduction in the amount of compensation due to the sheriff
for court security services because of the closure of the courts
under these provisions, and would, where a memorandum of
understanding has been executed, require the court and the sheriff,
county, or sheriff and county to negotiate that reduction and amend
the memorandum of understanding accordingly. By imposing additional
duties on county officials, the bill would create a state-mandated
local program.
(4) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to provide an
annual status report to the chairpersons of the budget committee in
each house of the Legislature and the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee regarding the California Case Management System and Court
Accounting and Reporting System, as specified. Under existing law,
the office of the State Chief Information Officer is responsible for
the approval and oversight of information technology projects.

This bill would provide that the California Case Management
System, and all other administrative and infrastructure information
technology projects of the courts with total costs estimated at more
than $1,000,000, shall be subject to the review and recommendations
of the office of the State Chief Information Officer. The bill would
require the State Chief Information Officer to submit a copy of those
reviews and recommendations to the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee.
(5) The State Bar Act provides for the licensure and regulation of
attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation.
Existing law provides that it is the duty of an attorney to, among
other things, never reject, for any consideration personal to himself
or herself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed. Existing law
provides that a lawyer may fulfill his or her ethical commitment to
provide pro bono services, in part, by providing financial support to
organizations providing free legal services to persons of limited
means.
This bill would, commencing July 1, 2011, and subject to funding
specifically provided for this purpose, require the Judicial Council
to develop one or more model pilot projects in selected courts for
3-year periods pursuant to a competitive grant process and a request
for proposals. The bill would provide that legal counsel shall be
appointed to represent low-income parties in civil matters involving
critical issues affecting housing-related matters, domestic violence
restraining orders, probate conservatorships, guardianships of the
person, elder abuse, and the termination of a parent's legal custody
of a child in those courts selected by the Judicial Council, as
specified. The bill would provide that each pilot project shall be a
partnership between the court, a qualified legal services project
that shall serve as the lead agency for case assessment and
direction, and other legal services providers in the community who
are able to provide the services for the pilot project. The bill
would require the lead legal services agency, to the extent
practical, to identify and make use of pro bono services in order to
maximize available services efficiently and economically. The bill
would provide that the court partner is responsible for providing
procedures, personnel, training, and case management and
administration practices that reflect best practices, as specified.
The bill would require a local advisory committee to be formed to
facilitate the administration of the local project and to ensure that
the project is fulfilling its objectives. The bill would require the
Judicial Council to conduct a study to demonstrate the effectiveness
and continued need for the pilot program, and to report its findings
and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on or before
March 1, 2015, and every 3 years thereafter.
(6) The Superior Court Law Enforcement Act of 2002 authorizes the
presiding judge of each superior court to contract with a sheriff or
marshal for the necessary level of law enforcement services in the
courts. Existing law requires the sheriff or marshal and presiding
judge of any county to develop a court security plan to be utilized
by the court, as specified, and requires the Judicial Council to
establish a process for its review of court security plans in the
California Rules of Court. Existing law requires the superior court
and the sheriff or marshal to enter into a memorandum of
understanding specifying the agreed upon level of court security
services and their cost and terms of payment, and requires the
sheriff or marshal to provide specified information to the courts by
April 30 of each year, with actual court security allocations subject
to the approval of the Judicial Council. Existing law requires the
Administrative Office of the Courts to use the actual salary and
benefits costs approved for court law enforcement personnel as of
June 30 of each year in determining the annual funding request for
the courts that will be presented to the Department of Finance.

This bill would provide that the cost of services specified in the
memorandum of understanding shall be based on the estimated average
cost of salary and benefits for equivalent personnel classifications
in that county, not including overtime pay. In calculating the
average cost of benefits, the bill would provide that only specified
benefits may be included. The bill would require the Administrative
Office of the Courts to use the average salary and benefits costs
approved for court law enforcement personnel as of June 30 of each
year in determining the annual funding request for the courts that
will be presented to the Department of Finance.
(7) Existing law permits limited use of electronic recording
devices in court proceedings under certain circumstances, but
prohibits a court from expending funds for electronic recording
technology or equipment to make an unofficial record of an action or
proceeding or to use that technology or equipment to make the
official record of an action or proceeding in any circumstance that
is not authorized. Existing law also requires each superior court to
report semiannually to the Judicial Council, and the Judicial Council
to report semiannually to the Legislature, regarding all purchases
and leases of electronic recording equipment that will be used to
record superior court proceedings.
This bill would prohibit a court from expending funds for or using
electronic recording technology or equipment to make an unofficial
record of an action or proceeding, including for purposes of judicial
notetaking, or to make the official record of an action or
proceeding in any circumstance that is not authorized. The bill would
authorize a court to use electronic recording equipment for the
internal personnel purpose of monitoring judicial officer
performance, if notice is provided to litigants that the proceeding
may be recorded for that purpose, as specified. The bill would
require a court, prior to purchasing or leasing any electronic
recording technology or equipment, to obtain advance approval from
the Judicial Council.
(8) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature to establish
a moratorium on increases in filing fees until January 1, 2012.

