In 1998, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment mandating that the State assume a greater responsibility for funding our state courts system. Constitutional Revision Number 7, in part, amended the funding provisions for the Judicial Branch found in Article V of the Florida Constitution. The Amendment, commonly referred to as “Revision 7,” recognized the rising costs and burdens of running a statewide courts system, which had primarily been funded by local sources, and mandated that funding should come primarily from State revenues. The Amendment’s mandate must be fully implemented by July 1, 2004.
Revision 7 has received its fair share of reporting in the past several months, but in this author’s opinion, its importance has not been fully appreciated by most practitioners. While the Amendment is seemingly innocuous in its mission to transfer funding from local to State government, its implementation has been described by Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead as “the Judicial Branch’s greatest challenge in recent history.” The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of Revision 7’s mandate, emphasize its importance on the future of our courts, and provide an understanding of the challenges to be faced in implementing the transition.
Revision 7 requires that [f]unding for the state courts system, state attorneys’ offices, public defendersí offices, and court-appointed counsel, except as otherwise provided . . . shall be provided from state revenues appropriated by general law. State funding is also contemplated for the offices of the clerks of the courts for performing court-related functions. However, the counties and municipalities will still be required to fund locally-related costs such as for facilities, communication services, maintenance and security requirements of the local courts and the offices of the state attorneys and public defenders. Local government will also be faced with funding aspects of the state courts system which meet local requirements as determined by general law.
In an ideal world (read: without state budgetary concerns), the transition would produce no noticeable changes on July 1, 2004. In reality, the allocation of funding resources to our courts and related services will be dictated by a determination of which functions are deemed essential elements of the courts and those functions which are non-related activities of the state courts system. Those in the former can expect State funding, while those in the latter may require local sponsorship to sustain past activity levels.
Most commentators hope that the funding transition will be smooth and seamless, but there is much work to be done. It is expected that the legislature will use 2003 to account for and classify the current state courts’ essential elements and to identify those programs and services which are more appropriately considered to be local requirements. The 2004 Legislative session is expected to focus on specific funding levels and funding sources for the courts. Both houses of the Legislature have already established committees which are reviewing the needs of the state courts system so as to define those essential elements contemplated by Revision 7 and Florida Statutes, Chapter 29.
Our judicial branch, too, has taken steps to address these issues. The Florida Supreme Court’s Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) is comprised of a representative from each circuit and has identified its list of essential elements of trial court activities which are reasonably necessary to effectuate the mission of the trial court in protecting rights and liberties, upholding and interpreting the law, and providing for the peaceful resolution of disputes. The TCBC’s list includes 1) judges and their judicial assistants, 2) legal support through staff attorneys, 3) the use of masters and hearing officers, 4) case management services, 5) court interpreters, 6) court reporting services, 7) court-appointed expert witnesses, 8) alternative dispute resolution and mediation, and 9) court administration. The TCBC’s proposed “essential elements,” which have been endorsed by the Florida Supreme Court, would be expected to receive state funding.
The challenges facing this financial reorganization will surface as too few budgeting dollars are stretched in an attempt to cover many worthwhile programs. Our elected representatives may be forced to choose between certain criminal and civil programs, they will have to revisit filing fee structures and revenue-sharing formulas, and they will most likely label certain important services as merely being of local concern.
Indeed, many important services which effectuate public policy and public expectations will not qualify as “essential elements” and most probably will require local support to sustain their efforts. These could include programs for custody evaluation, guardians ad litem, guardianship monitoring, drug treatment and testing, delinquency diversion, drug courts, child advocacy centers and supervised visitation. As Justice Barbara Pariente recently commented, the challenges of this funding transition potentially jeopardize many innovative and progressive programs which have been implemented in Florida over the past 30 years.
Given the above, it is imperative that our Bar stand ready to assist our judiciary and Bar leadership in reaching a smooth and effective transition. This can only be accomplished by keeping apprised of the issues on this important topic as they develop and by ensuring that our local legislators understand the importance of adequate funding. During the next 16 months, Florida’s judicial branch will undergo some of the most significant changes to its operations since the 1972 constitutional amendment implementing a statewide courts system. Whether the transition is tumultuous or seamless depends upon the commitment of all participants of government to provide meaningful access to the courts through programs and services which benefit our system of justice and our community.