Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:30 p.m. 4:00 p.m. Video ... · B. Approval of June 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes II. FY 2017-18 Salary Budget A. Amended Start-Up Salary Budget B. Recommendations

Thursday, August 3, 2017

1:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Video Conference Meeting

AGENDA

I. Welcome and Opening Remarks

A. Roll Call

B. Approval of June 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes

II. FY 2017-18 Salary Budget

A. Amended Start-Up Salary Budget

B. Recommendations from the Salary Budget Committee

III. FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request

A. Fixed Capital Outlay Issues

B. Employee Pay Issue

C. Certification of New Judgeships

D. Discussion and Priority Determination of LBR Issues

IV. Other Business and Adjournment

If you are unable to join by video conference, the number to call into the meeting is 850-487-

8439 ext. 900153#

I. Welcome and Opening Remarks

Page 1 of 70

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission

Video Conference Call

June 20, 2017

Members Present

Judge Jonathan Gerber, Chair

Judge Wendy Berger

Judge Stevan Northcutt

Judge Clayton Roberts

Judge Bradford Thomas

Judge Richard Suarez

Judge Craig Villanti

Judge Jay Cohen

Marshal Veronica Antonoff

Marshal Charles Crawford

Marshal Jo Haynes

Judge Cory Ciklin

Judge Leslie Rothenberg

Judge Darryl Casanueva

Marshal Daniel McCarthy

Marshal Daniel DiGiacomo

Members Absent

Judge Vance Salter

Others Present

P.K. Jameson, Eric Maclure, Dorothy Willard and other OSCA staff

Special Note: It is recommended that these minutes be used in conjunction with the meeting

materials.

Agenda Item I.: Welcome and Opening Remarks

Judge Jonathan Gerber welcomed members and called the District Court of Appeal Budget

Commission (DCABC) meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Judge Gerber thanked Judge Villanti, Judge Ciklin and Judge Suarez for their service to the

DCABC and noted that effective July 1, 2017, Judge Larose, Judge Lagoa and Judge Levine

would be joining as members of the DCABC.

Judge Gerber inquired if there were any edits to the July 22, 2016, and January 19, 2017,

meeting minutes. Judge Thomas motioned to approve the minutes as drafted. Judge Northcutt

seconded, and the motion was unanimously passed.

Page 2 of 70


June 20, 2017

Page 2 of 6

Agenda Item II.: Status of FY 2016-17 Budget

A. Salary Budget

Dorothy Willard presented the Salary Budgets as of May 31, 2017, stating the final adjusted

liability under salary appropriation at full employment was $652,759. Ms. Willard noted that

a decision was needed in reference to rate distribution funds remaining on June 30th, and

whether those funds would be carried forward. Ms. Willard stated there were currently $924

in the 1st DCA and $1 in the 2nd DCA. Judge Thomas motioned to defer to the Salary Budget

Committee. Judge Suarez seconded and the motion was passed.

A.1. Second DCA Appellate Judicial Assistant CAD Request

Beatriz Cabellero reviewed the 2nd DCA request, stating it would result in an increase for five

employees. Marshal Jo Haynes noted the original request was to resolve the issue for the five

employees that do not have a CAD in their salary. Ms. Haynes stated that if a CAD is added,

it would be an across the board raise for all JA’s. Judge Gerber stated due to Personnel

regulations, the request increased to 39,000 to create a CAD, therefore the 2nd DCA amended

the request to be a special pay increase.

Judge Cohen noted the 1st and 5th DCA’s experience issues concerning JA salary, stating it is

hard to be competitive and that the salary should be consistent. Judge Thomas expressed that

the 5th would like to pursue an agenda item to address current fiscal year, to make the JA

salary uniform. Judge Cohen remarked that a system wide approach would be the prudent

path. Dorothy Willard recommended the Salary Budget Committee look into the issue, noting

that there is certain criteria to create a CAD and to ensure all DCA’s meet the criteria. Judge

Gerber tasked the Salary Budget Committee to look into a system wide approach. Judge

Northcutt motioned to approve Option 2, approve a special pay increase, in accordance with

Section 3.b.vi., of the November 22, 2016, Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget and Pay

Administration memorandum, for the specific employees outlined in the 2nd DCA’s

memorandum dated May 9, 2017. Judge Thomas seconded, and the motion was unanimously

approved.

A.2. Minimum Salary for Director of the Central Staff

Beatriz Cabellero reviewed the issue regarding how to address newly hired Director of

Central Staff in relation to the current class minimum set at $73,795.

Judge Roberts motioned to jointly propose Option 1, to refer the issue to the full Court and

request to increase the minimum salary of the District Court of Appeal Director of Central

Staff position to $86,130.84 and Option 2, consider a special pay increase, in accordance

Page 3 of 70


June 20, 2017

Page 3 of 6

with Section 3.b.vi., of the November 22, 2016, Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget and Pay

Administration memorandum, for any new hires as they may occur, to present to the Chief

Justice, noting Option 1 was preferred to solve the issue once and for all. Judge Northcutt

recommended raising the minimum to $80,000 and to implement a 10% increase on top of

the minimum to take the salary to $86,000, stating if the salary minimum is increased to

$86,000, that would be equalize the new hires to the more experienced incumbents. Judge

Roberts noted the positions should be based on the responsibility of the position instead of

the experience of the incumbent. Judge Gerber noted that Option 1 would benefit all the

DCA’s when vacancies occur. Judge Ciklin seconded the motion to jointly propose Option 1

and Option 2. With no objections the motion passed.

A.3. Fourth DCA Reclassification Request

Beatriz Cabellero reviewed the 4th DCA’s request to reclassify position number 001671, from

an Administrative Assistant II to an Administrative Assistant III.

Judge Ciklin motioned to approve Option 1, to approve funding for the 4th DCA’s request to

reclassify position number 001671 from an Administrative Assistant II to the minimum of an

Administrative Assistant III classification, in accordance with Section 7 of the November 22,

2016, Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget and Pay Administration memorandum. If approved, the

request would be submitted to State Courts Administrator for review and analysis. Judge

Northcutt seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved.

A.4. Second DCA Reclassification Request

Beatriz Cabellero reviewed the 2nd DCA’s request to reclassify position number 000075 from

a Deputy Clerk II to a Deputy Clerk III.

Judge Northcutt motioned to approve Option 1, to approve funding for the 2nd DCA’s request

to reclassify position number 000075 from a Deputy Clerk II to the minimum of a Deputy

Clerk III classification, in accordance with Section 7 of the November 22, 2016, Fiscal Year

2016-17 Budget and Pay Administration memorandum. If approved, the request would be

submitted to State Courts Administrator for review and analysis. Judge Ciklin seconded, and

the motion was unanimously approved.

B. Operating Budgets

Dorothy Willard presented the Operating Budgets as of May 31, 2017.

Page 4 of 70


June 20, 2017

Page 4 of 6

C. Trust Fund Cash Statement Overview

Dorothy Willard presented the State Courts Revenue Trust Fund Cash (SCRTF) Analysis as

of May 31, 2017, noting the ending cash balance was $5,558,816. Ms. Willard stated the

SCRTF is in good shape moving into the new fiscal year. Dorothy Willard reviewed the

Administrative Trust Fund (ATF) cash statement as of May 31, 2017. The ATF ending cash

balance was $386,609.58. Ms. Willard noted the ending cash balance is anticipated to fall

between $93,000 - $60,000 and that any remaining ATF funds would be reverted.

Agenda Item III.: FY 2017-18 Budget

A. Salary Budget Dorothy Willard presented the FY 2017-18 start up salary budget stating the final adjusted

liability over salary appropriation at full employment was $713,117. Ms. Willard noted an

adjustment of $185,334 to the projected DROP liability was made based on feedback from

the marshals for those participants that indicated they would stay through the fiscal year. Ms.

Willard cautioned that the $185,334 is a true liability and has the potential to increase or

decrease based on future legislative actions to employer costs.

Judge Gerber delegated the FY 2017-18 Start-up Salary Budget to the Salary Budget

Committee for review and analysis.

B. Positions Vacant Over 180 Days

Dorothy Willard presented the Positions Vacant over 180 Days as of May 31, 2017. Judge

Gerber inquired if the 1st DCA would be opposed to keeping the vacant positions open in

order to generate lapse to offset the salary deficit. Judge Roberts responded that the 1st DCA

is agreeable to holding the positions vacant.

C. Appropriation Summary

Dorothy Willard presented the FY 2017-18 Appropriations Summary.

D. Operating Allocations Dorothy Willard presented the FY 2017-18 Operating Budgets and stated they would be

emailed to the marshals the following morning to allow them to allocate these funds to the

appropriate cost centers for FY 2017-18.

Page 5 of 70


June 20, 2017

Page 5 of 6

Agenda Item IV.: Recommendations for FY 2017-18 Budget and Pay

Memorandum

Dorothy Willard presented the FY 2017-18 Budget and Pay Memorandum stating that

technical changes have already been incorporated into the document and the National

Conference of Appellate Court Clerks Annual Meeting, which was inadvertently left out of

the FY 2016-17 memorandum, was included. Eric Maclure stated the Chief Justice has

advised that he would like the following language inserted into the Trial Courts and DCA

budget and pay memos: Each circuit/district is responsible for submitting in a timely manner

any personnel action that requires processing by the Office of the State Courts Administrator,

so that the action can be reviewed and any technical issues related to consistency with

budgetary requirements or State Courts System Personnel Regulations can be identified and

resolved before the action takes effect.

Judge Gerber advised the members that he would not request a vote on the new language at

this time due to the language just being brought to their attention. Judge Northcutt expressed

his concern that the proposed FY 2017-18 Budget and Pay Memorandum was not the same

as the FY 2016-17 Budget and Pay Memorandum that the DCABC recommended to the

chief. Judge Northcutt stated there are a number of provisions that were inserted after the

DCABC approved. Judge Gerber tasked the Salary and Budget Committee with reviewing

the FY 2017-18 Budget and Pay Memorandum and present recommendations at the next

DCABC meeting.

Agenda Item V.: FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request (LBR)

A. LBR Timeline

Dorothy Willard reviewed the FY 2018-19 LBR timeline, stating that session will begin in

January. As a result of the early session, The LBR is due September 15th instead of October,

which makes for a very compressed timeline.

B. Discussion of LBR Issue Strategy

Judge Gerber requested Dorothy Willard to poll the members’ in the near future on

availability for an August meeting. Judge Gerber stated the 2nd DCA would be the only DCA

submitting an LBR building issue. Judge Gerber inquired if any DCA’s were intending to

submit an LBR issue for FY 2018-19. Marshal Jo Haynes responded that there is a possibility

that the 2nd DCA would file a security issue. Ms. Haynes reported that the security issue has

been on hold awaiting a report by the Security Task Force. A draft report to the chief justice

Page 6 of 70


June 20, 2017

Page 6 of 6

from the task force was just received. Ms. Haynes noted that if the chief blesses the report,

the moratorium on submitting a security issue should be lifted. Marshal Haynes suggested

filing a security issues for salary dollars only and to utilize vacant positions. Judge Gerber

tasked all five DCA’s to meet and prepare a security model/issue to present. Dorothy Willard

recommended when preparing the issue to use resources that were previously used for a

different model and applying those funds towards the security issue.

C. Second DCA Courthouse Funding Request

Judge Gerber presented the 2nd DCA Courthouse funding issue, stating in anticipation of the

DCABC approving the issue and subsequently the Supreme Court approving the LBR issue,

that he and Judge Roberts have begun working the 2nd DCA on an issue to build a

consolidated courthouse in the Tampa Bay area. Judge Gerber reported that the Department

of Management Services (DMS) Space Study recommends the 2nd DCA be headquartered in

the Tampa area. Judge Gerber noted the 2nd DCA is only requesting funding to retain an

architect and a contractor in order to develop plans and obtain construction estimates to seek

funding in upcoming years.

Agenda Item VI.: Other Business and Adjournment

Other Business

Judge Gerber reviewed the following upcoming DCABC items.

Dorothy Willard to email DCABC members to propose dates for an August DCABC

meeting.

The Salary Budget Committee have recommendations for review pertaining to items

delegated from today’s meeting.

The Florida Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges Annual Education Program

will be held on September 5-8, 2017, in Orlando, FL. Tuesday, September 5th from 1:00

– 5:00 will be reserved for a possible follow-up meeting.

