Senate Journal: Wednesday, January 16, 2002
JOURNAL OF THE SENATE
__________
THIRD CALENDAR DAY
THIRD SESSION DAY
Senate Chamber
Des Moines, Iowa, Wednesday, January 16, 2002
The Senate met in regular session at 9:07 a.m., President Kramer
presiding.
Prayer was offered by the Honorable Mark Shearer, member of the
Senate from Washington County, Washington, Iowa.
The Journal of Tuesday, January 15, 2002, was approved.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Leave of absence was granted as follows:
Senator McKean, until he arrives, on request of Senator Iverson.
The Senate stood at ease at 9:10 a.m. until the fall of the gavel.
The Senate resumed session at 9:45 a.m., President Kramer
presiding.
COMMITTEE FROM THE HOUSE
A committee from the House appeared and announced that the
House was ready to receive the Senate in joint convention.
In accordance with House Concurrent Resolution 102, duly
adopted, the Senate proceeded to the House chamber under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant-at-Arms.
JOINT CONVENTION
In accordance with law and House Concurrent Resolution 102,
duly adopted, the joint convention was called to order at 9:50 a.m.,
President Kramer presiding.
Senator Gaskill moved that the roll call be dispensed with and that
the President of the joint convention be authorized to declare a
quorum present, which motion prevailed by a voice vote.
President Kramer declared a quorum present and the joint
convention duly organized.
Senator Gaskill moved that a committee of six, three members
from the Senate and three members from the House, be appointed to
escort Governor Thomas J. Vilsack to the Condition of the Iowa
Judiciary Message.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote and the Chair announced the
appointment of Senators Angelo, Fiegen, and Maddox on the part
of the Senate, and Representatives Dolecheck, Greiman, and
Wilderdyke on the part of the House.
Senator Gaskill moved that a committee of six, three members
from the Senate and three members from the House, be appointed to
notify the Honorable Louis A. Lavorato, Chief Justice of the Iowa
Supreme Court, that the joint convention was ready to receive him.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote and the Chair announced the
appointment of Senators Fraise, Lamberti, and Rittmer on the part of
the Senate, and Representatives Baudler, Lensing, and Millage on
the part of the House.
The following guests were escorted into the House chamber:
Secretary of State Chet Culver
Treasurer of State Michael L. Fitzgerald
Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge
Attorney General Tom Miller
The Justices of the Supreme Court
Chief Judge Sackett and Judges of the Court Appeals
The District Court Chief Judges
The following members of Chief Justice Lavorato's family were
escorted into the House chamber:
His wife Janis Lavorato; his son Anthony Lavorato; his son
Dominick Lavorato, and his guest Lori Wilson; his stepdaughter
Jenna Green; his brother Charles and wife Carolyn; his sister-in-law
Delayne Johnson, and her son Jacob Johnson; and his brother-in-law
Ed Busing.
The committee waited upon Governor Vilsack and escorted him
into the House chamber.
The committee appointed waited upon Chief Justice Lavorato and
escorted him to the Speaker’s station.
President Kramer then presented Chief Justice Lavorato, who
delivered the following Condition of the Iowa Judiciary Message:
Mr. Speaker, Madam President, Members of the General Assembly, Governor
Vilsack, distinguished guests, and friends.
Thank you for the kind invitation to appear before you today. It is an honor for the
Iowa Judicial Branch, as well as a personal privilege for me, to report to you on the
condition of Iowa’s court system. This address is our opportunity to share with you and
the people of Iowa our current assessment of the administration of justice in this state.
We have enjoyed a strong relationship with you based upon candor, cooperation, and
mutual respect. Today, I wish to address you in that spirit.
First, permit me to digress for a moment so that I may recognize some special
guests. I would like to acknowledge Justice Michael Streit, the newest member of the
Iowa Supreme Court, and Judge Larry Eisenhauer, the newest member of the Iowa
Court of Appeals.
This brings to me why we are here: the condition of Iowa’s judicial branch. This
year I must report that the state of the judiciary reflects the times in which we live;
events beyond our control have thrown us into a state of uncertainty about the future.
Access to justice is a paramount concern for us as we try to manage in the wake of the
recent budget cut.
I intend to begin with a review of the steps we took to balance our operating budget
and explain how we’re coping. Then I will proceed to discuss some recommendations
for streamlining the court system. I will conclude with our goals for the future.
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.
Over 250 employees were adversely affected. We laid-off 107 employees; we cut the
hours of 67 other employees; and we downgraded the positions of 79 supervisory
employees. In addition, we eliminated more than 20 vacant positions around the state.
The cuts in personnel affected every component of our operation.
