COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING
STATE CAPITOL MAIN BUILDING ROOM 140 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017
PRESENTATION FROM JUDICIARY
BEFORE:
HONORABLE STANLEY SAYLOR, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE JOSEPH MARKOSEK, MINORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE KAREN BOBACK HONORABLE JIM CHRISTIANA HONORABLE SHERYL DELOZIER HONORABLE GEORGE DUNBAR HONORABLE GARTH EVERETT HONORABLE KEITH GREINER HONORABLE SETH GROVE HONORABLE MARCIA HAHN HONORABLE SUE HELM HONORABLE WARREN KAMPF HONORABLE FRED KELLER HONORABLE JERRY KNOWLES HONORABLE DUANE MILNE HONORABLE JASON ORTITAY HONORABLE MICHAEL PEIFER HONORABLE JEFFREY P. PYLE HONORABLE MARGUERITE QUINN HONORABLE BRAD ROAE HONORABLE JAMIE SANTORA HONORABLE CURT SONNEY
————————— JEAN DAVIS REPORTING POST OFFICE BOX 125 • HERSHEY, PA 17033 Phone (717)503-6568 1 BEFORE (cont.'d):
2 HONORABLE KEVIN BOYLE HONORABLE TIM BRIGGS 3 HONORABLE DONNA BULLOCK HONORABLE MARY JO DALEY 4 HONORABLE MADELEINE DEAN HONORABLE MARIA DONATUCCI 5 HONORABLE MARTY FLYNN HONORABLE EDWARD GAINEY 6 HONORABLE PATTY KIM HONORABLE STEPHEN KINSEY 7 HONORABLE LEANNE KRUEGER-BRANEKY HONORABLE MICHAEL H. O'BRIEN 8 HONORABLE MARK ROZZI HONORABLE PETER SCHWEYER 9
10 ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:
11 DAVID DONLEY, REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RITCHIE LaFAVER, REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 12 MIRIAM FOX, DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TARA TREES, DEMOCRATIC CHIEF COUNSEL 13 HONORABLE KERRY BENNINGHOFF HONORABLE FRANK BURNS 14 HONORABLE MORGAN CEPHAS HONORABLE ALEX CHARLTON 15 HONORABLE DOM COSTA HONORABLE GENE DiGIROLAMO 16 HONORABLE CRIS DUSH HONORABLE FLO FABRIZIO 17 HONORABLE JONATHAN FRITZ HONORABLE TIM HENNESSEY 18 HONORABLE KRISTIN PHILLIPS-HILL HONORABLE RON MARSICO 19 HONORABLE TEDD NESBIT HONORABLE DONNA OBERLANDER 20 HONORABLE RICK SACCONE HONORABLE CHRIS SAINATO 21 HONORABLE MIKE SCHLOSSBERG HONORABLE TODD STEPHENS 22 HONORABLE JUDY WARD HONORABLE PERRY WARREN 23 HONORABLE MARTINA WHITE
24 JEAN M. DAVIS, REPORTER 25 NOTARY PUBLIC
2 1 I N D E X
2 TESTIFIERS
3 NAME PAGE 4 SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY, JUSTICE, 4 5 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
6 CHRISTINE DONOHUE, JUSTICE, 7 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 7 THOMAS DARR, COURT ADMINISTRATOR, 45 8 PENNSYLVANIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 * * *
3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: With that, we're going
4 to get our Appropriations hearing started today with
5 Judiciary.
6 Before I get too far, I want to announce that we
7 have been joined by guests of our General Assembly that are
8 not members of our Committee, by Representative Dom Costa
9 and also by Representative Martina White. And we will
10 announce others who join us at any point in time as well.
11 So with that, I want to welcome Justice Mundy,
12 Justice Donohue, and the rest of our staff for coming here
13 today. I'm going to turn it over to you and let you make
14 any opening comments you would like to make.
15 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Thank you.
16 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee members.
17 On behalf of Chief Justice Tom Saylor and our
18 colleagues, Justice Donohue and I are pleased to appear
19 before you.
20 The Judiciary's budget represents six-tenths of 1
21 percent of the overall State Budget. Our budget is
22 primarily personnel driven. More than 90 percent of the
23 cost drivers affecting our requested increase are
24 effectively beyond our control; 53 percent of the increase
25 is attributable to higher pension contributions, healthcare
4 1 costs, statutory cost-of-living increases, and costs of
2 filling judicial vacancies. Another 39 percent of this
3 year's proposed increase reflects the suggested restoration
4 of full funding of the County Court Reimbursement Grants.
5 The Judiciary's requested spending increase for
6 Fiscal Year 2017-'18 is less than 1 percent. Pennsylvania
7 courts collect more in fines, fees, costs, and restitution
8 annually than is spent in the State's judicial
9 appropriation. This year, 462 million was collected.
10 Over the past nine years, the Judiciary has saved
11 more than 75 million through various austerity measures.
12 And over the past decade or more, the work of the courts has
13 evolved beyond the Judge's bench to include programs that
14 collaboratively engage participants in the judicial system
15 at a modest cost and significant benefits, for example, our
16 Problem Solving Courts and Treatment Courts.
17 The Judiciary's Federally funded Office of
18 Children and Families in the courts, another program
19 initiated by the Supreme Court, continues to have dramatic
20 impacts on children's lives while contributing savings to
21 the State.
22 This year under Chief Justice leadership, the
23 Court has instituted mandatory continuing legal education
24 for every jurist in the State. The jurists are now required
25 12 annual mandatory education credits, three in the area of
5 1 ethics. 11 percent of the State Judicial budget is funded
2 by fee revenue and the statute would authorize those fee
3 sunsets in December of 2017.
4 We believe enactment of Act 49 of 2009 is
5 prudent. At all times, our goal is to stay in the public's
6 trust by delivering fair, timely, and accessible justice.
7 We thank you for your courtesies today and we
8 look forward to your questions.
9 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Thank you.
10 I almost called both of you Chief Justice.
11 Justice Saylor might not like that.
12 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: We appreciate the
13 raise.
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Although the Chief
15 Justice probably would not be happy.
16 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: I also want to
17 recognize Representative Rick Saccone, who is with us as
18 well.
19 With that, I'm going to turn it over to
20 Representative Markosek.
21 MINORITY CHAIRMAN MARKOSEK: Thank you, Mr.
22 Chairman.
23 Good morning, everybody.
24 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Good morning.
25 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Good morning.
6 1 MINORITY CHAIRMAN MARKOSEK: Glad to have you
2 here today. I just have really one question. It's relevant
3 to Act 49 of 2009, which you may recall, Act 49 of 2009 set
4 certain fees, which provide augmentation funds for the
5 Judiciary budget. And these fees currently amount to
6 approximately $46 million annually, which is a big chunk of
7 your budget.
8 However, Act 49 is scheduled to sunset at the end
9 of the calendar year, 2017. Just your thoughts on that and,
10 of course, a lot of that will have to do with us in
11 reenacting that. But it's something I'm sure you've looked
12 at and are thinking about.
13 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Right.
14 MINORITY CHAIRMAN MARKOSEK: Would you like to
15 share anything with us relative to that?
16 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: If I may, Act 49 as
17 amended provides just about one out of every nine dollars
18 that encompasses the budget of the Judiciary. And so from
19 our perspective, we're here to ask you for what we believe
20 to be a critical extension of that sunshine provision.
21 As you all know, historically, that funding
22 mechanism was intended to attempt to supplement the funds
23 from the General Fund. And from our perspective, it's
24 become critical to our continued operation.
25 So part of our request to you is that you do
7 1 indeed extend the sunset provision beyond December 31.
2 MINORITY CHAIRMAN MARKOSEK: Okay.
3 Well, thank you. We certainly are looking at
4 that and we'll take that under advisement.
5 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We appreciate it.
6 MINORITY CHAIRMAN MARKOSEK: We'll do our best to
7 get that done.
8 With that, I want to thank you again. I
9 appreciate you being here.
10 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Thank you.
12 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Thank you.
13 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Next questioner is
14 Representative Milne.
15 REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 Good morning, Justices, and to your team.
17 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Good morning.
18 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Good morning.
19 REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: Yesterday we left off here
20 listening to Secretary Osborne from the Department of Aging.
21 So I raise that just to make a connection point to an
22 initiative that falls within your bailiwick in the courts.
23 In particular, this current fiscal year of
24 '16-'17, there was an appropriation made for a little bit
25 under a half million dollars, 496,000, for the Office of
8 1 Elder Justice within the Courts, which certainly I think is
2 a well-received initiative by all.
3 And I'm just wondering if you could share with
4 the Committee what kind of work product, recommendations,
5 and maybe vision you have for that particular office.
6 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, I'm pleased to
7 report on behalf of the Court and particularly Justice Todd,
8 who is really taking the initiative on the part of the
9 Supreme Court to spearhead that effort.
10 The Elder Law Task Force Advisory Council to our
11 Court has been incredibly active. And as you all know, the
12 efforts of this group are really almost entirely voluntary.
13 We have two staff people who are involved in, you know,
14 moving the effort along.
15 But in terms of what's been accomplished, I could
16 tell you that one of the most significant things that we're
17 doing is implementing one of the primary initiatives of the
18 Task Force. One of their recommendations has to do with the
19 guardianships in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
20 And as you're probably aware, under the system as
21 it currently exists, it is nearly impossible to track those
22 individuals who are acting as guardians and who they are
23 acting as guardians for.
24 So consequently you could have a guardian in,
25 say, Chester County who is also acting as a guardian in your
9 1 county or have multiple guardianships in either of those
2 counties. Under the current system, it's not possible for
3 the Orphans Court Judges to know what that guardian is doing
4 in these other circumstances, which is, of course, critical
5 in those unusual situations where you have a guardian who is
6 not living up to the fiduciary duty that's intended to it.
7 So through our computer automation group within
8 the IT Department, AOPC, we are developing a web-based
9 portal system so that every guardianship petition and every
10 application is filed online and will be accessible statewide
11 to all of the Judges within the Commonwealth.
12 And as you can imagine, this is a huge step
13 forward in terms of the protection of guardians. I mean,
14 the way in which we are currently tracking even the filing
15 of accountings is entirely antiquated. And one of the
16 findings of the Elder Law Task Force is that this is an area
17 in terms of not only the financial but the mental health
18 aspects of the elders could be extremely well advanced if we
19 put our computer expertise to making this a system where
20 everybody has access to the information.
