meeting agenda thursday, june 18, 2020, 2:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m ... meeti… · judge clayton roberts,...

MEETING AGENDA

Thursday, June 18, 2020, 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Zoom Meeting

Welcome and Roll Call

I. Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes

II. FY 2019-20 Budget A. Salary Budget B. Operating Budgets C. Positions Vacant Over 180 Days D. Trust Fund Cash Balances

III. Contingency Planning for Budget Reductions

IV. FY 2020-21 Budget A. Start-Up Salary Budget B. Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum C. Allocations

1. Base Operating Budget 2. New Resources

V. FY 2021-22 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) A. LBR Timeline B. Preliminary Discussion

VI. Coronavirus 2019 A. Tracking COVID-19 Expenditures and Federal CARES Act Funding B. Workgroup on the Continuity of Court Operations and Proceeding During and

After COVID-19

C. COVID-19 Backlog Impact Plan

VII. Other Business

Adjournment

Next Meeting:

August 20, 2020, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Zoom

Page 1 of 73

bosleysText Box

I. Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes

Page 2 of 73

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission

Video Conference Call

Meeting Minutes

July 15, 2019

Members Present Judge Clayton Roberts, Chair

Judge Jonathan Gerber, Vice Chair

Judge Stephanie Ray

Judge Stevan Northcutt

Judge Kevin Emas

Judge Ivan Fernandez

Judge Melanie May

Marshal Kevin Taylor

Marshal Jo Haynes

Marshal Veronica Antonoff

Marshal Daniel DiGiacomo

Marshal Charles Crawford

Judge Spencer Levine

Judge Kerry Evander

Judge Richard Orfinger

Members Absent Judge Nelly Khouzam

Others Present Justice Barbara Lagoa, Judge Brian Lambert, Lisa Kiel, Eric Maclure, Dorothy Willard, Sharon

Bosley, and other OSCA staff.

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

Agenda Item I.: Welcome and Opening Remarks

A. Roll Call

Judge Clayton Roberts welcomed members and called the District Court of Appeal Budget

Commission (DCABC) meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. Judge Roberts then requested roll call.

B. Approval of May 13, 2019, Meeting Minutes

Judge Roberts asked if there were any objections to the May 13, 2019, meeting minutes. Judge

Northcutt moved to approve the minutes; Judge Emas seconded. There being no questions or

comments, Judge Roberts showed the minutes approved without objection.

Agenda Item II.: FY 2018-19 Budget

A. Salary Budget

Sharon Bosley provided an overview of the salary budget as of June 30, 2019 and reported the

adjusted liability under salary appropriation was $1,048,239.

Page 3 of 73


July 15, 2019

Page 2 of 4

B. Positions Vacant over 180 Days

Sharon Bosley reviewed the positions vacant over 180 days as of July 8, 2019.

C. Operating Budgets

Sharon Bosley reviewed the operating budgets as of June 30, 2019 and reminded the commission

the data will continue to change until the certified forward process is complete.

D. Trust Fund Cash Statement Overview

Sharon Bosley presented the Administrative Trust Fund cash analysis and reported the cash

balance as of June 30, 2019, was $170,421.

Agenda Item III.: FY 2019-20 Budget

A. Start-Up Salary Budget

Sharon Bosley presented the FY 2019-20 start-up salary budget, stating the final adjusted

liability over salary appropriation at full employment is $694,925. Ms. Bosley reported an

adjustment of $326,348 to the projected DROP liability was made based on feedback from the

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

B. 2109-20 Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum

Judge Roberts stated that OSCA staff will make changes regarding travel policy and is asking the

chief justice to allow the DCABC to make changes. Judge Roberts requested Judge Northcutt

provide an overview of the 2019-20 Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum (BPM)

revision status.

Judge Northcutt reported that most changes made from the 2017-18 BPM address reorganization

and clarification of the memorandum, with the most important change being the language

seeking approval to redistribute rate realized due to lapse. Judge Northcutt noted that because of

the rate limitation the chief justice recently placed on marshals and judicial assistants, the

DCABC transmittal letter will recognize the chief’s authority by stating that those classes are not

included in the proposed BPM.

Eric Maclure provided an overview of workgroup attachments and requested the commission

approve technical latitude for OSCA staff to make changes regarding travel language.

Judge Northcutt presented an expanded explanation of Option 1 and Option 2.

