1www.sccourts.orgsccourts.org 1

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

SOUTH CAROLINA

Presentation to the South Carolina House Ways and Means

January 26, 2010

by

Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal

2www.sccourts.org

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Budget Subcommittee Members

• Annette D. Young, Chair

• Joseph H. (Joe) Neal

• J. Gary Simrill

• Tim Rogers, Staff

Key SCJD Officials Attending

• Jean Hoefer Toal, Chief Justice (803.734.1584)

• Rosalyn Woodson Frierson, Director Court Administration (803.734.1802)

• Thomas B. Timberlake, Director Finance and Personnel (803.734.1981)

FY10-11 Budget Request to the Law Enforcement

and Criminal Justice Budget Subcommittee

3www.sccourts.org

3

SUPREME COURT5 JusticesOFFICE of the CHIEF JUSTICE

Office of Court Administration

Office of Finance & Personnel

Office of Information Technology

BOARDS & COMMISSIONS

COURT OF APPEALS9 Judges

FAMILY COURT52 Judges

CIRCUIT COURT

GENERAL JURISDICTION46 Judges

MASTERS-IN-EQUITY22 Judges

PROBATE COURT46 Judges

MAGISTRATE COURTS312 Judges

MUNICIPAL COURT301 Judges

STATE

FUNDING

STATE and LOCAL

FUNDING

LOCAL

FUNDING

South Carolina Judicial System

4www.sccourts.org

Funding Sources in 2000

Compared to Now

Over this decade, the Judicial Department has developed several different funding

sources so that all funding is not completely dependent upon the Legislature

FY 2000 - 2001 FY 2009 - 2010

5www.sccourts.org

SCJD Funding Sources and

Expenditures for Recent Years

* Note that FY2009 – 2010 includes $4M of one-time ARRA (American Re-investment and Recovery Act)

FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATIONSSTATE

FEES

FEDERAL

FUNDS

AMERICAN

RE-INVESTMENT

and

RECOVERY ACT

SHORTFALLTOTAL

EXPENDITURES

FY 2000 - 2001 $46,486,500 $66,575 $0 $0 $0 $46,553,075

FY 2001 - 2002 $39,014,860 $2,849,873 $928,311 $0 $0 $42,793,044

FY 2002 - 2003 $35,685,629 $6,683,806 $2,897,322 $0 $0 $45,266,757

FY 2003 - 2004 $31,849,253 $10,105,241 $5,831,459 $0 $0 $47,785,953

FY 2004 - 2005 $32,650,207 $12,207,897 $4,664,535 $0 $0 $49,522,639

FY 2005 - 2006 $33,958,408 $14,390,096 $5,755,279 $0 $0 $54,103,783

FY 2006 - 2007 $36,631,439 $15,065,443 $5,053,703 $0 $0 $56,750,585

FY 2007 - 2008 $38,758,746 $15,676,166 $5,495,072 $0 $0 $59,929,984

FY 2008 - 2009 $28,736,067 $18,682,454 $6,262,290 $0 $6,653,495 $60,334,306

FY 2009 - 2010 $22,576,817 $18,085,225 $6,208,216 $4,000,000 $7,589,642 $58,459,900

6www.sccourts.org

SCJD Estimated Expenditures for

FY 2009 - 2010

CATEGORY EXPENDITURE

SALARIES $32.6M

BENEFITS $13.6M

OPERATIONS $12.1M

Technical Support for Agency $1.6M

Technology Initiatives with Counties $6.2M* Federal grants

restricted to

technology

Travel $2.1M

Rent $1.1M

Court Programs $0.6M

Administrative Expenses $0.5M

TOTAL $58.4M

7www.sccourts.org

Legislative appropriations to the Judicial Department have been CUT by

40.75% in the last 19 months

SCJD Funding - Appropriations

State fees

and Federal

Funds have

been steady

Shortfall

experienced for

first time last

year and is

increasing with

the severe

Legislative cuts

8www.sccourts.org

SCJD Funding - Appropriations

Reductions being

absorbed by

depleting reserves

and further cuts in

staff and operations

FISCAL YEAR AMOUNT ACTION

FY 2007 - 2008 37,010,688$ Appropriations Act

1,091,077$ Pay Plan Allocation

38,101,765$ TOTAL

FY 2008 - 2009 (1,686,885)$ Lost in Legislative Process

36,414,880$ Appropriations Act

313,628$ Pay Plan Allocation

(5,198,920)$ Special Legislative Session 14.2% Cut

(2,207,071)$ Budget & Control Board 7% Cut 12/11/08

(586,450)$ Budget & Control Board 2% Cut 3/18/09

FY 2009 - 2010 28,736,067$ TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO BEGIN FISCAL YEAR

(3,722,474)$ Legislative Reduction @ 11th Hour

Federal Stimulus $4M substituted

(248,691)$ Supreme Court Marshal - Vetoed & Sustained

-$ Pay Plan Allocation

(999,832)$ Budget & Control Board 4.04% Cut 9/3/09

(1,188,253)$ Budget & Control Board 5% Cut 12/15/09

22,576,817$ TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS TODAY

40.75% REDUCTION in 19 months

9www.sccourts.org

Judicial reserves established through prudence over nine years for significant

capital improvements

Judicial reserves will be depleted in the next few months

More than a $6.6M shortfall was absorbed by SCJD last fiscal year

Another significant shortfall of approximately $7.6M needs to be absorbed by

SCJD this fiscal year

Judicial Department now projecting to run a deficit for the first time beginning

with the new fiscal year in July 2010

SCJD Funding - Reserves

10www.sccourts.org

Summary of All Funding Sources and

Estimated Expenditures for FY 2009 - 2010

EFFECTIVE

DATE FUNDING SOURCE AUTHORIZATION ESTIMATE FOR THIS YEAR

INITIAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL ASSEMBLY $28,736,067