21 So we started this initiative in October of 2016.
22 We hope to have it entirely up and running by the end of
23 2018, because, as you know, there's a lot of importing of
24 information that has to go on. But it's well along the way.
25 The Elder Law Task Force has been intimately involved in
10 1 developing the forms and the filing protocols. So that's
2 just one example of, you know, what has been accomplished
3 through that wonderful initiative that the Supreme Court is
4 undertaking.
5 REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: And that's certainly
6 important. As a matter of fact, Secretary Osborne shared
7 with us yesterday that apparently the oldest person in the
8 United States actually is a Pennsylvania resident. And she
9 was actually on her way to visit this woman today, as a
10 matter of fact. And the State does have some guardian
11 interest in her welfare. So I encourage that and am glad to
12 hear the Court's focus on that particular matter.
13 Another topic yesterday kind of connecting these
14 two pieces of aging and elder justice, there's obviously a
15 lot of attention on the proposed merger, as I'm sure you're
16 well familiar with, of the Department of Aging being moved
17 into the Department of Human Services, among other entities.
18 What is your sense of what this would mean for
19 your elder justice initiatives, maybe this office in
20 particular, or just elder justice issues in general?
21 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: You know, although
22 the Court hasn't really considered the implications of that,
23 I could tell you that because of the multi-disciplinary and
24 tri-cameral nature of the Elder Law Task Force, we're fairly
25 comfortable that we have a working relationship with all of
11 1 the entities within State Government who touch upon the
2 welfare of the elderly in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
3 So although there might be administrative
4 adjustments that would have to be made, from our perspective
5 from the workings of the Task Force, I think we're well
6 equipped to deal with any kinds of efficiency moves that are
7 made in that context.
8 REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: Very good.
9 And regardless then of --
10 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative, I have
11 to cut you off at that point.
12 REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: All right.
13 Thank you very much.
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Sure.
15 REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: I want to recognize
17 also we've been joined by Representative Cephas and also
18 Representative Nesbit.
19 With that, we will move to Representative Dean.
20 REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: Good morning, Justices,
21 colleagues. Welcome. And congratulations and best wishes
22 for your very important work.
23 I wanted to mention three areas that I'm very
24 interested in. Two I have legislation that I have proposed.
25 One is a smaller piece of legislation which would require
12 1 pro bono hours before admission to the Bar in Pennsylvania.
2 I think it's an important initiative. And my resolution
3 urges the Supreme Court to add that as a requirement for
4 admission to the Bar.
5 I think it's an important idea. An awful lot of
6 our students are doing pro bono work. It would instill the
7 notion of service, but it would also increase access to
8 justice and to the system.
9 The second area, I'm cosponsor with Bryan Cutler
10 on a Merit Selection Bill, Constitutional Amendment for
11 Appellate Court-level Judges. I'm interested, from your
12 perspective, your thoughts on that.
13 The idea is, of course, to have an independent
14 nominating commission to try to drain as much as possible
15 the politics out of the very important role of the
16 Judiciary, the independent role of the Judiciary. So I'd be
17 very interested in your thoughts on that.
18 And then my third area of inquiry -- and I'm
19 doing it this way because we're on a time constraint. If I
20 don't get them all out, I might not get them out at all.
21 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Sure.
22 REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: I'm interested, not only as
23 a member of this Committee but as a member of the Judiciary
24 Committee, on the impact of mandatory minimum sentences. I
25 don't know if perhaps you saw this article in the Washington
13 1 Post a couple of weeks ago from a retired Federal Judge --
2 her name is Shira Scheindlin -- and how she speaks about how
3 mandatory minimums take the justice out of the system.
4 I'm going to ask in other hearings about the cost
5 of mandatory minimums. But I wonder from your expertise,
6 did you feel the same way?
7 For example, she said, I was often prohibited
8 from assessing a Defendant's history, personal
9 characteristics of the role in the offense. In sentencing
10 where judgment should matter most, I could not exercise my
11 judgment. Mandatory minimums were almost always excessive
12 and they made me feel unethical, even dirty.
13 After seven years, I considered retiring but a
14 colleague said, don't. Please don't because we need your
15 voice on the bench, regardless of the constraints of
16 mandatory minimums.
17 So I'd ask you to comment on any of those areas
18 and I'd appreciate your thoughts.
19 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: And, Justice, you have
20 two and a half minutes after that speech.
21 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: With regard to
22 legal services and the pro bono initiative, I think we both
23 share the --
24 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Justice Mundy, would
25 you move that a little closer?
14 1 Thank you.
2 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: I think Justice
3 Donohue and I both share the experience of having to
4 adjudicate cases where a litigant is representing themselves
5 and how very difficult it is.
6 And I think that it's going to require some
7 thinking out of the box among all branches of government to
8 adequately come up with ideas and initiatives to provide pro
9 bono services to the extent that it's needed. And
10 definitely there is a need. So I think that your proposal
11 certainly is worth exploring.
12 My concern certainly would be the supervision of
13 these newly -- or about-to-be attorneys with regard to their
14 proposal. But I think it's a great idea to bring discussion
15 to the table on.
16 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: If I might just add
17 one other point to the pro bono initiative, which is really
18 a wonderful idea. Our IOLTA Board, our Interest on Lawyers
19 Trust Accounts Board, currently has a program in place in
20 each of the law schools in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
21 where they assist in funding clinics for participation by
22 law students.
23 So that effort in which we're involved in and
24 your effort really go hand in hand.
25 REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: That's terrific.
15 1 And would you be able to comment on mandatory
2 minimum sentencing?
3 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: You know, in most
4 cases our Common Pleas Court Judges have what I believe to
5 be an appropriate amount of discretion. You know, we have
6 sentencing guideline in most instances. But if on the
7 record they articulate a reason for going above or below,
8 then that's well within, you know, their discretion at
9 Sentencing Courts.
10 The mandatory minimums have presented interesting
11 issues at all of the levels of the Appellate Courts in
12 Pennsylvania because of various decisions of the United
13 States Supreme Court who have really said that they are
14 unconstitutional to the extent they're adding an element of
15 crime as opposed to just being part of the sentence.
16 So we have our experience with that. From what I
17 can see from an Appellate Court jurist, in those situations
18 in which the Trial Court Judges are exercising their
19 discretion as opposed to using mandatory minimums, their
20 sentences are just and fair and take into account all of the
21 special circumstances involved with each of the Defendants
22 that they're seeing.
23 REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: As it should be.
24 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes.
25 REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: Thank you.
16 1 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Very good.
2 Representative Jamie Santora.
3 REPRESENTATIVE SANTORA: Good morning. Over here
4 to your right.
5 Act 17 of 2013 reorganized the Philadelphia
6 Municipal Courts to assume the duties of the Philadelphia
7 Traffic Court. Your budget materials indicate that there's
8 still a remaining Traffic Division Judge. When will this
9 position be eliminated and are there any costs savings
10 associated with the overall transition?
11 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes. I believe that
12 there is one Traffic Court Judge in Philadelphia who is
13 transitioning out at the end of this year.
14 In terms of the budget impact, I don't really
15 know what the exact amount is. But it's certainly a
16 vanishing position if that's what your question is. It's
17 over at the end of this year.
18 REPRESENTATIVE SANTORA: Okay.
19 So it will be complete at the end of this year?
20 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes.
21 REPRESENTATIVE SANTORA: Okay. Great.
22 The Judiciary is asking for s $12 million
23 increase for the County Court reimbursement, which is in a
24 line item in the 2017-'18 to be returned.
25 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Right.
17 1 REPRESENTATIVE SANTORA: So if it's returned, the
2 amount would be 35.1 million. The Governor proposed 23.1
3 million. The $12 million reduction was done in '16-'17.
4 How much less did each county receive in that, in '16-'17
5 versus '15-'16? Would the counties likely see the same
6 allocations in the '17-'18 if it was level funded as they
7 did the prior year? Are you aware of how this revenue loss
8 impacted the County Courts?
9 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: The answer to the
10 first question is the reimbursement at the county level is,
11 I believe, based upon a formula that's statutorily driven.
12 REPRESENTATIVE SANTORA: Okay.
13 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: So that level of
14 funding percentagewise would be consistent across the board
15 regardless of the level of funding.
16 The reason we are asking for reinstatement of
17 full statutory funding, which is what it would be if the
18 additional $12 million was appropriated this year, is
19 because the counties rely on that supplement in order to,
20 you know, provide the services within the county that
21 service our Judges.
22 I mean, frankly, from our perspective, this
23 funding is critical to our President Judges within each of
24 the counties who have in certain circumstances wonderful
25 working relationships with the County Commissioners and, you
18 1 know, can work through funding issues. And in other
2 situations, not so much, not because of the lack of
3 relationship but very much so because of a lack of funds.
4 So we're here to ask for that reinstatement so
5 that our President Judges have the latitude, you know,
6 within the counties in order to fund appropriate support
7 services.
8 As to the impact of the cut last year, we can
9 only report anecdotally what we believe the impact would
10 have been last year because we hear from our President
11 Judges, those of whom who have issues as a result of the
12 lack of, you know, the funding per Judge.
13 What we perceive though, however, is if that lack
14 of funding continues, it's going to have a snowball effect
15 as time goes on, because it may have been possible in one
16 year to essentially rob Peter to pay Paul. If this
17 continues, it's going to be a gap within the funding at our
18 Court of Common Pleas level that's ultimately going to take
19 its toll.
20 And, you know, this is the Court of Common Pleas
21 level that does absolutely some of our best work in terms of
22 the special courts that we put forward. And although that
23 funding is not directly necessarily related to those special
24 courts, certainly from the support perspective, it assists
25 the Courts of Common Pleas in the Judicial Districts in
19 1 providing these kinds of services.
2 REPRESENTATIVE SANTORA: So when you say special,
3 are you referring to like the Veterans Courts and things
4 like that?
5 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Veterans Courts,
6 Adult Drug Court, Mental Health Courts and truly, truly one
7 of the crown and glories of the Judiciary -- and I put this
8 on the Court of Common Pleas level -- our court, the AOPC,
9 is assisting other Common Pleas Courts to set up various
10 special courts.
11 That's what we're good at. We can coordinate
12 services. We can impart information from one Judicial
13 District to another. But it's known --
14 REPRESENTATIVE SANTORA: I don't mean to
15 interrupt but he's going to cut me off.
16 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Okay.