Dorothy Willard noted the strikethroughs on page 25, paragraph b., would impact Judicial

Assistants. Currently, Section 7 of the Personnel Regulations do not impact personal staff to

individual judicial officers (judicial assistants). Lisa Kiel suggesting adding language to the

BPM to address judicial assistant promotional increases.

Chair Roberts recommended the vote be postponed until a final draft with the recommended

edits can be presented to the commission for consideration.

Page 4 of 73


July 15, 2019

Page 3 of 4

C. 2nd DCA Reclassification Request

Jo Haynes provided an overview of the 2nd DCA reclassification request and stated 7,746.33 in

rate would be needed to implement the request.

Judge Northcutt moved to approve Option 1. Judge Emas seconded the motion and with no

objections, Judge Roberts showed the motion as adopted.

Agenda Item IV.: Update on Classification and Compensation Study

Eric Maclure reported the vendor for the Classification and Compensation Study, Evergreen, is

currently making the final changes to their recommendations. Once these are received, OSCA staff

will provide data to the DCABC for consideration of approval. The timeline for implementation will

then be finalized and all decisions will be presented to the chief justice for preparation of a plan in

September 2019. Once the chief justice approves a plan a budget amendment will be prepared,

submitted, and should be approved approximately three weeks after submission.

Agenda Item V.: FY 2020-21 Legislative Budget Request (LBR)

A. 2nd DCA New Courthouse Judge Roberts provided a historical overview of this issue and a summary of the 2020-21

proposed request. Judge Ray moved to approve this issue for the 2020-21 LBR. Judge Northcutt

seconded the motion and with no objections, Judge Roberts showed the motion as adopted.

B. Unfunded Deputy Marshal Positions

Judge Gerber presented an overview of the positions in Reserve and noted some of the unfunded

FTE have been realized in 2018. As such, the number of unfunded FTE that can be requested to

be funded is 6.5.

Jo Haynes noted the chart included in the LBR does not include the Supervising Deputy

Marshals. Judge Roberts asked OSCA staff to update the chart to include this class title. Judge

Northcutt moved to approve this issue for inclusion in the 2020-21 LBR with the amended chart.

Judge Emas seconded the motion.

C. DCA Headquarters; Subsistence/Travel Reimbursement

Judge Roberts provided an overview of the issue and reported that in FY 2019-20, the Supreme

Court received funding for a similar request. Since the appellate court judges face this same

issue, Judge Roberts would like to consider advancing this issue for the FY 2020-21 LBR. He

the proposal would track statutory language and funding via the chart included as Attachment 1.

Judge Fernandez moved to approve this issue for including in the 2020-21 LBR. Judge

Northcutt seconded the motion. Eric Maclure requested staff latitude due to revised statutory

language that is not included in the current LBR narrative. Judge Roberts amended the motion to

allow compliance with what the Supreme Court has in place, and with no objections, showed the

amended motion as adopted.

Page 5 of 73


July 15, 2019

Page 4 of 4

D. Judicial Compensation

Eric Maclure provided an update regarding judicial compensation and current benchmarks in

relation to Supreme Court Justices rate. Mr. Maclure reported the there are two options to

address the current disparity between the supreme court justice rate of pay and appellate, circuit,

and county court judge rate of pay; 1) address the disparity using the current benchmarks, or; 2)

re-establish the benchmarks to the Supreme Court rate. Lisa Kiel confirmed the decision is at the

supreme court and no DCABC approval is necessary.

Agenda Item VI.: DCABC Operational Procedures

Judge Roberts asked Jo Haynes to provide an overview of the proposed changes. Ms. Haynes

reported that most of the changes removed duplication of operating procedures that are in Rule and

reported that Section VII. (Appeals) is an addition to the procedures. Judge Roberts noted the

addition of Section 7.b. (Email Voting).

Judge Northcutt moved to approve the DCABC Operational Procedures as revised. Judge Levine

seconded and with no objections, Judge Roberts showed the motion as adopted. Eric Maclure

reported that the DCABC approved revisions will now be presented to the Supreme Court for final

approval.

Agenda Item VII.: Other Business

Judge Roberts reported there was a supplemental issue to be presented for DCABC consideration.

Judge Emas stated presented a request to rehire an appellate judicial assistant at the previous salary

received at the time of separation from the Third DCA before transfer to the circuit courts. Since the

rules of promotion would not reach the amount previously made at the appellate court, exception

approval is requested. Judge Emas requested the commission suspend the rules of promotion to

allow the rehire to be paid at the previous rate of employment. Judge Northcutt moved to approve as

requested. Judge Fernandez seconded and with no objections, Judge Roberts showed the motion as

adopted.