Adjournment

Technical difficulties occurred with the video conference causing OSCA to be disconnected,

resulting in the meeting being adjourned at 4:27 p.m.

Page 7 of 70

II. FY 2017-18 Salary Budget

Page 8 of 70

Agenda Item II.A.: Amended Start-up Salary Budget


August 3, 2017


1 43,618,304

2 0

3 15,885

4 162,218

5 15,441

6 0

7 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2018 43,811,847

8 (43,525,897)

9 285,950

10 52,964

11 338,914

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

FY 2016-17 Actual Lapse 1,037,098

2 yr. average Lapse 949,840

FY 2016-17 Actual Lapse adjusted for FTE vacant for 365

days 955,455

Adjusted 2 yr. average Lapse for FTE vacant for 365 days 850,125

minus FY 2017-18 Projected Deficit (338,914) (338,914) (338,914) (338,914)

Estimated FY 2017-18 Reversion 698,184 610,926 616,540 511,211

minus .5% of salary budget held as Reserve (217,629) (217,629) (217,629) (217,629)

Estimated FY 2016-17 Spending Flexibility 480,554 393,296 398,911 293,581

minus Future DROP Liability (277,940) (277,940) (277,940) (277,940)

Adjusted Estimated FY 2016-17 Spending Flexibility 202,614 115,356 120,971 15,641

2 Projected DROP Liability for all participants was $277,940. The DROP Liability has been reduced due to participants that

intend to stay throughout the fiscal year. Please note the additional liability of $277,940 will be incurred in the fiscal year

that the participants who stayed exit the Judicial branch.

1 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability has been adjusted to remove undfunded FTE; to capture the approved June 20,

2017, DCABC actions for special pay for the 2nd DCA JA's, reclassification requests for the 4th DCA and 2nd DCA; and to

incorporate additional retirement changes.

FINAL - Adjusted Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment

FY 2017-18 District Courts of Appeal Salary Budget

Projected Law Clerk Below Minimum Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2018

Projected Leave Payouts (Based on two year average)

Estimated Salary Appropriation

START-UP

Projected DROP Liability through June 30, 20182

Remaining Chief Judge Discretionary Funds for Retention/Equity/Recruitment Issues

Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2018

Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 20181

Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment

Projected Law Clerk Incentives Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2018

Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget Services

Page 9 of 70

DCABC MEETING August 3, 2017

Salary & Rate Committee Report

Page 10 of 70

I. Purpose and RoleThe Salary and Rate Committee consists of Judge Northcutt (chair), Judge Roberts, and the DCA marshals. The purpose of this team is to monitor salary expenditures and obligations on a regular basis and, based on projections, to make recommendations to the DCABC to restrict or loosen ongoing salary dollar and rate policies, including making rate distributions. The goal is to meet anticipated salary obligations while avoiding reverting salary dollars unnecessarily.

The marshals' role is to provide the information necessary for OSCA to make and validate the salary projections each year. Reliable projections for salary and related liabilities will allow the DCABC to effectively manage salary dollars and rate.

Historically, the salary management team has not reviewed or made recommendations regarding the availability of funds for reclassification actions, special pay increases, or minimum increase requests that may be submitted to the DCABC during the year. However, the marshals should and do inform each other of their anticipated actions to ensure that any system-wide issues are identified as early as possible.

Transactions that Impact Salary Dollars

1. Rate2. Retirement costs, especially judges moving

into and out of DROP3. Vacant positions, especially judicial officers4. Benefits, especially single or family coverage5. Employer payroll taxes (FICA and Medicare)6. Position overlap

Transactions that Impact Rate

1. Position classification and base salaryo reclassification actions, including

law clerk pay plano pay increases, promotional

increases, hiring above minimumo turnover (but only for employees

paid a base salary that is above theclass minimum)

2. Salary additives (CAD, lead worker, etc.)

The chart and table on the following pages reflect salary and rate trends over the past few years. Conservative salary management practices, combined with the unusually large number of judges in DROP over the past 5 years, allowed the DCABC to self-fund a variety of needs without requesting funding from the legislature:

• 1.0 FTE administrative position each in the 4th and 5th DCA marshal’s offices, bringing all districtsup the threshold established by the DCAP&A /DCABC;

• 1.0 FTE security for the 3rd DCA to bring that district up to the minimum threshold established bythe DCAP&A /DCABC (4th created 2.0 FTE but paid for the action with a budget amendment fromoperating funds);

• 1.0 FTE law clerk for the 4th DCA and 1.0 FTE law clerk for the 5th DCA;• A variety of reclassification requests;• Fully funded law clerk pay plan actions;• Provided special pay increases for the directors of central staff and JAs in the 2nd DCA; and• Rate distributions (55k, 75k and 110k) in each of the past three fiscal years

Page 11 of 70

Salary and Rate Trends

OSCA provides monthly reports on salary and rate expenditures to all members of the DCABC. The Salary & Rate Committee summarizes the OSCA data on a DCABC SharePoint website. DCABC members may log in to view this site. The two following charts are taken from the website.

Page 12 of 70

http://dcateam.flcourts.org/Budget/SalaryManagement/SitePages/Home.aspx

FY and month FTEAdjusted Rate,

including liabilitiesDifference from previous month

Notes

FY 12-1312-Jul 414.5 27,239,512

12-Aug 27,266,649 27,137 12-Sep 27,277,295 10,646 12-Oct 27,275,518 (1,777)12-Nov 27,267,714 (7,804)12-Dec 27,269,245 1,531 13-Jan 27,292,476 23,231 13-Feb 27,241,546 (50,930)13-Mar 27,200,749 (40,797)13-Apr 27,176,463 (24,286)

13-May 27,161,297 (15,166)13-Jun 27,222,986 61,689 DCABC rate distributuion

FY 13-1413-Jul 27,541,040 318,054 judges' 2% returned

13-Aug 27,519,229 (21,811)13-Sep 27,477,093 (42,136)13-Oct 27,900,366 423,273 legislative pay raises13-Nov 27,889,584 (10,782)13-Dec 27,902,445 12,861 14-Jan 414.5 27,888,120 (14,325)14-Feb 27,859,322 (28,798)14-Mar 27,818,169 (41,153)14-Apr 27,793,164 (25,005)

14-May 27,741,245 (51,919)14-Jun 27,704,652 (36,593)

FY 14-1514-Jul 428.5 28,840,844 1,136,192 12 new FTE funded plus 2 pulled from reserve for 4DCA security

14-Aug 28,780,059 (60,785)14-Sep 29,545,017 764,958 salary issue implemented14-Oct 29,563,623 18,606 chief judge spending14-Nov 29,510,250 (53,373)14-Dec 29,513,874 3,624 15-Jan 29,504,226 (9,648)15-Feb 29,577,779 73,553 53,096 rate distribution - effective date January15-Mar 29,570,955 (6,824)15-Apr 29,459,742 (111,213) March number has been adjusted on the April report ?????

15-May 29,427,981 (31,761)15-Jun no reports

FY 15-1615-Jul no reports

15-Aug 29,376,227 (51,754) difference since May report15-Sep 430.5 29,423,594 47,367 AA II FTE funded for the 4th and 5th DCA for FTE equity in admin.15-Oct 29,354,477 (69,117)15-Nov 29,399,420 44,943 75k rate distribution approved but not all spent15-Dec 433.5 29,509,024 109,604 funded 1 fte in 3rd (CSO II), 4th (lc), and 5th(lc)16-Jan 29,513,478 4,454 16-Feb 29,544,197 30,719 chief judge 9k rate spending implemented this month16-Mar 29,522,276 (21,921)16-Apr 29,496,891 (25,385)

16-May 29,481,991 (14,900)16-Jun no reports

FY 16-1716-Jul 29,537,701 no reports

16-Aug 29,518,596 (19,105)16-Sep 29,486,953 (31,643)16-Oct 29,436,547 (50,406)16-Nov 29,441,501 4,954 16-Dec 29,543,863 102,362 110k rate distribution recommended in August is implemented17-Jan 29,565,265 21,402 17-Feb 29,531,832 (33,433)17-Mar 29,534,878 3,046 10.0 reserve FTE holding 359,034 in rate not shown here.17-Apr 29,490,193 (44,686) 10.0 reserve FTE holding 359,034 in rate not shown here.

17-May 29,489,759 (434) 10.0 reserve FTE holding 359,034 in rate not shown here.(47,943) net change in current year

Page 13 of 70

II. FY 2017-18 Salary Budget ManagementThe FY 2017-18 Start-Up Salary Budget Projections

As initially presented at the June 20 DCABC meeting, the FY 2017-18 beginning deficit projection (denoted in the chart as “OVER,” meaning that our full employment obligation is greater than our appropriation) appeared to be roughly twice as much as last year. Reasons included:

• The 10 reserve positions (that are now classified as deputy marshals due to the legislature'sinterest in cutting them last year) were inadvertently included in the start-up full employmentliability. These 10 reserve deputy marshal positions represented 548,961 of the liability on line1. They were not included in our liability in previous years.

• The social security wage base limit increased from 118,500 the past two years to 127,200 for2017. The additional cost for the employer portion of this tax is never funded by the legislatureand the salary budget has to absorb it.

• The appropriation amount on Line 8 was estimated; it is possible that all of the funds necessaryto implement the 2017 retirement increases and the pay increases in October will not beallocated and the salary budget will have to absorb the difference, if any.

Page 14 of 70

Following the June 20 meeting, OSCA prepared a revised projection after removing the 10 reserve positions and making some adjustments for changes in retirement rates:

The committee examined the detail for the Projected DROP Liability on line 2 and determined that there should be no judge DROP liability in the current fiscal year because, unbeknown to OSCA, no DROP judges are actually expected to leave. This resulted in a final full employment liability "Over appropriation" projection of approximately $311,000--LESS than last year's.

Page 15 of 70

snorthc1

Rejected

What Did We Do Last Year? Based on Scenario 2 in the chart below, the salary committee recommended an initial rate distribution of $100,000 early in the 2016-17 fiscal year. However, implementation was delayed by the lag time between the DCABC approval and the chief justice's final sign-off, such that several months’ salary dollars associated with the rate distribution were not spent. Other spending during the year included the June 2017 actions for JA salaries in the 2DCA and a couple of reclassification actions approved in June but not effective until July 2017. Those actions have not yet been captured in the FY 2017-18 start-up estimates.

Page 16 of 70

Marshals' Projections for Vacancy, Released Rate and New Judge DROP Actions:

Vacancy Projections

DCAPosition number Title

Annual Salary Liablity

# months vacant

Salary Savings

1 2860 CLERK - DISTRICT COURT $172,586 0 -$ 1 2859 MARSHAL - DISTRICT COURT $169,189 0 -$ 1 4042 APPELLATE JUDICIAL ASST - DISTRICT C$56,020 12 56,020$ 1 4397 APPELLATE JUDICIAL ASST - DISTRICT C$56,020 12 56,020$ 1 4402 DEPUTY CLERK I - DISTRICT COURT $48,957 12 48,957$ 1 8351 CAREER ATTORNEY - DISTRICT COURT $83,118 12 83,118$ 1 8978 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III $61,165 12 61,165$ 1 67 CLERICAL ASSISTANT $39,178 12 39,178$ 2 3910 JUDGE - DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL $258,761 3 64,690$ 2 84 LAW CLERK - DISTRICT COURT $64,475 3 16,119$ 2 7020 SENIOR LAW CLERK $71,720 3 17,930$ 2 79 CUSTODIAL WORKER $19,230 12 19,230$ 2 8063 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I $50,492 3 12,623$ 2 82 APPELLATE JUDICIAL ASST - DISTRICT C$54,197 3 13,549$

-$ Total 488,600$

Released Rate Actions

DCAPosition number Descripton

Current Monthly Rate

New Monthly Rate to Minimum

# months at new rate

Annualized 17-18 RateReleased

Annualized SS and Medicare Savings

17-18 Salary Savings

Plus Delete Law Clerk Pay Plan Liability

2 6558 DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF $7,729 $6,150 10 18,954$ 1,450$ 17,003$ 1 56 DEPUTY CLERK III - DISTRICT COURT $3,824 $3,469 9 4,255$ 326$ 3,436$ 1 68 CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK - DISTRICT COUR$6,399 $4,818 1 18,972$ 1,451$ 1,702$ 2 11759 LAW CLERK - DISTRICT COURT $4,089 $3,818 11 3,250$ 249$ 3,207$ 6,089$ 4 8253 APPELLATE JUDICIAL ASST - DISTRICT C$3,681 $3,406 9 3,299$ 252$ 2,663$ 2 84 LAW CLERK - DISTRICT COURT $4,089 $3,818 8 3,250$ 249$ 2,332$ 5,700$

-$ -$ -$ -$

Total 51,980$ 3,976$ 30,344$ 11,788.51$

New Judge DROP Actions

DCA# DROP months 17-18 Salary Savings

4 8 $29,072

Total $29,072

Page 17 of 70

Notes about Managing Judge DROP Liability.