17 REPRESENTATIVE SANTORA: And I just want to get
18 the last --
19 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Tell me when to stop.
20 REPRESENTATIVE SANTORA: -- piece of it. So the
21 special courts is one of the specifics. Are there other
22 specifics that that funding goes to? When you say support,
23 I'm not assuming it's their support staff but certain
24 programs they do?
25 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative, I am
20 1 going to cut you off because you didn't get your question
2 out before the red light. If we have time, we will try and
3 do a second round for everybody.
4 REPRESENTATIVE SANTORA: Thank you.
5 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: At this point I'd like
6 to call on Representative Krueger-Braneky.
7 REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: Thank you, Mr.
8 Chairman.
9 Hi, Justices. Thank you for joining us here
10 today.
11 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Thank you.
12 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Thank you.
13 REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: I've got a
14 follow-up question on Act 49 and Chairman Markosek's
15 question earlier.
16 So you come before us today and I see in your
17 testimony you talk about believing that reenactment of Act
18 49 is prudent. Last week we had the Secretary of Labor
19 before us who came to the Legislature for reauthorization of
20 funding at the end of the year. Even though it passed the
21 House with bipartisan support, the Senate decided not to
22 take it up at all.
23 And so we had lots of questions for her about the
24 over 500 employees who were laid off and the incredible
25 impact on folks seeking their unemployment compensation
21 1 benefits.
2 I have learned that even if something is prudent,
3 it doesn't always happen here in the Legislature. I'd like
4 you to paint a picture for us if Act 49 was not to be
5 reauthorized at the end of the year, what would the impact
6 be on the Judiciary? Would there be layoffs? Would there
7 be cuts in services? How would the people of Pennsylvania
8 see this play out?
9 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes, there would be
10 cuts in services. I mean, there certainly would be
11 personnel cuts.
12 As I said earlier, one out of every nine dollars
13 in our budget is derived from Act 49 funding. So I'm not
14 certain how I could translate that into how many law clerk
15 jobs are at issue or how many administrative assistant jobs
16 are at issue. Although, you know, if you just say across
17 the board, it's one out of nine, you could see the
18 significant impact that that would have on the services that
19 we're providing.
20 REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: And is there any
21 revenue stream suggestion that you have to replace that
22 funding if it were not to be reauthorized by the
23 Legislature?
24 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: No. No. None.
25 REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: So we'd be
22 1 seeing a loss of one out of every nine dollars that come
2 out?
3 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: One out of every nine
4 dollars, correct.
5 REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: Okay.
6 And a follow-up question. My colleague
7 Representative Dean had a lot of questions. One was about
8 the merit selection proposals. I'm getting a lot of
9 questions from constituents on some of the proposed
10 legislation. And I'd love to hear your take on the proposed
11 makeup of the nominating commission if this proposal is
12 being advanced to take the politics out of who's serving in
13 the Judicial system. Do you think this would remove the
14 politics?
15 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: I have been subject
16 to both the election process because I ran for the Court
17 statewide in 2009 for the Superior Court and also I have
18 been somewhat a product of a merit selection process because
19 I was appointed to this position.
20 And I don't have a position to state on behalf of
21 the Supreme Court certainly. But personally I have always
22 felt that I would not be in this position had it been a
23 merit-selection issue. I think I was elected because I took
24 the effort to go to 67 counties and meet and interface with
25 the citizens of the Commonwealth.
23 1 I would be reluctant to ask the citizens to give
2 up that right that they hold. And that's my personal
3 opinion.
4 Like I said, I have not been authorized to set
5 forth a policy on behalf of the Supreme Court.
6 REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: Justice Donohue,
7 do you have thoughts on this?
8 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I have found that
9 electing Judges -- and I was never a Common Pleas Court
10 Judge so my experience is solely running on a statewide
11 basis. It always amazed me how absolutely hungry for
12 information about the Judicial Branch of government the
13 citizens of the Commonwealth are.
14 And so campaigning, using that term, because
15 that's, of course, what it is, is an unbelievable
16 opportunity to teach people about what the Judicial Branch
17 of government does. And this, you know, is a big state.
18 Now, I happen to live in Allegheny County and
19 grew up in the anthracite coal regions so I had a little bit
20 of a smattering of, you know, what this state looks like.
21 But bluntly, if you get to travel the four corners of this
22 Commonwealth, you get to truly appreciate the breadth and
23 depth of the experience and diversity that we have in this
24 State. And I can't think of a better learning experience
25 for somebody who wants to serve as a statewide jurist.
24 1 So the short of it is, I really am a proponent of
2 electing the Judiciary. Other people on my Court, other
3 members of the Court, I'm certain have diverging views of
4 that.
5 But, you know, as Justice Mundy, I speak only
6 from my own perspective on that.
7 REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: Thank you very
8 much.
9 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Sure.
10 REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: Thank you, Mr.
11 Chairman.
12 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Very good.
13 Representative Roae.
14 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 And thank you, panel, for being here to testify.
16 I was looking at this information you guys gave
17 us on this full-color, glossy, expensive flier. I hope it
18 wasn't too expensive to print in this era of cost-cutting.
19 But anyway on page 2, there's a part about
20 cutting costs. I don't think we have time to do it with a
21 five-minute time limit.
22 But if you could follow up and get us
23 information, please. You say that you saved 75 million on
24 the complement renegotiated leases, Magisterial District
25 Justice eliminations, healthcare costs, efficiencies and
25 1 limited merit and cost of living increases.
2 If you could provide me with a more detailed
3 thing of which of those areas saved how much money because
4 when I look at the old budgets, in 2008, nine years ago, the
5 budget for the Courts was $307 million. And now the request
6 from the Courts is 435 million. So it looks like you're
7 asking for 128 million more. But in the brochure here it
8 says you've saved 75 million.
9 But more specific questions that I would like to
10 ask, the $117 million Judicial Center was built during that
11 nine-year period of saving 75 million. Has that resulted in
12 saving any money do you know? Is it more efficient? Is it
13 less efficient? How is that working out?
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: In order, the reason
15 our budget increases have increased over the years despite
16 our cost-cutting are the same reasons we're asking for an
17 increase today. There are just things that are out of our
18 control.
19 So that is despite the fact that we reduced, for
20 example, our magistrate --
21 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Excuse me one moment.
22 They only give us five minutes. I apologize for
23 interrupting.
24 Now, there's an article in the 2011 TribLive that
25 said there was a 20 percent pay increase from 2006 to 2011,
26 1 $31.4 million. There's an article in 2010 that Judges have
2 State-owned Cadillacs, Lexuses, Mercedes Benz. Is that
3 still in place? Do Judges still have vehicles that the
4 State owns?
5 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: To the best of my
6 knowledge, that has never been the case. Some Judges and
7 Justices lease vehicles.
8 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Does the State -- does the
9 Court or the State pay for those leases?
10 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: For the proportionate
11 amount of the use of the vehicle that equates to official
12 use. It turns out to be the equivalent of the statutory
13 mileage of whatever it is now, 51 cents a mile. You can
14 either lease a vehicle or you get mileage reimbursement.
15 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: So if a Judge leases a
16 Cadillac and uses it for business, or a Lexus, or Mercedes
17 Benz that gets reimbursed, the part of it for business use?
18 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I don't know what
19 types of vehicles are leased, but whatever the vehicle is --
20 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Okay.
21 Because that's what they were -- maybe they're
22 all using a Ford Focus right now. I don't know.
23 As far as the, you know, cost-cutting, you're
24 digging into it a little bit more. You know, things like
25 the pay raises, do you have any information on that, how
27 1 there would be a 20 percent pay raise over a five-year
2 period for $31 million?
3 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I'm assuming that
4 that would include any staff increases. I'm assuming it
5 would include COLAs for our staff and for Judges. And
6 although I don't know what that --
7 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: This wasn't staff
8 increases. I believe it was pay increases. So people that
9 already work there.
10 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Okay. Well, there --
11 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Are your employees -- are
12 they in the Collective Bargaining Agreement? Are they
13 unionized? Are they independent?
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: No. They're not.
15 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: So like when the -- I
16 apologize. We have to be quick. They only give us five
17 minutes to ask questions and get answers.
18 So when the State has a statewide Union contract
19 with PennDOT and the Department of Human Services and DCNR,
20 all the State employees in those Departments are helpless as
21 far as what those union contracts require -- you guys are
22 exempt from that? Your employees, none of them are in the
23 unions?
24 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We are driven my
25 merit increases.
28 1 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Right.
2 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Sometime --
3 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Well, are any of your
4 employees in unions?
5 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: No.
6 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Okay. So if the Judicial
7 Branch gives a pay raise or merit increase, that's 100
8 percent in control of the Judicial Branch, not the Union
9 contract, correct?
10 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes.
11 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Okay. Thank you.
12 And then one last question. In 2014, the Courts
13 revised the Judicial Code of Conduct to eliminate or cut
14 back on nepotism. I'm just thinking, if I hired my wife or
15 my sister to work in my office, there could be pressure
16 there to give, you know, nice merit pay increases and things
17 like that.
18 Is it the expectation of the Court to have a
19 nepotism policy in place now that's going to save money in
20 the long run?
21 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: It's certainly an
22 integrity factor. I'm not certain. You know, obviously to
23 the extent of having a loved one in your office creates
24 tensions, it would eliminate that. But we don't -- we do
25 have an anti-nepotism policy that precludes certain hirings.
29 1 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Are there still people that
2 were hired --
3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative, I have
4 to cut you off.
5 REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Okay.
6 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative Gainey.
8 REPRESENTATIVE GAINEY: Good morning, Justices,
9 how are you?
10 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Fine.
11 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Fine.
12 REPRESENTATIVE GAINEY: My question is about the
13 Drug Courts. One, I'd like to know your opinion about the
14 Drug Courts; two, do you feel we need a uniform statewide
15 Drug Court that everybody follows the same rules; and,
16 thirdly, do you think they're underfunded or they need more
17 funding? And have we seen a decrease in areas where we have
18 Drug Courts where we see a reduction in drug addiction?
19 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: The Drug Courts
20 have a fantastic tool that our Trial Courts have started to
21 implement to address problems in the counties. And it's
22 unfortunately because our counties are so diverse, so are
23 the requirements for setting up a Treatment Court or a
24 Problem-Solving Court.
25 It really has to be a case-by-case evaluation.
30 1 It's not a one-size-fits all 67 counties. For example, I
2 went to Potter County to provide an accreditation for their
3 completion of a DUI Treatment Court. And one of their
4 issues in providing the service to the enrollees was a
5 transportation issue because there's not a regional rail and
6 there's not a bus service.
