2014-15 Biennial Budget
Board of Public Defense
Change Item Title: Workloads and Staffing
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
General Fund
Expenditures
Revenues
xxx Fund (specify the fund)
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Fiscal Impact =
(Expenditures – Revenues)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
$2,822
0
$5,773
0
$5,773
0
$5,773
0
0
0
$2,822
0
0
$5,773
0
0
$5,773
0
0
$5,773
Recommendation:
The Governor recommends funding to maintain existing staff, to start bring caseloads closer to national
standards, and a modest increase in funding for the public defense corporations. Funding to maintain staffing
would include compensation increases, and partial funding for employee health insurance.
Rationale/Background:
Minnesota’s Office of the Legislative Auditor concluded in its 2010 Evaluation Report of public defense that:
“High public defender workloads have created significant challenges for Minnesota’s criminal justice
system.” Public defense, as seen in the Report, needs to be better funded and better staffed to be a functional
part of the criminal justice system of Minnesota.
From 2008 to 2010 the public defender offices lost more than 15% of their FTE attorney positions, or more
than100, 000 hours of attorney time. Based on calendar year 2011case numbers, the Board is operating on
approximately 57% of the number of attorneys recommended by state and national standards, 66% of the
recommended investigator staff, 57% of the recommended paralegal staff, and 57% of the recommended
dispositional advisor staff.
Proposal:
Lack of resources has made public defense the prime source of delay in the courts. Inadequate numbers of
lawyers often results in public defenders scheduled in two different court rooms (many times in two different
counties) at the same time which results in public defenders not being available or not being prepared to proceed
on cases. In these instances, victims, witnesses, law enforcement and court personnel sit idle waiting for public
defenders. On the appellate level staff reductions have meant significant delays in the state’s appellate courts.
Staff shortages have caused delays in sentencing appeal cases and appeals of plea withdrawal and conditional
release. As has occurred in other states, the delay in appellate services could lead to the courts ordering release
of prisoners who have been on the waiting list too long.
In 2009 the Legislature requested that the Minnesota Supreme Court consider imposing a fee on attorney
licenses to help fund the public defender system. The Court approved a fee increase but only temporarily through
June 30, 2013. The fee revenue amounts to $1.9 million per year and supports 23-25 FTE attorney positions.
Without this fee revenue, a significant portion of what the governor is recommending will need to go to filling this
funding gap.
The Board has petitioned the Court to continue the attorney registration fee funding for the purpose improving the
efficiency of the justice system by developing an electronic case management system. The Board must create an
electronic case management system that will be able to accommodate electronic disclosure by and to the
prosecution. The Board currently does not have the resources (funding or staffing) to create and manage a
system of this magnitude. Without additional funding this project will be delayed.
http://www.homepages.pubdef.state.mn.us/sykora/budgetNarrative/2014-2015-Budget-Request-Narratives.pdf
http://www.homepages.pubdef.state.mn.us/sykora/budgetNarrative/2014-2015-Budget-Talking-Points-Nov2012.pdf
Page 1
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Board of Public Defense
Performance Measures:
With the loss of the revenue from the attorney registration fee, funding personnel cost increases will likely take up
most of the first year’s recommendation, and a significant portion of the second year’s recommended funding.
Assuming a modest increase in caseloads, additional funding the second year could be used to begin to fill vacant
positions and at least maintain caseloads.
Base Budget and Governor's Recommendation All Funds
Gov's Recs
FY
FY
2014
2015
Fund
FY
2013
General Fund Base
GF
$65,976
$65,976
$65,976
Replace Atty. Regis. Fee
GF
n/a
$0
$0
Staffing and Workloads
GF
n/a
$2,822
$5,733
IT Staffing*
GF
n/a
$0
$0
Atty. Regis. Fee
SR
$1,900
$0
$0
Total General Fund
GF
$65,976
$68,798
$71,709
Total Special Revenue
Total All Funds
Total All Funds +/-
SR
$1,900
$67,876
$0
$68,798
$922
$0
$71,709
$3,833
Budget Items
Statutory Change: “Not Applicable”.