Based on the July 2017 rates, a judge on DROP (DP) saves $43,612 in employer retirement contributions each year; a judge who stays on after the DROP term ends (DE) saves the salary budget $ 50,621. However, these are only temporary savings.

Note that the judge DROP dollars “come due” when the DROP judge retires and is replaced by a non-DROP judge. The current fiscal year “come due” date often is offset by the months the position is vacant during the transition. In that case the increased annualized liability "comes due" in the following fiscal year.

In the next couple of years, we should return to a more predictable judicial DROP participation pattern, and the DROP liability won’t be as significant.

In keeping with the goal of avoiding significant salary dollar reversions, there are ways that we can temporarily spend salary dollars in years when we project a current year surplus but don’t want to create unmanageable out-year liabilities when the DROP liability hits:

• Permit overlap, as provided by the personnel regulations.• Make pay changes effective as soon as possible in the fiscal year (budget and pay retroactive

issue here).• Target law clerk released rate to special pay increases to senior law clerks in years 3 and 4 so

that their career attorney increases will be partially funded before we reach the out-year.

Retirement Code/ Judges

Employer % Employer $

Regular 39.64% $65,683.68

post DROP 9.09% $15,062.18

DROP 13.32% $22,071.31

Options For FY 2017-18:

1. Use historical lapse to make spending decisions (rate distribution, reclassification, minimumadjustments, funding additional positions, adding CAD), after validating against marshals’ knownactions.

2. Defer any actions until the appropriation is final.

Page 18 of 70

III. Security

Options:

1. Continue funding security positions from existing salary appropriations.2. File an LBR next year for security positions that were never funded by the legislature and that

we have absorbed. (If we file an issue for the unfunded 10 FTE, it would fully fund the modeland allow us to “put back” the positions we’ve borrowed from other activities.)

3. Do nothing.

Page 19 of 70

IV. JA CAD (Circuit Equity Issue)The Supreme Court has created the following pay structure for JAs:

Class Code Class Title Pay

Grade Annual

Minimum Annual

Maximum CAD

8150 Appellate Judicial Assistant - Supreme Court

021 37,756.20 76,041.05

8140 Appellate Judicial Assistant - District Court

164 35,868.39 71,736.78

Dade, Palm Beach 40,868.43 81,736.86 5,000.00 8320 Judicial Assistant - Circuit Court 152 33,980.58 67,961.16

Region I-Circuits 1,2,3,5,8,14 35,480.58 70,961.16 1,500.00 Region II-Circuits 4,7,10,12,18,19,20 36,980.58 73,961.16 3,000.00 Region III-Circuits 6,9,13 37,580.58 75,161.16 3,600.00 Region IV-Circuits 11,15,16,17 38,980.62 77,961.24 5,000.00

8310 Judicial Assistant - County Court 141 32,092.77 64,185.54 Region I-Circuits 1,2,3,5,8,14 33,592.77 67,185.54 1,500.00 Region II-Circuits 4,7,10,12,18,19,20 35,092.77 70,185.54 3,000.00 Region III-Circuits 6,9,13 35,692.77 71,385.54 3,600.00 Region IV-Circuits 11,15,16,17 37,092.81 74,185.62 5,000.00

Circuit JA CADs Applied to the DCAs

The 2nd DCA brought the issue of the minimum salary issue to the DCABC at the June 20, 2017, where a special pay increase (based on the CAD issue) was approved by DCABC at a cost of 10,701.31 in rate and $12,328.98 in salary dollars. These dollars are not yet reflected in the “Line 1” projections by “OSCA but are included for purposes of the analysis below.

(All S.Ct. JAs are paid $58,478.)

Page 20 of 70

http://flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/247/urlt/Appellate_Judicial_Assistant_Supreme-Court_508.pdf

http://flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/247/urlt/Appellate_Judicial_Assistant_Supreme-Court_508.pdf

http://flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/247/urlt/Appellate-Judicial-Assistant-District-Court-508-1.pdf

http://flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/247/urlt/Appellate-Judicial-Assistant-District-Court-508-1.pdf

http://flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/247/urlt/Judicial-Assistant-Circuit-Court-508.pdf

http://flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/247/urlt/Judicial-Assistant-County-Court-508.pdf

V. Budget & Pay MemoA. DCABC's FY 2016-17 B&P Memo Recommendation -- Appendix A

As reflected in the July 22, 2016 DCABC meeting minutes (approved at the June 20, 2017 meeting), last year the

Commission worked from the previous year’s nonfinal B&P Memo recommendation from OSCA, owing to the

lack of a proposed mock-up of the current FY memo.

The Commission recommended one significant change that appeared in the final FY 2016-17 B&P Memo, i.e.,

deletion of the previous prohibition on overlapping positions. Thus, as recommended by the DCABC, the FY

2016-17 B&P Memo would have been as reflected in Appendix A to this report.

B. The Final FY 2016-17 DCA B&P Memo Issued by the Chief Justice--Appendix B

The actual FY 2016-17 B&P Memo issued by the chief justice, attached as Appendix B, differed markedly from

that proposed to the DCABC by OSCA and from the DCABC’s final recommendation. The differences are

highlighted on the Appendix B copy. Because these changes were included in the existing FY 2016-17 B&P

Memo, they are not marked as changes in the OSCA’s proposed FY 2017-18 memo.

They include, among other things:

1. In Section A.1., a first-ever specification of the DCA clerks’ and marshals’ salaries, and a requirement

that any increase in those salaries must be approved by the supreme court.

2. In Section A.3.b.i., a first-ever requirement that DCA rate distributions must be approved by the chief

justice, and only after the DCABC submits each court’s plan for spending the distributed rate.

3. In Section A.3.b.iii., a flat prohibition against retroactive salary increases, and a specification that rate

distributions shall take effect in the month following the chief justice’s approval of the rate distribution plans.

4. A new Section A.9, governing OPS funds. Among other things, it requires any court desiring to pay

hourly OPS rates above the corresponding career service minimum to request permission to do so from, and

justify the request to, the OSCA chief of personnel.

5. In Section D, a substantial rewrite of travel reimbursement policies.

C. OSCA's Proposed FY 2017-18 B&P Memo--Appendix C

The proposed memo submitted at the DCABC's June 20 meeting is attached as Appendix C.

Page 21 of 70

D. OSCA's Proposed PAR Insert

After the TCBC had voted out its recommendation for the FY 2016-17 trial court Budget & Pay Memo,

the following language was inserted in it and included in the final version issued by the chief justice in

November 2016:

A hiring package or other personnel action request (PAR), whether related to a full-time equivalent position or an OPS position, must be reviewed and approved by the respective offices of the Office of the State Courts Administrator before an offer of employment is extended, the employee is told that the action is finalized, or the action is otherwise implemented by the circuit.

After a hue and cry, this provision was removed from the trial court memo and was not inserted into the DCA memo that was issued in November 2016. Alternative language was verbally proposed at the DCABC's June 20, 2017 meeting when the commission was considering OSCA’s proposed draft of the B&P memo. The DCABC deferred action on the memo as proposed and requested a written copy of the suggested language. The language was subsequently provided by Eric Maclure:

Each circuit/district is responsible for submitting in a timely manner any personnel action that requires processing by the Office of the State Courts Administrator, so that the action can be reviewed and any technical issues or issues related to consistency with budgetary requirements or State Courts System Personnel Regulations can be identified and resolved before the action takes effect.

The same or similar proposal was made to the TCBC. After considerable debate, TCBC approved a recommended B&P Memo containing the following language: .

Each circuit shall submit a PAR (Personnel Action Request) and the OPS Employment Authorization and Renewal Form at least five (5) business days before the action takes effect. This timeframe does not apply to the New Employment Authorization form. However, the New Employment Authorization form must be submitted in ample time for processing prior to the established payroll deadline.

It should be noted that two DCAs upload their own personnel actions electronically and do not submit PARs for OSCA processing.

Page 22 of 70

Supreme Court of Florida 500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925

JORGE LABARGA CHIEF JUSTICE

BARBARA J. PARIENTE R. FRED LEWISPEGGY A. QUINCECHARLES T. CANADYRICKY POLSTONJAMES E.C. PERRY

JUSTICES

MEMORANDUM

JOHN A. TOMASINO CLERK OF COURT

SILVESTER DAWSON MARSHAL

THOMAS D. HALLCLERK OF COURT

TO: Chief Judges of the District Courts of Appeal Marshals

FROM: Chief Justice Jorge Labarga

DATE: October 28, 2015

SUBJECT: Budget and Pay Administration for Fiscal Year 2015-16

I have established the following budget and pay administration policies for the current fiscal year, consistent with the recommendations of the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission (DCABC). Substantive changes from the prior year’s policy are underlined.

A. Personnel Actions - Other than regulations limited by these “PersonnelActions” policies and procedures and the sharing of sick leave donationsacross the district courts, all regulations provided in the State Courts SystemPersonnel Manual(https://intranet.flcourts.org/osca/personnel/bin/personnel_regulationsmanual.pdf) remain in effect.

APPENDIX A : DCABC PROPOSED FY 2016-17 DCA B&P MEMO

Page 23 of 70

Budget and Pay Administration October 28, 2015 Page 2 of 12

1. Court Staff Salaries

Pursuant to the Fiscal Year 2014-15 General Appropriations Act, thejudicial branch has been provided funding “for position classificationsalary adjustments for judicial branch employees, excluding judges, toencourage employee retention, provide equity adjustments to equalizesalaries between the judicial branch and other governmental entitiesfor similar positions and duties, and provide market-basedadjustments necessary to remedy recurring employee recruitmentproblems for specific position classifications. The funds available forthese adjustments shall be allocated proportionately among the circuitand county courts, the district courts of appeal, the Supreme Court, theOffice of the State Courts Administrator, and the JudicialQualifications Commission, based upon the total number of full-time-equivalent positions, excluding judges, employed by each of thosecomponents of the judicial branch. The Chief Justice, based uponrecommendations from the Trial Court Budget Commission, DistrictCourt of Appeal Budget Commission, and the State CourtsAdministrator, shall submit a plan for such position classificationsalary adjustments pursuant to section 216.177(2), Florida Statutes.”Therefore, salary adjustments may be made in compliance with theapproved plan.

The salaries of the clerks of the district courts shall be equalizedamong themselves, and the salaries of the marshals of the districtcourts shall be equalized among themselves. No clerk or marshal of adistrict court will be eligible to receive a special pay increase, orsalary rate allocation, unless the District Court of Appeal BudgetCommission approves an equal increase for all clerks and/or marshalsof the district courts.

2. Judicial Salaries

Effective July 1, 2015 2014, a district court judge’s salary is$154,140.