7 So these Courts have to fashion their programs to
8 fit their counties. And it requires a lot of volunteer
9 participation in Potter County to provide driving so these
10 participants can attend the programming as it's implemented.
11 I believe that the Problem-Solving Courts have
12 provided great assistance in cutting the recidivism rate
13 between 25 and 66 percent.
14 So it's a great tool that the Courts are using.
15 REPRESENTATIVE GAINEY: And that's why I wanted
16 to ask because, you know, for me if there's a problem, you
17 remain relevant when you know the answer. So whatever that
18 answer is that's helping one county, nine out of ten, we're
19 going to see it in several.
20 So what are the best practices of going forward
21 that we can utilize to really begin to continue to reduce
22 the drug situation?
23 And my other question is, do you believe that
24 it's a deterrent when they're coming out of jail with
25 misdemeanors or felonies on their head or on their necks in
31 1 regards to drug usage in terms of employment, housing, and
2 things like that? And is it necessary for them to come out
3 with misdemeanors or felonies where it's more difficult for
4 them to get the things they need to stop them from going
5 back to yesterday?
6 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Well, I think one
7 of the reasons the Problem-Solving Courts have been so
8 popular and are so successful is there is an eye to
9 providing education, high school diplomas during these
10 courses, and also making sure that there's a connection to
11 employment along with education and employment along with
12 treatment.
13 So that's one of the overall benefits of the
14 programs is they try to tie the three together so that at
15 the end of the program, you have a citizen coming out who
16 can participate in society, earn a living, and support their
17 families.
18 REPRESENTATIVE GAINEY: But do you think we
19 should be removing the stigma that is associated with it?
20 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: I think that each
21 individual as they overcome their issues and turn into
22 productive citizens in their communities goes a long way to
23 removing those stigmas.
24 And I don't frankly know, from a sociology
25 standpoint, how better to do it. You know, you always have
32 1 heard that actions speak louder than words.
2 REPRESENTATIVE GAINEY: So if there was like a
3 time period, five, ten years, that they've demonstrated that
4 they can be good citizens, should the stigma be removed?
5 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Is your question
6 with regard to --
7 REPRESENTATIVE GAINEY: Drug usage.
8 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Is your question
9 with regard to a criminal record?
10 REPRESENTATIVE GAINEY: Yes. Expungement of a
11 criminal record.
12 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Well, I know that
13 there are some proposals from the Legislature for having an
14 automatic removal from the criminal justice system for job
15 applications. Is that what you're -- Act 5?
16 REPRESENTATIVE GAINEY: Well, that's one. But
17 the other one is, after ten years of a non-violent felony or
18 misdemeanor, shouldn't they be able to have that stigma
19 removed from them?
20 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: I think that's not
21 an issue that I can speak on behalf of the Court. But I
22 think it's an issue that can be brought to the table and we
23 can discuss how best to implement that.
24 And I think that some of the proposals in Act 5
25 does require, on our side of the table, to do some serious
33 1 work on computerizations to enable our criminal records to
2 provide that. But I think it's a worthwhile effort.
3 REPRESENTATIVE GAINEY: Thank you.
4 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative Helm.
6 REPRESENTATIVE HELM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 Justice Mundy and Donohue, to your knowledge, has
8 there ever been a study conducted to examine the number of
9 Courts of Common Pleas judgeships? And if so, what were the
10 findings, and, if no, would there be any merit in conducting
11 such a study?
12 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: If I can speak to
13 that. There has been an ongoing study in conjunction with
14 the National Conference of State Courts. And earlier this
15 year, we actually received the report, the initial report,
16 that was generated as a result of that study. We sort of
17 referred to it as the right-sizing study.
18 And at this juncture, the report that we have
19 received is being sent out to the President Judges in each
20 of the counties. Because one of the cautions in the report
21 that the Supreme Court received was that it really needed to
22 be vetted at the district level in order to determine that
23 all of the information that was being used to accumulate the
24 report was accurate.
25 We hope to have that report back in our hands
34 1 with the views of the President Judges certainly by the
2 third quarter of this year. Obviously, it is important to
3 know from the Judicial Branch's perspective how the
4 resources are being used and whether or not they're, you
5 know, effectively spread out across the Commonwealth.
6 I could tell you just from an initial view of the
7 these unvetted results, it appears at first glance that the
8 resources are pretty fairly allocated across the judicial
9 districts in the Commonwealth. But then again, I put that
10 caveat. We need to have the President Judges take a look at
11 it to make sure that, you know, nothing was being missed
12 from this level.
13 REPRESENTATIVE HELM: So sometime July or August
14 is when you're expecting it?
15 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: You know, I'm
16 guessing. It's going out to our Judges maybe even as we
17 speak. So I would say the third quarter, maybe the
18 beginning of the third quarter, maybe, you know, early
19 September, mid-September, you know, something of that
20 nature.
21 REPRESENTATIVE HELM: Well, if you could get it
22 to us when you get it, we'd appreciate it. Is that
23 possible?
24 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We will certainly
25 share our results with you gladly.
35 1 REPRESENTATIVE HELM: All right. Thank you.
2 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes.
3 REPRESENTATIVE HELM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative Daley.
5 REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 Over here on the left.
7 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Okay.
8 REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Justice Donohue, Justice
9 Mundy, it's good to see you. Thank you for being here
10 today.
11 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Thank you.
12 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Thank you.
13 REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: I live in Montgomery
14 County and have been fortunate enough to see the Montgomery
15 County Drug Court. I went to their graduation last year and
16 I also went to their accreditation ceremony. Those are
17 clearly highlights of the program that they're running. It
18 was just an amazing experience to be there with them.
19 I understand that there's 104 Problem-Solving
20 Courts across the State. Can you just -- I'm going to take
21 it for granted that the Drug Courts are being very
22 successful. And I think -- and you can confirm this. Is
23 that the greatest number of them? Because I'm also
24 interested in how do you use the success of the Drug Court
25 for some of the other issues like mental health and the
36 1 Veterans Courts and anything like that?
2 Like, I understand that my county is fairly
3 highly populated and has semi-good transportation, not
4 perfect. But I'm very interested in seeing what are the
5 ideas for translating the success of those programs to other
6 areas for problem-solving?
7 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We have a couple of
8 initiatives actually along that line. Number 1, we're in
9 the process of studying the actual results, you know,
10 recidivism, reduction in the Courts that have been the most
11 longstanding, you know, for example, the Drug Courts,
12 certain of the DUI Courts.
13 Secondly, many of our counties do, in fact,
14 report results. But that has been somewhat inconsistent.
15 So we're attempting to accumulate the results from all of
16 the Drug Courts.
17 Third point is, we do indeed have an
18 accreditation program for the Common Pleas Courts who are
19 setting up the various Courts that engage in
20 problem-solving. So we're attempting to standardize what's
21 worked in one county to another county, what's worked in one
22 program to another program. And certainly the requirements
23 are different. They would be different in Veterans Court,
24 for example, than they would be in a Family Drug Court.
25 But certainly you have consistency in it; for
37 1 example, the access to treatment facilities within the
2 county and the willingness of the treatment providers to
3 coordinate with the Court.
4 That's one of the reasons we're asking for
5 continued funding in this area so that at our AOPC level,
6 which is really the only place that that can be done, we can
7 attempt to standardize what's worked and take out what
8 doesn't work.
9 REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: That's really interesting.
10 I'm guessing that your computer system actually -- this is
11 another area where you're finding that you can streamline
12 things and really keep the cost down while improving the
13 system. So I appreciate your work on that.
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Thank you.
15 REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative Hahn.
17 REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 Thank you, Justices.
19 I want to follow up on something that
20 Representative Roae had touched on. And it was the
21 initiative to right the size of the Magisterial District
22 Courts. Has that initiative been completed? I think the
23 study was to reduce by 10 or 15 percent throughout the
24 Commonwealth. So has that study been completed? What were
25 the final results? How does that affect your budget? Do
38 1 you have numbers on how that reduced the size of the budget?
2 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, one of the cost
3 savings that we articulate is a result of Magisterial
4 District closings. We also encourage consolidation where
5 that's possible and still maintain adequate services for
6 citizens within the districts.
7 The program, the initial program, is close to
8 completion. I believe -- and Mr. Darr will correct me if
9 I'm wrong. I believe that there will be two additional
10 magisterial justice reductions this year.
11 Is that accurate?
12 MR. THOMAS DARR: Through 2018.
13 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Through 2018. And
14 the total cost savings is about $15.7 million. You know,
15 this was based upon, you know, census information and things
16 of that nature. So this is close to being a completed
17 project based upon the information that was accumulated from
18 the President Judges and Magisterial District Judges to get
19 us to where we are right now.
20 So I think the total number of reductions is 38,
21 is that accurate, of the District Judgeships?
22 REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: Did you say you're adding
23 two?
24 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: No. Two more will be
25 eliminated.
39 1 REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: Two more being eliminated.
2 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: By the end of '18.
3 REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: With a total of 38?
4 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Correct.
5 REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: And then the initiative
6 will be complete?
7 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Correct.
8 REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: Okay. Thank you.
9 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: You're welcome.
10 REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative Kim.
12 REPRESENTATIVE KIM: Thank you, Chairman.
13 Representative Hahn teed up my question for you.
14 My concern is about the elimination of MDJ offices. I love
15 that you're streamlining. I love that you're saving money.
16 But my concern is that these offices are a gateway to the
17 criminal system. And I would like the Judges to make fair
18 and thoughtful decisions, especially with our youth, instead
19 of being bombarded with too many cases, getting them through
20 as quickly as possible just to check them off the list.
21 What's some of the feedback that you've heard,
22 good or bad, in regards to elimination? And then moving
23 forward, what is the process? How do you decide which one
24 to eliminate versus which one to keep?
25 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, we did a really
40 1 comprehensive -- it was really a joint decision as to which
2 were going to be eliminated and which were not. They were
3 timed to the end of the terms of Magisterial District
4 Judges. So there wasn't a complete, you know, overturning
5 of how justice was being delivered in a certain area.