Agenda Item VIII.: Future Meetings

Judge Roberts stated the next DCABC videoconference meetings are scheduled for August 15, 2019,

and August 20, 2019. The primary topic of discussion will be the classification and pay study.

Judge Roberts stated the September 3, 2019, DCABC meeting to be held at the DCA Conference in

Amelia Island is tentative at this time.

Agenda Item IX.: Adjournment

With no other business before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.

Page 6 of 73


Video Conference Call

Meeting Minutes

August 15, 2019 and August 20, 2019

Members Present: August 15, 2019Judge, Clayton Roberts, Chair


Judge Stephanie Ray

Judge Nelly Khouzam


Judge Kevin Emas


Judge Kerry Evander



Marshal Jo Haynes





Members Absent Judge Melanie May

Others Present Judge Brian Lambert, Katrina Samuels, Mary Beth Kuenzel, Lonn Weissblum, Lisa Kiel, Eric

Maclure, Blan Teagle, Sharon Bosley, Dorothy Willard, and other OSCA staff.

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

materials.


Judge Clayton Roberts welcomed members and called the District Court of Appeal Budget

Commission (DCABC) meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.

Agenda Item II.: Legislative Budget Request (LBR) – Issue Priority Ranking

Sharon Bosley reported that the 2020-21 LBR issues were approved by the DCABC on July 15,

2019, and the issues need to be ranked in order of priority as a requirement of LBR submission.

Ms. Bosley reminded the commission the issues approved were the 2nd DCA New Courthouse,

Unfunded Deputy Marshal FTE, and DCA Headquarters; Subsistence/Travel Reimbursement.

Judge Roberts moved the issues be ranked in the following priority order:

1) 2nd DCA New Courthouse

2) DCA Headquarters; Subsistence/Travel Reimbursement

3) Unfunded Deputy Marshal FTE

Page 7 of 73


August 15, 2019

August 20, 2019

Page 2 of 7

Judge Ray seconded and with no objections, Judge Roberts showed the motion as adopted.

Agenda Item III.: Workshop to Develop Classification and Compensation

Implementation Plan Recommendations

A. FY 2019-20 General Appropriations Act Special Pay Issue

Eric Maclure provided an overview of the materials provided with this agenda item and

reviewed the funding available for consideration of distribution.

B. 2014 Special Pay Issue – Overview for Procedural Reference

Eric Maclure provided a historical overview of the 2014 special pay issue and reported that

the 2019-20 specific appropriation is not an extension of the original request but instead, a

new budget request that was funded. Mr. Maclure also noted that at the time of the 2014

distribution, there was not a classification and pay study to assist whereas for the current

distribution, the Compensation and Classification Study provided by Evergreen will assist to

guide the distribution and framework of the State Court System (SCS) Class and Salary

Schedule.

C. 2019 Comprehensive Compensation and Classification Study Report

Blan Teagle provided additional information regarding the report provided by Evergreen and

noted that the SCS contracted with the vendor to complete this study prior to the

appropriation being realized. As such, the plan is an effort to equalize pay with approved

market-based research and should be used as a framework for the decision-making process

for presentation to the chief justice.

Mr. Teagle noted that if the basic recommendations provided by Evergreen are adhered to,

the SCS should be able to maintain the integrity of Evergreen’s findings, as follows:

- Align pay ranges with current market values - Reduce pay range compression; 90% of employees are bunched together and minimums

are too low

- Reduce the number of classification titles (too many overlap) - Redefine job levels to distinguish work responsibilities within class structures

D. Employee Recruitment and Retention Issues

Dorothy Willard provided an overview of the appellate courts turnover rates, using both time

in classification and years of service data. Ms. Willard noted the data on pages 23, 24, and

25 are inaccurate and her office would provide the corrected information to the commission

as soon as possible.

E. Guiding Principles (Branch and DCA Specific)

Judge Roberts reported that commission leadership, judicial conference leadership, and the

State Courts Administrator met in July to discuss implementation and determined it is

unrealistic to use the blended minimum salary rates due to the high cost. Judge Roberts

stated the commission’s goals for the $1.18 Million distribution are to increase funding to

Page 8 of 73


August 15, 2019

August 20, 2019

Page 3 of 7

positions and solve the compression issues while maintaining benchmarks set at the policy

level. He requested that staff provide information regarding the trial courts decisions and

cost estimates.