3. Salary Budget Management

Page 24 of 70


a. It does not appear to be necessary to hold positions vacant in thedistrict courts at this time. However, the District Court of AppealBudget Commission will monitor the salary budget and imposesuch restrictions as necessary in order to cover payroll coststhrough the end of the fiscal year.

b. Subject to available salary appropriation, as confirmed by theChief Justice, a rate distribution may be made during FY 2015/16FY 2014/15.

i. Distribution to the district courts will be based on the totalnumber of eligible FTE in each district (less judges) unlessotherwise directed by the DCABC.

ii. Individual salary increases may not exceed 10 percent.

iii. No retroactive salary increases are permitted unless approvedby the DCABC due to special circumstances. However,retroactivity may not extend back further than two months.

iv. When it is anticipated that allocations for a district court willnot be used by June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015, the DCABC willdetermine whether to re-purpose the funds or let the fundsrevert for statewide budget management.

v. Outside of any rate distribution, no special pay increases arepermitted. The chief judge may request an exception fromthe DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair ofthe DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

4. Other Personnel Actions

a. Initial appointment rates must be at the minimum of the class payrange. The chief judge may request an exception from theDCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of theDCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator. If the chiefjudge provides documentation to the State Courts Administratorthat the affected position has been advertised no fewer than twotimes and that either no applicant met the qualifications or that noqualified applicant would accept the position at the minimum

Page 25 of 70


salary, appointment up to 10% above the minimum salary is summarily approved. However, if the pending special pay plan issue for district courts is approved with a district-specific salary adjustment amount, the district must first use those funds in this event.

b. Upon promotion, an employee’s salary shall be increased to theminimum of the class to which the employee is being promoted.However, if that increase is less than five percent (5%), the chiefjudge or his/her designee may approve a promotional increase foran employee of up to five percent (5%) of the employee’s salaryprior to promotion, provided such an increase will not place theemployee’s salary above the maximum for the new range. Thechief judge may request an exception by the DCABC. Theserequests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies tothe State Courts Administrator.

c. Regarding Donation of Sick Leave, State Courts PersonnelRegulations section 4.09(3)(B): In the case of the district courts ofappeal, the chief judge of the employee’s court may notify thechief judges of the other district courts of appeal of the request fordonations. Any chief judge of a district court of appeal may notifythe employees of his/her respective court of the request fordonations.

d. Other than regulations limited by these “Other Personnel Action”policies and procedures and the sharing of sick leave donationsacross the district courts, all regulations provided in the StateCourts System Personnel Manual(https://intranet.flcourts.org/osca/personnel/bin/personnel_regulationsmanual.pdf) remain in effect.

5. Law clerk appointment rates are to be made in accordance with thepolicies outlined in the Appellate Law Clerk Pay Plan. Any incentiveadjustments and promotional increases made at the discretion of theemploying judge and chief judge, shall be consistent with theAppellate Court Law Clerk Pay Plan, a current copy of which is foundin Attachment I. No special pay increases are permitted. The chiefjudge may request an exception from the DCABC. These requests

Page 26 of 70


should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

6. No overlap of positions is permitted. The chief judge may request anexception from the DCABC. These requests should be sent to theChair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

7. Positions approved for upward reclassifications are limited to thosereclassifications which result in a salary increase of ten percent (10%)or less over the original classification. If a position is reclassifiedwithin these limitations, the chief judge may approve a promotionalincrease for the incumbent not to exceed five percent (5%) of theemployee’s current salary or to the minimum of the new class,whichever is greater, provided such an increase will not place theemployee’s salary above the maximum for the new range.

8. An employee who is selected for an acting appointment in amanagerial position, i.e., Marshal, Clerk, or Director of Central Staff,is eligible for a five percent (5%) pay increase or the amountnecessary to bring the employee’s pay to the minimum of the higherclass, whichever amount is lower, for the period of time the employeeis in an acting managerial capacity, provided the employee hascompleted two months of service in the acting capacity.

B. Budget Administration

1. Budget Category Adjustments

Section 216.181, Florida Statutes, requires that all budgetamendments from the judicial branch must be requested only throughthe Chief Justice and must be approved by the Chief Justice and theLegislative Budget Commission. If it is determined, after reviewingyour operating budgets that you need adjustments from one operatingbudget category to another, please complete the transfer form (inhard-copy or by e-mail) and send it to Dorothy Willard Wilson, Chiefof Budget Services, so that appropriate budget amendments can beprocessed. Attachment II provides instructions and the form for thispurpose.

Page 27 of 70


C. Fixed Capital Outlay (FCO) Projects and Administration District Court Fixed Capital Outlay Projects and Administration of In re: District Court Fixed Capital Projects, No. AOSC11-3 (Fla. Jan 14, 2011), provides for the oversight and monitoring of district court courthouse construction projects. See Attachment III for policy guidelines.

D. Authorized Travel

1. Out-of-State Travel

a. In order to implement funds appropriated in the 2015/16 2014/15 General Appropriations Act for state employee travel, with prior approval of the chief judge and submission of a Travel Authorization Form (TAR), expenses to attend conferences, educational or other informative sessions of the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal may be reimbursed since this travel is mission critical to the operations of the District Courts of Appeal. The chief judge of each court may also authorize mission critical travel to attend meetings, conferences, seminars, training classes, and travel for events in addition to the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal and other than those covered in Sections 4, 5, and 7 below, provided that all expenses are paid with a source of funding other than state funds.

b. The mission critical national education program, National Association for Court Management Annual Conference, is approved when held out of state, and travel expenses may be paid with state funds.

2. Intra-District Travel

Intra-district travel necessary as a result of case-related activities or administrative matters may be approved by the chief judge provided such travel is in support of the administration of justice as provided for in the Rules of Judicial Administration.

3. Intra-State Travel

Page 28 of 70


I am delegating authority to the chief judge to approve travel for activities that are critical to each court’s mission. In accordance with the 2015/16 2014/15 GAA Implementing Bill (SB 2502) (HB 5001), funds may not be used to pay for travel by state employees to conferences or staff training activities unless the agency head (chief judge) has approved in writing that such activities are critical to the court’s mission. Education and training activities must be directly related to employees’ current job duties and have primary benefit to the state.

4. Travel Expenses – Florida Bar Meetings

You are encouraged to continue to support judicial participation inmeetings of the following sections and committees, which areprovided as a guideline for the chief judges of the district courts:

a. Annual and Midyear Meetings

Chief judges and the chair and chair-elect of the FloridaConference of District Court of Appeal Judges will bereimbursed for reasonable travel expenses for their attendanceat the mid-year and annual meetings of The Florida Bar. Theseexpenses will be charged against your district court budget.

b. Supreme Court-Appointed Committees

Members of court-appointed committees of The Florida Barmay be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses associatedwith the meetings of those groups with prior approval from thechief judge or designee. These expenses will be chargedagainst your district court budget. The committees and sectionto which this policy applies are:

• Standard Jury Instructions Committee – Civil• Standard Jury Instructions Committee – Contract &

Business Cases• Commission on Professionalism

c. Selected Committees

Page 29 of 70


District court judges and other court staff who are serving as members of selected committees and sections of The Florida Bar may be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses associated with the meetings of those groups with prior approval from the chief judge or designee and submission of a Travel Authorization Request (TAR) form. These expenses will be charged against your district court budget. The committees and section to which this policy applies are:

• Alternative Dispute Resolution Section ExecutiveCouncil

• Appellate Court Rules Committee• Appellate Practice Section Executive Council• Civil Procedure Rules Committee• Code and Rules of Evidence Committee• Constitutional Judiciary Committee• Continuing Legal Education Committee• Criminal Law Section Executive Council• Criminal Procedure Rules Committee• Family Law Rules Committee• Family Law Section Executive Council• Florida Probate Rules Committee• Judicial Administration & Evaluation Committee• Judicial Nominating Procedures Committee• Juvenile Court Rules Committee• Law Related Education Committee• Legal Needs of Children Committee• Pro Bono Legal Services Committee• Professional Ethics Committee• Professionalism Committee• Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section Executive

Council• Rules of Judicial Administration Committee• Small Claims Rules Committee• Traffic Court Rules Committee• Trial Lawyers Section Executive Council

Page 30 of 70


• Vision 2016 Commission and Workgroups

These specific guidelines apply to all committee and section related travel:

d. Room charges that exceed the established conference rate willbe reimbursed only up to that rate. Judges are encouraged tomake alternative arrangements, at lower rates, when at allpossible. Room charges in excess of $150.00 per night (roomrate only), should be avoided, but when that is not possible,excess charges must be justified on travel vouchers submittedfor reimbursement.

e. For approved committee and section meetings, same day travelmust be utilized whenever possible. Necessary overnight travelwill be reimbursed for the night immediately before or after thedate of the committee meeting only if same day travel cannot beaccomplished or presents an undue hardship.

f. No reimbursement for attendance at Supreme Court oralargument representing a section or committee will be paid.

g. No reimbursement for attendance at seminars, symposiums,etc., representing a section or committee will be paid.

5. Travel Expenses for Participation in State Courts System Committeesor Commissions

Reasonable travel expenses necessary for participation in State CourtsSystem committees or commissions (e.g., District Courts of AppealBudget Commission, Standard Jury Instructions Committee -Criminal) will be paid without prior authorization, from the budgets ofand in accordance with the travel guidelines established for eachcommittee. Reimbursement for attendance at Supreme Court oralargument to represent a committee or commission must be approvedin advance by the Chief Justice.

6. Travel Expenses for Legislative Hearings

Page 31 of 70


Generally, the OSCA will coordinate travel by judges for participating in legislative hearings. Expenses associated with such travel will be paid from your district court budget with prior approval of the chief judge or designee, or if such participation is associated with membership on a Supreme Court committee, expenses will be reimbursed from that committee budget. When judges receive personal invitations to appear and testify before a legislative committee, expenses for associated travel will be paid from the district court budget with prior approval from the chief judge.

7. Out-of-State Educational Travel

Out-of-state educational travel will continue to be approved by theFlorida Court Education Council in accordance with its establishedguidelines.

E. General Travel Guidelines

1. Rules Governing Per Diem and Lodging for Overnight Travel

According to State Chief Financial Officer policy, a traveler may notclaim per diem or lodging reimbursement for overnight travel withinfifty (50) miles (one-way) of his or her headquarters or residence,(calculated in accordance with the Department of TransportationOfficial Map Miles) whichever is less, unless the circumstancesnecessitating the overnight stay are fully explained by the traveler andapproved by the Agency Head. I am delegating this approvalauthority to chief judges, with the exception of the travel fundedthrough the Court Education Trust Fund, travel associated with thecircuit and county conferences’ business programs, and travel fundedby state budgetary sources other than the district courts. Officialwritten approval from the chief judge must be attached to thereimbursement voucher when submitted for payment. Voucherswithout this approval will be returned.

2. Lodging Room Rate Limits

Hotel room charges that exceed $150.00 per night (room rate only),should be avoided, and less costly alternatives secured when possible.

Page 32 of 70


Charges in excess of $150.00 (room rate only), must be justified on travel vouchers submitted for reimbursement. This rate does not apply to travel sponsored by Court Education Trust Fund, or travel funded by state budgetary sources other than individual district courts budgets. Rates funded by these sources will be set by the paying entity.

3. Prohibition of Class C Meal Reimbursement

Reimbursement for Class C travel for per diem and subsistence isprohibited in section 112.061(15), Florida Statutes.

4. TAR Submission for Convention and Conference Travel

Travel reimbursements for convention or conference travel (with theexception of judges’ participation in the district court conference),must be submitted for payment with a Travel Authorization Request(TAR) form, according to State of Florida travel guidelines. TARforms will be prepared by the OSCA on the judges’ behalf for districtcourt conference education and business programs.

F. Senior Judge Compensation

Senior judge compensation is $350 for each day of service for FY 2015/162014/15. Attachment IV reflects the allocation of senior judge days foreach district court. Any necessary travel expenses for senior judges to servemust be paid from each court’s allocation.

G. Payment of Florida Bar Membership Fees/Legal Education Courses

The 2015/16 2014/15 General Appropriations Act allows for the payment ofFlorida Bar membership fees for employees that require membership as acondition of their employment by the state. (For a list of eligible positiontitles, please refer to the memorandum of July 2, 2015 3, 2014 from JackieKnight.)

Page 33 of 70


Payment for legal education courses will be left to the discretion of each chief judge based on the availability of expense money within each district court.

I am requesting that you disseminate the information contained in this memorandum to all judges in your courts. The policies outlined herein will remain in effect until such time as they are succeeded with an updated memorandum.

If you have any questions about budget matters, please contact Dorothy Willard Wilson, Chief of Budget Services, at (850) 488-3735. Questions relating to personnel matters should be directed to Beatriz Caballero Theresa Westerfield, Chief of Personnel Services, at (850) 617-4028. Other finance questions should be directed to Jackie Knight, Chief of Finance and Accounting Services, at (850) 488-3737.

Attachments

cc: Patricia (PK) Jameson Eric Maclure Blan Teagle Dorothy Willard Beatriz Caballero Jackie Knight Steven Hall

JL/rn

Page 34 of 70




BARBARA J. PARIENTE R. FRED LEWISPEGGY A. QUINCECHARLES T. CANADYRICKY POLSTONJAMES E.C. PERRY

JUSTICES

MEMORANDUM






DATE: November 22, 2016

SUBJECT: Budget and Pay Administration for Fiscal Year 2016-17

I have established the following budget and pay administration policies for the current fiscal year, consistent with the recommendations of the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission (DCABC) and also addressing other issues. Substantive changes from the prior year’s policy are underlined.