Page 2
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Corrections
Change Item Title: Provide Funding for Cost Increases in Employee Compensation
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
General Fund
Expenditures
Revenues
xxx Fund (specify the fund)
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Fiscal Impact =
(Expenditures – Revenues)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
16,400
0
21,600
0
21,600
0
21,600
0
0
0
16,400
0
0
21,600
0
0
21,600
0
0
21,600
Recommendation:
The Governor recommends $16.400 million in FY2014 and $21,600 million in FY2015 to maintain staffing levels
for the Department of Corrections that ensure a base level of public, staff and offender safety. This
recommendation represents a 4% increase to the agency’s general fund base budget and equates to 273 fulltime-equivalent positions (FTEs) by FY2015.
Rationale/Background:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public safety is a core responsibility of state government.
Compensation costs rise each year due to negotiated contract settlements and increased costs for health
insurance, pension obligations (annual statutory increases from FY2008 through FY2011), fringe and other
benefits.
Funding for these costs has not been adequate, resulting in ongoing agency deficits.
This recommendation includes funding for a 2% across-the-board (ATB) increase effective January 2, 2013
for all bargaining units (per tentative agreements with AFSCME and MAPE), employer-paid health insurance
increases of 9% each year and negotiated step increases.
This recommendation does NOT include ATB increases that may be negotiated for the FY2014-15 biennium.
The agency’s base budget is not sufficient to fund 273 existing FTEs by the end of the biennium.
Without funding layoffs would be unavoidable and public safety would be compromised.
Proposal:
•
•
This proposal will maintain basic agency operations including offender incarceration and community
supervision.
Retention of existing staff will also help avoid reductions to offender programming areas that are proven to
reduce recidivism such as chemical dependency and sex offender treatment, education, work, reentry and
mental health services.
Performance Measures:
The recidivism rate (percentage of offenders convicted of a new felony) is expected to remain stable at 37% with
this proposal. Any reduction in staff and/or programming would likely result in an increased recidivism rate and
increase the need for state prison beds.
Statutory Change: Not Applicable.
Page 1
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Court of Appeals – J58
Change Item Title: Maintain Core Justice Operations
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
General Fund
Expenditures
413
795
795
Revenues
0
0
0
Fund (specify the fund)
Expenditures
0
0
0
Revenues
0
0
0
Net Fiscal Impact =
413
795
795
(Expenditures – Revenues)
Use information contained in the change item report within your agency budget book for the table above.
795
0
0
0
795
Recommendation:
In order to maintain core justice operations in the Court of Appeals, the Governor recommends an increase of
$413,000 in FY 2014 and $795,000 in FY 2015 to increase the base pay of its judges and employees, to address
a funding deficiency in the Judge Pension Fund, and to fund unavoidable health insurance premium increases.
This request represents a 5.9% increase to the Court of Appeals biennial base budget.
Rationale/Background:
For the FY 2014-15 biennium, the Court of Appeals requests additional funding to increase the base pay of
its judges and employees. For the past four fiscal years, the Judicial Branch has negotiated zero acrossthe-board adjustments to the salary range and zero merit and step increases for its employees. Court of
Appeals employees therefore continue to fall behind other public sector employees who, even in these
difficult economic times, have received pay increases. The salaries for the judges similarly have not
increased over this same period. As a result, Minnesota judges now rank near the bottom third nationally in
judge pay.
The Court of Appeals also requests funding to shore up the Judge Pension Fund. Based upon input from the
Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS), legislation will be introduced during the 2013 legislative session to
increase the employer contribution to the Plan by 2%, effective July 1, 2013. This request includes funding to pay
for this increased employer contribution.