6 The decisions that were made were really based
7 upon consensus and a lot upon the population, actual
8 population, numbers within districts. So no office was
9 closed if there was any concern about having adequate access
10 to the Magisterial District Judges because frankly, as you
11 know, they're the first line of the Judiciary in the
12 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
13 REPRESENTATIVE KIM: Um-hmm.
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: And many people don't
15 know judges other than their Magisterial District Judges.
16 And so, you know, there was really a lot of time and effort
17 being put into making sure that we weren't destroying that
18 underlying fabric of access at a local level.
19 REPRESENTATIVE KIM: Okay.
20 Aside from access, how about caseload? I mean,
21 we can be in rural areas and have, you know, the same number
22 of people in an urban district but may have more caseloads
23 in one of the others. Is that a factor?
24 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes. All of that was
25 taken into account. I mean, you know, there was developed
41 1 an understanding of what an appropriate caseload was within
2 each of the magisterial districts. It was prior to my time
3 on the Court that this effort was undertaken. But I've been
4 thoroughly impressed at the amount of effort that went into
5 assuring that this was done based upon actual factual
6 information with an eye toward making sure that we didn't
7 have an overburdened first level of Judiciary.
8 REPRESENTATIVE KIM: And then what is your end
9 goal? Do you have a number that you're trying to adhere to?
10 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, see, we didn't
11 really have a number. I mean, I think that that's probably
12 a misnomer. It was a question of how many were needed.
13 And, you know, if the conclusion was that we needed all that
14 we had, then the answer would have been we would not have
15 eliminated any Magisterial Districts.
16 But as a result of the effort that was made, it
17 was determined that there were 38 districts that were not
18 necessary and we could still provide access to justice at
19 that local level adequately. So 38 is a number that evolved
20 from the analysis that was done.
21 REPRESENTATIVE KIM: Okay. Thank you.
22 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: You're welcome.
23 REPRESENTATIVE KIM: That's all I have.
24 Thank you, Chairman.
25 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative Quinn.
42 1 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Thank you.
2 Thanks, Mr. Chairman and Justices. Thank you all
3 for being here.
4 I'm looking at page -- where did it just go? -- 9
5 in the booklet that you prepared for us. And when it talks
6 about proposed personnel expenditures, as I look down that
7 column, could you please tell me if that column is
8 reflective of just the personnel in the Supreme Court or
9 does that include personnel, for example, the District Court
10 management, the Judicial Center operations, the Court
11 administrators, all different levels of the Court? And
12 that's page 14 -- or page 9. Sorry.
13 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: That's okay.
14 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: I had to think a second.
15 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: That is for the
16 Supreme Court.
17 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Okay.
18 So I look to your -- Brad said your glossy piece.
19 It's pretty. And I see that in the cost-cutting portion,
20 there's $75.3 million of savings. The healthcare cost
21 efficiencies. The only healthcare cost efficiency that I'm
22 able to identify for the Supreme Court is the $2,000 for the
23 Medicare D subsidy, though I don't quite understand the
24 $92,000 there.
25 It looks to me like you have a $261,000 increase
43 1 for 105 positions filled, which basically comes to, not even
2 counting that 92,000, just shy of $2,500 per filled position
3 for what you list as increase in cost of health/life
4 insurance benefits for justice and staff.
5 That kind of blows me away.
6 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, I think that
7 our healthcare benefits are in keeping with the benefits
8 across State Government, No. 1. And it does blow you away.
9 It's, you know, a significant amount of money.
10 But if I could explain the cost efficiencies that
11 we're talking about. Over the past seven years or so, we
12 have essentially eliminated the availability of indemnity
13 insurance, health insurance, for --
14 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Which is in keeping with
15 whatever others have done?
16 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Absolutely.
17 And we have also changed to an entire PPO system
18 for the rest of the staff. And the --
19 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Does that include the
20 Justices? Excuse me. When you say for the rest of the
21 staff.
22 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: And Justices. For
23 everyone. I mean, there are consistent, you know, health
24 benefits provided throughout the Judiciary and really
25 consistent with what private businesses have done. The
44 1 deductibles have increased, the out-of-pocket initiatives
2 have increased for the Judges, Justices, and our staff. And
3 so, you know, what we're reflecting in terms of the savings
4 in that area is an accumulation of those types of
5 initiatives.
6 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Are the senior Justices
7 receiving the health benefits?
8 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I would have to have
9 Tom answer.
10 MR. THOMAS DARR: Hi, Representative Quinn.
11 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Hello.
12 MR. THOMAS DARR: Senior Judges, as with all
13 retirees, receive healthcare benefits.
14 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: All retirees? Many
15 retirees go on to Medicare, the Federal program.
16 MR. THOMAS DARR: Well, they receive Medicare and
17 they receive a supplement retirement benefit as is common in
18 a lot of areas.
19 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Which of the benefits --
20 which of the healthcare providers -- no -- the insurance
21 providers is in the first position, the Medicare?
22 MR. THOMAS DARR: Medicare.
23 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Thank you.
24 I brought up at the last budget hearing the
25 concept of a dependent benefit health audit, one where you
45 1 go through, like many private companies, like many of our
2 governments have done, states, counties, local government,
3 school districts, really take a look at even hiring an
4 outside company to come in and see when you have wonderful
5 benefits like my family is the beneficiary of and really
6 make sure that those people who are receiving these benefits
7 are actually eligible, has that been taken under
8 consideration?
9 Would you consider working with us to do that
10 just to -- as I said, $2,500-per-person increase. You know,
11 it's a little shy of that. While it may be on par with
12 other areas, it, you know, seems very high to me.
13 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I don't know if we
14 have ever undertaken such an initiative. But certainly from
15 the perspective of the Supreme Court, we're interested in
16 pursuing whatever avenues are available, you know, while
17 still making certain that, you know, members of the
18 Judiciary have adequate access to healthcare through
19 insurance.
20 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Thank you.
21 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I see nothing that
22 would preclude us from looking at that.
23 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Thank you.
24 I would appreciate some follow-up conversation on
25 that.
46 1 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Okay.
2 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Mr. Chairman, I'm
3 finished.
4 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Thank you.
5 I'm going to interrupt the proceedings
6 temporarily to welcome a group of ladies who are here today.
7 Representative Delozier and Pennsylvania is hosting women
8 legislators from around the world.
9 They are all members of National Parliaments.
10 They're participating in Women's Democracy Network, which is
11 part of the International Republic Institute. The Women's
12 Democracy Network fosters women's leadership and helps to
13 grow Democracy that represents all citizens regardless of
14 gender.
15 The group is active in more than 60 countries and
16 has trained thousands of women on how to become leaders and
17 link them with their peers and countries that share similar
18 struggles.
19 I'm going to ask Representative Delozier to
20 introduce each of them. She has a more difficult task than
21 I. But I also want to recognize today it's a special day
22 that you come here because we have two of our Supreme Court
23 Justices, who both happen to be women, who are testify ing
24 before us today. We are quite honored to have both of our
25 esteemed Supreme Court Justices with us today.
47 1 So with that, I will turn it over to
2 Representative Delozier.
3 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Thank you, Mr.
4 Chairman.
5 I have the great honor of introducing -- and I
6 appreciate the willingness to allow our guests to come in
7 primarily because I think it is such a great statement. All
8 of these ladies are, as was stated, elected in their
9 countries and ones where you hear many other things
10 happening and gender being a big issue.
11 I'm very proud to be able to recognize these
12 ladies. I did tell them -- I apologized upfront if the
13 Chairman gave me the honor of pronouncing some of their
14 names, which is a little more difficult. I did get some
15 help. One of the ladies said, oh, it's easy. I'm like,
16 well, of course, it's easy for you. I will give it my best
17 shot.
18 These are elected women that are representing
19 their country around the world and we're very honored to
20 have them with us today.
21 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: And would each of the
22 ladies, when you're introduced, please just rise and let us
23 know who you are and then you may sit back down.
24 I'd appreciate that.
25 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: If you can understand
48 1 what it is that I'm saying.
2 First we have Maja Gasal-Vrazalica from Bosnia.
3 We have Luz Adriana Moreno Marmolejo. And she is from
4 Columbia. We have -- there's an easier one -- Sandra Moran
5 from Guatemala. We have Zeinab Al-Zubad from Jordan. We
6 have Joanna Schmidt from Poland. We have Saumu Sakala from
7 Tanzania. We have Jamila KsiKsi. She was trying to help
8 me. She was trying to help me. And Alona Shkrum from the
9 Ukraine.
10 So I ask for a great welcome for all of those
11 ladies that are here.
12 (Applause)
13 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Thank you for being
14 with us.
15 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: I will give each of
16 you Justices time to make any comments you would like to the
17 ladies who are here from the other countries. I will give
18 you that privilege, if you would like an opportunity,
19 Justices.
20 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I'm Justice Christine
21 Donohue. And I'm on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which,
22 as you probably know, is the highest Appellate Court in
23 Pennsylvania. And we also administer the Judicial Branch of
24 Government, which is why we are here today, to have an
25 interplay with the other branch of government.
49 1 I'm just so thrilled to see you. How did you all
2 get together geographically? We'll talk later. I mean,
3 it's so wonderful to see that there are women in all of
4 these diverse countries in very important places.
5 Welcome and really thank you for sharing your
6 time with us.
7 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Justice Mundy, any
8 comments or anything?
9 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Just very nice to
10 share your company this morning. I welcome you to the State
11 of Pennsylvania.
12 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Thank you very much.
13 We'll move to further questioning by
14 Representative Donatucci.
15 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Thank you, Mr.
16 Chairman.
17 Thank all of you for being here.
18 What has Judiciary done to make sure Pennsylvania
19 Courts are secure for Judges, court personnel, witnesses,
20 crime victims, etc.? And can you elaborate on the
21 videoconferencing system, especially since 405 pieces of the
22 equipment are ready to reach their end of life cycle?
23 I know that since security has been flat funded
24 for several years, will the $2 million cover all the costs?
25 And then if you could, can you comment on the
50 1 incident report system and how it's working?
2 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Part of the amount
3 that we're requesting within the budget will begin to
4 replace the outdated security equipment. And much of that
5 is, of course, at the Magisterial District level and some at
6 the Common Pleas Court level where there's obviously the
7 most amount of contact with, you know, potential problems
8 within the system.
9 The videoconferencing has been a true cost saver.
10 Not only is it a safety function in terms of not having to
11 transport individuals for certain types of hearings, but it
12 also is a cost saver because we're not involving other
13 levels of local or State Government in order to do the
14 transportation, sometimes providing overtime in doing so and
15 things of that nature.