A. Personnel Actions - Other than regulations limited by these “Personnel Actions”policies and procedures and the sharing of sick leave donations across the districtcourts, all regulations provided in the State Courts System Personnel Manual(https://intranet.flcourts.org/osca/personnel/bin/personnel_regulationsmanual.pdf)remain in effect.


The salaries of the clerks of the district courts shall be equalized among themselves,and the salaries of the marshals of the district courts shall be equalized amongthemselves. The starting salary for the clerk is $117,483 and for the marshal

APPENDIX B : FINAL APPROVED FY 2016-17 DCA B&P MEMO

Page 35 of 70

Budget and Pay Administration November 22, 2016 Page 2 of 14

$114,878.64. No clerk or marshal of a district court will be eligible to receive a special pay increase, or salary rate allocation, unless the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission recommends approves an equal increase for all clerks and/or marshals of the district courts to the Supreme Court for final approval.


Effective July 1, 2016 2015, a district court judge’s salary is $154,140.


a. It does not appear to be necessary to hold positions vacant in the district courts atthis time. However, to stay within the salary management plan established bythe DCABC for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17, an included employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act should not work overtime without advance approval from his or her supervisor. Tthe District Court of Appeal Budget Commission will monitor the salary budget and impose such restrictions as necessary in order to cover payroll costs through the end of the fiscal year.

b. Subject to available rate and salary appropriation, as confirmed by the ChiefJustice, a rate distribution may be made during FY 2016-17 FY 2015-16.

i. A rate distribution plan shall be submitted by the DCABC to the ChiefJustice for approval prior to implementation of a rate distribution to ensure equity between the Districts and Supreme Court positions.

i. ii. Distribution to the district courts will be based on the total number ofeligible FTE in each district (less judges) unless otherwise directed by theDCABC.

ii. iii. Individual salary increases may not exceed 10 percent.

iii. iv. The effective date of actions may begin the first day of the monthfollowing the Chief Justice’s confirmation of available rate and salary appropriation and approval of a rate distribution plan. A Personnel Action Request (PAR) for all rate distribution actions must be submitted to the OSCA Personnel Office for processing on the next available monthly payroll. No retroactive salary increases are permitted unless approved by the DCABC due to special circumstances. However, retroactivity may not extend back further than two months.

Page 36 of 70


iv. v. When it is anticipated that allocations for a district court will not be usedby June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016, the DCABC will assess the health of thesalary budget and determine whether to re-purpose the funds or let the fundsrevert for statewide budget management.

v. vi. Outside of any rate distribution, no special pay increases are permitted.The chief judge may request an exception from the DCABC. These requestsshould be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State CourtsAdministrator.


a. Initial appointment rates must be at the minimum of the class pay range. Thechief judge may request an exception from the DCABC. These requests shouldbe sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State CourtsAdministrator. If the chief judge provides documentation to the State CourtsAdministrator that the affected position has been advertised no fewer than twotimes and that either no applicant met the qualifications or that no qualifiedapplicant would accept the position at the minimum salary, appointment up to10% above the minimum salary is summarily approved.

b. Upon promotion, an employee’s salary shall be increased to the minimum of theclass to which the employee is being promoted. However, if that increase is lessthan five percent (5%), the chief judge or his/her designee may approve apromotional increase for an employee of up to five percent (5%) of theemployee’s salary prior to promotion, provided such an increase will not placethe employee’s salary above the maximum for the new range. The chief judgemay request an exception by the DCABC. These requests should be sent to theChair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

c. Regarding Donation of Sick Leave, State Courts Personnel Regulations section4.09(3)(B): In the case of the district courts of appeal, the chief judge of theemployee’s court may notify the chief judges of the other district courts ofappeal of the request for donations. Any chief judge of a district court of appealmay notify the employees of his/her respective court of the request fordonations.

5. Law clerk appointment rates are to be made in accordance with the policies outlinedin the Appellate Law Clerk Pay Plan. Any incentive adjustments and promotionalincreases made at the discretion of the employing judge and chief judge, shall be

Page 37 of 70


consistent with the Appellate Court Law Clerk Pay Plan, a current copy of which is found in Attachment I. No special pay increases are permitted. The chief judge may request an exception from the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

6. No Ooverlap of positions is permitted in accordance with the State Courts System

Personnel Regulations may be approved by the DCABC upon determination that sufficient salary dollars are available and the overlap is necessary to avoid disruption in efficient operation of the district. The chief judge may request an exception from the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

7. Positions approved for upward reclassifications are limited to those reclassifications

which result in a salary increase of ten percent (10%) or less over the original classification. If a position is reclassified within these limitations, the chief judge may approve a promotional increase for the incumbent not to exceed five percent (5%) of the employee’s current salary or to the minimum of the new class, whichever is greater, provided such an increase will not place the employee’s salary above the maximum for the new range. The chief may request an exception by the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

8. An employee who is selected for an acting appointment in a managerial position,

i.e., Marshal, Clerk, or Director of Central Staff, is eligible for a five percent (5%) pay increase or the amount necessary to bring the employee’s pay to the minimum of the higher class, whichever amount is lower, for the period of time the employee is in an acting managerial capacity, provided the employee has completed two months of service in the acting capacity.

9. Other Personal Services (OPS) funds are authorized this fiscal year to meet

temporary employment needs of the districts.

a. If it is determined that adjustments are needed to your OPS category funding via a transfer from another operating category, please complete the budget amendment form outlined in Section B.1. below.

b. Districts requesting hourly rates above the minimum must provide adequate

justification to the OSCA Chief of Personnel Services, who may authorize the adjusted hourly rate.

Page 38 of 70




Section 216.181, Florida Statutes, requires that all budget amendments from thejudicial branch must be requested only through the Chief Justice and must beapproved by the Chief Justice and the Legislative Budget Commission. If it isdetermined, after reviewing your operating budgets that you need adjustmentsfrom one operating budget category to another, please complete the transferform (in hard-copy or by e-mail) and send it to Dorothy Willard, Chief ofBudget Services, so that appropriate budget amendments can be processed.Attachment II provides instructions and the form for this purpose.

C. Fixed Capital Outlay (FCO) Projects and Administration

District Court Fixed Capital Outlay Projects and Administration of In re: DistrictCourt Fixed Capital Projects, No. AOSC11-3 (Fla. Jan 14, 2011), provides for theoversight and monitoring of district court courthouse construction projects. SeeAttachment III for policy guidelines.

D. Authorized Travel

1. Mission Critical Determination; Approval Authority and Requirements

a. Section 119 of Chapter 2016-62, Laws of Florida, provides that “the fundsappropriated to each state agency which may be used for travel by state employees shall be limited during the 2016-2017 fiscal year to travel for activities that are critical to each state agency’s mission.” Consistent with guidance memorandum No. 43, 2015-2016 from the Department of Financial Services, this budget and pay administration memorandum sets forth my initial determination of the types of activities that I deem mission critical for the State Courts System and that may, consistent with this memorandum, necessitate travel by state employees:

i. Activities related to the adjudication of cases.ii. Business meetings and other activities related to the administrative

operations and responsibilities of the Supreme Court, the district courts of appeal, the circuit courts, the county courts, and the Office of the State Courts Administrator.

Page 39 of 70


iii. Meetings and operational activities of commissions, committees,workgroups, and similar bodies created by the Supreme Court.

iv. Meetings and operational activities of the judicial conferences.v. Meetings and operational activities of The Florida Bar and of

commissions, committees, workgroups, and similar bodies created by The Florida Bar.

vi. Meetings of local, state, national, or international organizations theagenda of which includes subjects related or beneficial to the operation of courts.

vii. Educational, training, or similar conference, conventions, meetings, orevents that benefit justices, judges, and court system staff through the provision or exchange of information on court-related matters or matters affecting the courts, including but not limited to education programs organized or sponsored under the oversight of the Florida Courts Education Council.

b. In approving travel as authorized and prescribed in this memorandum, thechief judge or designee must approve the travel in advance and in writing, state how the specific travel activity is critical to the court’s mission consistent with the initial determination in paragraph a., and state that consideration was given to the use of teleconferencing or other forms of electronic communication as an alternative to the travel. The chief judge of the Second District Court of Appeal may prescribe in writing “blanket” approval for ordinary travel between court facilities within the district. If the chief judge delegates travel approval to a designee, the chief judge should prescribe the delegation in writing and retain a copy in the court’s file. In addition, the district should retain the documentation approving the travel required by this paragraph.

c. Each voucher seeking reimbursement for travel expenses must include astatement describing how the travel was critical to the mission of the court system. The statement can reference that the travel was for one or more of the types of activities determined to be mission critical in paragraph a. Examples of mission-critical statements include:

• “Travel to attend a meeting of a Supreme Court committee, as determinedto be mission critical pursuant to the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.”

• “Attendance at the Florida Court Personnel Institute was for a trainingactivity benefiting court system staff, which is recognized as mission

Page 40 of 70


critical pursuant to the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.”

• “Travel to attend a meeting of the Civil Procedures Rules Committee of The Florida Bar, as determined to be mission critical pursuant to the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.”

• “Traveler was asked to testify before a legislative committee on issues affecting dependency cases, which is mission-critical travel related to the adjudication of cases and the administrative operation of the district under the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.

In addition to a mission-critical statement, when a traveler is seeking reimbursement for attendance at a conference or convention, he or she must include on the reimbursement voucher a statement of the benefits accruing to the State of Florida by virtue of attendance and must attach an approved Travel Authorization Request form.

2. Travel Out of the United States

The Chief Justice must approve in advance and in writing travel out of the United States, regardless of the source of funds for payment of the travel.

3.1. Out-of-State Travel

a. The Chief Justice must approve in advance and in writing all out-of-state

travel paid in whole or in part with state funds. b.a. In order to implement funds appropriated in the 2016-17 2015-16 General

Appropriations Act for state employee travel, with prior approval of the chief judge and submission of a Travel Authorization Form (TAR), expenses to attend conferences, educational or other informative sessions of the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal may be reimbursed since this travel is mission critical to the operations of the District Courts of Appeal. The chief judge of each court may also authorize mission critical travel to attend meetings, conferences, seminars, training classes, and travel for events in addition to the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal and other than those covered in Sections 6, 7, and 9 4, 5, and 7 below, provided that all expenses are paid with a source of funding other than state funds.

Page 41 of 70


c.b. Notwithstanding subsections a. and b. above, travel to attend tThe missioncritical national education program, National Association for CourtManagement Annual Conference, is approved when held out of state is determined herein to be mission critical, and travel expenses may be paid with state funds.

4.2. Intra-District Travel

Intra-district travel necessary as a result of case-related activities or administrative matters may be approved by the chief judge or designee, provided such travel is in support of the administration of justice as provided consistent with for in the Rules of Judicial Administration.

5.3. Intra-State Travel

Intra-state travel necessary as a result of case-related activities or administrative matters may be approved by the chief judge or designee, provided such travel is in support of the administration of justice consistent with the Rules of Judicial Administration.

I am delegating authority to the chief judge to approve travel for activities that are critical to each court’s mission. In accordance with the 2015-16 GAA Implementing Bill (SB 2502), funds may not be used to pay for travel by state employees to conferences or staff training activities unless the agency head (chief judge) has approved in writing that such activities are critical to the court’s mission. Education and training activities must be directly related to employees’ current job duties and have primary benefit to the state.

6.4. Travel Expenses – Florida Bar Meetings

The annual and midyear meetings of The Florida Bar and meetings of committees and sections of The Florida Bar are not organized or sponsored in whole or in part by the judicial branch. You are encouraged to continue to support judicial participation in meetings of the following sections and committees, which are provided as a guideline for the chief judges of the district courts:


Page 42 of 70


Chief judges and the chair and chair-elect of the Florida Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges will be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses for their attendance at the mid-year and annual meetings of The Florida Bar. These expenses will be charged against your district court budget.