Finally, the Court of Appeals requests funding for unavoidable health insurance increases. Health insurance
premium costs were estimated to increase by 9.0% in FY13, by 9.9% in FY 2014 and by 9.9% in FY 2015. These
estimates are a “placeholder” due to the fact the Executive Branch’s labor contracts affecting the current biennium
have not yet been approved. As a result, the Court of Appeals reserves the right to submit a revised request, if
circumstances warrant.
Proposal:
In order to maintain core justice operations, the Court of Appeals requested $1.208 million in the FY 2014-15
biennium to increase the base pay of its judges and employees, to address a funding deficiency in the Judge
Pension Fund, and to fund unavoidable health insurance premium increases.
Performance Measures:
This request is sought to support the core mission and services of the Court of Appeals and to allow the Court to
continue to undertake initiatives designed to increase efficiency, reduce costs and improve public services.
Failure to fund base pay increases for judges and employees will compromise the Court of Appeal’s ability to
attract and retain the qualified, skilled, and motivated workers that are needed to take full advantage of the
technological advances it is implementing.
Failure to fund unavoidable health insurance and employer pension contribution increases will be tantamount to a
budget cut and will result in staffing reductions. Any reductions to the Court of Appeal’s budget will undermine its
ability to provide the type of justice Minnesotans expect and deserve, and erode the public’s confidence in the
fairness and competence of their government to deliver justice. The Court of Appeals is obligated to fulfill its
constitutional mandate to adjudicate and resolve cases promptly and without delay. MN Const., art I, Sec. 8.
Page 1
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Court of Appeals – J58
Further performance measure information can be located on the Minnesota Judicial Branch website:
http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/Perf_Measures_Annual_Report_2012_FI
NAL.pdf
Statutory Change: Not Applicable.
Page 2
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Trial Courts – J33
Change Item Title: Maintain Core Justice Operations
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
General Fund
Expenditures
9756
19413
19413
19413
Revenues
0
0
0
0
Fund (specify the fund)
Expenditures
0
0
0
0
Revenues
0
0
0
0
Net Fiscal Impact =
9756
19413
19413
19413
(Expenditures – Revenues)
Use information contained in the change item report within your agency budget book for the table above.
Recommendation:
In order to maintain core justice operations in the Trial Courts, the Governor recommends an increase of $9.756
million in FY 2014 and $19.413 million in FY 2015 to increase the base pay of its judges and employees, to
address a funding deficiency in the Judge Pension Fund, and to fund unavoidable health insurance premium
increases. This request represents a 6.2% increase to the Trial Court biennial base budget.
Rationale/Background:
For the FY 2014-15 biennium, the Trial Courts request additional funding to increase the base pay of its
judges and employees. For the past four fiscal years, the Judicial Branch has negotiated zero across-theboard adjustments to the salary range and zero merit and step increases for its employees. Trial Court
employees therefore continue to fall behind other public sector employees who, even in these difficult
economic times, have received pay increases. The salaries for the judges similarly have not increased over
this same period. As a result, Minnesota judges now rank near the bottom third nationally in judge pay.
The Trial Courts also request funding to shore up the Judge Pension Fund. Based upon input from the
Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS), legislation will be introduced during the 2013 legislative
session to increase the employer contribution to the Plan by 2%, effective July 1, 2013. This request
includes funding to pay for this increased employer contribution.
Finally, the Trial Courts request funding for unavoidable health insurance increases. Health insurance premium
costs were estimated to increase by 9.0% in FY 2013, by 9.9% in FY 2014 and by 9.9% in FY 2015. These
estimates are a “placeholder” due to the fact the Executive Branch’s labor contracts affecting the current biennium
have not yet been approved. As a result, the Trial Courts reserve the right to submit a revised request, if
circumstances warrant.
Proposal:
In order to maintain core justice operations, the Trial Courts requested $29.169 million in the FY 2014-15
biennium to increase the base pay of its judges and employees, to address a funding deficiency in the Judge
Pension Fund, and to fund unavoidable health insurance premium increases.