16 And frankly, just from a scheduling perspective,
17 I think it's worked out well for the Judiciary and for
18 counsel who is involved in those proceedings.
19 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Thank you.
20 Any comments on the Incident Report System?
21 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Let me ask Tom Darr
22 because I'm really not familiar with the intricacies of it.
23 MR. THOMAS DARR: The Incident Report System is
24 extremely effective annually in helping our very small
25 security staff coordinate with local police officers, with
51 1 State Police, in giving us a sense of where the issues are,
2 what types of issues there are in both its MDJ Courts and
3 the Common Pleas Courts.
4 The system effectively works in that we have our
5 staff at the local level, the county court administrators,
6 respond with a report. And then our folks, of whom there
7 are three and a half, follow up on each incident to make
8 sure that they are being addressed properly by the local
9 officials.
10 And we have great cooperation throughout the
11 State. It's really been an excellent system to identify
12 where there are problems and to be able to identify if
13 there's a trend. If in Philadelphia County something
14 happens, it could easily happen by the same person in
15 Delaware County. So that allows us to coordinate the issue
16 particularly effectively.
17 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Thank you.
18 And thank all of you for the great work you do.
19 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Thank you.
20 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Thank you, Mr.
21 Chairman.
22 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative Boback.
23 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 I'm going to concentrate on Problem-Solving
25 Courts. Now, we have listed in your brochure, DUI, mental
52 1 health, drug, and veterans. Are there any others or are you
2 considering any other specialty courts?
3 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, I could tell
4 you precisely the types of courts that we have.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Okay.
6 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Because we do try to
7 keep track of them. We, of course, have 33 Adult Drug
8 Courts. That's probably, I believe, the largest number of
9 courts. We have 19 Adult Mental Health Courts, three Family
10 Drug Courts, which are particularly effective because, as
11 you know, these problems tend to be generational, as opposed
12 to just sporadic within a household.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Okay.
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We have Juvenile Drug
15 Courts, seven of them; 13 DUI Courts; we have one Juvenile
16 Mental Health Court; two Recovery Courts; and we have 19
17 Veterans Courts. That is probably the fastest growing of
18 the Problem-Solving Courts that our Common Pleas Courts are
19 involved with and we are attempting to coordinate.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Okay.
21 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We have two
22 Prostitution Courts, one in Allegheny County and one in
23 Philadelphia County.
24 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Okay.
25 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: So, you know, we try
53 1 to address those systemic problems to the extent possible
2 and, once again, with all credit to the local Common Pleas
3 Court Judges who are so willing to step up to the plate to
4 attempt to, you know, circumvent the punishment system for
5 individuals who really do not belong within it.
6 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: And I'm a proponent, of
7 course, of Problem-Solving Courts. Obviously, they're not
8 in every county. How is that determination made, which
9 county has which court?
10 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, we have some
11 type of Problem Solving Court in 43 of our Districts. And
12 how it's determined, what the Problem Solving Court will be
13 and where really is generated from the local level.
14 You know, keep in mind this takes a tremendous
15 amount of cooperation. So if you have a Judge who is really
16 interested in instituting a Drug Court, for example, it
17 requires the absolute cooperation and buy-in by the District
18 Attorney's Office. And it's not only necessarily a
19 philosophy buy-in, but it could be a staffing buy-in, you
20 know, so there are so many different issues that come into
21 play.
22 I mentioned earlier the availability of
23 treatment, you know, because it's pointless to have a system
24 such as this that's intended to correct behavior without
25 having the appropriate treatment providers and facilities to
54 1 work with.
2 So where they are and what they are really
3 generates from the local level. But what we do, our Court
4 does, and what our AOPC does is make the information on how
5 to run them, what they are, what the requirements are, the
6 accreditation protocols available to all of the districts in
7 Pennsylvania for their asking.
8 For example, last year Justice Todd went to
9 probably a dozen counties talking about Veterans Courts.
10 Many of the counties didn't have them. But if you go and
11 explain that here's what's happening in Allegheny County,
12 for example, or here's what is happening in your county, it
13 tends to get the ball rolling.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: All right.
15 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: So he could be a
16 facilitator in that regard. But really the idea has to come
17 up from the Common Pleas Court level.
18 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: And then if a Veterans
19 Court is conducted in one county, are all the criteria the
20 same in every Veterans Court?
21 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: That is what we are
22 attempting to do through our accreditation program. I mean,
23 I think it's referred to as Best Practices because when you
24 do this enough, you appreciate that there's some things that
25 work and some things that don't. So we don't want people to
55 1 have to reinvent the wheel when they're instituting these
2 new courts. We attempt to impart what those Best Practices
3 are.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: But do all of them then
5 have the treatment and the educational components for those
6 who would graduate from the Court, so to speak?
7 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, that would be
8 part of setting it up. I mean, before it's set up -- you
9 never set it up for failure.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Right.
11 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: So unless it's
12 apparent that all of the parts are in place and working,
13 then the initiative really probably would not get off the
14 ground. We might be something less than a full Drug Court
15 within a county, you know.
16 Veterans themselves provide a tremendous amount
17 of volunteer mentoring in the Veterans Courts. I mean, it
18 is a program that really warms your heart when you see the
19 outreach that's made by those who have served so valiantly
20 to help those who have equally served valiantly and have not
21 really been acclimated back into civilian society. I mean,
22 it's really a wonderful program.
23 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: They are. And I'm
24 certainly a proponent.
25 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes.
56 1 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Last question then, did
2 you ever do a correlation with those who go through Drug
3 Courts as those opposed to a local jail and the savings it
4 would benefit that county?
5 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative, I have
6 to cut you off there. Your red light has come on.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: If you could get that to
8 me, I would appreciate it.
9 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We will.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Thank you.
11 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative Briggs.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BRIGGS: Thank you, Chairman.
14 Thank you very much, Justices.
15 I also want to thank Judge Panella for attending
16 as well. I see him in the back.
17 I'm a huge supporter of the special courts.
18 There's been a lot of conversation about that. So I want to
19 thank you for pushing that as well.
20 If you could just spend a few minutes talking
21 about -- last year we changed -- the Commonwealth of
22 Pennsylvania voted to change the Constitution to allow
23 Judges to raise the mandatory retirement age. I'm not sure
24 what your opinion of it is. Is there any sort of fiscal
25 impact that may have in the future or just the make-up of
57 1 Senior Judges? If you could just spend a few minutes on
2 that topic, I'd appreciate it.
3 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, you know, the
4 rules under which the Senior Judge Program operates has not
5 changed. It's still, you know, you can only serve until
6 you're 78 years old. So that has not changed at all.
7 I think we just have to wait and see what the
8 impact will be, how many Judges will, indeed, decide to
9 serve until they are 75 as opposed to 70.
10 And, you know, the Senior Judge Program is
11 something I could tell you most assuredly we, as a Supreme
12 Court, keep our eye on it. We have Commissioned Judges
13 throughout the Commonwealth. And we do try to assure that
14 the Senior Judges are placed where and when it's needed to
15 fill in gaps.
16 There's always going to be a need for Senior
17 Judges. I mean, there are many counties that are two-county
18 Judges. So someone has to be available in those
19 circumstances where you have illness or, you know, vacations
20 that are well needed and things of that nature.
21 As to what the correlation is going to be between
22 the change in the retirement age and Senior Judges, I think
23 that just is yet to be seen.
24 Also, the right-sizing program that we talked
25 about a little bit earlier certainly takes into view the
58 1 impact of Senior Judges on the right size of Courts of
2 Common Pleas. We have our finger on the pulse of that issue
3 so that, you know, they're being appropriately utilized and
4 not overly utilized.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BRIGGS: Thank you very much.
6 Thank you, Chairman.
7 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative Keller.
8 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 Thank you to the panel. I'm over here on this
10 side of the room.
11 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Okay.
12 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: I'm going to try to move
13 -- I only have five minutes so I'm going to try and move
14 quickly. I think I understand the information. I guess
15 I'll just ask the questions yes or no here to begin with.
16 On page 80, we're talking about the Judicial
17 Computer System Account. The sources for that account are
18 Act 64 and Act 122; is that correct?
19 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Correct.
20 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Okay.
21 Revenues are based upon actual for Fiscal Year
22 '15-'16. They do the revenues. And Act 64 is expected to
23 be about 22 point -- or, yeah, $22.3 million and Act 122
24 about 22 point -- almost the same?
25 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Correct.
59 1 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Also, it mentions that as
2 of June 30th, 2017, before any deposit of the current year
3 revenue is made, there's going to be about $55 million in
4 that account?
5 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: In the Augmentation
6 Account, that's correct.
7 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Yeah. Okay.
8 Do you have a multi-year financial statement
9 maybe covering like the last ten years for that account, all
10 revenues collected and expenses incurred in the Judicial
11 Computer System Augmentation Account? Do we have that?
12 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I'm sure we can get
13 it to you.
14 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: You can get that for us?
15 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Absolutely.
16 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Okay. I would like to
17 have that, please.
18 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Sure.
19 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Then I want to go -- now
20 I want to go to page 3. And I want to discuss the Fiscal
21 Year '16-'17 appropriation, which was about $50 million,
22 just under $50 million; is that correct? if I understand
23 that correctly.
24 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Let's see. I could
25 say yes without looking but that would be wrong.
60 1 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Okay.
2 In the current year we're -- you're requesting
3 $55 million. That's a 10.5 percent increase. Can you tell
4 us why we're looking at that and what the current staff
5 complement funding by that line item is for?
6 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes. As a general
7 proposition, what this is -- you're all aware, I mean, the
8 computer services that the Judicial branch provides are
9 really very broad and across multiple agencies within the
10 Commonwealth and --
11 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: If we can just get -- why
12 do we want 10 percent more and how many people does it fund
13 in that account?
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: The total staffing
15 complement in the judicial group is, I believe, 340 people.
16 That's close enough for --
17 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: That's funded out of that
18 account?
19 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Pardon me?
20 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Funded from this account?
21 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes.
22 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: 340 head count.
23 Do you have the -- could you get us a past
24 history of how many head count were in there?
25 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Sure.
61 1 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Okay.
2 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We're actually down
3 this year. We've eliminated about 30 people over the course
4 of the year. We are in the process as a Court of just
5 taking a close look at the staffing that we're --
6 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: So if we're down -- we're
7 down complement this year, we're increasing 10 and a half
8 percent? That's what we're requesting, a 10 and a half
9 percent increase and we're downing complement? That's what
10 you just told me, we're downing complement.