F. Cost Estimates (Minimum Adjustments and Compression)

Ms. Willard reported that after considering various approaches, the trial courts decided to

reduce public minimums by 8%. To address compression, the trial courts recommended the

following bands:

- 2 to 5 years in class: $600 flat rate - 5 to 10 years in class: $1,200 flat rate - 10 to 15 years in class: $1,800 flat rate - 15 plus years in class: $2,400 flat rate

Ms. Willard reported that Competitive Area Differentials (CAD’s) were recommended to be

eliminated by incorporating the amounts into minimums. If it is later determined that CAD’s

are necessary, the issue will be readdressed. Ms. Willard also reported the trial courts

allocated $600,000 in rate to chief judges to address recruitment, retention, equity, and merit

salary increases not addressed in the plan.

Judge Roberts requested that the commission maintain equal pay for the marshals and clerks,

as this plan creates disparity among those classes. Judge Northcutt moved to maintain

equalization of pay for class titles of Clerk-District Court and Marshal-District Court. Judge

Levine seconded and with no objections, Judge Roberts showed the motion as adopted.

Judge Roberts requested additional cost-out options from the members. Judge Northcutt

requested a list of benchmarks before any decisions are made; Judge Roberts reported the

Supreme Court has not finalized the benchmarks except for Law Clerks, Marshals, Clerk, and

Judicial Assistants.

After discussion, it was agreed upon by representatives of each court that the most important

classes to be addressed are law clerks and staff attorneys to ensure they are competitive. Lisa

Kiel offered to provide what the trial courts determined for law clerks and staff attorneys.

Additionally, members also agreed that security and IT classes should be addressed and that

some rate should be withheld for flexibility.

Dorothy Willard provided additional information regarding TCBC decisions for

Administrative Assistant, IT, and Law Clerk classes and noted the TCBC decided to reduce

minimums to obtain funding for compression.

Judge Northcutt made the following motion for DCABC guiding principles:

Step 1: Identify classes across budget entities that are equal;

Step 2: Assume various percentages across the board;

Page 9 of 73


August 15, 2019

August 20, 2019

Page 4 of 7

Step 3: Identify top priority that would be exempt;

Step 4: Amount of overage and how to make up for shortfall; additional reductions may

be considered to minimum pay to create compression.

Judge Emas seconded and with no objections, Judge Roberts showed the motion as adopted.

Judge Fernandez made a motion that the following classes be considered for increase:

- Law clerks, staff attorneys, central staff directors - Information Technology positions - Security: Deputy Marshal and below - Chief Deputy Marshal be equalized to Chief Deputy Clerk

Judge Khouzam seconded and with no objections, Judge Roberts showed the motion as

adopted.

Lisa Kiel requested a recommendation regarding compression today so staff could make

additional projections if needed. The commission agreed to align with the TCBC bands of

time in class for compression purposes and agreed that if staff is currently being paid above

minimum, only the compression amount would be received.

Jo Hayes indicated interest in seeing the proposals by class and noted that judicial assistants

would need to be discussed to compete with the circuits; Judge Northcutt indicated an

individual discussion would probably be necessary. Lisa Kiel added that any decision

regarding judicial assistants may need to be revisited once the Supreme Court determines the

compensation and pay distribution for their budget entity and the impact on this class.

Dorothy Willard asked if there were any other classes to cost out for compression in addition

to attorney, IT, security related classes, or additional adjustments to ensure all scenarios are

considered. Lisa Kiel recommended projections start at 8% and hold harmless any staff

currently making more than a revised minimum salary. Judge Northcutt agreed, with the

caveat that additional reductions from minimums for some classes may be necessary to meet

the law clerk needs.

Agenda Item IV.: Other Business

Judge Roberts stated that OSCA staff will prepare charts based upon the commission’s

recommendations today and will distribute those before the next DCABC meeting scheduled via

video conference for August 20, 2019.

Agenda Item V.: Adjournment

With no other business before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Page 10 of 73


August 15, 2019

August 20, 2019

Page 5 of 7

Members Present: August 20, 2019Judge, Clayton Roberts, Chair


Judge Stephanie Ray

Judge Nelly Khouzam


Judge Kevin Emas


Judge Kerry Evander



Marshal Jo Haynes





Members Absent Judge Melanie May

Others Present Judge Brian Lambert, Katrina Samuels, Mary Beth Kuenzel, Lonn Weissblum, Lisa Kiel, Eric

Maclure, Blan Teagle, Sharon Bosley, Dorothy Willard, and other OSCA staff.

