Pursuant to K.S.A. 20-320, I Submit This Report on the State Ofthe Judiciary to the Legislature and Governor Kathleen Sebelius

Pursuant to K.S.A. 20-320, I submit this report on the state ofthe Judiciary to the

Legislature and Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

Following three years ofchanges in the membership ofthe Supreme Court, the Court achieved full strength again on November 18, 2005, when Justice Eric S. Rosen was sworn in as the newest member ofthe Court. Justice Rosen was appointed to fill the vacancy created by the death ofJustice Robert Gemon in March 2005. Justice Rosen most recently served as a Shawnee

County district court judge. I am very pleased to have Justice Rosen as a member ofthe court and have every confidence that he will continue his distinguished career ofservice to the State.

FULLCOURT AND BEYOND

In my 2005 State ofthe Judiciary message, I announced that the Kansas Judicial Branch

had achieved statewide implementation ofFullCourt, an innovative case management system

that integrates into one program a number ofdifferent functions, including accounting, case

management, and jury management. By all standards FullCourt is a huge success, resulting in

an across-the-board increase in efficiency for district court staff. Every district court in the state

excepting Shawnee and Johnson Counties is using FullCourt, making Kansas one of only a few

states with an integrated case management system.

1 State ofthe Judiciary

The implementation ofFullCourt will allow staffin the Office ofJudicial Administration, in cooperation with district court personnel, to complete two other major initiatives in the area of information technology. Statewide court data is now centraliz~d within the Office ofJudicial

Administration (OJA), thus making OJA the conduit for Kansas court records. On a daily basis, a real-time copy ofevery district court's database is automatically transmitted to OJA where the data is integrated, reviewed for accuracy, and disseminated by OJA staffto various state agencies, including the Division ofMotor Vehicles, the Kansas Bureau ofInvestigation, the

Department ofRevenue, and others.

Currently, OJA staffand a work group ofjudges, court administrators, court services officers, and district court clerks are working on a new module to assist courts in managing juvenile offender and child-in-need-of-care cases. This new module, presently in the fmal stages ofdevelopment, will support compliance with the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

We are now ready to take the next step in our ongoing plan to better serve the public and improve court efficiency through implementation oftechnological advancements.

In the vast majority ofKansas counties, access to a court file involves a trip to the courthouse where the case was filed. Weare seeking to provide a statewide uniform

2 ChiefJustice Kay McFarland system whereby significant portions ofevery county's court records are available via the internet to anyone with access to a computer. Johnson County has such a system in operation. The tremendous cost of creating and operating such a system and its . popularity with the public are both established by the Johnson County experience. By virtue of its uniquely affluent fmancial position, Johnson County provides this service without charge to its users. Unfortunately, few ifany other counties are in a fiscal position to establish and maintain a like system without recoupment of costs.

We propose to develop a statewide unifonn system with the costs thereofto be paid by reasonable user fees. That way, the system will be selffunded, rather than funded by state or local taxpayers. We have been negotiating with the Information Network of

Kansas (INK) for several months to set up and run the system on a one-year test basis.

Utilizing one provider operating under a single statewide contract would have enonnous cost saving, efficiency, unifonnity, and service availability benefits. Convenience and public access to court records would be greatly enhanced. The uniform internet access system would also be of great benefit to those expected to be exempt from payment of any user fees - such as police and sheriffs' departments, county and district attorney offices, child support collection workers, advocates for crime victims, lawyers representing indigent litigants, children's advocates, programs serving victims of domestic violence, and others. Immediate statewide internet access to court records would be a major tool in the more efficient operation of such departments and agencies.

3 State of the Judiciary

Naturally, participation in the system by all 105 counties would be ideal. Ifthis is not feasible, participation by the 103 FullCourt counties would result in tremendous benefit to the State.

In the future, we would want to explore bringing the technology of imaging and electronic filing to every courthouse in the State. We live in the information age. It is vital and exciting to bring the Kansas court system into this new age and to do it right and by the most efficient means.

Now is the time to develop a uniform statewide system ofinternet access rather than waiting until a hodgepodge of incompatible local systems have developed. FullCourt provides a uniform basis upon which to build. In addition, this uniform approach will help to protect the safety and privacy interests ofthe public. In this internet age, data is a highly sought-after commodity, and identity theft is a significant concern. Providing one access point for internet district court information centralizes responsibility, provides control over the dissemination of identifying information, and helps to insure that personal privacy concerns and safety remain of the utmost importance.