Performance Measures:
This request is sought to support the core mission and services of the Trial Courts and to allow the Courts to
continue to undertake initiatives designed to increase efficiency, reduce costs and improve public services.
Failure to fund base pay increases for judges and employees will compromise the Trial Court’s ability to attract
and retain the qualified, skilled, and motivated workers that are needed to take full advantage of the technological
advances they are implementing.
Failure to fund unavoidable health insurance and employer pension contribution increases will be tantamount to a
budget cut and will result in staffing reductions. Any reductions to the Trial Court’s budget will undermine its
ability to provide the type of justice Minnesotans expect and deserve, and erode the public’s confidence in the
fairness and competence of their government to deliver justice. The Trial Courts are obligated to fulfill their
constitutional mandate to adjudicate and resolve cases promptly and without delay. MN Const., art I, Sec. 8.
Further performance measure information can be located on the Minnesota Judicial Branch website:
Page 1
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Trial Courts – J33
http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/Perf_Measures_Annual_Report_2012_FI
NAL.pdf
Statutory Change: Not Applicable.
Page 2
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Guardian ad Litem Board
Change Item Title: Maintain Core Functions of the Guardian ad Litem Board
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
General Fund
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Fiscal Impact =
(Expenditures – Revenues)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
347
0
689
0
689
0
689
0
347
689
689
689
Recommendation:
The Governor recommends additional funding to maintain current guardian ad litem operations, including
compensation increases for GAL program staff and partial funding of anticipated cost increases for health
insurance. The funding will allow the GAL Board to maintain core functions and the current number of full time
equivalent positions necessary to perform mandated duties in juvenile and family cases.
Rationale/Background:
Any increases to employer paid insurance costs or compensation changes cannot be absorbed within the current
agency base budget unless cuts are made to the services currently provided. Of the total budget, 70% goes to
providing direct services to children and families. Other costs include administration, training, recruitment and
attorney representation of the guardian ad litem. The Guardian ad Litem Board is committed to ensuring the level
of representation does not decrease and the recommended increases will assist in that regard. The program is
federally mandated to provide representation in abuse and neglect cases in juvenile court and by state law in
abuse and neglect cases in family and juvenile courts.
Proposal:
The proposed change covers unavoidable employer cost increases for health insurance and compensation
changes for GAL program staff. Funding will allow the GAL program to continue to represent children in over 6500
family and juvenile cases. The State Guardian ad Litem Board contributes to the statewide outcome of strong and
stable families by giving abused and neglected children a strong and independent voice in our court system and
working to provide better outcomes for children.
Performance Measures:
The program is expected to maintain close to 100% compliance with state and federal mandates to appoint a
guardian ad litem. Compliance in previous years was at 99% with current year compliance at 99.91%.
Statutory Change: Not Applicable
Page 1
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Human Rights
Change Item Title: Ensure Good Faith Efforts of State Vendors through Contract Compliance
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
General Fund
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Fiscal Impact =
(Expenditures – Revenues)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
129
0
129
0
129
0
129
0
129
129
129
129
Recommendation:
The Governor recommends adding two Enforcement Officers exclusively dedicated for Contract Compliance. This
activity will review and audit all state contracts over $100,000 for compliance with required affirmative action
plans. Adding the two additional positions will increase the base funding each fiscal year by $129,000 and
increase the FTE by 2.0.
Rationale/Background:
With the current staffing complement of one Manager, three Enforcement Officers and one administrative staff
support, Contract Compliance is limited to reviewing only a handful of additional projects.
Proposal:
Adding two additional Enforcement Officers in Contract Compliance will provide the staff needed to conduct more
on-site audits including the People’s Stadium, the St. Croix Lift Bridge and Light Rail projects; ensure workforce
opportunities occur and contract procurement opportunities are provided consistent with the Minnesota Human
Rights Act. The implementation of adding the two positions will be effective July 1, 2013.
