IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDICIAL BRANCH GOVERNANCE STUDY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS -- AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SC 11-1374 COMMENTS OF THE CONFERENCE OF COUNTY COURT JUDGES OF FLORIDA Honorable Kimberly Carlton Bonner President-Elect, Conference of County Court Judges of Florida 2002 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, Florida 34237 Florida Bar # 868220
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SC 11-1374 IN RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDICIAL BRANCH GOVERNANCE STUDY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS- AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS OF THE CONFERENCE OF COUNTY COURT JUDGES OF FLORIDA The Conference of County Court Judges of Florida submits these comments in response to the Florida Supreme Court s opinion, SC11-1374, In Re: Implementation of Judicial Branch Governance Study Group Recommendations- Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. BACKGROUND The Conference of County Court Judges exists under section 2.220 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, as adopted in 1979. Currently, this provision states: The purpose of the conference shall be: The betterment of the judicial system of the state; the improvement of procedure and practice in several courts; and to conduct conferences and institutes for continuing judicial education and to provide forums in 1
which the county court judges of Florida may meet and discuss mutual problems and solutions. Of Florida s 67 counties, 33 are single judge counties in which one judge handles all civil, criminal, and traffic-related cases. Contrasted with larger counties, which have as many as 43 sitting judges, these areas reflect a judiciary as diverse as the state itself. The Conference, in its present form, balances the unique needs and concerns of this diverse assembly by maintaining frequent contact with local leaders, elected officials, state legislators and representatives of the Florida bar and local bar associations. Throughout the last 30 years, these contacts have yielded positive benefits for the judiciary, which in turn have benefitted the citizens who appear before it. Citizens who appear in court most frequently attend county court proceedings. The Office of the State Court s Administrator reports that in fiscal year 2010-2011, county courts took in a total of 3,027,674 new filings. Circuit court filings for the same period totaled 939,939. Many Florida residents experience their only contact with the judicial system in county court. For this reason, county judges have an unparalleled perspective on the unique needs, concerns, and procedures of this branch of government. The Conference of County Court Judges, in accord with its mission to better the judicial system, selects members for leadership positions and education roles 2
who have demonstrated a commitment to improving the judiciary. These leaders then represent the needs of the 322 members as needed on legislative and rulemaking issues. Additionally, many judges among this group have strong ties to their local legislative delegations. These relationships have historically enhanced the ability of the Conference to create awareness on important issues, initiate action on needed changes, or to rebut inaccurate information about the judiciary. COMMENTS ON THE AMENDMENTS This Court established the Judicial Branch Governance Study Group in Administrative Order No. AOS09-43 and appointed its members. This governance study group addressed several issues in its report to the court. One such issue involved the appropriate roles of the court and the respective judge s conferences in coordinating legislative priorities. The study group stated the judiciary as a whole should provide a clear and consistent message to the legislature. Common sense dictates that this would be the only advisable course of action for any profession. Nowhere does the study group report or suggest an actual problem with inconsistent advocacy between the conferences and the Court. With regard to the judicial conferences, the report notes that current rules fail to define, with complete clarity, the roles and responsibilities of the district, circuit and county judge s conferences. It recommended re-chartering of the conferences through new or revised provisions of the Rules of Judicial 3
Administration and specifically recommended that conference leadership be engaged in drafting any proposed rule. The group recommended amendments to the Judicial Management Council, designed to make the council smaller and with a more narrow focus. Additionally, the group proposed the creation of a standing legislative committee, which would, along with the chief justice and state court administrator, advocate on all salary and benefit issues. Thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court, on its own motion, amended the Rules of Judicial Administration in several substantive ways, many of which were not recommended by the study group. The amended rules delete many functions of the Judicial Management Council, including the examination of legislative issues and policies and procedures that affect the work of the courts. Also, the Florida Supreme Court now appoints all 15 members of the council, a function previously performed by various entities, including the conferences and the state legislature. It did not create a standing legislative committee. The amended rules also prohibit the conferences from legislative advocacy: no conference is permitted to recommend state budget priorities, including compensation and benefits, to the legislative or executive branch that have not been approved by the supreme court. The newly chartered Unified Committee on Judicial Compensation now solely fills the role of advocating salary and benefits after the supreme court 4
approves such policy. The committee s membership must include the respective leaders of the judge s conferences, but the rule is silent as to the maximum number of members. Amendments to other portions of the rules state that the chief justice shall appoint all members to newly created committees; although this committee is not new, its implementation under the new rule appears to place it under this provision. Thus, a committee with an unknown number of court-appointed members will possess sole authority for advocating for the entire trial court system. At the same time, the 322 county judges, handling approximately 3 million cases a year, have only one guaranteed vote on this committee and no input on its membership. The Conference of County Court Judges of Florida respectfully objects to the amendments. First, this Court amended the rules without any opportunity for public comment or debate. Major revisions to long-standing rules of procedure deserve, at a minimum, the opportunity for meaningful debate and comment, particularly when they impact the ability of judges to express their concerns as a group to their elected representatives. As duly elected constitutional officers themselves, county judges merit such consideration. The study group report neither recommended nor suggested many of the major substantive revisions in the rules. As such, the rules implement new policies as opposed to implementing well-vetted recommendations. The Conference therefore requests the opportunity to present 5
