Title: In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida
 
_____________
No. SC01-331
_____________
IN RE:  CERTIFICATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES
[February 23, 2001]
WELLS, C.J.
Article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution vests the Supreme Court of
Florida with the responsibility for determining the need for increasing or decreasing
the number of judges in the state courts.  Pursuant to this authority, we have
considered judgeship requests submitted by the lower courts, examined data
concerning case filings and dispositions, and analyzed various judicial workload
indicators.  Based on our review, we conclude that there is a need for forty-four
new judges in the trial courts and that there is no necessity for a change in the
number of judges in the district courts of appeal.
-2-
The basic functions of the court--peacefully resolving disputes, upholding
and interpreting the law, and protecting rights and liberties--are constitutional duties
owed to the people of Florida under article V of the Florida Constitution. 
Adequate judges and additional court resources are essential in order for the courts
to fulfill their essential functions.  If there are not sufficient judges, supplemental
resources, and court services to keep pace with the workload, it is the people
seeking redress through the courts who are harmed because they are deprived of an
opportunity to have their cases carefully decided in a timely manner.
The certification process is the mechanism that our constitution establishes
for the systematic, uniform assessment of the judgeship needs of Florida’s courts.
Section 9 of article V requires the Supreme Court to submit findings and
recommendations to the Legislature regarding the need for increasing or decreasing
the number of judges and for redefining the jurisdictional boundaries of the
appellate and circuit courts.  The Legislature may accept or reject the certification
recommendations in whole or in part.  Certification is not a statement of what the
Supreme Court wants; it is an analytical report of what the county, circuit, and
district courts need in order to efficiently and effectively dispose of the cases
brought before them.  This determination of need is made absent fiscal concerns,
which is within the purview of the Legislature.
-3-
District Courts of Appeal
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.035(b)(2) sets forth the criteria for
certifying the need for additional judges in the district courts of appeal.  Based on
these criteria, we do not certify the need for any additional district court judges or
the necessity for a reduction in the current number of judicial positions.  The
number of judges in the district courts of appeal has remained constant since 1993,
except for one additional judgeship that was added to the Fifth District Court of
Appeal in 1999.  The district courts did not request any additional judges this year.
Our data indicates that although our intermediate appellate courts are
operating at close to capacity, they have continued to function effectively through
the adoption of innovative case processing methods, strong staff support and law
clerk assistance, and diligent case management.  The creative use of technology has
also significantly enhanced their efforts to operate efficiently.  We support the
conscientious commitment of our district judges to improve court operations, and
we urge the Legislature to continue to provide funding for the district courts so that
they can perform at an optimum level.
Trial Courts
The quantitatively based criteria for certifying the need for judicial positions
in the trial courts, which provided the foundation for the certification process until
-4-
last year, are articulated in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.035(1).  These
criteria were modified in response to a request from the Florida Legislature in
proviso language of the 1998 General Appropriations Act that we employ a
certification methodology which relies on case weights and calculations of available
judge time to determine the need for additional trial judges.  Pursuant to this
request, we conducted an extensive development project to design and implement a
weighted caseload system with the assistance of the National Center for State
Courts and the active participation and advice of the Office of Program Policy
Analysis and Government Accountability.  The report of the Delphi Policy
Committee was issued on February 1, 1999, and on February 29, 2000, we certified
the need for forty-three additional trial judges based on calculations using the new
Delphi method.  See In re Certification of the Need for Additional Judges, 755 So.
2d 79 (Fla. 2000).  That certification was not funded.
This year, the Court again relies on the results of the Delphi-based caseload
weighting system and hereby certifies the need for forty-four additional trial court
judgeships.  Thirty of these are circuit court judgeships from fourteen judicial
circuits, and fourteen are county court judgeships from eleven counties.  The
judgeships are allocated in the chart below.