Members of Supreme Ccourt-appointed committees staffed by of The Florida Bar may be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses associated with the meetings of those groups with prior approval from the chief judge or designee. These expenses will be charged against your district court budget. The committees and section to which this policy applies are:

• Standard Jury Instructions Committee – Civil • Standard Jury Instructions Committee – Contract & Business Cases • Commission on Professionalism


District court judges and other court staff who are serving as members of selected committees and sections of The Florida Bar may be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses associated with the meetings of those groups with prior approval from the chief judge or designee and submission of a Travel Authorization Request (TAR) form. These expenses will be charged against your district court budget. The committees and sections section to which this policy applies are:

• Alternative Dispute Resolution Section Executive Council • Appellate Court Rules Committee • Appellate Practice Section Executive Council • Civil Procedure Rules Committee • Code and Rules of Evidence Committee • Constitutional Judiciary Committee • Continuing Legal Education Committee • Criminal Law Section Executive Council • Criminal Procedure Rules Committee • Family Law Rules Committee • Family Law Section Executive Council • Judicial Administration & Evaluation Committee

Page 43 of 70


• Judicial Nominating Procedures Committee• Juvenile Court Rules Committee• Law Related Education Committee• Legal Needs of Children Committee• Probate Rules Committee• Pro Bono Legal Services Committee• Professional Ethics Committee• Professionalism Committee• Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section Executive Council• Rules of Judicial Administration Committee• Small Claims Rules Committee• Traffic Court Rules Committee• Trial Lawyers Section Executive Council• Vision 2016 Commission and Workgroups

The following These specific guidelines apply to all Florida Bar committee- and section-related travel:

d. Room charges that exceed the established conference rate will be reimbursedonly up to that rate. Judges are encouraged to make alternative arrangements,at lower rates, when at all possible. Room charges in excess of $150.00 pernight (room rate only) should be avoided, but when that is not possible,excess charges must be justified on travel vouchers submitted forreimbursement.

e. For approved committee and section meetings, same day travel must beutilized whenever possible. Necessary overnight travel will be reimbursedfor the night immediately before or after the date of the committee meetingonly if same day travel cannot be accomplished or presents an unduehardship.

f. No reimbursement for attendance at Supreme Court oral argumentrepresenting a section or committee will be paid.

g. No reimbursement for attendance at seminars, or symposiums, etc.,representing a section or committee will be paid.

I am asking that you take the necessary steps to communicate this policy tojudges in your district, particularly those who are new to the bench, in order

Page 44 of 70


to eliminate confusion about the requirements for reimbursement. We want to minimize problems with judges submitting travel vouchers for participation in committees not on the approved list, for which advance approval was not obtained, or where the length of stay was beyond that necessary for committee meeting attendance. Please also communicate this information to appropriate staff.

7.5. Travel Expenses for Participation in State Courts System Committees or Commissions

Reasonable travel expenses necessary for participation in State Courts System committees or commissions (e.g., District Courts of Appeal Budget Commission, Standard Jury Instructions Committee - Criminal) will be paid without separate prior authorization, from the budgets of and in accordance with the travel guidelines established for each committee.

Reimbursement for attendance at Supreme Court oral argument to represent a court committee or commission must be approved in advance by the Chief Justice.

8.6. Travel Expenses for Legislative Hearings

Generally, the OSCA will coordinate travel by judges for participating in legislative hearings. Expenses associated with such travel will be paid from your district budget with prior approval of the chief judge or designee, or if such participation is associated with membership on a Supreme Court-appointed committee, expenses will be reimbursed from that committee’s committee budget. When judges receive personal invitations to appear and testify before a legislative committee, expenses for associated travel will be paid from the district budget with prior approval from the chief judge or designee.

9.7. Out-of-State Education Travel

Out-of-state educational travel funded through the Court Education Trust Fund will continue to be approved by the Florida Court Education Council in accordance with its established guidelines.



Page 45 of 70


According to State Chief Financial Officer policy, a traveler may not claim per diem or lodging reimbursement for overnight travel within fifty (50) miles (one-way) of his or her headquarters or residence (city to city, calculated in accordance with the Department of Transportation Official Map Miles), whichever is less, unless the circumstances necessitating the overnight stay are fully explained by the traveler and approved by the Agency Head in advance of the travel. I am delegating this approval authority to chief judges; however, this delegation does not apply to, with the exception of the travel funded through the Court Education Trust Fund, travel associated with the circuit and county conferences’ business programs, and travel funded by state budgetary sources other than the district courts (e.g., travel funded through a court committee’s budget). Official written approval from the chief justice or designee or chief judge must be attached to the reimbursement voucher when submitted for payment. Vouchers without this approval will be returned. A reduction in this requirement to less than 35 miles may only be approved by the chief justice or designee under extraordinary circumstances.


Pursuant to s. 120 of Chapter 2016-62, Laws of Florida, “costs for lodging associated with a meeting, conference, or convention organized or sponsored in whole or in part by … the judicial branch may not exceed $150 per day. An employee may expend his or her own funds for any lodging expenses in excess of $150 per day.”

When this limitation does not apply, hotel room charges that exceed $150.00 per night (room rate only), still should be avoided, and less costly alternatives secured when possible. Charges in excess of $150.00 (room rate only), must be justified on travel vouchers submitted for reimbursement.

Lodging rates for This rate does not apply to travel sponsored by the Court Education Trust Fund, or travel funded by state budgetary sources other than individual district budgets, are subject to further limitations. Rates funded by these sources will be set by the paying entity.


Reimbursement for Class C travel for per diem and subsistence is prohibited insection 112.061(15), Florida Statutes.

4. TAR Submission for Convention and Conference Travel

Page 46 of 70


Travel reimbursements for convention or conference travel (with the exception of judges’ participation in district court conference), must be submitted for payment with a Travel Authorization Request (TAR) form, according to State of Florida travel guidelines. TAR forms will be prepared by the OSCA on the judges’ behalf for district court conference education and business programs. The TAR form must include a statement of the benefits accruing to the State of Florida by virtue of attendance. Although an event may be identified by a different title (e.g., “Symposium” or Summit”), it may by its nature meet the definition of a conference or convention under Florida Administrative Code 69I-42.002 and therefore require a TAR.

In addition to a mission-critical statement, as provided under section D.1.c., the travel voucher seeking reimbursement for attendance at a conference or convention must include the statement of the benefits accruing to the State of Florida by virtue of attendance.

5. Education and Training Activities

Travel for education and training activities must be directly related to the employee’s current job duties and have primary benefit to the State.

F. Senior Judge Compensation

Senior judge compensation is $350 for each day of service for FY 2016-17 2015-16. Attachment IV reflects the allocation of senior judge days for each districtcourt. Any necessary travel expenses for senior judges to serve must be paid fromeach court’s allocation.

G. Payment of Florida Bar Membership Fees/Legal Education Courses

The 2016-17 2015-16 General Appropriations Act allows for the payment ofFlorida Bar membership fees for employees that require membership as a conditionof their employment by the state. (For a list of eligible position titles, please referto the memorandum of June 22, 2016 July 2, 2015 from Eric Maclure JackieKnight.)

Payment for legal education courses will be left to the discretion of each chief judgebased on the availability of expense money within each district court.

Page 47 of 70


I am requesting that you disseminate the information contained in this memorandum to all judges in your courts. The policies outlined herein will remain in effect until such time as they are succeeded with an updated memorandum.

If you have any questions about budget matters, please contact Dorothy Willard, Chief of Budget Services, at (850) 488-3735. Questions relating to personnel matters should be directed to Beatriz Caballero, Chief of Personnel Services, at (850) 617-4028. Other finance questions should be directed to Jackie Knight, Chief of Finance and Accounting Services, at (850) 488-3737.

JL/rn

Attachments

cc: Patricia (PK) Jameson Eric Maclure Blan Teagle Dorothy Willard Beatriz Caballero Jackie Knight Steven Hall

Page 48 of 70




BARBARA J. PARIENTE R. FRED LEWISPEGGY A. QUINCECHARLES T. CANADYRICKY POLSTONC. ALAN LAWSON

JUSTICES

MEMORANDUM






DATE: July xx, 2017 November 22, 2016

SUBJECT: Budget and Pay Administration for Fiscal Year 2017-18 2016-17

I have established the following budget and pay administration policies for the current fiscal year, consistent with the recommendations of the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission (DCABC) and also addressing other issues. Substantive changes from the prior year’s policy are underlined.

A. Personnel Actions - Other than regulations limited by these “Personnel Actions”policies and procedures and the sharing of sick leave donations across the districtcourts, all regulations provided in the State Courts System Personnel Manual(https://intranet.flcourts.org/osca/personnel/bin/personnel_regulationsmanual.pdf)remain in effect.


a. The salaries of the clerks of the district courts shall be equalized amongthemselves, and the salaries of the marshals of the district courts shall beequalized among themselves. The starting salary for the clerk is $117,483 and

APPENDIX C : OSCA PROPOSED FY 2017-18 DCA B&P MEMO

Page 49 of 70

Budget and Pay Administration July xx, 2017 November 22, 2016 Page 2 of 14

for the marshal $114,878.64. No clerk or marshal of a district court will be eligible to receive a special pay increase, or salary rate allocation, unless the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission recommends an equal increase for all clerks and/or marshals of the district courts to the Supreme Court for final approval.

b. Effective October 1, 2017, eligible1 employees with a base rate of pay is $40,000 or less on September 30, 2017, will receive an annual increase of $1,400.

Effective October 1, 2017, eligible employees with a base rate of pay greater than $40,000 on September 30, 2017 will receive an annual increase of $1,000; provided however, in no instance may an employee’s rate of pay be increased to annual amount less than $41,400.


Effective July 1, 2017 2016, a district court judge’s salary is $154,140. Effective October 1, 2017, a district court judge’s salary is $169,554.


a. It does not appear to be necessary to hold positions vacant in the district courts at this time. However, to stay within the salary management plan established by the DCABC for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17, an included employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act should not work overtime without advance approval from his or her supervisor. The District Court of Appeal Budget Commission will monitor the salary budget and impose such restrictions as necessary in order to cover payroll costs through the end of the fiscal year.

b. Subject to available rate and salary appropriation, as confirmed by the Chief

Justice, a rate distribution may be made during FY 2017-18 FY 2016-17.

1 “Eligible” employees refer to employees who are, at a minimum, meeting their required performance standards, if applicable. Employees classified as being other personnel services (OPS) employees are not eligible for an increase. For the State Courts System, employees who are not working under a Performance Improvement Plan are assumed to be meeting their required performance standards.

Page 50 of 70


i. A rate distribution plan shall be submitted by the DCABC to the Chief Justice for approval prior to implementation of a rate distribution to ensure equity between the Districts and Supreme Court positions.

ii. Distribution to the district courts will be based on the total number of eligible

FTE in each district (less judges) unless otherwise directed by the DCABC.

iii. Individual salary increases may not exceed 10 percent.

iv. The effective date of actions may begin the first day of the month following the Chief Justice’s confirmation of available rate and salary appropriation and approval of a rate distribution plan. A Personnel Action Request (PAR) for all rate distribution actions must be submitted to the OSCA Personnel Office for processing on the next available monthly payroll. No retroactive salary increases are permitted

v. When it is anticipated that allocations for a district court will not be used by June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017, the DCABC will assess the health of the salary budget and determine whether to re-purpose the funds or let the funds revert for statewide budget management.

vi. Outside of any rate distribution, no special pay increases are permitted. The chief judge may request an exception from the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.


a. Initial appointment rates must be at the minimum of the class pay range. The chief judge may request an exception from the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator. If the chief judge provides documentation to the State Courts Administrator that the affected position has been advertised no fewer than two times and that either no applicant met the qualifications or that no qualified applicant would accept the position at the minimum salary, appointment up to 10% above the minimum salary is summarily approved.

b. Upon promotion, an employee’s salary shall be increased to the minimum of the

class to which the employee is being promoted. However, if that increase is less than five percent (5%), the chief judge or his/her designee may approve a promotional increase for an employee of up to five percent (5%) of the employee’s salary prior to promotion, provided such an increase will not place

Page 51 of 70


the employee’s salary above the maximum for the new range. The chief judge may request an exception by the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

c. Regarding Donation of Sick Leave, State Courts Personnel Regulations section

4.09(3)(B): In the case of the district courts of appeal, the chief judge of the employee’s court may notify the chief judges of the other district courts of appeal of the request for donations. Any chief judge of a district court of appeal may notify the employees of his/her respective court of the request for donations.