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


Judge Clayton Roberts welcomed members to the second meeting regarding classification and

compensation implementation and called the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission

(DCABC) meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.

The following agenda items are continued based on DCABC recommendations made at August 15,

2019 video conference:

Agenda Item III.: Workshop to Develop Classification and Compensation

Implementation Plan Recommendations

F. Cost Estimates (Minimum Adjustments and Compression)

Judge Roberts reviewed the charts OSCA prepared based on the commission’s recommendations

of protected classes and compression rates agreed upon at the August 15, 2019, meeting, and

reported the projected cost of the minimum recommendations is $1.7 million and the

compression projected cost is $262,403.

Page 11 of 73


August 15, 2019

August 20, 2019

Page 6 of 7

G. Recommendations

Judge Roberts stated the amount available for distribution is $1.18 million, then requested

proposals for reduction. After many recommendations were received and costs computed

respectively, the final motion for submission to the Supreme Court for implementation approval

is as follows:

• The minimum salary adjustments proposed total $942,998. The proposal adjusts all public minimum salaries 10 percent except the class titles as shown below. Incumbent staff would

be held harmless if the adjusted minimum salary is less than the current rate of pay.

Judicial Assistant 8 percent adjustment

Career Attorney 5 percent adjustment

Chief Deputy Clerk Equalized with Chief Deputy

Marshal with 10 percent adjustment

Court Security Officer I 5 percent adjustment

Deputy Marshal 4 percent adjustment

Deputy Marshal Supervisor 4 percent adjustment

Director of Central Staff 5 percent adjustment

Law Clerk (new hires) 2 percent adjustment

Senior Law Clerk 5 percent adjustment

Senior User Support Analyst 5 percent adjustment

System Administrator 5 percent adjustment

User Support Analyst 5 percent adjustment

• The compression rates proposed total $262,404 and would be distributed based on time in class, as shown below:

2 to 5 years $600 flat rate

5 to 10 years $1,200 flat rate

10 to 15 years $1,800 flat rate

15 plus years $2,400 flat rate

These recommendations exceed the amount available for distribution by approximately $21,500

and would need to be made up through normal lapse.

Judge Northcutt moved to approve the motion as shown. Judge Fernandez seconded and with no

objections, Judge Roberts showed the motion as adopted. Judge Northcutt requested a final chart

with computations be distributed to the commission upon completion.

Agenda Item IV.: Other Business

Judge Roberts thanked all members, marshals, and OSCA staff for their efforts and hard work on

behalf of staff.

Page 12 of 73


August 15, 2019

August 20, 2019

Page 7 of 7

Judge Northcutt thanked Judge Roberts for his leadership and OSCA for their efforts as well.

Agenda Item V.: Adjournment

With no other business before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 a.m.

Page 13 of 73

II. FY 2019-20 Budget

Page 14 of 73

Agenda Item II.A.: Salary Budget

1 46,203,591

2 4,533

3 3,551

4 1,212

5 166

6 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2020 46,213,052

7 (45,824,639)

8 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 388,413

9 (1,223,231)

10 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment (834,818)

11 48,532

12 (786,286)


June 18, 2020

Zoom Meeting

FY 2019-20 District Court of Appeal Salary Budget

Projected Law Clerk Below Minimum Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2020

May 2020

Projected DROP Liability through June 30, 2020

Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 2020

Salary Appropriation

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

Estimated Remaining Leave Payouts (Based on GR/SCRTF two year average and ATF three

year average)

Actual Payroll Adjustments through May 31, 2020

Projected Law Clerk Incentives Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2020

Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2020 (Based on GR two year average and

SCRTF three year average)

Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget ServicesPage 15 of 73

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

Salary Budget Report May 2020 May 2019

Deficit Remaining (786,286) (863,988) Both to the good

Lapse FY 19-20 FY 18-19 FY 17-18 Annual Monthly

July 175,834 115,027 80,790 FY 2018-19 Lapse (3.2%) 1,411,137 117,595

August 182,757 111,173 63,200 FY 2017-18 Lapse (2.5%) 1,063,565 88,630

September 166,427 107,070 77,815 FY 2016-17 Lapse (2.5%) 1,046,766 87,231

October 125,500 71,703 57,124 FY 2015-16 Lapse (2.1%) 862,581 71,882

November 111,678 73,866 107,401 FY 2014-15 Lapse (3.1%) 1,271,917 105,993

December 78,700 78,847 95,500

January 58,174 146,823 108,261

February 77,652 143,245 98,950

March 76,671 147,036 84,212

April 110,578 166,810 98,905

May 104,779 121,770 88,707

June 127,767 102,700

Total 1,268,750 1,411,137 1,063,565

Adjusted Payroll Liability 46,346,238 44,551,788 43,490,353

Lapse % 2.7% 3.2% 2.4%

Vacancies as of month end*

Judges Staff Judges Staff

July 2.00 31.00 0.00 25.00

August 3.00 18.00 0.00 19.50

September 3.00 18.50 0.00 19.50

October 2.00 22.50 0.00 15.50

November 0.00 19.00 0.00 17.50

December 0.00 15.00 0.00 16.50

January 0.00 13.00 3.00 13.50

February 0.00 15.00 2.00 21.00

March 0.00 15.00 2.00 23.00

April 1.00 17.00 2.00 26.00

May 1.00 21.00 0.00 25.00

June 1.00 29.00

monthly average 18.64 monthly average 20.92

1st quarter average 22.50

Last 3 months average 17.67

* Does not include unfunded deputy marshal positions

Historical Lapse

FY 19-20 FY 18-19

Page 16 of 73

Agenda Item II.B.: Operating Budgets

General Revenue Fund

Category District AppropriationExpended /

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance% Expended

1st 24,809 21,254 3,555 85.67%

2nd 14,560 3,668 10,892 25.19%

3rd 37,966 2,662 35,304 7.01%

4th 19,644 18,847 797 95.94%

5th 25,028 20,578 4,450 82.22%

TOTAL 122,007 67,009 54,998 54.92%

1st 1,425,124 1,396,265 28,859 97.98%

2nd 1,149,659 1,079,617 70,042 93.91%

3rd 246,700 187,895 58,805 76.16%

4th 286,917 218,685 68,232 76.22%

5th 261,886 217,554 44,332 83.07%

TOTAL 3,370,286 3,100,016 270,270 91.98%

1st 4,642 4,073 569 87.74%

2nd 48,997 48,997 0 100.00%

3rd 8,567 4,679 3,888 54.62%

4th 24,574 24,403 171 99.31%

5th 13,584 13,584 0 100.00%

TOTAL 100,364 95,736 4,628 95.39%

1st 7,700 0 7,700 0.00%

2nd 8,261 3,804 4,457 46.05%

3rd 1,878 0 1,878 0.00%

4th 0 0 0 0.00%

5th 28,914 28,913 1 100.00%

TOTAL 46,753 32,718 14,035 69.98%

The data below represents the status of the FY 2019-20 operating budget as of May 31, 2020.


June 18, 2020

Zoom Meeting

Expenses

Operating

Capital Outlay

Senior Judge

Days

Other Personal

Services

Page 17 of 73

Agenda Item II.B.: Operating Budgets

General Revenue Fund

Category District AppropriationExpended /

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance% Expended

The data below represents the status of the FY 2019-20 operating budget as of May 31, 2020.

Other Personal

Services

1st 83,594 16,135 67,459 19.30%

2nd 308,812 279,106 29,706 90.38%

3rd 182,745 155,056 27,689 84.85%

4th 179,711 163,020 16,691 90.71%

5th 75,233 63,418 11,815 84.30%

TOTAL 830,095 676,735 153,360 81.53%

1st 86,641 52,087 34,554 60.12%

2nd 34,477 17,310 17,167 50.21%

3rd 9,600 8,864 736 92.33%

4th 0 0 0 0.00%

5th 16,205 16,053 152 99.06%

TOTAL 146,923 94,314 52,609 64.19%

1st 16,895 12,773 4,122 75.60%

2nd 14,560 14,559 1 99.99%

3rd 5,209 3,206 2,003 61.54%

4th 4,681 4,586 95 97.96%

5th 12,446 11,910 536 95.69%

TOTAL 53,791 47,033 6,758 87.44%

Administrative Trust Fund

AppropriationExpended /

Encumbered

Remaining

Balance% Expended

94,669 48,411 46,258 51.14%

27,000 0 27,000 0.00%

121,669 48,411 73,258 39.79%TOTAL

DCA Law Library

Category

Expenses

Operating Capital Outlay

Lease/Lease

Purchase

Contracted

Services

Page 18 of 73

bosleysText Box

Agenda Item II.C.: Positions Vacant Over 180 Days as of June 16, 2020

DISTRICT

COURT

COST

CENTERCost Center Name

Position

NumberClass Title FTE

# of

Days

Vacant

Date

Position

Vacant

Base Rate

1 111 Judicial Administration 003956 Judicial Assistant 1.00 320 08/01/2019 41,821.56