-5-
Circuit
Court
Judgeships
Requested
Judgeships
Certified
County
Court
Judgeships
Requested
Judgeships
Certified
First
1
1
Okaloosa
1
1
Second
2
1
Third
1
0
Columbia
1
0
Fourth
2
2
Duval
2
2
Fifth
3
2
Lake
1
0
Marion 
1
0
Sixth
2
2
Pasco
1
1
Pinellas
1
1
Seventh
2
1
Eighth
0
0
Ninth
5
3
Orange
2
1
Tenth
3
2
Polk
1
1
Eleventh
3
3
Dade
1
0
Twelfth
0
0
Sarasota
1
1
Thirteenth
2
2
Hillsborough
2
2
Fourteenth
0
0
Fifteenth
3
2
Palm Beach
2
0
Sixteenth
0
0
Seventeenth
5
5
Broward
2
2
Eighteenth
4
2
Brevard
2
1
Nineteenth
0
0
Twentieth
2
2
Collier
1
0
Lee
1
1
Totals
40
30
Totals
23
14
1We do, though, continue with our same concerns, expressed in last year’s
opinion, as to the underweighting for juvenile divisions.  In re Certification of Need,
755 So. 2d at 81.  We are steadfast in our belief that the judicial branch, together
with the executive and legislative branches, must give priority to children.
-6-
The forty-four judgeships were calculated based upon the guidance
enumerated in last year’s opinion.  We have applied the Delphi “reasonable
caseload” standard developed by the Delphi Policy Committee in all case types
except for dissolution, drug, eviction, and civil traffic infraction cases.  In our
view, these four case types still warrant additional study to merit the increase in
case weights recommended by the Delphi Policy Committee.  We also adjusted
for differing jury trial rates in each circuit and county court.  This adjustment was
based upon readily available data and more accurately reflects the actual time spent
in trial on average by Florida’s trial court judges.  As in the past, we considered
the use and availability of county judges who routinely assist in handling important
and time-sensitive circuit court matters.  Finally, we have not certified more
judgeships than were requested by each circuit court.
We continue to have confidence in the Delphi methodology1 suggested by
the Florida Legislature as a means of improving the certification process.  As we
explained in last year’s certification opinion, the Delphi system assigns weights in
-7-
minutes to different case types based on an assessment of the average amount of
judicial time required for each type of case.  This case weighting system differs
from the certification method used prior to the 2000 legislative session, which did
not distinguish between case types even though the amount of judicial time and
resources required to dispose of different kinds of cases varies significantly.  The
primary benefit of case weighting is that it measures the differential requirements of
judicial workload in different types of cases.  As a result, we find that the current
certification methodology using the case weighting system offers a more accurate
and fair means of determining the courts’ judicial requirements.
It is important to note that these case weights include the existing mix of
supplemental resources in the trial courts, including senior judges, general masters
and hearing officers, trial court staff attorneys, alternative dispute resolution, and
case management support.  These resources are vital to the continued operating
effectiveness of Florida’s trial courts.  Failure to maintain supplemental resources
at existing levels or to transfer appropriate resources to state funding from the
counties under article V, section 14, as revised in 1998 (revision 7), mandates will
result in an increased need for additional judges.
The Court has always been cautious in its approach to certifying the need
for additional judges.  This year is no exception.  The aforementioned adjustments,
-8-
which we adopted last year with the institution of Delphi methodology, are
conservative and result in far fewer additional judgeships certified than a strict
statistical application of the Delphi results might warrant.  We have been
conservative in our certification this year because of several factors.  First, this is
only the second year of applying Delphi methodology, and it is the first year it has
been applied from the beginning of the annual certification process.  As a result,
we do not yet have an historical perspective from which to monitor the accuracy
of our forecasts.  In short, we believe that a new methodology warrants
conservative application.  Also, significant short-term increases and decreases
were noted in select case types with higher weights such as capital cases and
serious violent crimes.  Presumably these can have a disparate impact on judicial
need over the short term that will not be reflected in a long-term trend.  For these
reasons, significant short-term increases in judicial workloads were discounted at
this time.  Finally, almost half of these significant changes from last year were
noted in juvenile dependency cases, a division being studied by the Children’s
Court Improvement Committee, where significant resources are being allocated,
and where pilot projects have been initiated to address workload needs.  These
issues are being studied further, but until results are available, we choose to err on
the side of caution and certify fewer judgeships than the raw numbers warrant.