Deciding to eliminate jobs was the most difficult decision that we have ever had to
make. The difficulty of making the decision, however, pales in comparison to the
difficulties faced by those employees who are now struggling to pay bills and support
families.
BUDGET CUTS: FACTS AND MISCONCEPTIONS
Now let me make a few points about the budget cuts that I feel have been
overlooked.
Probably the most common misconception about the budget cuts is the notion that
we somehow arbitrarily singled out and treated rural communities unfairly. This is
not true. In making the cuts to our clerk of court component, we focused on workloads,
not geography or politics. The Court used a weighted caseload formula in making
those cuts. We applied the formula uniformly to all 99 counties.
There’s a simple reason why most of the cuts in clerks’ offices occurred in small
counties. The formula was developed in the mid-1990s through the use of time studies
conducted in 32 counties. At the time of the study, most clerks’ offices were not
computerized; they were still operating with papers and clumsy docket books, which
took more time. To account for this, the formula gave rural counties - all of which were
not computerized - an advantage that resulted in a higher staffing ratio.
We continued to use this differential even after we computerized all of our clerks’
offices in 1997. We did so because we wanted to provide the rural offices with a
transition period. But the reductions required by the present financial crisis forced us
to take immediate action. Knowing that any reduction would be unpopular, we felt it
was imperative to treat all offices equally. Consequently, we decided to apply the
automated workload standard to all clerks’ offices. Any office that exceeded the
formula was cut back. The budget cuts in the clerks’ component affected primarily
rural offices because it was primarily those offices that exceeded the formula.
Nevertheless, the cuts leave clerks’ offices in some rural counties with a larger staff
than the formula justifies. This is because we decided to deviate from the formula and
maintain a minimum of two employees per office.
Critics contend that the formula is not perfect. Well, because the formula is the
work of humans, it definitely is not perfect. However, it is the best objective measure
that we have for making an equitable allocation of our clerk of court resources. Let me
add that we have relied on this formula for years to justify our requests to you for more
clerk of court staff.
I want to point out that nearly 10% of our clerks’ offices have less staff than is
called for by the formula. These offices are located in some of our busy urban areas.
For example, for some time now, the Pottawattamie Clerk of Court office has operated
30% under the formula. Black Hawk has managed while 20% under, and Johnson gets
by even though it is 17% understaffed. Despite being chronically short-handed, these
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
budget may threaten our ability to provide adequate court services. Although we are
aware of the other important demands being made upon you, we trust you will respond
to the needs of the judicial branch.
In the same spirit, I ask that when you are debating new laws, you carefully
consider the impact your actions have on the court system. Though well intentioned,
legislation nearly always adds to our workload. Adding responsibilities without
corresponding resources creates poor results.
Certainly, we understand that we need to be part of the overall solution for
reducing the cost of state government. We have several recommendations for
streamlining the court system that would help reduce costs and improve court services.
All require legislative approval.
First, we recommend that you eliminate unnecessary tasks. I’m not suggesting
that we stop hearing cases or drop important services, not at all. I’m suggesting we
streamline some procedures, eliminate obsolete or unnecessary practices, and, where
appropriate, shift some procedures to other agencies. We have a list of suggestions
along this line for your review.
For instance, why are the courts involved in cemetery management or required to
have a 24-hour probate court? Perhaps this made sense in the early years of the last
century, but it does not make sense today. Someone once said: "There is nothing more
useless than doing efficiently that which should not be done at all." This is sound
advice. Let’s follow it and get rid of the needless work.
We also recommend a statutory change that would give the Court authority to
determine the structure of the judicial districts. The configuration of the judicial
districts has not been changed in thirty years. Although the judicial council’s plan
proposed reducing the number of districts from eight to five, we have not adopted that
plan or any other. Further, there would be an opportunity for public participation
before we would act on proposals for change.
By reorganizing the judicial districts, we could gain a significant improvement: a
better allocation of our existing judicial resources. Preliminary results of a recent
study by the National Center for State Courts indicate that Iowa has enough judges
statewide; however, some districts have more judges than they need, and some have
less than they need. By redrawing the districts, we can correct that imbalance.
We also believe that we can reduce some of our administrative costs by reducing the
number of districts. If we had fewer districts, we would need fewer managers.
Finally, we recommend a statutory change that would eliminate the mandate that
there be a clerk of court official in every county. If this were done, we could use one
clerk of court to manage several small offices. The Court does not have a specific plan
in mind for reducing the number of clerks; however, we ask for authority to determine
our staffing levels - including our management staffing levels. Let me make clear that
this would not affect the presence of a clerk of court office in each county, which we will
continue to maintain.
