The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/19/1998, C9 - ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSITION 220 CONCERNING COURT CONSOLIDATION council j ac,Enaa REpont CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Jeff Jorgens SUBJECT: ENDORSEME OF PROPOSITION 220 CONCERNING COURT CONSOLIDATION CAO RECOMMENDATION ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENDORSING PROPOSITION 220 CONCERNING CONSOLIDATION OF MUNICIPAL AND SUPERIOR COURTS,WHICH WILL APPEAR ON THE JUNE 2, 1998 BALLOT. DISCUSSION On May 6, 1998, the Honorable Michael L. Duffy, Judge of the Superior Court, and the Honorable Roger Picquet, Judge of the Municipal Court, sent a letter to the Mayor requesting the City's endorsement of Proposition 220,which would permit,upon the majority vote of the judges of each court (Superior and Municipal) that the trial courts in any particular county would be fully consolidated into a single organization A copy of the letter is attached for your information. Proposition 220 is supported by the League of California Cities and, consistent with the City's adopted Legislative Action Program, is appropriate for City support. The League's position on Proposition 220 is also attached for your information. The primary reason for supporting this measure is the potential for greater efficiency and flexibility in the court system with potential significant savings in the long tern. FISCAL EWFACT There will be no fiscal impact to the City. ATTACHMENTS 1-Proposed Resolution 2-Letter from Judges 3-League Position C�'l t0 O � w OP 0 �&MOPw� THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SUPERIOR AND MUNICIPAL COURTS 1050 Monterey Street,Room 220 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 781-5936 May 6, 1998 Mayor Allen Settle City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle: As you may be aware,Proposition 220 will be on the ballot June 2, 1998. Proposition 220 would permit,upon the majority vote of the judges of each court, Superior and Municipal, the trial courts in any particular county to be fully consolidated into a single organization. Proposition 220 has received broad support from all sectors of our State,both public and private, including the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties,Judicial Council and many,many others. The courts in this and other counties have made tremendous efforts in the past few years to improve their procedures,operations and policies. This has resulted in improved efficiencies and(perhaps more importantly) greater access to the judicial system for the citizens and residents of this State and our county. Proposition 220 will allow those courts so inclined to fully consolidate and thus enable the highest possible level of efficiency and effectiveness. A majority of the judges in San Luis Obispo are in favor of Proposition 220 and look forward to continuing the progressive efforts of the past few years. We respectfully request that the City Council of San Luis Obispo adopt a resolution of support for Proposition 220. This will assist your residents on June 2, 1998 and help assure that the judicial system of this State can continue to improve in all respects. Sincerely, " Mi L. Duffy Roger uet Judge, Superior Co Judg unicipal Court cc: JeffJorgensen RECEIVED MAY - P 1997 Attachment 2 SLO CITY COUNCIL T KESOLUTION N0. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING PROPOSITION 220 CONCERNING COURT CONSOLIDATION ON THE JUNE 2, 1998 BALLOT WHEREAS, Proposition 220, which will appear on the June 2, 1998 ballot, would permit upon a majority vote of the judges of each court (Superior and Municipal) that the trial courts in any particular county would be fully consolidated into a single organization; and WHEREAS, Proposition 220 has received broad support from all sectors of our State, both public and private, including the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, Judicial Council, and many others; and WHEREAS, the courts in this and other counties have made tremendous efforts in the past few years to improve their procedures, operations and policies, which has resulted in improved efficiencies and greater access to the judicial system for the citizens and residents of this State and our county; and WHEREAS, Proposition 220 will allow those courts so inclined to fully consolidate and thus enable the highest possible level of efficiency and effectiveness; and WHEREAS, a majority of the judges in San Luis Obispo are in favor of Proposition 220 and look forward to continuing the progressive efforts of the courts over the past few years, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby endorse Proposition 220 concerning court consolidation, which will appear on the June 2, 1998 ballot. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1998. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST:. Bonnie Gawt; City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 6 G. orge en, �tyAtto�mey ��-3 Jane Ballot Measures,continued 1 A consoidated superior court would have •Municipal Court ofLosAngelesJuidicialDis- R ® P a SIT 1 ® N tijurisdictionethej ;i all matters that currently fall fritts under the jurisdiction of either the superior or •Court Administrator's Advisory Committee municipal courts.A consolidated superior of the judicial Council court would have an appellate division to *Alpine County Courts of Court County handle misdemeanors and infractions and most civil lawsuits involving disputes of$25,000 or • San Francisco Superior Court less which are currently appealed from a mu- • North Santa Barbara County Municipal nicipal court to a superior courL The legisla- • Court ulare County Municipal Court District, tune can change these amounts,thereby chang- Visalia Division Lng the appeal jurisdiction The proposition also makes a number of • San Bernardino County Superior and Mu other related and conforming changes to the nicipal• ShastaCountySuperior and Municipal California Constitution with respect to the Court Consolidation minimum qualifications and electionofjudges •courts Ad„�ryCommittee ofthe in consolidated courts.In addition,the mea PresidingJudges sure makes: Judicial Council Background • 14 individual judges and court administra- • Related and conforming changes to the The California municipal courts, provides for supe- membership of the Commission on Judicial tors stat and municipal courts referred to to and performance, which handles complaints Oppose: states trial courts"Currently the state and against es;and • California Department of Finance the counties pay for the operation of the trial • R d conforming and other minor . Individual Los Angeles Superior Court courts.Recent changes in law require that the Related,anges the membership and terms of the judges state pay for all future increases in operating fists,beginning on July California Judicial Council,which oversees * California Attorneys for Criminal Justice . Superior courts generally •hahandle cases in- and administers the states courts. Source:yegislatlueAnalyst's t7Jhce -,rolvuig fe'.onies,family law (for example,di- Fiscal impact League of California Cities vorce cases),juvenile law,civil lawsuits involy- The fiscal impact of this measure on the state Position:Support ing more than$25,000,and appeals from mu- is unknown and would ultimately depend on niapalcourt decisions.Each ofthe state's coun- the number of superior and municipal courts ties has a superior court Currently.there are that choose to consolidate.To the extent that 58 superior courts served by approximately most courts choose to consolidate,however, ALL ABOUTTOWN 8'jug' this measure would liltely result in net savings Municipal courts generally handle misde- to the state ranging in the millions to the tens meanors and infractions and most civil law of mullions of dollars annually in the long term• suits involving disputes of$25,000 or less. The state could save money from greater effi- Counties are divided into municipal court dis- ciency and flexibility in the assignment of trial tricts based on population.Currently.there court judges,reductions in the need to create — are go municipal courts served by 675 mu- newjudgeships in the future to handle increas- nicipal court judges. tsgworkload,improved management of court c Current law requires trial courts to stream .ti line their operations in a variety of ways For recons,and reductions in generaltie court however, ;. example,judges of either court may hearboth such cativo costs.At the same time.however. superior and municipal court cases and staff such consolidations from i s would result s additional can be shared between the superior and mu- state costs from increasing the salaries and benefits ofMunicipal courtNdgesand employ - � mcipal courts within a county. ees to the levels of superior court judges and s R Proposal employees.These additional costs would par- WW This proposition,a constitutional amendment, tially offset the savings. permits superior and municipal courts within Known positions Are you imb tat a deer cmx&in gbft a county to consolidate their operations with heaftbtsordidyooiustrece veywr the approval ofamajority of the superior court Support: sampteba>1ot2v . judgesandamajoiityofmunicipalcourtjudges •Association forLosAngelesDeputy Sher& within the county.If the judges approve con •Los Angeles County Bar Associationsolidation,the municipal courts of the county • County of San Diego would be abolished and all municipal court • California State Association of Counties judges and employees would become superior •Judicial Council court judges and employees. QQ 24 Attachmext 3 7