IT Related Proposals: Not Applicable
Performance Measures:
The department will be able to assure compliance on both large and small contracts with the state in a timely
manner.
Statutory Change: Not Applicable
Page 1
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Human Rights
Change Item Title: Modify Certificate of Compliance Fee and Renewal Period
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
General Fund
Expenditures
Revenues
Special Revenue Fund
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Fiscal Impact =
(Expenditures – Revenues)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
0
0
0
0
0
55
(55)
0
55
(55)
FY 2017
0
0
0
0
0
(55)
55
0
(55)
55
Recommendation:
The Governor recommends changes to the Certificate of Compliance fee and collection period. The current $75
fee is charged every two years for firms doing more than $100,000 business with the state. The change would
double the fee to $150, but it would be collected every four years instead of every two. Firms would only have to
apply for the Certificate of Compliance once every four years.
Rationale/Background:
This initiative would allow the Department to utilize more of its resources to activities that more positively impact
the employment opportunities of historically disenfranchised groups.
Proposal:
The renewal period for certificates of compliance issued by the Department would be extended from two years to
four years. The Department would collect $150 instead of $75. While the certificate of compliance will now be
good for four years, the Department will continue to review the affirmative action plans of businesses on an
annual basis. Effective implementation date would be July 1, 2013.
IT Related Proposals: Not Applicable
Performance Measures:
The Department will be able to streamline and reduce its administrative processes to focus more of its resources
on activities that positively impact the employment opportunities of historically disenfranchised groups.
Statutory Change: Minn. Stat.363A.36, Subdivison 1.
Page 2
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Judicial Standards, Board on
Change Item Title: Deficiency – Costs for Formal Disciplinary Hearing and Disability
Matter
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
General Fund
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Fiscal Impact =
(Expenditures – Revenues)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
0
0
0
Recommendation:
The Governor recommends funding be made immediately available to this agency for costs incurred in connection
with three matters - a continuing public disciplinary hearing and two continuing confidential disability matters. The
expenses will exceed the current appropriations to the agency, including funds previously dedicated to a special
revolving account created specifically to defray costs for investigations and public hearings. In the disciplinary
case, the subject judicial officer is alleged to have engaged in serious judicial misconduct. The disability matters
will determine whether or not the subject judicial officers have physical or mental conditions that seriously
interfere with their capacity to perform judicial duties.
Rationale/Background:
When, as now, the board is presently involved in three formal judicial disciplinary and/or disability matters, formal
investigations and public hearings are required by the Board’s rules. The rules require that the board justify any
proposed contested discipline or disability by clear and convincing evidence before a specially appointed threeperson panel. The hearings also provide the judicial officer who is subject to the complaint the opportunity to
adduce evidence, as well as produce and cross-examine witnesses. The decision of the hearing panel is then
presented to the Supreme Court for final resolution. Other than the revolving fund account, costs for formal
hearings are typically not included in the agency’s appropriations request because the number and scope of these
hearings cannot be anticipated or determined in advance. The duty to conduct a public hearing is dependent
solely on what information is brought to the board’s attention in any given budgetary period. Hearings require the
board to provide and pay for all aspects of the proceedings, including court reporter fees, investigative costs,
lawyer’s fees and fees for expert witnesses such as medical service providers. In disability cases, the board’s
rules require it to retain and pay the lawyer representing the subject judicial officer.
The board estimates that all public proceedings will be completed before the close of the fiscal year. The board’s
basic operating appropriation is insufficient to completely supplement the costs for this extra activity. The request
will not affect the board’s base budget and is a one-time request. The costs estimates are based on previous
disciplinary proceedings and lawyer estimates. Costs have already been expended in these matters.
Proposal:
The funds will cover costs that have already been incurred, as well as future costs, for the disciplinary hearing and
the two disability matters referenced in the “Recommendation” section. The costs for these actions include fees
for medical experts, court reporters, investigative services and attorney fees.
