Bulletin Board
Colorado State Legislative Updates
November 12th, 2002
THE ROLE OF THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE
In most states, the executive branch initiates the main appropriation bill for the ongoing operations of state government. Colorado, however, has a strong legislative budget process. The General Assembly's permanent fiscal and budget review agency, the Joint Budget Committee (JBC), writes the annual appropriations bill - called the Long Bill - for the operations of state government. The JBC has six members: the Chairman and one majority and one minority member of the House Appropriations Committee, and the Chairman and one majority and one minority member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Members serve two-year terms and are selected following the general election. Traditionally, the Senate elects its JBC members. In the House, the Speaker appoints the majority party members, and the minority party elects its member. The chairmanship alternates between the Chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. The House and Senate calendars reflect the Joint Budget Committee's schedule during the legislative session. Statutes charge the Joint Budget Committee with analyzing the management, operations, programs, and fiscal needs of the departments of state government. The state Constitution requires a balanced budget. The Committee holds hearings and reviews the executive budget requests for each state agency and institution.
The Joint Budget Committee members, the district they represent, and their telephone numbers are as follows:
Senator Dave Owen - District 16-Weld County - 303-866-2586
Senator Ron Teck , District 7-Mesa County, 303-866-2585
Senator Peggy Reeves, District 14-Larimer County , 303-866-2578
Representative Brad Young, Vice-Chairman, District 63-Arapahoe, Cheyenne, Elbert, Kiowa, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Prowers, Yuma Counties, 303-866-2581
Representative John Witwer, District 25-Jefferson County, 303-866-2582
Representative Tom Plant , District 13-Boulder, Broomfield Counties , 303-866-2583
-- Submitted by Jeff Hundt (probation superviser, 11th Judicial District.
November 20th, 2002
"Yesterday, JBC staff briefed the Joint Budget Committee on Judicial's FY04 Budget Request as well as plans and impacts of the currently proposed 4% and additional 6% cuts."
"JBC staff highlighted the significant impacts that these cuts would exact on the courts and probation and suggested that a 4% cut was as much as Judicial could and should take. Should the Committee follow this recommendation, then the likelihood of additional furlough days or layoffs would be greatly reduced. Staff also indicated that this 4% cut was not sustainable next year."
On Dec 3rd, the Chief Justice and the SCAO Director will appear before the Committee for Judicial's Budget Hearing.
-- David M. Kribs, Budget Officer, Colorado Judicial Branch
December 16, 2003
"Courts between rock and hard place" Chief justice lobbies to raise fees instead of limiting operations
By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News
December 16, 2002
Here are the hard budget choices Colorado court officials don't want to make: Lay off 500 people, or close all the state courts one week a month, January through June.
"It's pretty sobering," said Colorado Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who prefers another choice: Raise fees. Courts charge a myriad of different fees. It costs $99 to file for a divorce, $150 to appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, $31 to sue in county court. State agencies pay no fees, and fees are waived for people who can't afford them. Court fees are low in Colorado, Mullarkey said, and raising fees by 50 percent would leave the state among the middle range of other states - and raise $9 million.
But Gov. Bill Owens, who has called on all state government branches to cut their budgets another 6 percent following a 4 percent cut earlier this year, has rejected the idea of increasing court fees. "I don't think it's a great time to be raising taxes and fees which are required payments to receive a public service," Owens said recently.
"He has not changed his mind," Dan Hopkins, the governor's spokesman, said Friday. "It's like a family," Hopkins said, "and when the paycheck shrinks, everyone in the family needs to make adjustments." Traditionally, court fees have been set by the legislature, and Mullarkey and other court officials are pinning their hopes there.
Arapahoe County district judges who handle divorces last week called an emergency meeting of lawyers who appear in their courtrooms. The lawyers agreed, among other things, to press lawmakers for money. "Our bar and our practitioners are taking this very seriously," said Tamra Palmer, president of the Arapahoe County Bar Association. "We have to explain to our clients why we can't get hearings for nine months." The group also agreed to find lawyers who can serve as temporary judges, called special masters, in divorce cases, and to seek volunteer clerical staff by offering internships and credit - but not money - at law schools and paralegal schools.
"We still need the legislature to come through," Palmer said. "This is a short-term cure." Colorado's courts already are requiring employees to take three days off without pay by the end of this year, postponing new judgeships, leaving unfilled about 275 vacancies and reducing hours they are open to the public.
In Mesa County, a court office that helps people represent themselves - a growing number, and growing even faster in hard economic times - now is open only 12 hours a week, down from 40. In El Paso County, the court clerk's offices now close to the public at certain times each day to let the staff catch up with filing. When they open again, 25 to 30 people typically are standing in line, Mullarkey said.
Five new judges scheduled to start work in Arapahoe and Douglas counties in January will have no staffs, Palmer said, and divorce judges may lose court reporters and have to operate tape recorders themselves. All that was part of accommodating the governor's 4 percent budget cut. Another 6 percent cut now "would be devastating," Mullarkey said. "I don't think we can give any more," she said. Laying off 500 people - about one employee in five - would reduce the courts to handling only the most serious matters, Mullarkey told the Joint Budget Committee last month.
