Archive: Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee Past Meetings

The committee held a meeting via conference call, open to the public.

The committee held a meeting via conference call, open to the public, to discuss court interpreter funding and proposed revisions to a number of information technology project allocations.

Audio Archive

Opening and Approval of Jan 16 Minutes

Item 1: Telecommunication (LAN/WAN) Program Allocation from the IMF for 2013–2014
(action item)

Post-meeting summary: A motion was made and approved unanimously to approve the recommendation of the Court Information Technology Management Forum (CITMF) of an increase in $6,868,480 in 2013–2014 to the Telecommunications program’s Judicial Council-approved allocation of $8,740,000. The total recommended budget of $15,608,480 is recommended to be used as follows:

 $3,750,000 for managed network security services for 57 courts;

$2,100,000 for the master maintenance agreement for 58 courts; and

$9,758,480 for technology refresh projects for 13 courts with program savings used to provide a new LAN/WAN infrastructure at Alpine Superior Court and prioritize the core technology refresh at Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Superior Courts.

Zlatko Theodorovic indicated that the recommendation would be presented to the Judicial Council members by way of circulating order so that the item can be addressed without the need to wait for the next formal council meeting.

Item 2: Judicial Council Request Related to Court Interpreter Funding and Reimbursement
Post-meeting summary: This is an information only item at this time. Judge Earl stated that a subcommittee will be formed quickly to develop recommendations for the entire advisory committee, as directed by the Judicial Council, to be presented to the council at its April meeting. Members were asked to let her know if they were interested in participating in the subcommittee.

Item 3: Workload-Based Allocation and Funding Methodology
--New Preliminary Allocation

Adjustment Estimates
--Including Cluster 1 Courts in the

Reallocation of Historical Base Funding (action item)
*Attachment 3A—Updated WAFM Allocation
Adjustment Scenario (p. 25-26)
*Attachment 3B—Recommendation (p. 27)

Post-meeting summary: A motion was made and approved unanimously to recommend that the Judicial Council approve that starting in 2014–2015, Workload-Based Allocation Funding Model (WAFM) cluster 1 courts no longer be exempt from having their historical base funding reallocated using WAFM.

Closing

Audio Archive

Opening and Approval of Jan 30 Meeting Minutes

 Item 1: Court Interpreter Allocations (action item)

 Item 2: IMF Allocations for 2014-2015 (action item)

 Item 3: Trial Court Trust Fund (action item)

 Item 4: WAFM Adjustment Request from Superior Court of Mendocino County (action tem)

 Item 5: Budget Cost Priorities (BCP) for 2015-2016

Part 1

Part 2

 Item 6: 1% Cap (discussion item)

 Item 7: Allocation of Monies Above 1% (discussion item)

Audio Archive

Audio Archive

Audio Archive

Welcome: Co-chairs Judge Laurie Earl and Zlatko Theodorovic

Full Orientation or by topic w/audio

Committee co-chair Zlatko Theodorovic on topics of relevance to the state budget and funding allocations to the judicial branch.

Orientation Audio Clips: reference

1 am to 4 pm (Business Meeting)

Welcome: Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and cochairs

Judge Laurie Earl and Zlatko Theodorovic

Projected 2013-14 Workload; Subcommittees

-Revenue & Expenditure, Funding Methodology, Criminal Justice Realignment

Criminal Justice Realignment Funding [pages 1 to 5] (action item)

Trial Court Trust Fund Allocations [pages 6 to 13] (action item)

-Program 45.10—court-appointed dependency counsel, jury screening stations, self-help, elder abuse

Base Allocation for Court Operations [pages 7 to 34] (action item)

-Beginning 2013–2014 base allocation and allocation of $261 million ongoing reduction [page 14]

-WAFM (Workload Allocation Funding Methodology)

Bureau of Labor Statistics adjustment [pages 15 to 18] 

Unique/Omitted factors (information only)

WAFM computation [page 19]

-Allocation of $60 million new ongoing funding and reallocation of $60 million in base funding

[pages 19 to 20]

Discuss legislative reporting template

Allocation of 2% Reserve (holdback from allocation)

[pages 35 to 37] (action item)

Budget Change Proposals

-Security, AB 109/Realignment, technology, others.

Benefits Funding

-2012-13 full-year cost changes [page 38]

-Survey of 2013-14 cost changes

Update on Ad Hoc Court Interpreter Working Group

Liaisons to Technology Advisory Groups

Wrap Up and Next Steps

Orientation Audio Clips

Welcome: Co-chairs Judge Laurie Earl and Zlatko Theodorovic

Overview of the Judicial Branch and overall state budget

Funding types: Where does the money come from?

Budget status of the California Courts

Key dates in the Budget Cycle

What is the role of the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee?

What is the role of the AOC? 

Facility funding

What are BCP's? (Budget Change Proposals)