1 111 Judicial Administration 004042 Judicial Assistant 1.00 369 06/13/2019 41,821.56

1 120Workers Compensation

Unit004041 Administrative Assistant II 1.00 497 02/05/2019 34,981.08


Unit011666 Career Attorney 1.00 351 07/01/2019 66,841.68


Unit011671 Deputy Clerk I 1.00 253 10/07/2019 32,333.64

3 115Facilities Maintenance

& Management001468 Custodial Supervisor 1.00 285 09/05/2019 27,638.88

* 000 Reserve 000079 Custodial Worker 0.50 0 00/00/00 10,841.04

* 000 Reserve 004395 Administrative Assistant I 1.00 0 00/00/00 32,092.80

* 000 Reserve 011839 Deputy Marshal-District Court 1.00 0 00/00/00 40,347.48








June 18, 2020

Zoom Meeting

* Note: There is no funding associated with these positions.

Page 19 of 73

1 Beginning Balance July 1, 2019 172,149

2 Revenues Received 2,119,406

3 Expenditures (1,864,086)

4 Cash Balance as of May 31, 2020 427,469

FY 2019-20

FY 2019-20 Cash Statement

As of May 31, 2020


June 18, 2020

Zoom Meeting

ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST FUND

Agenda Item II.D.: Trust Fund Cash Statement Overview

Page 20 of 73

Agenda Item II.D.: Trust Fund Cash Balances

1 Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2019 22,283,315

2 Beginning Balance July 1, 2019 22,283,315

3 Add: FY 2019-20 Revenues1 75,904,539

4 Add: Cost Sharing 3,695,347

5 Less: Expenditures2 (79,046,178)

6 Less: GR Service Charge³ (6,841,774)

7 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2020 15,995,248

8 Beginning Balance July 1, 2020 15,995,248

9 Add: FY 2020-21 Projected Revenues1 85,800,000

10 Add: Cost Sharing 3,695,347

11 Less: Estimated Expenditures⁴ (77,671,524)

12 Less: Estimated GR Service Charge³ (6,273,685)

13 Less: Estimated 5% Reserve⁵ (3,976,316)

14 Estimated Ending Cash Balance June 30, 2021 17,569,069

Estimated Cash Balances

As of May 31, 2020

¹ Based on actual revenues and refunds received through May 31, 2020 and December 19, 2019, Article V Revenue

Estimating Conference, and adjusted for estimated revenue loss related to the COVID-19 pandemic in FY 19-20. FY

20-21 projected revenue is based on the December 2019 REC and does not include estimated revenue loss.

STATE COURTS REVENUE TRUST FUND

⁵ The estimated 5% reserve is calculated on the December 19, 2019 Revenue Estimating Conference projection for

FY 20-21 less the 8% GR service charge.

3 The GR service charge is based on revenues collected/projected for the last three months of the prior fiscal year and the first, second, and third quarters of the current year.

⁴ Represents estimated FY 2020-21 base budget authority for staff salary expenditures and estimated refunds. The

total budget authority is $77,671,524 ($77,636,524 staff salary expenditures and $35,000 refund of state

revenues). Estimates do not include any supplemental appropriations that may be approved in 2020 Legislative

Session such as employee benefit changes.

FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21

FY 2019 - 20

FY 2020 - 21

2 Total estimated budget authority is $79,035,714 ($77,320,948 staff salary expenditures, $1,679,766 operating

categories, plus $35,000 refund of state revenues). Expenditures include $10,464 in prior year certified forwards

for a total of $79,046,178 in expenditures.