Our request to eliminate the mandate is based simply on our desire for more
flexible management. Good management does not require that we have 99 managers.
The executive branch is reducing the number of managers it has. We should do the
same. We could use the savings to add line staff to understaffed offices.
I want to emphasize that this request should not be taken as any reflection on the
abilities of the present occupants of these offices. Our clerks are hardworking,
dedicated public servants. We have great respect for their abilities.
All the recommendations that we are suggesting would not only make the court
system more efficient, but would enable us to do more with our existing resources. We
realize, however, that change will not occur overnight. It will come with time. And
realization of all the benefits from the change will likewise come with time.
Nevertheless, the recommendations we are proposing are steps in the right direction.
FUTURE GOALS: BETTER ACCESS WITH THE AID OF TECHNOLOGY
Clearly, Iowans want and deserve the greatest access to justice that we can afford.
The old and comfortable definition of access revolves around 100 county courthouses.
But access to court services need not be limited to the brick and mortar of a courthouse.
Access can come through other means.
We’re all aware of the electronic revolution. The 2000 Census found that more than
one-half of U.S. households own at least one computer, and most of these homes are
connected to the Internet. According to Nielsen/NetRatings, the number of Web users
in the United States soared to an all-time high of 115 million last October. The
electronic revolution is transforming every sector of our society including the courts.
As I said to you last year at this time: "With the aid of information technology, we
can provide a host of court services where they are needed, when they are needed, any
time and any place." This is still true today. On-line services would provide busy
Iowans more convenient public access to the courts - without taking time away from
one’s job or family, driving to the county seat courthouse, searching for a parking
space, and waiting in line for help.
We will soon take the first step in that direction with our electronic public access
program. This program will put the trial court dockets from all 99 counties and the
appellate courts on-line, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The bulk of the information
will be free. Iowans will be able to conduct routine searches of court information such
as child support records, criminal records, and traffic fines through the Internet. Later
this year, we’ll provide a feature that will enable the public to pay court fines and child
support obligations on-line.
In addition to the obvious benefits to the public, this service will help us operate
more efficiently. Because the court information is on-line there will be fewer telephone
calls for court staff to answer, and fewer people waiting at the counter in the clerk’s
office. Court staff will be able to focus their time on other important duties such as
processing child support cases, assisting litigants who are representing themselves in
court, and collecting fines.
But this is only the first step. We can and must do more.
As I reported to you last year, we were poised to test a new system, known as
EDMS, which would offer a broad spectrum of benefits. For example, it would:
Enable on-line electronic filing and document retrieval - 24 hours a day,
7 days a week,
Provide access to court documents, which would allow a person to inspect or
copy a record from a personal computer at their home, office or local library, and
Eventually reduce the need for file cabinets, file systems, and storage space that
is provided at county expense.
Regrettably, the budget situation has delayed our progress, but we will not abandon
our goal to implement EDMS. We plan to implement EDMS as soon as funding
permits.
CONCLUSION: FINDING COMMON GROUND
The state’s financial problems present great challenges for all of us - challenges
that are not susceptible to a quick fix. If we are to meet those and other challenges in
the next ten, twenty, or even fifty years, all of us - elected officials, appointed officials,
and citizens - must be willing to consider new ideas that, at first blush, may seem too
radical for many Iowans. We cannot expect everyone to agree on every issue, but let’s
at least rise above our different opinions so that Iowa can move forward.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for Iowans is to work together to find solutions to
problems that we share instead of belaboring parochial differences. Let’s stop defining
ourselves by where we live in this great state. Let’s define ourselves by who we are:
Iowans - who share the same values and the same hopes for a bright future. I am
confident that if we join together on common ground and explore new ideas, we can
forge a judicial system that will serve the best interests of all Iowans.
Thank you.
Chief Justice Lavorato was escorted from the House chamber by
the committee previously appointed.
Governor Vilsack was escorted from the House chamber by the
committee previously appointed.
Representative Jacobs moved that the joint convention be
dissolved, which motion prevailed by a voice vote.
The Senate returned to the Senate chamber.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Senator Iverson the Senate adjourned at 10:33 a.m.
until 9:00 a.m. Thursday, January 17, 2002.
APPENDIX
COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were received in the office of the
Secretary of the Senate and placed on file in the Legislative Service
Bureau:
January 15, 2002
STATE PSEUDORABIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2002 report on the calendar year 2001 activities, pursuant to Iowa Code section
166D.3.
January 16, 2002
DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS
Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 2001 Annual Report, pursuant to IAC 321,
Chapter 8.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Annual Report of the Healthy and Well Kids in Iowa (hawk-i) Board, pursuant to
Iowa Code section 514I.5(g).