4 Chief Justice Kay McFarland

BUDGET ISSUES FROM FY 2001- FY 2005

At the beginning ofFY 2002, the Kansas Judiciary's fiscal affairs were extremely dire. - Budget problems, which had plagued the Judiciary for several years due to chronic underfimding ofthe maintenance budget, had snowballed into a fiscal catastrophe when the Judicial Branch was forced to absorb a $1.2 million cut in FY 2001 and a $2 million cut in FY 2002 in maintenance budget funding - money that is solely utilized to sustain existing staff and programs. The budget cuts that were recommended by the Director ofthe Budget were seldom fully restored by the Legislature. Fortunately, supplemental appropriations of$300,000 in FY

2001 and $600,000 in FY 2002 averted the need for draconian personnel actions, such as year end furloughs and layoffs.

It was truly a desperate time. Despite all our efforts to save money, our options were and continue to be limited because, unlike most budgets that are primarily state- funded, the Judicial Branch budget is comprised ofover 97 percent personnel costs and approximately 3 percent in operating costs. Of our salaries, 33 percent are judicial personnel costs, while 67 percent are nonjudicial personnel costs. Because the Kansas

Constitution provides that the compensation ofjustices and district court judges "may not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by general law applicable to all salaried officers ofthe state," the burden of any cut in our budget ultimately falls disproportionately on nonjudicial employees. As a result, in FY 2002, the judiciary was

5 State of the Judiciary forced to cut the budget for temporary employees who are often critically important in understaffed district courts and to mandate a 60-day hiring freeze in July 2001 and a 120 day hiring freeze in January 2002. Soon thereafter, it became necessary for tw~thirds of our district court clerk's offices, or 71 of 105 offices, to reduce the hours they were open .. to the public so staff could focus on processing the existing caseload in a timely manner.

Midway through FY 2002, the Judicial Branch received yet another startling blow when the Director ofthe Budget recommended a $3.6 million cut in our FY 2003 maintenance budget request. Left with only two alternatives to fill the $3.6 million gap, the statewide shutdown ofour district courts or the issuance ofan emergency surcharge order, the Supreme Court chose the latter. The original order was effective April 1,2002, through June 30, 2003, and imposed an additional $5 fee on many court filings, a $25 surcharge on marriage licenses, and a $50 surcharge on expungements. Funds to eliminate this "emergency surcharge" so far have not been appropriated.

THE PRESENT FISCAL SITUATION - FISCAL YEAR 2006

The FY 2006 Judicial Branch budget is at this time on relatively sound financial footing, which is due in large part to the extension ofthe emergency surcharge order and the strict monitoring ofexpenditures. The emergency surcharge, which was never

6 Chief Justice Kay McFarland intended to be an additional or permanenfrevenue generator or enhancer, has been extended four times and continues to fill a $3.6 million gap in maintenance budget funding.

Another key factor influencing the current budget status ofthe Kansas Judiciary includes a statutory change made in 2003 that permits the direct submission of the

Judicial Branch budget to the Legislature without first being subject to review, and often reduction, by the Director ofthe Budget. The statutory change recommended by

Governor Sebelius and the Supreme Court and ultimately approved by the Legislature is consistent with the principles ofthe Kansas Constitution, which designates the Judicial

Branch as the third co-equal branch ofgovernment.

The 2005 legislative appropriation for the 27th paycheck for all state employees also contributed to the Judiciary's current budget position. Had this appropriation not passed and the Judicial Branch had been required to fund the 27th paycheck from within existing resources, we would once again have found ourselves with a budget deficit of approximately $3.2 million in FY 2006 and, as a result, unable to meet final payroll. The passage ofthis critical piece of legislation was vital for the Judicial Branch. We thank the Legislature for its enactment.

7 State of the Judiciary

LOOKING FORWARD - FISCAL YEAR 2007 MAINTENANCE BUDGET

The proposed FY 2007 Judicial Branch maintenance budget request is approximately $98.8 million, or 2 percent, ofState General Fund expenditures. The proposed maintenance budget does not include the $3.6 million in surcharge dollars. The

Judicial Branch respectfully requests that the budget be funded as submitted, thus eliminating the necessity to extend the surcharge.

REQUESTED ENHANCEMENTS

New Positions

Once again, the Supreme Court carefully analyzed the need for new positions and in September 2005 the Court approved and now asks for your consideration ofadditional positions in FY 2007. Our request includes twenty-one full-time equivalent nonjudicial positions, including eleven new trial court clerk II positions, six court services officers, and four clerical support staffpositions. We also are requesting three district judge positions, one each for the 3rd Judicial District (Shawnee County), the 6th Judicial District

(Bourbon, Linn, and Miami Counties), and the 10th Judicial District (Johnson County).