IT Related Proposals:
Not Applicable.
Performance Measures: Key Goals and Measures
The legislature created the board to ensure that the public maintains confidence and public trust in the Minnesota
judiciary. The board is the only agency that monitors judicial conduct and it is the core activity of the board. The
board’s duty is to investigate charges of alleged judicial misconduct or disability and to make recommendations to
the Supreme Court as set out in the board’s rules. The board needs these funds to proceed and complete these
matters. A delay will result in harm to the public and unfairness to the judge. The public’s confidence in an
efficient judicial system will be reduced. Delays not only interfere with the due process of the judge, but are
Page 1
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Judicial Standards, Board on
detrimental to the entire judiciary. The ability of the agency to perform its statutory mission and comply with
canons of ethics is significantly hampered if funds are not available when necessary.
The board strives to:
• Promptly process and investigate complaints efficiently
• Provide due process to judges
• Adhere to the timetable set out in the Rules of the BJS to timely proceed with disciplinary proceedings
There is no alternative to funding. The board is dependent solely on legislative appropriation. Because of the
unique mission of this agency, and to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest, no other funding
mechanism is available.
Statutory Change:
Not Applicable.
Page 2
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Sentencing Guidelines Commission
Change Item Title: Electronic Worksheet Redesign
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
General Fund
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Fiscal Impact =
(Expenditures – Revenues)
FY 2014
FY 2015
300
0
300
FY 2016
0
0
0
FY 2017
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recommendation:
The Governor recommends one-time funding to enhance the electronic sentencing worksheet system.
Rationale/Background:
The current system is operated on a server that is being eliminated, and existing worksheets, about 17,000 per
year, have a nearly 25% error rate. The new system is estimated to reduce processing time by 15-30 minutes
from the current 1.5 hours.
Proposal:
This project will re-write the Electronic Worksheet System (EWS) module (currently hosted in the classic
Statewide Supervision System (S3) site) to make it compatible with the new S3 site. In this process, the new
EWS module will include several enhancements, which will improve data integrity for EWS and the data entry
process for the EWS users. Some of the enhancements will include:
1. The ability to get basic court information from MNCIS so that probation officers will not have to retype this
information and to eliminate data entry errors.
2. The ability to copy criminal history from previously completed worksheets to save time and eliminate data
entry errors.
3. Automatic checks to alert probation officers to mandatory decay periods, juvenile history application
issues, mandatory minimums, and conditional release terms.
4. Automatic calculation of the presumptive sentence based on severity level and criminal history score and
any applicable mandatory minimums or sentence modifiers.
5. Email notification to probation officers when a worksheet has been reviewed or contains an error that
requires attention.
IT Related Proposals:
• Minn. Stat. § 609.115 directs that a sentencing worksheet must be completed for every felony sentence.
This system is integral to the purpose of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
• The total cost of the project is $500,000. $200,000 of the project is funded collaboratively from current
biennium funds of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the Department of Corrections, and the
Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information System Task Force.
• There are no additional ongoing operating costs.
• The Sentencing Guidelines Commission does not currently have IT staff. This project will be completed
using an outside contractor. The final product will be housed in the Statewide Supervision System at the
Department of Corrections; DOC MN.IT staff will assist in the selection of a contractor and oversee
development.
Performance Measures:
Number of electronic worksheets reviewed by staff:
Trend: Increased
Previous – 15,771;
Current – 16,109
The Commission estimates that there is a 25% error rate on sentencing worksheets. The Commission has begun
tracking the actual rate to establish a baseline for this as a new performance measure.
Statutory Change: None applicable.
Page 1
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Supreme Court Operations– J65
Change Item Title: Maintain Core Justice Operations
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
General Fund
Expenditures
873
1780
1780
Revenues
0
0
0
Fund (specify the fund)
Expenditures
0
0
0
Revenues
0
0
0
Net Fiscal Impact =
873
1780
1780
(Expenditures – Revenues)
Use information contained in the change item report within your agency budget book for the table above.
