(CN) — Judges and court officials throughout California have united against a proposal to standardize salaries for the state's trial court employees, saying it's likely to be incredibly costly and won't do much to improve service.
The idea to study uniform classification and compensation levels was suggested by the Commission on the Future of the California Court System, set up last year by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to plot the course of California's trial courts for the next 10 years.
Michael Roddy, the head clerk at San Diego Superior Court, told the commission at a public comment session in Los Angeles on Monday that though the Lockyer Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 established statewide funding for the courts, there is no corresponding statewide employment structure for court staff.
"While much has been accomplished to achieve the goals of the Trial Court Funding Act, there is little consistency and predictability and equity relating to areas of employment," Roddy said.
Roddy is a member of the commission's Fiscal/Court Administration Working Group, where the proposal originated. He told the full commission there are "significant differences" in pay for court employees who do similar jobs throughout the state.
But the idea of homogenizing the way employees are classified and paid doesn't sit well with California's judges and court administrators.
Sherri Carter, head clerk at Los Angeles Superior Court, said she opposes the idea for several reasons, including the cost of simply conducting a study to create uniform classification and salary structures statewide.
"A class and compensation study of this magnitude, that would include 58 counties, would be incredibly expensive," Carter said, noting that the proposal does not identify a source of funding for the study.
Carter said proposal would cripple innovation and stifle the ability of courts to solve their own fiscal problems creatively.
"During the Great Recession, Los Angeles had to reduce its workforce by 25 percent. Today we are re-engineering our entire court, in every litigation area, in an effort to become more efficient. We are integrating automation, we are streamlining processes, and it will touch every position in the court. The court could not have done either of these big changes if there would have been a statewide class and comp structure in place," Carter said.
"I believe one major strength of the California trial court system is our ability to promptly, effectively, efficiently and creatively serve our local needs. The governor has challenged us to be innovative. I believe that [this] concept will cripple the branch's ability to meet this challenge."
Presiding Judge Elizabeth Johnson, of Trinity County, said her small court thrives on the flexibility of its staff.
"We have a group of clerks who are wonderful generalists. They do everything from probate to traffic and they do it well. And they serve the counter, they work in the courtroom, they take collections, and they do a little bit of self-help.
"With a uniform class and compensation system, this flexibility to adapt would be severely compromised," Johnson said.
Carter also said the proposal is inconsistent with the California Constitution, an opinion shared by the reformist group, the Alliance California Judges, which also weighed in.