8 ChiefJustice Kay McFarland

The request for additional judicial resources is justified by the continued increase

in our district courts' caseloads. In both Johnson County (lOth Judicial District) and

Miami County (6th Judicial District) an increase in population has resulted in more court

filings, which necessitate an additional district judge in these districts. The 6th Judicial

District also has experienced a 153 percent increase in major case filings in the last ten

years. Judges in Shawnee County (3rd Judicial District) continue to carry the highest

caseload per judge in both civil and criminal cases. In FY 2005, the average caseload per judge in the 3rd Judicial District was 3,350 cases, compared to the statewide average of

2,097.

Judicial Salary Increase

Included in the FY 2007 budget request is a proposal by the Kansas District

Judges' Association that would provide a ten percent salary increase for all appellate judges, district judges, and district magistrate judges, with an additional $2,000 increase

for chiefjudges. The association recognizes there are numerous demands for State

General Fund monies and is requesting to raise certain docket fees to offset the cost ofthe

proposed salary increase.

A similar proposal was included in the FY 2006 budget submission. The Senate considered the request and voted to pass an amended version ofthe bill (SB 296) on a

9 State of the Judiciary vote of30-9. As it stands today, SB 296 would provide a $9,000 across-the-board salary increase for all Kansas judges and justices; the increase would be offset by an increase in certain docket fees. SB 296 currently is before the House Appropriations Committee.

Kansas judges have not received a raise, excluding the COLAs that all state employees have received, since 2000. Their previous raise before the increase in 2000 was in 1989. The proposed salary increase would boost Kansas judicial salaries closer to the national median. Currently, Kansas judicial salaries rank a shocking 42nd in the nation.

PROGRAMS INFORMATION

Following are updates on existing programs and information about new or expanded programs of the Judicial Branch. These represent the efforts ofJudicial Branch personnel to better meet the needs ofKansas citizens.

State Justice Institute Grant

I am pleased to announce that Kansas is the only state to receive a State Justice

Institute grant to address court security issues. The $85,000 grant will be used to develop

10 ChiefJustice Kay McFarland and implement an innovative survey that will assess the security and disaster recovery needs ofevery courthouse in this State. This grant could not have come at a better time.

In the wake ofHurricane Katrina, we have been given the opportunity to develop and . implement security and disaster recovery procedures that can be used as a model for other court systems in the country.

As the nation continues to watch the devastating fallout from Katrina, we are just beginning to realize the enormous, ifnot insurmountable, legal obstacles that have resulted from this catastrophe. Countless court records have been lost; many courthouses, prisons, and other legal offices throughout Mississippi and Louisiana no longer exist; and court proceedings ofall types have been indefinitely halted.

Ifnothing else, this tragedy has taught us that we need to plan for the protection of

Kansans in disaster situations and that a strategy to recover the State's most vital resources is essential. The State Justice Institute grant will allow the Kansas Judiciary to further study, develop, and implement safety measures to ensure that lives are protected and adequate resources are mobilized should we find ourselves in disastrous circumstances.

11 State ofthe Judiciary

Judges And Journalists Workshop

On December 2,2005, the Judicial Branch hosted t1)e first-ever judges and journalists workshop in Kansas. Sponsored through the Reynolds Center for Courts and the Media in the National Judicial College, the goal ofthe workshop was two-fold: to educate judges on First Amendment and media issues that sometimes occur in trials and other newsworthy court activity and to help journalists enhance their ability to cover courts. The workshop was designed to help judges and journalists strengthen their working relationships to the benefit ofboth groups as they serve the public in their respective roles.

The Kansas Judiciary has regularly held journalist workshops for the last two decades. This year's workshop, however, marks the first time that judges were also invited to participate. The event was well attended with 48 journalists from across the

State and 42 judges from northeast Kansas invited to participate in the seminar. Another unique aspect ofthis seminar was an open microphone question and answer session in which justices ofthe Supreme Court took questions from the audience. The workshop was very successful as demonstrated by the favorable attendance and participation ofthe attendees.

12 Chief Justice Kay McFarland

Kansas Child Support Guidelines

The Kansas Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee began meeting in

October 2005 to review the Kansas guidelines governing how child support is determined. Federal regulations require that each state review the child support guidelines at least once every four years. Each review takes approximately two years to complete.