-9-
Although forty-four trial court judgeships are a substantially higher number
than in many previous years, it is a one-time adjustment that is the result of the
transition from a caseload-based system to a workload-based system using Delphi
methodology.  Over the past twenty years, since the inception of the original
caseload-based system, anecdotal evidence and experience have suggested that
judicial workload continues to increase.  This assumption was validated by the
Delphi-based case weighting analysis.  Judicial time that must be spent on each
case differs depending on case type and frequently increases as the law becomes
substantively and procedurally more complex.  Consequently, an accurate measure
of judicial workload must include an assessment of judge time required in
individual cases and must differentiate between types of cases.
The caseload-based system used prior to last year did not address these
factors; however, the case-weighting system that is the basis of our 2000-01
certification opinion does.  The forty-four judgeships certified in this opinion
mirror last year’s certification of forty-three judgeships.  If the 2000-01
certification had been funded, it is likely that the trial courts would not have
required the judges we certify this year.
As suggested above, changes in the law continue to have workload
implications for the courts.  New legal requirements that are the result of statutory
-10-
changes impact judicial caseloads by increasing not only the number of cases
before the courts but the amount of time judges must spend on individual cases. 
This occurrence is illustrated by recent trends experienced in our dependency
divisions.  The revision of chapter 39 in 1997 and 1998 and the passage of the
Kayla McKean Act in 1998 have resulted in a dramatic increase in the workload of
our dependency system in the past three years.  Our SRS data reveals that
dependency case filings in response to these statutory changes increased
approximately eighty-four percent between July 1997 and December 1999.
Although all of the calendar year 2000 data is not yet available, the high volume of
dependency case filings appears to have continued for most of that year.
Furthermore, the revisions to chapter 39 have dramatically impacted judicial
workload in our dependency court divisions, both in the numbers of judicial
hearings required and the length of time needed to properly conduct those
proceedings. Specifically, the new statute expands statutory requirements for
findings of fact at early stages of the proceedings and mandates more interim
judicial reviews prior to the disposition of a case and subsequent to placement
decisions.  In addition, mandatory judicial reviews are no longer limited to children
in foster care placement; they are also required for children placed in the home of
their parents or with relatives under protective supervision of the Department of
-11-
Children and Families.  Additional participants such as foster parents have a right
to be heard, thus lengthening the amount of time required for each hearing.  The
increased availability of treatment programs and the courts’ ordering of additional
child protection interventions have increased the number of individuals providing
testimony at judicial reviews.  Finally, the “one year to permanency” mandate of
the federal Adoptions and Safe Families Act requires more rigorous judicial review
and more frequent judicial hearings.  The result of these additional requirements is
a substantial increase in the amount of judicial time and court resources necessary
to handle the dependency caseload.
The significant increase in workload for juvenile dependency cases
experienced over the last two years is forecast to continue.  We reiterate our
concern that our dependency divisions have the judicial and support resources
necessary to adequately address the needs of dependent children.  It is essential
that our chief judges ensure sufficient allocation of judicial resources to our
juvenile divisions when making division assignments.  In addition, both the courts
and the Legislature should review the results of the Dependency Pilot Projects
currently operating in the Fifth, Tenth, and Seventeenth circuits and the ongoing
work of the Dependency Court Improvement Program in order to examine the
feasibility of further supplementing judicial resources with hearing officers, case
-12-
managers, technology, and other court resources so that dependency matters can
receive effective and timely judicial oversight and resolution.
The courts will continue to energetically examine court functions, processes,
and performance in order to implement strategies to ensure that the judicial system
is functioning with optimum efficiency and effectiveness and to reduce the need
for additional judicial personnel.  At present, the number of these activities
underway throughout the courts system is unprecedented.  Numerous court
committees have been created to look at particular court operations, including the
Children’s Court Improvement Committee, the Family Courts Steering Committee,
the Jury Innovations Commission, the Judicial Management Council, and the Trial
Court Budget Commission.  The Children’s Court Improvement Committee is
responsible for conducting both the Dependency Court Improvement Project and
the Delinquency Court Improvement Project, and a delinquency court assessment
is currently underway.  The Family Courts Steering Committee has just completed
an assessment of the family court process, is now conducting the Child Support
Process Improvement Initiative, and has issued its report and recommendations
for implementation of the Model Family Court, which is now the subject of pilot
testing in several circuits.  The Jury Innovations Commission is finalizing its report,
and the Judicial Management Council is overseeing the work of both the
-13-
Committee on Trial Court Performance and Accountability and the Committee on
District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability in determining how best
to account for performance in the court setting.  Finally, the Trial Court Budget
Commission is working diligently to develop funding and budget guidance that will
enable the trial courts to efficiently complete the transition to state funding as
mandated by the recent revision to article V.