oral argument on the amendment, or, at a minimum, requests that the Court stay implementation of the rules until such time as all affected parties have the opportunity to provide input. Secondly, neither the study group, nor the Court, cited any factual basis for such a significant departure from the current structure of the courts and conferences. Although the role of this Court as a statewide policy maker goes without question, it must also be acknowledged that the conferences can and should play a major role in advocating for the judicial system. Trial court judges and their respective conferences have unique and valuable relationships within their communities and with their elected officials. These relationships help in overcoming the geographic diversity of this state, both in terms of economic resources and community standards. From county to county and circuit to circuit, needs and concerns vary. No one judicial body or person can adequately investigate, assess and advocate policy for 67 far-flung counties or 20 circuits. However, the conferences themselves, through proven leadership, can use their resources and relationships to better the judiciary while giving all trial judges a meaningful voice. Even with input from a self-appointed advisory committee, this Court cannot alone adequately advocate for the entire state trial court system. Effective advocacy requires personal knowledge of the issues. The judicial conferences act as a sounding board, information clearinghouse, and touchstone for 6
their members. Trial judges know the needs of trial courts. For several decades, these judges, through their elected leadership, have advocated proactively and reactively to the time and tides of the legislature. They have done so admirably, even as to issues not directly affecting the trial courts. As noted by Justice Lewis in his dissent, the amended rules take the Florida court system backward. Instead of a progressive system wherein all trial judges have the opportunity to participate in policy formation, these rules create a model that confers sole authority for policy making to a handful of individuals that are geographically, politically and practically isolated from the day to day functioning of the trial courts. The rules provide for only nominal input from a committee of individuals selected by the Court itself, whose advice it is free to ignore. Furthermore, they purport to fix a problem that simply does not exist. In an attempt to create a single voice, these rules muffle the unified voices of 322 county court judges. As an example, the rules require the chief justice to meet on a regular basis with only the respective chief judges of the district courts and circuit courts to discuss and provide feedback on statewide policy matters. Such an institutional system denies the county judges an opportunity to be heard on matters that impact not just their courts, but also the majority of litigants in the Florida court system. The judges handling the millions of small claims, traffic and criminal cases in 7
county court have no viable means under these rules to advocate for policies and procedures that would improve the court system. In particular, the 33 single judge counties have no means under these rules to participate in policy making. The result effectively disenfranchises a group that is performing the yeoman s work of Florida trial courts, and serves as foot soldiers to this Court. Ordinary citizens, who rely upon these courts to uphold justice in an efficient and fair manner, would likewise be without a voice. Although the rule arguably allows advocacy for issues that have been approved by the supreme court, this provision is superfluous because there is no mechanism for obtaining such approval and the rule elsewhere grants the Unified Committee on Judicial Compensation sole authority to speak on compensation and benefits once approved by the supreme court. The Conference believes it is unnecessary and ill advised to implement these rules in their current form. Thirdly, the amended rules impede the rights of trial judges to have access to their elected officials. The Florida constitution provides that all citizens shall have access to the courts. This Court has established that such a right may not be abolished absent an overpowering public necessity and the lack of other alternative means. Likewise, the trial courts themselves as a group, not just as individuals, should have access to the legislative body that determines their compensation and other aspects of their day to day operations. This Court, as the ultimate arbiter of 8
protected constitutional rights, should not deny the trial judges the right of access to their elected officials. Such a denial of access creates a chilling effect on speech that can only harm the quality of the trial courts in Florida; absent overwhelming evidence that these rules are necessary to the continued integrity of the statewide judiciary, the Conference believes that they should not be adopted. In conclusion, the Conference of County Court Judges of Florida believes that the amended rules, as discussed above, wrongfully deprive its members of a meaningful voice with their elected officials and creates a policy-making system that is inequitable, impractical and discriminatory. In addition to those issues raised in these comments, the Conference reserves the right to further comment on other aspects of the rules with which the Conference takes issue. The Conference therefore requests that the amended rules be withdrawn and that further discussion and public comment be permitted before the adoption of any future amendments. Respectfully Submitted March, 2012, HON. KIMBERLY CARLTON BONNER President-Elect, Conference of County Court Judges of Florida 2002 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota Florida 34237 (941) 861-7967 Fla. Bar # 868220 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was furnished by United States mail to: JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. Executive Director, The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson St., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6584; HONORABLE STEVEN T. NORTHCUTT, Chair, Florida Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges, 1005 East Memorial Blvd., Lakeland, Florida 33801; KEITH H. PARK, Chair, Judicial Administration Committee, P.O. Box 3563, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3563; HONORABLE RONALD N. FICARROTTA, Chair, Florida Conference of Circuit Judges, 401 N. Jefferson St. Suite 112, Tampa, Florida 33602. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that these comments were prepared in accordance with the requirements of Fla. R. App. P. 9.210(a)(2) HON. KIMBERLY CARLTON BONNER 10