In order to comply with federal law, the advisory committee will work with economists to consider the economic foundation on which the child support tables are based. The public will have the opportunity to review and comment on advisory committee recommendations before they go to the Kansas Supreme Court. In addition to input from economists, judges, and the public, the advisory committee will examine reports on how often adjustments are used to modify the basic child support obligation of each parent. The Kansas Department ofSocial and Rehabilitation Services will provide the advisory committee with case review data generated from the Kansas Automated

Child Support Enforcement System (KACSES). This will be the first time the advisory committee has been able to consider case review data from this system.

Public input, including web-based surveys and public hearings at selected sites throughout the State, is expected to occur between October 2006 and March 2007. A

13 State of the Judiciary fmal report from the advisory committee is expected in May 2007 in time for the guidelines to be updated by the January 1,2008, deadline.

Dispute Resolution

The Office ofJudicial Administration (OlA) has been encouraging each district court to consider establishing a juvenile dependency mediation project. This process allows more family involvement in child-in-need-of-care cases in which children may be removed from the home for abuse or neglect. The family assists with developing visitation schedules and pennanency plans. The Sedgwick County District Court has been experimenting with such a program for four years with great success, and the OJA has assisted with the evaluation ofthis project. The Supreme Court's Pennanency

Planning Task Force and its Dispute Resolution Advisory Council have worked together to develop guidelines to assist courts in establishing juvenile dependency mediation programs. The Dispute Re!olution Advisory Council obtained grant funds and conducted a statewide training in August for mediators to offer dependency mediation services. The

Johnson County District Court recently became the second court to use dependency mediation, and several other judicial districts plan to use this process within the next several months.

14 ChiefJustice Kay McFarland

Stafffrom the OJA and the Department ofAdministration have been working together for the last two years to provide monthly training over the lunch hour for state government employees interested in using dispute resolution with employee disputes.

The goal is to develop informal conflict resolution methods to resolve employee disputes at as early a point in the conflict as possible.

Office ofJudicial Administration staffalso have been working with the Kansas

Water Office to fund several state government public policy mediation training seminars.

The goal is to educate policy makers in the use ofdispute resolution methods to resolve natural resource disputes. The training in 2005 included seminars for state government staffand local board members who work with natural resources policy disputes.

The OJA has also assisted with finding grant funds to experiment with new methods ofeducating parents on the best way to communicate during a divorce. The goal is to improve the communication skills ofparents who have a lot ofconflict after their divorce so they can resolve their disputes without having to continue to come back to court. One such project is the Higher Ground training program developed by the Johnson

County District Court.

15 State of the Judiciary

Domestic Violence

The Office ofJudicial Administration obtained gr~t funds to help improve court services for victims of domestic violence. The Court developed an easy-to-read description ofhow the court system works for victims ofdomestic violence. This information was also translated into Spanish. As part ofthis process, the Kansas Judicial

Council revised the Protection From Abuse and Protection From Stalking forms. The revised forms and the explanation ofthe court process were put on the Supreme Court's website and CD versions distributed to all the domestic violence shelters, legal services offices, and to all district courts.

COURT STATISTICS PROJECT

The Judicial Branch also recently completed a court statistics project to enhance statistical reporting capabilities ofthe data collected by each district court in the State. Kansas is the first state in the nation to adopt a statistical reporting system which could become the national standard. The National Center for State Courts has recently announced plans to put our

Kansas statistical cover sheet on its website as a model for other states as they plan for the collection of court information.

16 Chief Justice Kay McFarland

Supreme Court Rule 123, adopted in conjunction with the court statistics project,

requires a cover information sheet when filing a new case. Parties and attorneys are

required to refrain from including, or to partially redact where inclusion is necessary,

personal identifiers such as Social Security numbers, dates 'ofbirth, and fmancial account

numbers from all pleadings filed with a court. In an era in which identity theft is

burgeoning, the cover sheets help prevent needless access to personal identifiers often

referenced in court files and better protect the privacy ofthose individuals.

With an effective date ofJuly I, 2005, the cover sheets have assisted the Kansas

district courts in the collection ofmore accurate and detailed case filing information as

well as reducing the time and burden on clerks who previously had to read petitions to

determine and classify the filing infonnation as those cases were filed with district courts.

CONCLUSION

The business ofthe Judicial Branch continues to be the administration ofhigh

quality justice in the most accessible, uniform, fair, timely, and cost-efficient manner possible. You and the other citizens ofKansas have every right to take pride in the quality ofour court system and to expect its continued high level ofperformance. Please do not hesitate to contact me or the Office ofthe Judicial Administration ifyou desire any

17 State of the Judiciary additional infonnation on the court system in your consideration ofour budget request and other legislation affecting the Judicial Branch.

On behalfofall members ofthe Judicial Branch, I thank you for your continued support and wish you a successful and productive session.