5. Law clerk appointment rates are to be made in accordance with the policies outlined

in the Appellate Law Clerk Pay Plan. Any incentive adjustments and promotional increases made at the discretion of the employing judge and chief judge, shall be consistent with the Appellate Court Law Clerk Pay Plan, a current copy of which is found in Attachment I. No special pay increases are permitted. The chief judge may request an exception from the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

6. Overlap of positions in accordance with the State Courts System Personnel

Regulations may be approved by the DCABC upon determination that sufficient salary dollars are available and the overlap is necessary to avoid disruption in efficient operation of the district. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

7. Positions approved for upward reclassifications are limited to those reclassifications

which result in a salary increase of ten percent (10%) or less over the original classification. If a position is reclassified within these limitations, the chief judge may approve a promotional increase for the incumbent not to exceed five percent (5%) of the employee’s current salary or to the minimum of the new class, whichever is greater, provided such an increase will not place the employee’s salary above the maximum for the new range. The chief may request an exception by the DCABC. These requests should be sent to the Chair of the DCABC with copies to the State Courts Administrator.

8. An employee who is selected for an acting appointment in a managerial position,

i.e., Marshal, Clerk, or Director of Central Staff, is eligible for a five percent (5%) pay increase or the amount necessary to bring the employee’s pay to the minimum of the higher class, whichever amount is lower, for the period of time the employee

Page 52 of 70


is in an acting managerial capacity, provided the employee has completed two months of service in the acting capacity.

9. Other Personal Services (OPS) funds are authorized this fiscal year to meet

temporary employment needs of the districts.

a. If it is determined that adjustments are needed to your OPS category funding via a transfer from another operating category, please complete the budget amendment form outlined in Section B.1. below.

b. Districts requesting hourly rates above the minimum must provide adequate

justification to the OSCA Chief of Personnel Services, who may authorize the adjusted hourly rate.



Section 216.181, Florida Statutes, requires that all budget amendments from the judicial branch must be requested only through the Chief Justice and must be approved by the Chief Justice and the Legislative Budget Commission. If it is determined, after reviewing your operating budgets that you need adjustments from one operating budget category to another, please complete the transfer form (in hard-copy or by e-mail) and send it to Dorothy Willard, Chief of Budget Services, so that appropriate budget amendments can be processed. Attachment II provides instructions and the form for this purpose.

C. Fixed Capital Outlay (FCO) Projects and Administration

District Court Fixed Capital Outlay Projects and Administration of In re: District Court Fixed Capital Projects, No. AOSC11-3 (Fla. Jan 14, 2011), provides for the oversight and monitoring of district court courthouse construction projects. See Attachment III for policy guidelines.

D. Authorized Travel 1. Mission Critical Determination; Approval Authority and Requirements

a. Section 56, SB 2502, 119 of Chapter 2016-62, Laws of Florida, provides that

“the funds appropriated to each state agency which may be used for travel by

Page 53 of 70


state employees shall be limited during the 2017-2018 2016-2017 fiscal year to travel for activities that are critical to each state agency’s mission.” Consistent with guidance memorandum No. 43, 2015-2016 from the Department of Financial Services, this budget and pay administration memorandum sets forth my initial determination of the types of activities that I deem mission critical for the State Courts System and that may, consistent with this memorandum, necessitate travel by state employees:

i. Activities related to the adjudication of cases.

ii. Business meetings and other activities related to the administrative operations and responsibilities of the Supreme Court, the district courts of appeal, the circuit courts, the county courts, and the Office of the State Courts Administrator.

iii. Meetings and operational activities of commissions, committees, workgroups, and similar bodies created by the Supreme Court.

iv. Meetings and operational activities of the judicial conferences. v. Meetings and operational activities of The Florida Bar and of

commissions, committees, workgroups, and similar bodies created by The Florida Bar.

vi. Meetings of local, state, national, or international organizations the agenda of which includes subjects related or beneficial to the operation of courts.

vii. Educational, training, or similar conference, conventions, meetings, or events that benefit justices, judges, and court system staff through the provision or exchange of information on court-related matters or matters affecting the courts, including but not limited to education programs organized or sponsored under the oversight of the Florida Courts Education Council.

b. In approving travel as authorized and prescribed in this memorandum, the

chief judge or designee must approve the travel in advance and in writing, state how the specific travel activity is critical to the court’s mission consistent with the initial determination in paragraph a., and state that consideration was given to the use of teleconferencing or other forms of electronic communication as an alternative to the travel. The chief judge of the Second District Court of Appeal may prescribe in writing “blanket” approval for ordinary travel between court facilities within the district. If the chief judge delegates travel approval to a designee, the chief judge should prescribe the delegation in writing and retain a copy in the court’s file. In

Page 54 of 70


addition, the district should retain the documentation approving the travel required by this paragraph.

c. Each voucher seeking reimbursement for travel expenses must include a

statement describing how the travel was critical to the mission of the court system. The statement can reference that the travel was for one or more of the types of activities determined to be mission critical in paragraph a. Examples of mission-critical statements include: • “Travel to attend a meeting of a Supreme Court committee, as determined

to be mission critical pursuant to the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.”

• “Attendance at the Florida Court Personnel Institute was for a training activity benefiting court system staff, which is recognized as mission critical pursuant to the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.”

• “Travel to attend a meeting of the Civil Procedures Rules Committee of The Florida Bar, as determined to be mission critical pursuant to the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.”

• “Traveler was asked to testify before a legislative committee on issues affecting dependency cases, which is mission-critical travel related to the adjudication of cases and the administrative operation of the district under the Chief Justice’s budget and pay administration memorandum.

In addition to a mission-critical statement, when a traveler is seeking reimbursement for attendance at a conference or convention, he or she must include on the reimbursement voucher a statement of the benefits accruing to the State of Florida by virtue of attendance and must attach an approved Travel Authorization Request form.

2. Travel Out of the United States

The Chief Justice must approve in advance and in writing travel out of the United States, regardless of the source of funds for payment of the travel.

3. Out-of-State Travel

a. The Chief Justice must approve in advance and in writing all out-of-state travel paid in whole or in part with state funds.

Page 55 of 70


b. In order to implement funds appropriated in the 2017-18 2016-17 General Appropriations Act for state employee travel, with prior approval of the chief judge and submission of a Travel Authorization Form (TAR), expenses to attend conferences, educational or other informative sessions of the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal may be reimbursed since this travel is mission critical to the operations of the District Courts of Appeal. The chief judge of each court may also authorize mission critical travel to attend meetings, conferences, seminars, training classes, and travel for events in addition to the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal and other than those covered in Sections 6, 7, and 9 below, provided that all expenses are paid with a source of funding other than state funds.

c. Notwithstanding subsections a. and b. above, travel to attend the National

Association for Court Management Annual Conference and the National Conference of Appellate Court Clerks Annual Meeting when held out of state is determined herein to be mission critical, and travel expenses may be paid with state funds.

4. Intra-District Travel

Intra-district travel necessary as a result of case-related activities or administrative matters may be approved by the chief judge or designee, provided such travel is in support of the administration of justice consistent with the Rules of Judicial Administration.

5. Intra-State Travel

Intra-state travel necessary as a result of case-related activities or administrative matters may be approved by the chief judge or designee, provided such travel is in support of the administration of justice consistent with the Rules of Judicial Administration.

6. Travel Expenses – Florida Bar Meetings

The annual and midyear meetings of The Florida Bar and meetings of committees and sections of The Florida Bar are not organized or sponsored in whole or in part by the judicial branch. You are encouraged to continue to support judicial participation in meetings of the following sections and committees, which are provided as a guideline for the chief judges of the district courts:

Page 56 of 70



Chief judges and the chair and chair-elect of the Florida Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges will be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses for their attendance at the mid-year and annual meetings of The Florida Bar. These expenses will be charged against your district court budget.


Members of Supreme Court-appointed committees staffed by The Florida Bar may be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses associated with the meetings of those groups with prior approval from the chief judge or designee. These expenses will be charged against your district court budget. The committees and section to which this policy applies are:

• Standard Jury Instructions Committee – Civil • Standard Jury Instructions Committee – Contract & Business Cases • Commission on Professionalism


District court judges and other court staff who are serving as members of selected committees and sections of The Florida Bar may be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses associated with the meetings of those groups with prior approval from the chief judge or designee. These expenses will be charged against your district court budget. The committees and sections to which this policy applies are:

• Alternative Dispute Resolution Section Executive Council • Appellate Court Rules Committee • Appellate Practice Section Executive Council • Civil Procedure Rules Committee • Code and Rules of Evidence Committee • Constitutional Judiciary Committee • Continuing Legal Education Committee • Criminal Law Section Executive Council • Criminal Procedure Rules Committee • Family Law Rules Committee

Page 57 of 70


• Family Law Section Executive Council • Judicial Administration & Evaluation Committee • Judicial Nominating Procedures Committee • Juvenile Court Rules Committee • Law Related Education Committee • Legal Needs of Children Committee • Probate Rules Committee • Pro Bono Legal Services Committee • Professional Ethics Committee • Professionalism Committee • Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section Executive Council • Rules of Judicial Administration Committee • Small Claims Rules Committee • Traffic Court Rules Committee • Trial Lawyers Section Executive Council • Vision 2016 Commission and Workgroups

The following specific guidelines apply to all Florida Bar committee- and section-related travel:

d. Room charges that exceed the established conference rate will be reimbursed

only up to that rate. Judges are encouraged to make alternative arrangements, at lower rates, when at all possible. Room charges in excess of $150.00 per night (room rate only) should be avoided, but when that is not possible, excess charges must be justified on travel vouchers submitted for reimbursement.

e. For approved committee and section meetings, same day travel must be

utilized whenever possible. Necessary overnight travel will be reimbursed for the night immediately before or after the date of the committee meeting only if same day travel cannot be accomplished or presents an undue hardship.

f. No reimbursement for attendance at Supreme Court oral argument representing a section or committee will be paid.

g. No reimbursement for attendance at seminars, or symposiums, representing a

section or committee will be paid.

Page 58 of 70


I am asking that you take the necessary steps to communicate this policy to judges in your district, particularly those who are new to the bench, in order to eliminate confusion about the requirements for reimbursement. We want to minimize problems with judges submitting travel vouchers for participation in committees not on the approved list, for which advance approval was not obtained, or where the length of stay was beyond that necessary for committee meeting attendance. Please also communicate this information to appropriate staff.

7. Travel Expenses for Participation in State Courts System Committees or Commissions

Reasonable travel expenses necessary for participation in State Courts System committees or commissions (e.g., District Courts of Appeal Budget Commission, Standard Jury Instructions Committee - Criminal) will be paid without separate prior authorization, from the budgets of and in accordance with the travel guidelines established for each committee. Reimbursement for attendance at Supreme Court oral argument to represent a court committee or commission must be approved in advance by the Chief Justice.

8. Travel Expenses for Legislative Hearings

Generally, the OSCA will coordinate travel by judges for participating in legislative hearings. Expenses associated with such travel will be paid from your district budget with prior approval of the chief judge or designee, or if such participation is associated with membership on a Supreme Court-appointed committee, expenses will be reimbursed from that committee’s budget. When judges receive personal invitations to appear and testify before a legislative committee, expenses for associated travel will be paid from the district budget with prior approval from the chief judge or designee.

9. Out-of-State Education Travel

Out-of-state educational travel funded through the Court Education Trust Fund will continue to be approved by the Florida Court Education Council in accordance with its established guidelines.


Page 59 of 70



According to State Chief Financial Officer policy, a traveler may not claim per diem or lodging reimbursement for overnight travel within fifty (50) miles (one-way) of his or her headquarters or residence (city to city, calculated in accordance with the Department of Transportation Official Map Miles), whichever is less, unless the circumstances necessitating the overnight stay are fully explained by the traveler and approved by the Agency Head in advance of the travel. I am delegating this approval authority to chief judges; however, this delegation does not apply to, travel funded through the Court Education Trust Fund, travel associated with the circuit and county conferences’ business programs, and travel funded by state budgetary sources other than the district courts (e.g., travel funded through a court committee’s budget). Official written approval from the chief justice or designee or chief judge must be attached to the reimbursement voucher when submitted for payment. Vouchers without this approval will be returned. A reduction in this requirement to less than 35 miles may only be approved by the chief justice or designee under extraordinary circumstances.


Pursuant to Section 58, SB 2502, s. 120 of Chapter 2016-62, Laws of Florida, “costs for lodging associated with a meeting, conference, or convention organized or sponsored in whole or in part by … the judicial branch may not exceed $150 per day. An employee may expend his or her own funds for any lodging expenses in excess of $150 per day.”