LOTTERY BOARD
FY 2001 Annual Report.
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
General Tort Claims, Highway Tort Claims, and Settlements and Judgments (paid
during 2001) and denials of claims (from May 2001-January 2002) by the State Appeal
Board, pursuant to Iowa Code section 669.12.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC DEFENSE
Enhanced 911 Status Report-Iowa Emergency Management Division, pursuant to
Iowa Code section 34A.7A.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Scope of Practice Review-Final Report of the Extended Pilot Project, pursuant to
2000 Acts, chapter 1222, section 11.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
2001 Passenger Rail Service Revolving Fund Annual Report, pursuant to Iowa
Code section 327J.3(1).
2002-2006 Transportation Improvement Plan, pursuant to Iowa Code section
307.26(5)c.
AGENCY ICN REPORTS
January 16, 2002
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Iowa Communications Network (ICN) Usage for FY 2001, pursuant to Iowa Code
section 8D.10.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE
Iowa Communications Network (ICN) Usage for FY 2001, pursuant to Iowa Code
section 8D.10-notification that the report in electronic form is available online.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS
AGRICULTURE
Convened: January 16, 2002, 8:32 a.m.
Members Present: Behn, Chair; Houser, Vice Chair; Fraise, Ranking Member;
Fiegen, Gaskill, Greiner, Kibbie, Sexton, Shearer, Soukup, Veenstra, and Zieman.
Members Absent: Angelo, Bartz, and Black (all excused).
Committee Business: Organizational meeting.
Adjourned: 8:45 a.m.
BUSINESS AND LABOR RELATIONS
Convened: January 16, 2002, 1:05 p.m.
Members Present: Freeman, Chair; Greiner, Vice Chair; Dearden, Ranking Member;
Behn, Fraise, Hammond, King, McKibben, and Schuerer.
Members Absent: Horn and Lundby (both excused).
Committee Business: Organizational meeting.
Adjourned: 1:15 p.m.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Senate File 2019, by Houser, a bill for an act relating to recycling
requirements in solid waste comprehensive plans.
Read first time under Rule 28 and referred to committee on Local
Government.
Senate File 2020, by Iverson, a bill for an act appropriating
moneys to the department of economic development for purposes of
promoting the world food prize.
Read first time under Rule 28 and referred to committee on
Appropriations.
Senate File 2021, by McKibben, Redwine, Miller, Tinsman,
Angelo, Veenstra, Jensen, McKean, Iverson, Kramer, Drake,
Boettger, Behn, Freeman, Lamberti, Gaskill, Houser, Maddox,
Schuerer, Sexton, Rehberg, Zieman, and McKinley, a bill for an act
relating to economic stimulus measures for businesses by creating an
Iowa capital investment board, authorizing the organization of an
Iowa capital investment corporation and an Iowa fund of funds, and
authorizing the issuance of contingent tax credits to investors in the
Iowa fund of funds; establishing a new economy employment
initiative by providing for a partial deduction under the individual
income tax for the capital gain from the sale or exchange of capital
stock of a corporation which was acquired by an individual on account
of employment with the corporation, and limiting the fiscal impact of
the partial deductions; establishing a small business growth initiative
by adjusting the allocation to Iowa of income earned by an S
corporation for purposes of the state individual income tax; and
including effective and retroactive applicability date provisions.
Read first time under Rule 28 and referred to committee on Ways
and Means.
Senate File 2022, by Behn, a bill for an act providing an
individual and corporate income tax credit for the cost to install,
replace, or convert motor vehicle fuel storage tanks used to store and
dispense ethanol and including effective and retroactive applicability
dates.
Read first time under Rule 28 and referred to committee on Ways
and Means.
STUDY BILL RECEIVED
SSB 3002 Appropriations
Requesting that the Revenue Estimating Conference meet on or
before March 7, 2002.
SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Senate File 2002
(Reassignment)
JUDICIARY: Maddox, Chair; Angelo and Fraise
Senate File 2013
BUSINESS AND LABOR RELATIONS: Freeman, Chair; Fraise and Schuerer
Senate File 2014
BUSINESS AND LABOR RELATIONS: Freeman, Chair; Fraise and Schuerer
Senate File 2019
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Zieman, Chair; Fraise and Schuerer
SSB 3002
APPROPRIATIONS: Lamberti, Chair; Flynn and Schuerer
© 2002 Cornell College and
League of Women Voters of Iowa
Comments about this site or page?
sjourn@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: Tue Mar 26 15:10:01 CST 2002
URL: /DOCS/GA/79GA/Session.2/SJournal/Day/0116.html
jhf