11 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We are down in
12 complement. We may have to fill or refill a position or two
13 next year. I don't know what the --
14 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: You'll still have less --
15 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: -- exact numbers are.
16 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: You'll still have less
17 complement this year than you -- this current year than you
18 did last year?
19 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: At the beginning of
20 last year.
21 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Yeah.
22 I'm still -- I'm still wondering why we want a 10
23 and a half percent increase.
24 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Sorry. I'm just not
25 following. Is it an increase in the total amount or an
62 1 increase --
2 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Well, Fiscal Year '16-'17
3 as of page 3 --
4 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Okay.
5 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: -- you were looking at I
6 think it was 49 -- 49 point -- or excuse me. Oh, yeah.
7 That's right. So 49 million -- forty-nine million seven
8 hundred seventy-eight thousand and the requested amount is
9 fifty-five million one hundred sixty thousand, roughly a 10
10 percent increase.
11 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Let me ask Tom Darr
12 to answer that because I'm just not certain if I'm
13 understanding your question. I'll have Tom answer.
14 MR. THOMAS DARR: I think I'm understanding your
15 question.
16 Keep in mind that the budget presentation was
17 created the beginning of last August. Speaking to the
18 staffing, it has since then engaged to downsize the staff,
19 which is what's reflected in what Justice Donohue just spoke
20 about.
21 So two things. Number 1, we have a good history.
22 We have a very strong history, whether you are aware of it,
23 of revising our figures between now and the time that
24 cutting comes into effect. And it is entirely conceivable
25 in my mind that we will revise those.
63 1 When the revenue changes, all sorts of things
2 change. So we try and right size not only our complement --
3 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Okay. I want to get on
4 to one other thing --
5 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative, we are
6 --
7 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Can we have a second
8 round? Because I wanted to get on to the Act 49 money and,
9 you know, knowing that those sources were drying up, I'm
10 wondering what we plan for over the last --
11 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: We will add a second
12 round when we finish this round first.
13 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Thank you.
14 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative
15 Delozier.
16 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Thank you, Mr.
17 Chairman.
18 Justices, thank you very much for being here and
19 answering our questions.
20 My issue comes from a constituent that brought an
21 issue to me. Alimony pendente lite, APL. That issue is
22 actually right now a big destruction in her life. I
23 understand why it was originally set up in the sense that
24 people who only have one income and the lesser person that
25 makes the lesser amount receives a portion of the one that
64 1 makes the income salary so that they can live while divorce
2 is pending. So I understand the premise of it.
3 What I don't understand is the discretionary
4 ability for the Judicial Court. Primarily my first question
5 involves the child support guidelines are reviewed every
6 four years by the PA Supreme Court.
7 So my question is, when were they last reviewed
8 and what were the results of that review, generally?
9 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: My recollection is
10 that we were reviewed probably within the last 18 months or
11 so.
12 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Okay.
13 Was there any change to the APL?
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I believe there were.
15 You know, what's taken into account in the revisions is
16 whether or not appropriate accommodation is being made for
17 other sources of income, for example, disability payments,
18 Social Security, things of that nature.
19 And I know the revision that took place within
20 the last 18 months accommodated for those kinds of
21 questions. Those revisions take place based upon input from
22 all over the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
23 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: All right.
24 And I guess I would bring up as to the fact that
25 my constituent has a spouse that is making $75,000. She's
65 1 making over $100,000 and he is receiving 40 percent of her
2 salary due to the fact that she makes more, simply because
3 that language is in there.
4 So the decision went -- because the one that made
5 lesser just requested it go into place, it went into place.
6 But that $75,000 that that individual is making is very
7 livable.
8 You know, the original intent of this was to
9 provide for a stay-at-home mom possibly or somebody that
10 does not have any income. And now we're saying that someone
11 just because they make $5,000 less, $10,000 less, because it
12 is less, they automatically get that from the higher earner.
13 It's not in society right now with so many
14 families that are two-income families. It's not playing the
15 way it was when it was first put in place.
16 So I'm just asking you about that for my
17 constituent as well as the fact that we need to make sure
18 that it takes into consideration that if you have a livable
19 income, it's not to penalize and use in a malicious manner
20 to get back at the person that may make $10,000 more.
21 I think in this case, it was. She's being
22 penalized because she made more money than the husband.
23 The other question that I have to follow up on
24 that in the same situation is support masters within the
25 counties. It seems that a lot of the judicial decisions on
66 1 divorce are pushed out to a Master. Can you explain to me
2 why that is not a Judge?
3 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Well, I think one
4 of the issues is many of the counties has a volume of those
5 type of cases.
6 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Um-hmm.
7 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: So in order to
8 accommodate the number and the need for somewhat expedience
9 in hearing those cases. And, for example, Tioga County,
10 it's a one-Judge county. So to accommodate the system,
11 Masters are often appointed to handle a portion of the
12 caseload.
13 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Right.
14 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Those cases do come
15 up to the Trial Judge.
16 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Eventually, yes.
17 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: They are assisting
18 in providing justice in that area.
19 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Well -- and I would
20 just simply say one of the key words said is to provide, you
21 know, a quicker moving of justice. And in this particular
22 case and in Cumberland, we're finding it's not moving
23 quickly at all. There's one Master. And, you know, hearing
24 those cases is taking 18 months or more.
25 And in this particular case where she has this
67 1 APL, that in and of itself doesn't seem to be justice and
2 she has the child at home. So she's taking care of the
3 child and paying him. And a lot of it just seems that the
4 18 months that she's waiting to simply get a decision
5 doesn't seem that the justice is moving the way it needs to.
6 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: I know that that
7 area of the law is one of the most challenging areas because
8 you're dealing with families.
9 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Absolutely. Emotional
10 and everything that goes along with it.
11 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Exactly. And I
12 know that on the Appellate Court level, we have shortened up
13 our timelines on child custody matters to accommodate a
14 quicker resolution.
15 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Is there anything that
16 the Legislature can do in order to assist with that?
17 Because like you said, it's very emotional, very much, you
18 know, vindictive in some cases unfortunately. And I think
19 that our system sometimes is used against one side or the
20 other.
21 Would you have any suggestions as to, you know,
22 the ability for us to assist?
23 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative
24 Delozier --
25 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: I'm out of time.
68 1 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: You are.
2 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Okay.
3 If you have any suggestions, I would be very
4 interested in listening.
5 Thank you.
6 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Thank you.
7 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: With that, I'm going
8 to recognize Representative Everett.
9 REPRESENTATIVE EVERETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 Thank you, Justices.
11 And to my colleague that just preceded me, I
12 would tell her that having been a family law practitioner
13 that these issues have existed for a very, very, very, very
14 long time. I predicted the day when it would start to cut
15 the other way. Traditionally the male had always been the
16 high-wage earner. And these complaints had always been
17 those of the males.
18 You know, the modern age here, the tables have
19 turned a bit. And now the frustrations are felt on both
20 sides. So good luck fixing these issues. It shortened my
21 family law career significantly, the frustration dealing
22 with those issues.
23 I'd like to talk about our electronic filing
24 system or lack thereof actually. You know, the Federal
25 system has PACER which has automated the electronic filing
69 1 system and, you know, it appears that Pennsylvania does not
2 have a comprehensive approach to establishing a statewide
3 electronic filing system that's the same in each county.
4 And my question is, if you could comment on your
5 thoughts on that and is that something that you feel we
6 should do from the legislative side, you know, telling us,
7 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that we need to do this in
8 a certain amount of time -- obviously funding would be an
9 issue -- or is this something that you think we should leave
10 to the judicial system to work with and implement?
11 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We are working on it.
12 We have electronic filing in all of our Appellate Courts as
13 it now stands.
14 There's an electronic filing, I'm going to take a
15 rough guess, in probably 11 other counties, 11 counties in
16 the Commonwealth. And it's our intention to work with the
17 counties to make electronic filing available at all levels.
18 So that is something that we, you know, have our
19 eye on. And really the manner in which it's been proceeding
20 in the Superior Court, Commonwealth Court, and Supreme Court
21 has really been excellent. Once again, you know, we develop
22 the protocols and standards for how it has to be done. And,
23 you know, we hope to assist the counties in, you know,
24 pushing that out in the future.
25 Once again, at some juncture, that will be about
70 1 money also at some level.
2 REPRESENTATIVE EVERETT: And if, you know, from,
3 you know, conferences and things you go to with Justices
4 from other states, is this something that we're -- you know,
5 are we behind the curve, ahead of the curve, where a lot of
6 similarly situated states are, Ohio, Illinois, you know,
7 people that have demographics like us?
8 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: No, we are pretty
9 much ahead of the curve in most matters dealing with
10 computerization and electronic filing.
11 I mean, I think it's -- you know, it's a
12 difficult system to initiate because you always have the
13 question of, what do you do with the documents that are
14 already in existence? That's really where the problem comes
15 in and, you know, whether or not you're going to import them
16 and things of that nature.
17 But in terms of those issues, I believe that it's
18 fair to say that Pennsylvania is ahead of the curve of most
19 other states.
20 REPRESENTATIVE EVERETT: Again, thank you for
21 your time. If legislation is necessary, I wish I could
22 print money. I can't really speak to funding myself. But I
23 think it's initiative that would really help practitioners
24 at the county level.
25 Thank you.
71 1 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Thank you.
2 REPRESENTATIVE EVERETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative Grove.
4 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 Justices, great to see you. Good morning.
6 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Good morning.
7 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Good morning.
8 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: I guess my question is for
9 Tom. Are you familiar with the National Center for State
10 Courts?
11 MR. THOMAS DARR: Yes, sir.
12 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Great organization?
13 MR. THOMAS DARR: Very good organization.
14 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Very good.
15 Are you familiar with their high-performance
16 Court framework?
17 MR. THOMAS DARR: I am not.
18 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: It is an initiative they
19 have to actually build in performance tools within the Court
20 system. I did get your response to some of the questions I
21 sent. And I appreciate that.
22 One of them was, while operations of the Court
23 typically do not fit well into KPI analysis, but doing some
24 research, they do have a performance matrix system -- it's
25 called Court Tools -- that actually builds in some
72 1 performance matrix, administrative principals, managerial
2 culture perspectives, performance measurements, performance
3 management, and a quality cycle. I do have some stuff for
4 you to take a look at. I think it would be beneficial to
5 kind of look at that system maybe for the Courts moving
6 forward.