The courts have made great efforts to identify additional uses of technology
in order to maximize efficient court operations.  New initiatives include a focus on
standardization of court data, implementation of case management systems, and
the creation of a statewide court network.  This latter innovation will enable judges
and other court employees to communicate more effectively, provide access to
legal research and other electronic resources, and allow for video teleconferencing
capability.  Further advances in technology are likewise being adopted by various
jurisdictions to decrease cost and increase case processing efficiency.
Although the judicial branch already relies on supplemental resources to
assist the trial court judiciary in performing their constitutional duties, we will
continue to study the use of additional support to enhance court functions.  The
current level of supplemental support is factored into the case weights used in this
year’s forecasts.  For example, nineteen of twenty judicial circuits use general
-14-
masters or hearing officers in more than one division of court.  Mediation is
utilized in more than 100,000 cases per year.  Trial court staff attorneys in every
circuit enhance the effective processing of cases.  We will explore the further use
of supplemental judicial resources such as hearing officers and masters, trial court
staff attorneys, alternative dispute resolution, technology, and case management in
order to maximize the efficient use of judges and enhance the quality of judicial
decision-making.  To that end, we will ask representatives of the Trial Court
Budget Commission, the Court Statistics and Workload Committee, and the
Committee on Trial Court Performance and Accountability, as well as our other
committees, to recommend ways that the expanded use of these essential
resources can further enhance the efficient use of judge time.
After reviewing the requests of the trial courts for forty additional circuit
judges and twenty-three additional county judges in light of the foregoing
considerations, we find it necessary to certify the need for thirty new circuit judges
for the 2001-02 fiscal year as follows:  five additional circuit judges for the
Seventeenth Circuit; three additional circuit judges each for the Ninth and Eleventh
circuits; two additional circuit judges each for the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth,
Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Eighteenth, and Twentieth circuits; and one additional circuit
judge each for the First, Second, and Seventh circuits.
-15-
We also find it necessary to certify the need for fourteen new county court
judges for fiscal year 2001-02 as follows:  two additional county court judges each
for Duval, Hillsborough, and Broward Counties, and one additional county court
judge for Okaloosa, Pasco, Pinellas, Orange, Polk, Sarasota, Brevard, and Lee
Counties.
We also urge the Legislature to support the funding requests for the courts,
particularly with regard to those budget issues that will directly impact the efficient
and effective use of judge time and court resources.  Specifically, we emphasize
the importance of additional trial court law clerks, who can significantly increase
the productivity of the judges in the trial courts.  In addition, we have requested an
increase in funding for additional senior judge days, which will supplement and
expand our available judges.
As we have discussed in this opinion, this certification is the result of a
conservative application of our data findings, which have been based on weighted
caseload methodology developed at the urging of the Legislature.  It would be
beneficial to the certification process for the Legislature to communicate with the
Court regarding its continued commitment to the Delphi methodology.  We have
concluded that case weighting, as we have implemented it, does provide an
improved method for determining judicial need and an objective criterion for
-16-
evaluation of the need for additional judges.  We recognize that the Legislature is
the ultimate user of this methodology by its decision in respect to the needs
certified.  In view of the absence of funding for the 2000-01 certification, it would
be beneficial for us to know if there is a continued legislative commitment to this
methodology or if we need to address any concerns about the implementation of
the methodology.
Full funding of the requests certified in this opinion is absolutely essential if
Florida’s courts are to fulfill their constitutional mandate to resolve cases in a fair,
impartial, and timely manner.  Therefore, this Court encourages the Florida
Legislature to authorize the judgeships certified herein, effective October 1, 2001.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
SHAW, J., concurs in result only.
Original Proceeding - Certification Of Need For Additional Judges