1780
0
0
0
1780
Recommendation:
In order to maintain core justice operations in the Supreme Court, the Governor recommends an increase of
$873,000 in FY 2014 and $1.780 million in FY 2015 to increase the base pay of its justices and employees, to
address a funding deficiency in the Judge Pension Fund, and to fund unavoidable health insurance premium
increases. This request represents a 4.3% increase to the Supreme Court biennial base budget.
Rationale/Background:
For the FY 2014-15 biennium, the Supreme Court requests additional funding to increase the base pay of
its justices and employees. For the past four fiscal years, the Judicial Branch has negotiated zero acrossthe-board adjustments to the salary range and zero merit and step increases for its employees. Supreme
Court employees therefore continue to fall behind other public sector employees who, even in these difficult
economic times, have received pay increases. The salaries for the justices similarly have not increased
over this same period. As a result, Minnesota judges now rank near the bottom third nationally in judge pay.
The Supreme Court also requests funding to shore up the Judge Pension Fund. Based upon input from the
Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS), legislation will be introduced during the 2013 legislative
session to increase the employer contribution to the Plan by 2%, effective July 1, 2013. This request
includes funding to pay for this increased employer contribution.
Finally, the Supreme Court requests funding for unavoidable health insurance increases. Health insurance
premium costs were estimated to increase by 9.0% in FY 2013, by 9.9% in FY 2014 and by 9.9% in FY 2015.
These estimates are a “placeholder” due to the fact the Executive Branch’s labor contracts affecting the current
biennium have not yet been approved. As a result, the Supreme Court reserves the right to submit a revised
request, if circumstances warrant.
Proposal:
In order to maintain core justice operations, the Supreme Court requested $2.653 million in the FY 2014-15
biennium to increase the base pay of its judges and employees, to address a funding deficiency in the Judge
Pension Fund, and to fund unavoidable health insurance premium increases.
Performance Measures:
This request is sought to support the core mission and services of the Supreme Court and to allow the Court to
continue to undertake initiatives designed to increase efficiency, reduce costs and improve public services.
Failure to fund base pay increases for justices and employees will compromise the Supreme Court’s ability to
attract and retain the qualified, skilled, and motivated workers that are needed to take full advantage of the
technological advances it is implementing.
Failure to fund unavoidable health insurance and employer pension contribution increases will be tantamount to a
budget cut and will result in staffing reductions. Any reductions to the Supreme Court’s budget will undermine its
ability to provide the type of justice Minnesotans expect and deserve, and erode the public’s confidence in the
fairness and competence of their government to deliver justice. The Supreme Court is obligated to fulfill its
constitutional mandate to adjudicate and resolve cases promptly and without delay. MN Const., art I, Sec. 8.
Page 1
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Supreme Court Operations– J65
Further Supreme Court performance measure information can be located on the Minnesota Judicial Branch
website:
http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/Perf_Measures_Annual_Report_2012_FI
NAL.pdf
Statutory Change: Not Applicable.
Page 2
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Change Item Title:
Civil Legal Services – J65
Civil Legal Services (CLS) for Low-Income Minnesotans
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
General Fund
Expenditures
500
500
500
Revenues
0
0
0
Fund (specify the fund)
Expenditures
0
0
0
Revenues
0
0
0
Net Fiscal Impact =
500
500
500
(Expenditures – Revenues)
Use information contained in the change item report within your agency budget book for the table above.
500
0
0
0
500
Recommendation:
The Governor recommends an increase of $500,000 in FY 2014 and $500,000 in FY 2015 for the grant to Civil Legal
Services (CLS) made through the Supreme Court. Grants will be used to provide services to low-income Minnesotans for
resolving civil legal matters. This is a 4.5% increase to CLS.