This bill would provide that, due to the economic crisis facing
California in the 2009-10 fiscal year, a first paper filing fee
increase is included in conjunction with the Budget Act of 2009.

(9) Existing law requires the Legislature to make an annual
appropriation to the Judicial Council for the general operations of
the trial courts based upon the request of the Judicial Council.
Existing law requires the annual budget request to include, among
other items, a cost-of-living and growth adjustment based on the
year-to-year change in the state appropriations limit, and additional
funding for the trial courts for costs resulting from the
implementation of statutory changes that result in either an
increased level of service or a new activity that directly affects
the programmatic or operational needs of the courts.

This bill would require the Judicial Council to report all
approved allocations and reimbursements to the trial courts in each
fiscal year, including funding received through augmentations for
costs resulting from the implementation of statutory changes, as
described above, to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Committees
on Budget and the Judiciary on or before September 30 following the
close of each fiscal year. The bill would specify the information to
be included in the report, and would require the Administrative
Office of the Courts to summarize that information by court and
report it to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Committees on
Budget and the Judiciary on or before November 1, 2009, and each
November 1 thereafter. The bill would require the trial courts to
report to the Judicial Council on or before September 15 of each year
all court revenues, expenditures, reserves, and fund balances from
the prior fiscal year, as specified, and would require the Judicial
Council to summarize and report that information to the chairs of
those committees, and to post that information on a public Internet
Web site, on or before December 31 of each year.
(10) Existing law imposes a fee of $20 upon every conviction for a
criminal offense, other than parking offenses, for funding of court
security.
This bill would increase that court security fee to $30 until July
1, 2011.
(11) Existing law authorizes the Department of Justice to charge a
fee for any laboratory services it performs at the request of a
local law enforcement agency, as specified.
This bill would require the Department of Justice to charge a fee
for any laboratory services performed at the request of a local law
enforcement agency. This bill would require the fee charged to be
based on a sliding scale fee structure, based on an agency's ability
to pay. This bill would also require the department to report to the
Legislature on the implementation of the fee structure, as specified.

(12) Existing law establishes the Youthful Offender Block Grant
Program to enhance the capacity of county departments to provide
appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful
offenders. Existing law requires the Director of Finance to determine
for each fiscal year the total amount of the Youthful Offender Block
Grant pursuant to a specified formula and the allocation for each
county, and to report those findings to the Controller to make an
annual allocation to each county from the Youthful Offender Block
Grant Fund. Existing law requires each county, on or before January
1, 2008, to prepare and submit to the Corrections Standards Authority
for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan for youthful
offenders that includes a description of the programs, placements,
services, or strategies to be funded by the block grant allocation.

This bill instead would require the allocation amount for each
county from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund to be allocated in
four equal installments, to be paid in September, December, March,
and June, pursuant to the existing formula. The bill would require
each county, on or before May 1 of each year, to prepare and submit
to the Corrections Standards Authority for approval a Juvenile
Justice Development Plan on its proposed expenditures for the next
fiscal year of block grant funds that includes a description of the
programs, placements, services, or strategies to be funded by the
block grant allocation and other specified information. The bill
would require each county receiving block grant funds, by October 1
of each year, to submit an annual report to the authority on its
utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. By
increasing the duties of local officials, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
This bill would require the Corrections Standards Authority to
develop and provide a format for the Juvenile Justice Development
Plan, and would authorize the authority to develop and provide a dual
format for counties for the submission together of that plan and the
county multiagency juvenile justice plan, as specified. The bill
would require the authority to prepare and make available to the
public on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county
reports on the utilization of block grant funds, and would require
the authority, by March 15th of each year, to prepare and submit to
the Legislature a report summarizing county utilizations of block
grant funds in the preceding fiscal year.
(13) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

(14) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to
declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special
session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation
declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this
purpose, on December 19, 2008.
This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency
declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008,
pursuant to the California Constitution.
(15) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.