House Journal: Page 59: Wednesday, January 16, 2002
offices have been able to cope, which is a big credit to their staff. My reason for
mentioning these offices is not to suggest that we should operate all offices
understaffed, but to point out that some offices were, and still are, worse off than those
that were cut.
Some people have complained that we cut the clerks as a group more than their fair
share. This also is not true. While it’s true that the cut in the clerks’ component
contributed the most dollars, in terms of percentage of budget, state court
administration and district court administration each contributed more. We reduced
the budget of district court administration by 10.7%; state court administration by
10%; and the clerks by 8%. The reduction in the clerks’ component was the largest
dollar amount because that group consumes the most money - it takes up more than
30% of our operating budget.
Let me address another budget decision: the decision to eliminate eleven satellite
magistrate offices, which caused a loud outcry from the affected communities. These
offices were not budget busters, but they were an exception to our general practice. In
the majority of counties, court services are located in the county seat only. The Court
felt it would be unfair to cut basic services in many counties while operating extra
services in a few.
ACCESS TO THE COURTS: MANAGING WITH LESS.
Our most immediate challenge is managing the same amount of work with fewer
resources. How do we meet that challenge? We meet it one day at a time.
Our districts are working with their staffs to develop new strategies for providing
court services. Clerk of court offices are rethinking their priorities and dropping
unnecessary tasks. It won’t be the level of service that some communities are
accustomed to, but by taking these steps clerks’ offices will continue to fulfill their
statutory responsibilities.
As you know, the judicial council raised the issue of merging clerks’ offices. To say
that the idea was short-lived is an understatement. The gist of the plan was to explore
options for delivering court services in the wake of the budget cuts. Because of these
cuts, many clerk of court offices have now reduced their hours. By merging the staff of
several clerk of court offices into one location, we would have been able to provide full-
time hours - perhaps even expanded hours - to the public. But the merger idea is a
moot issue now. As far as the Court is concerned, consolidation of the clerks’ offices is
dead.
Although the Court dropped the plan, I want to recognize and commend our
dedicated and talented chief judges, district court administrators, and state
administrative team for their creativity and willingness to pursue the public interest
with vision and courage.
SOLUTIONS: STREAMLINING THE COURTS AND REDUCING OPERATING
COSTS.
No doubt your attention will be consumed during the next few months by the
serious condition of the state budget. We recognize the condition of the state budget is
still uncertain. I must advise you, however, that any more cuts to the judicial branch
© 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/00000/00059.html
jhf