Rationale/Background:
Minnesota faces a widening justice gap. Since 2008, the number of low-income Minnesotans eligible for CLS
services increased by 20.6% to 1.4 million people. During the same period CLS financial resources decreased by
16%. In 2009, the CLS network served only one of every two eligible clients seeking help. Today, CLS meets the
need of only one of every three eligible clients seeking help. Additional funding will help narrow this justice gap by
enabling CLS to serve additional families and individuals: providing safety for victims of domestic violence;
preventing homelessness; helping seniors and people with disabilities live independently; and, meeting other
basic human needs.
Proposal:
For the FY 2014-15 biennium, the CLS requested $4.2 million to provide increased funding for the grant to Civil
Legal Services made through the Supreme Court. These grants will provide services to low-income Minnesotans
for resolving civil legal matters.
Performance Measures:
Civil Legal Services grants will provide assistance to at least 100 additional families/individuals faced with eviction or
foreclosure; at least 100 additional women and children who are victims of domestic violence will achieve safety; and at
least 500 additional families/individuals will meet the basic human needs for safety, shelter, health, and income.
Statutory Change: Not Applicable.
Page 3
2014-15 Biennial Budget
Change Item Title:
Minnesota Tax Court
New Funding for Additional Staff and Resources
Fiscal Impact ($000s)
General Fund
Expenditures
Revenues
xxx Fund (specify the fund)
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Fiscal Impact =
(Expenditures – Revenues)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
161
0
161
0
161
0
161
0
0
0
161
0
0
161
0
0
161
0
0
161
Recommendation:
The Governor recommends increasing the Court’s budget by $161,000 annually to fund the hiring of two full-time
judicial law clerks, to purchase access to Westlaw (an electronic legal research database), and to fund
specialized continuing legal education for the Court’s three judges.
Rationale/Background:
Except for appeals to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Tax Court is the sole, exclusive, and final authority in all
questions of law and fact arising under the state’s tax laws. Since 2000, the Court’s caseload has more than
quadrupled: in recent years, annual filings have increased to approximately 5,400 cases (1,800 cases per judge).
Written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and supporting memoranda are required in every case heard, which
are fact- and document-intensive. In addition, the Court must address complex issues of statutory construction,
procedure, and constitutional interpretation. Finally, more than 98% of the Court’s caseload involves disputes
over of the value, classification, or exemption from taxes of real property—ranging from personal residences to
vast industrial complexes—in which the parties present the Court with lengthy and detailed analyses of property
usage, comparable sales, replacement costs, and the income-producing potential of the property.
Proposal:
The Court has never had law clerks. (By comparison, Minnesota’s district court judges typically have 1 or 2 law
clerks.) The Governor recommends increasing the Court’s budget to fund the hiring of two full-time judicial law
clerks to improve the efficiency of the Court by: handling routine scheduling matters; preparing cases for hearings
and trials; conducting legal research; assisting in drafting findings of fact and conclusions of law; and checking the
Court’s decisions for factual and legal accuracy. Nor has the Court had access to modern electronic legal
research tools, even to research its own prior rulings. The Governor recommends increasing the Court’s budget
to fund access to Westlaw, an electronic database of state and federal cases and statutes that because of its
efficiency and accuracy is essential to the proper operation of any court. Finally, deciding valuation cases
requires understanding and correctly evaluating complex analyses of market-driven value. The Governor
recommends increasing the Court’s budget to fund continuing legal education for the Court’s judges specific to
the highly technical issues facing the Court and commensurate with that of the expert appraisers who regularly
testify before the Court. Such specialized education is available from only a handful of providers nationwide.
Performance Measures:
Because the addition of law clerks will allow the Court to process cases more promptly and efficiently, the
principal performance measure of these funding increases will be the average age of the cases on the Court’s
docket. There may be no metric by which to measure the specific benefit of access to electronic legal research or
specialized continuing education, but it is anticipated that the Court’s decisions will be also more fair and accurate
as a result.
Statutory Change: Not applicable.
Page 1