CUTS in GENERAL FUNDS -$6,159,250

FY08-09 GENERAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION $22,576,817

American Re-investment and Recovery Act $4,000,000

COURT FEES

Jul-02 Civil Filing Fees 2002 increase from $70 to $100 14-1-204 $2,138,090

Jul-04 Civil Filing Fees 2005 increase from $100 to $150 14-1-204, 8-21-310 $4,277,422

Jul-02 Civil Motion Fees 8-21-320 $2,376,192

Jul-02 Alimony/Child Support Fees 14-1-203 $3,049,760

Jul-04 Magistrate Filing Fees 2005 22-3-330 $2,674,169

Jul-03 Law Enforcement Surcharge 3.75% 14-1-212 $1,734,592

Jul-03 Bar License Fees 14-1-212 $543,000

Law Exam Fees $650,000

Commitments $80,000

Jul-04 Case Management Support Fees Proviso 30.15 (44.15) $562,000

FEES TOTAL $18,085,225

Federal Grants Restricted to SCJD Technology Initiatives $6,208,216

SCJD TOTAL FUNDS $50,870,258

INITIAL SCJD BUDGET EXPENDITURES ESTIMATE $58,459,900

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUNDS AND ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES -$7,589,642

11www.sccourts.org

Steps Already Taken by SCJD to

Address the Financial Crisis

Reduced judges’ travel

Eliminated travel for law clerks

Restricted travel for court reporters

Authorized county Clerks of Court to operate with skeleton staffs on local furlough days to keep the courts open for the public to file court papers and provide public access to court records

Hiring freeze put into effect

Cut the reimbursement of the monthly office allowance to judges

Printing, postage, and mailing of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Advance Sheets are terminated – they now are only available online from the SCJD website

Family Court Judges sharing administrative staff

Innovative new programs that apply new ways of thinking and managing are being piloted and implemented that require no new additional expenditures

12www.sccourts.org

Next Steps to be Taken by SCJD

Lay-offs for the Circuit Court law clerks may occur this Spring 2010

Court of Appeals staff may be reduced from 3 to 2 staff personnel per judge

New law clerks may not be hired next year

Reduction of court reporters being considered

Judicial Department may be forced to run a deficit in the upcoming fiscal year

Consideration being given to NOT filling some upcoming judicial vacancies and associated non-judicial positions for further costs savings

Current funding levels jeopardize the Court’s ability to adequately fulfill constitutional functions

Furloughs and reductions in force (RIF) may be required as a last resort; however, they are of limited use since much of the judicial personnel is constitutionally mandated

13www.sccourts.org

SC Court’s Budget Cut Is the Most of

any State in the Country

Source: Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) Budget Survey September 16, 2009

14www.sccourts.org

SC continues to have more

than twice the national average

of filings per judge

South Carolina also has one

of the worst criminal domestic

violence rankings in the nation

South Carolina Circuit Court Caseload

We are still here

Results of joint study by the Conference of State Court Administrators, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the National Center for State Courts

States averaged 1,761 filings per judge and 3.74

judges per 100,000 population in 2006

(most current year for which statistics are available)

RANKING STATE

JUDGES per 100,000

POPULATION

FILINGS per

JUDGE

1 Massachussetts 1.3 360

2 Mississippi 1.8 445

3 Idaho 2.7 524

4 Rhode Island 2.1 706

5 Alaska 5.0 712

… … … …

47 Maine 3.7 2657

48 South Dakota 4.9 2785

49 New Jersey 4.7 3102

50 North Carolina 1.2 3299

51 South Carolina 1.1 4374

*** No data available for Wyoming

*** List includes District of Columbia and Puerto Rico

15www.sccourts.org

South Carolina Courts have not had any additional judge

positions in the Circuit and Family Courts since 1997

State population and case complexities in South Carolina

continue to increase

Current economic environment will further drive increases in

court caseloads

South Carolina Trial Court Caseload

#

Cases

# of Judicial

Circuits meeting

benchmark

#

Cases

# of Judicial

Circuits meeting

benchmark

#

Cases

# of Judicial

Circuits meeting

benchmark

#

Cases

# of Judicial

Circuits meeting

benchmark

CIRCUIT COURT

GENERAL SESSIONS 0 0 0 0

CASES FILED 122,121 125,580 125,300 121,841

CASES PENDING 108,203 110,985 118,591 118, 263

COMMON PLEAS 1 1 1 0

CASES FILED 75,447 82,341 97,452 108,631

CASES PENDING 52,055 53,740 61,583 70,953

FAMILY COURT 7 5 2 4

CASES FILED 78,168 74,590 75,103 76,932

CASES PENDING 34,503 38,801 41,619 43,810

July 1, 2005 - June 30, 2006 July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007 July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008 July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009

16www.sccourts.org

Request is to restore some of the recurring funds that have been cut in recent years; specifically:

Stimulus Funds = $4,000,000

Portion of the Judicial Budget was reduced last year and replaced with one-time stimulus funds

Law Clerk Funding = $2,952,654

Funding for 58 law clerks who will not be rehired. Note that new FTE positions are not being requested, these positions are authorized Judicial Department staff

General Fund Restoration = $3,787,000

Funds for travel and general operations that have been cut

Budget Request for

FY 2010 - 2011

17www.sccourts.org

One proviso is requested:

JUD: Across the Board Cut Exemption

Whenever the Budget and Control Board or General Assembly implements an across the board budget reduction, the funds appropriated to the Judicial Department shall be exempt from any such mandated budget reduction

Provisos

18www.sccourts.org

For Good of the Order