House Journal: Page 57: Wednesday, January 16, 2002
BUDGET REDUCTIONS: FOCUSING ON OUR MISSION.
Although the judicial branch is a separate branch of government, we do not work in
a vacuum. It is up to you to provide us with the tools and resources we need to do the
job. To any extent you choose not to fund the system, court services will not be
available. We recognize that we are accountable to the taxpayers and must manage
our resources wisely. This principle was foremost in our minds when we considered
how to absorb the cut you imposed this fiscal year.
Although our budget cut was not imposed until the special session, the Court began
planning as soon as it became apparent that reductions were inevitable. The Court
began by settling upon three basic principles to guide our decisions.
The first principle was to reduce the budget in a manner that would allow the
judicial branch to continue to fulfill its mission, which is to provide independent and
accessible courts for the fair and prompt resolution of disputes. Maintaining
consistency with our mission required that we impose differential cuts rather than
across-the-board cuts in all components of our operation.
The second principle was based upon our understanding that the state’s financial
troubles would continue for more than a year. To that end we focused on cost-cutting
measures that were long-term solutions. From the start of the process, we viewed
furloughs as an impractical measure that would undermine court operations in the
long run.
The third principle was to reach a consensus among the judicial districts on cuts
that affected the operation of the trial courts.
With these three principles as our guide, we scrutinized all aspects of our operation
from top to bottom. In doing so, we had the help of the chief judges, district court
administrators, and state court administration.
We cut as much as we could from non-personnel items such as travel, supplies,
communications, furniture, and equipment. We also cut technology projects. In
addition, we imposed a hiring freeze, stopped using contractual court reporter services,
and eliminated funds for part-time judicial officers such as hospitalization referees and
alternate district associate judges.
But we had to cut more.
So we eliminated programs that were not constitutionally and statutorily
mandated. One was our highly regarded CASA program that recruits and trains
volunteers to serve as advocates for abused and neglected children in 30 counties.
We’re very proud of the CASA program. Unfortunately, we were forced to make
difficult choices: keep CASA or keep cases moving through the courts. This was an
unpopular decision - one subject to easy attack - but it was necessary under the
circumstances. We’re grateful, however, that you stepped in and saved CASA by
finding it a new home.
Even after making this difficult decision, we needed to reduce our expenses more to
balance the budget. At this point, we were forced to take the unprecedented step of
reducing our workforce.
© 2002 Cornell College and
League of Women Voters of Iowa
Comments about this site or page?
hjourn@legis.iowa.gov.
Please remember that the person listed above does not vote on bills. Direct all comments concerning legislation to State Legislators.
Last update: Thu Jan 17 13:30:00 CST 2002
URL: /DOCS/GA/79GA/Session.2/HJournal/00000/00057.html
jhf