7 MR. THOMAS DARR: The Court Tools I am aware of.
8 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Okay.
9 MR. THOMAS DARR: Not in the term that you used
10 earlier. And we do take a look at those things from time to
11 time. And there are some counties that are using them.
12 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Okay.
13 MR. THOMAS DARR: That's my understanding. But
14 not on a statewide basis.
15 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Can you maybe provide a
16 list of Courts who do utilize Court Tools?
17 MR. THOMAS DARR: Sure. We can do that.
18 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: That would be great.
19 MR. THOMAS DARR: Sure.
20 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Have you done any analysis
21 to see how effective that is as a management tool within the
22 Court system? Have you looked at that at all?
23 MR. THOMAS DARR: We have not done so. The
24 National Center's work is, as I said, very good.
25 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Um-hmm.
73 1 MR. THOMAS DARR: And those Court Tools are used
2 in various places around the country. So I think you can
3 give credibility to them.
4 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Okay. Good.
5 That's actually it. Thank you.
6 MR. THOMAS DARR: Sure.
7 REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Very good.
9 Representative Christiana.
10 REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA: Thank you.
11 Good morning, Your Honors and the rest of your
12 panel.
13 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Good morning.
14 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Good morning.
15 MR. THOMAS DARR: Good morning.
16 REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA: Thank you for being
17 here.
18 Justice Donohue, in your opening statement, you
19 cited pension costs as one of the contributing factors to
20 increased operational costs.
21 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes.
22 REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA: Obviously, the
23 concerns about increased pension costs are not exclusive
24 just to the Judicial Branch, but all three branches of
25 government are concerned about escalating pension costs.
74 1 I think those concerns are why the Legislature,
2 specifically the House Republican Caucus, are actively
3 working on finding a comprehensive reform bill that can be
4 signed into law as quickly as possible. And it's highly
5 likely, almost a foregone conclusion, that a final product
6 will only apply to future employees.
7 If a final proposal applies to the Judicial
8 Branch and all future Judges, Justices, and employees, would
9 you support applying that proposal to future Judicial Branch
10 employees? And before you answer, if I could just clarify.
11 I'm not asking about the Constitutionality of a proposal or
12 the specific merits of a pension reform proposal but
13 specifically asking about applying that proposal to the
14 Judicial Branch. Would you support that application?
15 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, you know, given
16 your qualification, barring any constitutional questions,
17 the Judicial Branch would be bound by the legislation that's
18 enacted in terms of ongoing pension benefits.
19 REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA: Okay. Thank you.
20 And to follow up to the gentlelady from Bucks
21 County questions earlier, you also cited healthcare costs as
22 a contributing factor and even provided some broad changes
23 that you have undertaken to help control those healthcare
24 costs, two of which you mentioned were deductible increases
25 and copay increases.
75 1 Can you provide specifics on what those changes,
2 the specifics on copay increases and deductibles, where they
3 stand now?
4 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes. We can get you
5 that information if that's what you're asking for. If you
6 want to give us a few minutes, we probably have it with us.
7 But barring that and taking your time, we could otherwise
8 provide it to you.
9 REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA: As quickly as
10 possible. I think the Majority Leader has been actively
11 working to help control our own and make changes. I think
12 you could help provide some specifics that maybe we can
13 incorporate.
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We can do that.
15 REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA: Thank you.
16 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We'd be pleased to do
17 that.
18 REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA: Thank you, Mr.
19 Chairman.
20 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Representative
21 Greiner.
22 REPRESENTATIVE GREINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 Thank you, Justices, for being here today.
24 I want to kind of follow up with my colleague
25 here, Representative Keller, who had some questions. I
76 1 wanted to just kind of follow up.
2 Throughout the -- going back to Act 49 or --
3 that's where he was kind of going. Throughout your budget
4 request, you anticipated the availability of revenues under
5 that Act to be used as augmenting revenues in order to
6 offset the need for State funds. All right.
7 How does Pennsylvania with those funds compare to
8 other states with respect to court fees as a source of
9 funding? That's the first question.
10 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I don't know the
11 answer to that, but Tom probably will. He was here when
12 that initiative was started. So he may be able to answer
13 that.
14 MR. THOMAS DARR: To be perfectly honest, I do
15 not have a clue. I've never heard a comparison between
16 other states and Pennsylvania in terms of court fees.
17 REPRESENTATIVE GREINER: Yeah, I believe page 4
18 of the McKinsey Report had -- we don't have that in front of
19 us right here. But I do know that there was a mention to
20 that. There was some discussion there. If maybe you can
21 get back to us concerning that, that would be great.
22 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Sure.
23 REPRESENTATIVE GREINER: But I do want to follow
24 up on that though, because we talked about the sunset date
25 for the additional surcharge revenue under that Act is to
77 1 end the end of this year. I guess a couple questions is,
2 knowing that these sources were set to expire, what has the
3 Court done, you know, over, you know, the last few years and
4 maybe even going into this year to make up for that
5 deficiency to prepare for this?
6 And if that's the case, you know, depending on --
7 you know, we can't get that revenue, what impact will it
8 have on the operation if we do not -- if we as a body,
9 legislative body, do not reauthorize this?
10 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Well, it would be
11 difficult, as I said earlier, for us to operate anywhere
12 near the level that we are now without the Act 49 monies
13 going forward. Our staffing has been relatively static over
14 the past many years.
15 So in answer to your question, what have we done
16 to anticipate not getting it? I think it would be fair to
17 say that we were hoping that when we would come to you, as
18 we have in the past since 2009, you would realize the
19 benefit of providing the Act 49 funds as opposed to taking
20 the monies from the General Fund.
21 It may not be an adequate answer. But it would
22 be very difficult, very difficult for us to in any way
23 budget from our perspective to make up for one out of every
24 nine dollars that we rely on for funding.
25 REPRESENTATIVE GREINER: I appreciate your
78 1 honesty and being straightforward on that. I will say I
2 guess I tend to be a little bit more concerned than
3 pragmatic in that you're not the only ones who have told me
4 that we have an act getting ready to sunset and they haven't
5 really given some thought in this tough budgetary time what
6 happens if we decide we are not going to fund it moving
7 forward.
8 And you're forthright with me concerning that.
9 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Yes.
10 REPRESENTATIVE GREINER: I think that's the -- I
11 have one more, but I think I'm just going to forgo it. I
12 think that you answered my question. I appreciate your time
13 being here.
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I tried to be candid.
15 REPRESENTATIVE GREINER: Thank you.
16 Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
17 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Thank you.
18 I want to recognize Chairman Marsico as Chairman
19 of our Judiciary for the final questioning.
20 REPRESENTATIVE MARSICO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21 Good morning. Thanks for being here.
22 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Good morning.
23 REPRESENTATIVE MARSICO: Justices and staff and
24 other Appellate Judges, thank you for being here.
25 Many of the members covered a lot of subjects
79 1 today, mostly appropriation issues but also some policy.
2 Last session the Senate had a bill that would add
3 seven new Court of Common Pleas Judges. And that bill was
4 never passed but it's being reintroduced this session.
5 What would the fiscal impact be? Is that
6 reflected in your budget today?
7 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: No, it's not.
8 We are not projecting any new judgeships in this
9 fiscal year within this budget.
10 REPRESENTATIVE MARSICO: What would the cost be
11 per Judge -- do you have an idea? -- if seven more Judges
12 were added this year for the Court of Common Pleas?
13 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Mr. Darr, can you do
14 the math?
15 MR. THOMAS DARR: I'm not a great mathematician.
16 But if you take 170,000 times seven and then take a benefit
17 factor including pension of about 70 percent probably, that
18 will give you what, $3 million, somewhere in that vicinity.
19 REPRESENTATIVE MARSICO: Okay.
20 MR. THOMAS DARR: Now, that doesn't, of course,
21 include what the counties may have to expend for Chambers
22 and other things.
23 REPRESENTATIVE MARSICO: That was going to be my
24 next question. So it would be a county expense as well
25 added on to that?
80 1 MR. THOMAS DARR: Right.
2 REPRESENTATIVE MARSICO: There was much
3 discussion today about Problem-Solving Courts, which I have
4 been a proponent of over the last number of years. There's
5 been legislation introduced recently to mandate those
6 Problem-Solving Courts for each county.
7 Do you support that mandate? And if you do,
8 would you be concerned about the fiscal impact?
9 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: I'd be concerned
10 about a mandate for the reasons that I indicated earlier.
11 There are certainly judicial districts that do not have a
12 sufficient base to start a Problem Solving Court, No. 1.
13 REPRESENTATIVE MARSICO: Right.
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: We try to address
15 that by the regional Problem Solving Court that we
16 instituted in Jefferson, Elk, and Forest Counties. We try
17 to accommodate that.
18 The other thing is mandating cooperation is a
19 very difficult thing. And I think one of the reasons that
20 the Problem-Solving Courts have been so effective is because
21 it's been a collaborative effort between the prosecutors,
22 the police, Probation, the Judges, and everyone else who
23 works within the system. And, you know, mandates unfunded
24 are also very difficult to maintain at the district level.
25 You know, certainly we're doing what we can to
81 1 advance the program. We'd like to do more regional programs
2 because there is a problem in the very small counties with
3 having the resources and the need within the county for an
4 entire program.
5 But if you put three counties together or four
6 counties, we're looking at South Central Pennsylvania
7 potentially as the next hub for a regional.
8 We appreciate all of the support that the Courts
9 get with the problem-solving nature of it. But, you know, I
10 hope that I've explained why cooperation is such a
11 significant aspect of these programs.
12 REPRESENTATIVE MARSICO: You have. And actually
13 I agree with your response.
14 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Okay.
15 REPRESENTATIVE MARSICO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 No other questions.
17 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Thank you.
18 I want to thank both Justices for your appearance
19 here today. We look forward to working with you as we move
20 forward.
21 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Thank you. It's been
22 a pleasure.
23 JUSTICE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY: Thank you.
24 JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE: Thank you so much for
25 your time.
82 1 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: You're welcome.
2 And the Committee will reconvene at 1 o'clock
3 today to hear from the Department of Corrections and the
4 Board of Probation and Parole.
5 (Whereupon, the hearing concluded.)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83 1 I hereby certify that the proceedings and
2 evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes
3 taken by me on the within proceedings and that this is a
4 correct transcript of the same.
5
6
7
8 Jean M. Davis 9 Notary Public
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84