A. FY21 Requests Greater that Baseline: 1 . Case Management - PDF document

Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland Court House 200 Charles Street La Plata, Maryland 20646 H. JAMES WEST (301) 932-3228 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to present circuit court’s justification for its Fiscal Year 2021 budget request. We worked with the Chief of Budget to identify $27,000 in cuts to the court’s FY21 general fund operating budget. The court will work diligently during the fiscal year to devise creative solutions to effectively operate within the confines of this budget reduction. However, for the next fiscal cycle the court will require adequate funding to address its operational challenges related to public safety; court-based criminal justice programs; space needs; regionally competitive salaries for court employees; etc. Circuit court’s FY21 budget proposal included one new position, replacement capital items, and requests for new operating capital equipment. The requests above the recommended baseline budget are: A Case Management Coordinator position; CourtSmart listening room (equipment and furniture); equipment for two additional smart courtroom installations; and video remote interpreting systems for two courtrooms. The attachment describes information about, and justification for, each request. Also included in the attachment is the court’s justification for continued supplemental funding to support the operations of Charles County’s Public Law Library. Of the FY21 requests that are above the recommended funding baseline, the CourtSmart listening room and the Case Management Coordinator are the court’s highest priorities. Maryland Rule 16-504(i)(1) requires courts to permit attorney and public access to the court’s audio record for listening purposes only. At this time, the only established area that complies with the rule is on a secured hallway that is used to transport detainees, and by the judges to access the parking garage. This scenario poses a security and public safety risk. Funding would permit the creation of a listening room in a public access area of the first floor of the courthouse. This is the third fiscal year that the circuit court has requested funding for a Case Management Coordinator. During the COVID-19 emergency closure, the court is experiencing the void that the absence of this position creates. While the management staff’s focus is diverted to emergency staffing levels, public information, technology integration, and basic continuity of operations, there is no designated person to run performance reports; to identify cases requiring immediate attention; and to inform case management decision-making. The likely outcome will be delayed access to justice for many litigants, especially for the civil and family cases. This is contrary to the court’s mission to instill public trust and confidence in the court. Even though the court requested that the position be funded for the full fiscal year, we request that the Commissioners consider funding the position for one-half or a portion of, the fiscal year. As a recently-appointed Administrative Judge, I see firsthand the ever-increasing demand for courts to be more accountable to the public they serve. In order to meet these demands, and to achieve greater access to justice for those we serve, the court will require commensurate funding in future fiscal years. Again, thank you for providing the court a forum to present and justify its FY21 budget request. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me or the Court Administrator, Debbie Zrioka. Sincerely, /s/ H. James West H. James West, Administrative Judge

CIRCUIT COURT JUSTIFICATION FY21 BUDGET PRESENTATION FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. FY21 Requests Greater that Baseline: 1 . Case Management Coordinator a. Integrated with the oversight role of the court’s Director of Court Operations, the addition of a Court Researcher and a Case Management Coordinator to the staff would create a data collection and analysis unit to manage court performance utilizing a team approach. b. The Case Management Coordinator will enter data using a variety of collection instruments, and routinely compile all performance data for the Court Researcher. c. Absent sustained data collection and performance analysis, upon which to devise and implement improvement strategies, courts simply perpetuate business as usual, detrimental to the mission of instilling public trust and confidence in the courts. d. The Case Management Coordinator will also play an integral role in analyzing criminal case performance and management. 1. Currently, no court administration staff are assigned to perform criminal case management. 2. Further, this position will spearhead court-based justice reform and Criminal Justice Coordinating Council initiatives. 2. CourtSmart Listening Room (Furniture and Equipment) a. Maryland Rule 16-504(i)(1) directs that, except for proceedings closed pursuant to law or as otherwise provided in this Rule or ordered by the Court, the authorized custodian of an audio-video recording, upon written request from any person, shall permit the person to listen to and view the recording at a time and place designated by the court, under the supervision of the custodian or other designated court official or employee. b. The room currently designated for CourtSmart audio management is located on a secure hallway that is public access restricted. c. To comply with the rule, the court is required to establish an alternate CourtSmart listening room that is publicly accessible. d. Since the custodian of the record must supervise one's listening session, the room has to be equipped with a disc burner and PC to promote continuity of his/her work. The new public listening PC will require an additional CourtSmart client license. A desk, table, chairs, and phone are also needed. 3. Two Audio/Visual Courtroom Presentation Equipment Installations @ $66,500 Background Information: A feature of the Administrative Office of the Courts' Maryland Electronic Courts (MDEC) initiative is to create courtrooms equipped with audio/visual courtroom presentation systems. The AOC funding allocation for a "smart courtroom" is for one courtroom per jurisdiction. Courtroom D was Charles County Circuit Court's only courtroom designated for AOC-funded "smart courtroom" equipment.

a. A high-tech courtroom enhances the display of exhibits, witness testimony, juror engagement, etc. Components of "smart courtrooms" include: video displays; attorney, witness, and juror monitors; remote witness testimony and video conferencing; etc. b. The court seeks to incrementally install this technology in all of its jury courtrooms. c. County Government appropriated funding for two smart courtroom installations in the court’s FY20 budget. The court intends to fund a third smart courtroom installation during FY20 using its remaining budget account balances. The equipment vendor offers a five-year maintenance plan for the equipment it installs. The graduated per annum maintenance costs are: Year 1 $1,750/courtroom; Year 2 $1,837.60/courtroom; Year 3 $2,021.00/courtroom; Year 4 $2,230.50/courtroom; and Year 5 $2,445.85/courtroom. There is a 1-year warranty on all equipment from the date of installation. The annual maintenance costs begin after the 1- year warranty expires. Maintenance fees ($5,250) for the three courtrooms installed in FY20 will be incurred during the FY21 budget cycle. 4. Video Remote Interpreting Equipment (2 Courtrooms) a. A new Administrative Office of the Courts' Access to Justice Department initiative is the introduction of video remote interpreting (VRI) services. b. The AOC's funding allocation for video remote interpreting equipment is for one courtroom per jurisdiction. c. VRI provides court interpreters in a timely fashion for brief court proceedings and emergency matters when it is not feasible to secure an in-person interpreter. VRI requires the use of specialized equipment, to include a videophone and Bluetooth headsets, at both counsel tables. d. The court seeks to incrementally install this technology in all courtrooms. The FY21 funding request is for VRI equipment in two additional courtrooms: one judge and one family magistrate courtroom. B. Transfers Out - $28,000 Law Library Revenue Subsidy a. The Charles County Public Law Library is a Special Revenue Fund program, receiving funding from the following revenue sources to support basic operations and to maintain its print and electronic resources: $3,000 from the County Government; appearance fees; fines; and forfeitures (Revenue split = 50% Law Library; 45% County; and 5% State). b. In the last three years, the library has reduced its print material inventory and renegotiated contracts to offer augmented, yet cost-effective, online content. Citing Maryland Rule 16-105(b)(9), the court requested, and received, FY18, FY19, and FY20 allocations in its general fund budget to defray the costs of judicial, family magistrate, and courtroom legal resources. Diversion of these expenditures from the library’s budget to the court’s budget was required to augment library budget funds for per annum online services and print contract increases and to counterbalance falling revenues. c. Despite maneuvers to reduce library expenditures, the revenue sources are growing increasingly unstable and do not keep pace with fiscal year expenditures. Further, Justice Reinvestment Act-driven Maryland Rule changes will all but decimate the bond forfeiture revenue source. d. Charles County Circuit Court is the only court in the state with a self-help legal clinic collocated in a public law library. With the expansion of self-help legal assistance to better assist the citizens of the