When this limitation does not apply, hotel room charges that exceed $150.00 per night (room rate only), still should be avoided, and less costly alternatives secured when possible. Charges in excess of $150.00 (room rate only), must be justified on travel vouchers submitted for reimbursement.

Lodging rates for travel sponsored by the Court Education Trust Fund, or travel funded by state budgetary sources other than individual district budgets, are subject to further limitations set by the paying entity.


Reimbursement for Class C travel for per diem and subsistence is prohibited in section 112.061(15), Florida Statutes.

Page 60 of 70


4. Convention and Conference Travel

Travel reimbursements for convention or conference travel (with the exception of judges’ participation in district court conference), must be submitted for payment with a Travel Authorization Request (TAR) form, according to State of Florida travel guidelines. TAR forms will be prepared by the OSCA on the judges’ behalf for district court conference education and business programs. The TAR form must include a statement of the benefits accruing to the State of Florida by virtue of attendance. Although an event may be identified by a different title (e.g., “Symposium” or Summit”), it may by its nature meet the definition of a conference or convention under Florida Administrative Code 69I-42.002 and therefore require a TAR.

In addition to a mission-critical statement, as provided under section D.1.c., the travel voucher seeking reimbursement for attendance at a conference or convention must include the statement of the benefits accruing to the State of Florida by virtue of attendance.

5. Education and Training Activities

Travel for education and training activities must be directly related to the employee’s current job duties and have primary benefit to the State.

F. Senior Judge Compensation Senior judge compensation is $350 for each day of service for FY 2017-18 2016-17. Attachment IV reflects the allocation of senior judge days for each district court. Any necessary travel expenses for senior judges to serve must be paid from each court’s allocation.

G. Payment of Florida Bar Membership Fees/Legal Education Courses The 2017-18 2016-17 General Appropriations Act allows for the payment of Florida Bar membership fees for employees that require membership as a condition of their employment by the state. (For a list of eligible position titles, please refer to the memorandum of July xx, 2017 June 22, 2016 from Eric Maclure.)

Page 61 of 70


Payment for legal education courses will be left to the discretion of each chief judge based on the availability of expense money within each district court.

I am requesting that you disseminate the information contained in this memorandum to all judges in your courts. The policies outlined herein will remain in effect until such time as they are succeeded with an updated memorandum. If you have any questions about budget matters, please contact Dorothy Willard, Chief of Budget Services, at (850) 488-3735. Questions relating to personnel matters should be directed to Beatriz Caballero, Chief of Personnel Services, at (850) 617-4028. Other finance questions should be directed to Jackie Knight, Chief of Finance and Accounting Services, at (850) 488-3737. JL/rn Attachments cc: Patricia (PK) Jameson Eric Maclure Blan Teagle Dorothy Willard Beatriz Caballero Jackie Knight Steven Hall

Page 62 of 70

III. FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request

Page 63 of 70


August 3, 2017


Agenda Item III.A.: FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request – Fixed Capital

Outlay

No requests were submitted by the 1st, 3rd, 4th or 5th District Courts of Appeal.

2nd District Court of Appeal:

Issue – New Courthouse Building

The Second District Court of Appeal (DCA) requests $4,196,359 for 1) the Legislature to select

a new consolidated courthouse site; 2) Department of Management Services (DMS) to retain

architect to design a new courthouse on selected site; and 3) DMS to retain contractor to estimate

costs of new courthouse design.

The Florida Legislature, in Specific Appropriation 3142A of the 2016 General Appropriations Act,

directed the Department of Management Services (DMS) to “contract for a study of the courthouse space

and location needs of the Second District Court of Appeal.” On December 22, 2016, DMS submitted to

the Legislature the “Second District Court of Appeal Space and Location Needs Study.”

The Study’s Executive Summary includes the following facts and recommendations:

Currently the Second DCA is the only appellate court in the state that has operations in two

locations, Lakeland and Tampa (p. 4).

The Second DCA has vacated the Lakeland courthouse due to health concerns presented by

the 55-year old courthouse’s degradation (p. 8).

It is estimated that the Lakeland courthouse needs at least $6.5 million in repairs, well above

the facility’s estimated value (p. 7). Even with such investment, a repaired facility does not

meet the Second DCA’s operations requirements (p. 7).

The Second DCA now operates in Lakeland in separate leased space (p. 8). However, space

exists for only three judges in the Lakeland leased space (p. 8). The Lakeland leased space

also includes space for only two central staff attorneys, various support staff, and the Clerk’s

and Marshal’s offices, but does not include a courtroom (p. 8).

The Second DCA continues to operate in Tampa in leased space controlled by Stetson

University’s College of Law (p. 8). However, the Second DCA currently does not have a

courtroom under its control (p. 5). All oral arguments take place in classroom space

controlled by Stetson University or in other locations (p. 5).

All Second DCA judges are provided with limited space in the Tampa leased space (p. 8).

However, some of the offices are less than ideal (p. 8). By necessity, several of the judges’

staff attorneys and the Second DCA’s central staff attorneys work in cubicles and shared

offices (p. 8).

Consolidation into one location would significantly improve the efficiency of the court by

streamlining operations, reducing duplicative costs, and improving productivity (p. 4-5).

Page 64 of 70

The best long-term option is to build a new state-owned courthouse (p. 6).

The DMS Study recommends that the parcel selection process for the new courthouse should

first explore state-owned land located in the Tampa Bay region (p. 6). Consideration should

also be given to land owned by other governmental jurisdictions (p. 6).

Based on the foregoing, the Second DCA respectfully requests $4,196,359 (non-recurring) in

Fiscal Year 2018-19 for:

(1) the Legislature to select a new consolidated courthouse site;

(2) DMS to retain an architect to design a new courthouse on the selected site; and

(3) DMS to retain a contractor to estimate the costs to construct that design on the selected site,

so the Second DCA can request those costs in future years.

The justification for the requested $4,196,359 was derived by applying a 1.44 multiplier upon the

actual costs of $2,914,138 incurred for pre-construction services for the new courthouse

currently under construction for the Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach.

A 1.44 multiplier is being applied because the costs of pre-construction services typically are

based on the estimated square footage of the facility to be constructed. The Study estimates the

Second DCA’s ideal departmental space to be approximately 59,000 square feet (Study at p. 40),

which would be 1.44 times larger than the Fourth DCA’s departmental space of approximately

41,000 square feet.

Thus, applying a 1.44 multiplier upon the actual costs of $2,914,138 incurred for pre-

construction services for the new courthouse currently under construction for the Fourth DCA in

West Palm Beach, would amount to the requested $4,196,359 estimated to be necessary for pre-

construction services for a new courthouse for the Second DCA. It should be noted that only

limited pre-construction services can be completed until the courthouse site has been selected.

The building cannot be designed without full and complete site information.

If the Legislature determines that, in addition to building a new consolidated courthouse, the

Second DCA should maintain a satellite location, then additional funds would be needed to

construct offices or lease space at that satellite location.

Options:

1. File the issue as requested.

2. Do not file an issue.

Page 65 of 70


August 3, 2017


Agenda Item III.B. FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request – Employee Pay Issue

Background

In its Fiscal Year 2014-15 legislative budget request (LBR), in order to retain highly

skilled employees and to experience more equity with other government salaries, the

judicial branch requested $18,828,193 in recurring salary appropriation. However,

recognizing the considerable size of such a request, the judicial branch proposed a two-

year implementation period. In 2014 the Legislature provided $8,132,614 for first-year

implementation. That funding assisted the judicial branch in making significant

headway in addressing retention and salary equity between the branch and other

governmental entities for similar positions and duties.

As a top priority of its Fiscal Year 2015-16 and Fiscal Year 2016-17 LBRs, the judicial

branch requested second-year funding of $5,902,588 in recurring salary dollars branch

wide, to finish addressing a wide range of salary issues. In its Fiscal Year 2017-18

request, the branch sought $6,388,909.

Following is a portion of the narrative submitted for the Fiscal Year 2017-18 LBR:

EQUITY, RECRUITMENT, AND RETENTION PAY ISSUE FOR STATE

COURTS SYSTEM:

1. The judicial branch requests second-year funding of $6,388,909 in

recurring salary dollars branch wide, effective July 1, 2017, to continue

addressing a wide range of salary issues affecting non-judge employees of the

State Courts System.

In its Fiscal Year 2014-15 legislative budget request, in order to recruit and

retain highly skilled employees and to experience more equity with other

government salaries, the judicial branch requested $18,828,193 in recurring

salary appropriation. However, recognizing the considerable size of such a

request, the branch proposed a two-year implementation period. In 2014 the

Legislature provided $8,132,614 for first-year implementation. That funding

assisted the judicial branch in making significant progress in addressing

recruitment, retention, and salary equity between the branch and other

governmental entities for similar positions and duties.

Page 66 of 70

Employee Pay Issue

Page 2

With the first-year funding, the court system was able to increase pay

minimums of more than 100 classes and create 10 new classes within its pay

plan. Following implementation of the first-year funding, the courts system

has continued to review classes that were not adjusted in the first phase for

initial analysis of pay equity, retention, or recruitment issues and to review

classes that were adjusted in order to identify ongoing equity, retention, or

recruitment issues.

The courts system also has monitored for salary compression among newer

and longer-term employees within the same class. Based on that continued

review and analysis, the courts system has determined that the second-year

funding need is $6,388,909 in recurring salary dollars.

The salary appropriation for the State Courts System continues to present

challenges in providing the necessary flexibility for the branch to respond to

dynamic, shifting employment market factors. One-half of the branch’s

salary appropriation is a fixed cost needed for judicial salary obligations and

the courts have no flexibility to hold those positions open or to alter the salary

level to generate lapse dollars. Given these factors, addressing salary

problems as they arise continues to present a challenge.

Although positively impacted by the 2014 legislative funding, the judicial

branch must continue its progress in reaching its Long Range Strategic Plan

goal of attracting, hiring, and retaining a qualified, ethical, and diverse

workforce. Success in this regard depends on the branch’s ability to attract,

hire and retain highly qualified and competent employees. As Florida’s

economy continues to improve, the employment environment is sure to

become increasingly competitive. The State Courts System needs to be able

to retain and recruit top talent in all of its elements to ensure that justice is

served in the most efficient and effective manner to the people of Florida.

Decision Needed

1. Recommend a Fiscal Year 2018-19 LBR for second-year funding for court staff

salary equity, recruitment, and retention issues.

2. Recommend not filing an LBR for court staff salary equity, recruitment, and

retention issues.

Page 67 of 70


August 03, 2017


Agenda Item III.C.: Certification of New Judgeships

In July 2006, the Court released its opinion In Re: Report of the Commission on District Court

of Appeal Performance and Accountability – Rule of Judicial Administration 2.035 (No. SC06-

397). The opinion created a new step in the judicial certification process, requiring each district

to submit their requests for new judgeships to the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission

for review and approval. The requests for new judgeships and the Budget Commission’s

approval are then submitted to the Court for consideration.

Request for new judgeships for the upcoming FY 2018-19 Certification of Need for Additional

Judgeships process will be sent out by the Office of the State Courts Administrator, Office of

Court Services the week of August 21st and are due the week of September 4th. Given the

timeline of the FY 2018-19 LBR, if any Appellate Court submits an issue, a vote via email, by

the DCABC is recommended.

For informational purposes only.

Page 68 of 70


August 03, 2017


Item III.D.: Discussion and Priority Determination of LBR Issues

PRIORITY #

Chapter 216, Florida Statutes, requires the judicial branch (and all state entities)

to list the request for operational expenditures in excess of the base operating

budget, including fixed capital outlay issues, in order of priority. Schedule VIIIA of

the Legislative Budget Request (LBR) is the means by which this prioritization is

provided.

The chart below reflects the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 LBR issues presented to the

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission. For those issues approved, please

rank the priority order.

PRIORITY #STATEWIDE ISSUES

Employee Pay Issue

Certification of New Judgeships (if submitted)

FIXED CAPITAL OUTLAY ISSUES

2nd DCA – FCO – New Building Construction

Page 69 of 70

IV. Other Business and Adjournment

Page 70 of 70

Documents

Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:30 p.m. 4:00 p.m. Video ... · B. Approval of June 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes II. FY 2017-18 Salary Budget A. Amended Start-Up Salary Budget B. Recommendations