The top two priorities are felonies, which must be dismissed if they aren't handled by certain deadlines, and actions to remove endangered children from their homes to foster care and eventually to permanent homes. After that come restraining orders, mental health matters, setting up guardianships for people who can't manage their own affairs, divorces where there are children, domestic violence matters and serious juvenile matters.
That's all "Priority 1," according to court officials. "A lot of them involve either potential crimes or other things affecting people's lives," Mullarkey said. Cases that would have to wait: Divorces not involving children, drunken driving, misdemeanors, juvenile delinquency, civil lawsuits, water disputes, probating estates and traffic cases. People involved in those issues consider them Priority 1, too, but they can't be, Mullarkey said.
"If you want to get a divorce and you have no children, you're going to be, bumped," she said.
Meanwhile, caseloads rise in tough economic times, she said. More people get sued for not paying their bills. More people lose their jobs and, if they can't find new jobs quickly, are more likely to sue their former employers. Crime goes up, too, and - since about 75 percent of convicted criminals get put on probation, not locked up - probation officers have to supervise more people.
Right now, Mullarkey said, the state has about 700 probation officers supervising about 43,000 people. If the probation staff is reduced, some people will have to go to jail or prison instead, and that's more expensive for other state departments, she said.
Besides, she told the Joint Budget Committee, there is increased danger to the public: "Offenders who are not closely monitored run a high risk ofcommitting new crimes while on probation."
January 11, 2003
"By Peggy Lowe And John Sanko, Rocky Mountain News
> Legislative budget writers voted Friday to impose another three-day unpaid furlough on more than 2,500 Colorado court workers because of the state's ongoing economic crunch. Court employees already have taken unpaid, three-day leaves from work to cut back on spending, but lawmakers on the legislative budget committee said that won't be enough.
> "While it's going to be difficult, three days is something they've done and they can handle it," said Rep. Tom Plant, D-Nederland, who opposed a stiffer five-day furlough that staff had recommended. Rep. Brad Young, R-Lamar, said he wished some of the cuts could come at the expense of the higher-paid judges, but noted the Constitution protects them from both furloughs and pay cuts. "They are the most expensive employees in the judicial branch, and they're exempt from the furloughs and the vacancies," Young said.
> The committee action was a preliminary vote that it will review again before a full package of $800 million to $850 million in cuts involving all state agencies goes to the legislature later this month. The vote came only hours after Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey appeared before a joint legislative session where she asked lawmakers to raise court docket fees rather than force the courts to make more cuts. The budget committee delayed action on Mullarkey's proposal for a 50 percent hike in court docket fees, although the concept is supported by budget committee staff.
> Sen. Dave Owen, R-Greeley, the committee chairman, noted that at least two bills will be introduced by other lawmakers not on the committee to raise the fees.
> The additional three-day furlough, if approved by lawmakers, would save $420,000 a day or $1.26 million over three days. Mullarkey said earlier cuts of $7.1 million made from her $177 million budget already have hurt the courts. Those savings came through the furloughs as well as letting staff vacancies go unfilled. Courthouse lines are long, public access hours have been reduced and probation officers are being overwhelmed with the flood of cases, she said.
> Mullarkey warned that an additional 6 percent cut on the courts - as Gov. Bill Owens has sought of most state agencies - would have a devastating impact. "I worry that mistakes will be made, that delays will be unconscionably long, and that ultimately public safety will be compromised," she warned.
> Mullarkey wants to raise fees 50 percent, which would put them in the middle of the national average, and which would raise about $9 million. Right now, it costs $99 to file for a divorce, $150 to appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court and $31 to sue in county court. Without extra money from filing increases, Mullarkey said she will have to fire 700 employees and close courts one week a month for six months. That's not about politics, she said, but about justice and public safety. "The courts are critical to our way of life," she said. "We can't simply make due without them."
> There was mixed reaction among legislators after Mullarkey's speech. Republicans sided with the governor in arguing the fee increase was too large. Rep. Richard Decker, a Republican from El Paso County, said the 50 percent increase was "a pretty big whack." He suggested cutting back on services and imposing a less expensive fee hike. "I would go for a modest increase," Decker said. "But I don't think they're going to balance their problems on that fee increase."
> Democrats seemed supportive of Mullarkey's plan. "What's the alternative? Shutting down the courts?" asked Sen. Alice Nichol, an Adams County Democrat. "She's trying to do the best she can in a very difficult situation, and I think she's come up with the perfect solution.""
January 22nd, 2003
The JBC just took following additional actions affecting Judicial:
>The JBC voted to increase our furlough days from 3 additional days to 5 (for a total of 8 days this year) this passed 5-1 with Rep Plant opposing
>Voted to further reduce CAC rates by another $3/hour - this passed 6-0
>Voted to run a bill to increase docket fees by 50% thereby reducing our general fund by $3 million (JBC staff indicated to me that this reduction will be handled in the fee bill not in the supplemental which is safer for us - this was moved by Sen. Owen and passed 6-0
David M. Kribs
Budget Officer
Colorado Judicial Branch