Prepared by Office of Budget Services

Page 21 of 73

bosleysText Box

Source

FY 2019-20 Projected Revenues

Percent of Total

Revenue

AdjustedFY 2019-20 Projected

Revenues IncludingCOVID-19 Impact4

Difference Between FY 2019-20

Projected and Adjusted Revenues

$5 Civil Traffic Assessment $8.8 10.3% $7.9 -$0.9

$25 Speeding Fine Increase $5.1 6.0% $4.6 -$0.5

9% Driving School Reduction1 $1.2 1.4% $1.3 $0.1

Subtotal of Civil Traffic Fines $15.1 17.7% $13.8 -$1.3

Real Property/Foreclosure Revenue: $770

Portion of the Total $1,900 Filing Fee$6.4 7.5% $5.1 -$1.3

$50 Administrative Fee for Timeshare Foreclosure

Procedures$0.2 0.2% $0.3 $0.1

$115 Increase in Probate $7.8 9.2% $7.3 -$0.5

$195 Redirect/Increase in Circuit Civil

(Excluding Foreclosures)$34.5 40.4% $31.8 -$2.7

$95 Redirect in Family $7.4 8.7% $5.7 -$1.7

Appellate $50 Filing Fee $0.3 0.4% $0.3 $0.0

$195 for Non-Foreclosure between $15,001 - $30,0002 $1.6 1.9% $2.0 $0.4

$10 County Civil Claims (Evictions) $1.3 1.5% $1.0 -$0.3

$15 County Civil Claims $3.3 3.9% $2.9 -$0.4

$1 Circuit and County Proceedings $1.0 1.2% $1.0 -$0.1

Subtotal of Civil, Probate, and Family Filing Fees $63.9 74.9% $57.4 -$6.6

$25 Application for Marriage License1 $2.7 3.2% $1.7 -$1.0

$100 for Attorneys appearing pro hac vice in Circuit Court1 $0.1 0.2% $0.1 $0.0

Court Ordered Mediation Services3 $3.4 4.0% $2.8 -$0.6

Subtotal of Service Charges $6.3 7.3% $4.7 -$1.6Total5 $85.3 100.0% $75.9 -$9.4

FY 2019-20 Projected Revenues

Percent of Total

Revenue

AdjustedFY 2019-20 Projected

Revenues IncludingCOVID-19 Impact4

Difference Between FY 2019-20

Projected and Adjusted Revenues

$3.50 Probate Claims $0.20 5.7% $0.19 -$0.01

$3.50 Circuit Civil Claims $1.13 32.2% $1.12 $0.00

$3.50 County Civil Claims $2.17 62.1% $2.18 $0.00

Total5 $3.50 100.0% $3.49 -$0.01

5Totals may not be exact due to rounding.

State Courts Revenue Trust Fund and Court Education Trust FundRevenue Projections Based on December 19, 2019, Article V Revenue Estimating Conference

FY 2019-20

State Courts Revenue Trust Fund (in Millions)

Civil Traffic Fines

Civil, Probate, and Family Filing Fees

Service Charges

Note: Projections from the December 19, 2019, Article V Revenue Estimating Conference. Methodology considers the one-month lag receipt of revenues, based on

estimates from the Clerk of Court Operations Corporation's interim revenue reports through May 15, 2020.

1 2019 Post-Session revenue impacts depicted in 9% Driving School Reduction, $25 Application for Marriage License, and $100 for Attorneys appearing pro hac vice

in Circuit Court. 9% Driving School Reduction category no longer remitted to the SCRTF after January 1, 2020.2 Source revenue effective January 1, 2020. New forecasted item that was projected too low during Article V Revenue Estimating Conference.

3 Court Ordered Mediation Services includes the fee charged for Mediation Certification Licenses.

4 Includes pre COVID-19 adjustments.

Court Education Trust Fund (in Millions)

2020-06-11 Quarterly Chief Judges Meeting Page 23

Page 22 of 73

bosleysText Box

bosleysText Box

bosleysText Box

III. Contingency Planning for Budget Reductions

Page 23 of 73

Contingency Planning for Budget Reductions

Beginning Now

Reduce annualized salary dollar costs

Leave newly-funded security FTEs in reserve

Freeze vacant positions

Exceptions: offers accepted prior to freeze, suite attorneys, IT, security

Hire at minimum policy

(What about rehired former employees?)

Hire attorneys at Law Clerk classification

Freeze all Law Clerk Pay Plan actions

Require DCABC approval for all reclassification requests

Beginning July 1

Conserve Operating dollars

Generate Salary Lapse

Hold positions vacant (30, 60, 90 days)(classification-specific?)

Exceptions: IT, security

Extend judicial appointment process

Delay Law Clerk Pay Plan actions (one year, sr. and career)

No overlap/no overtime

Review leave payout liability and require employees to take time off

In the Event of a Budget Reduction

Cuts shall be made according to the following priority:

Salary associated with reserve FTEs (new security money)

Operating funds

Vacant positions

Page 24 of 73

bosleysText BoxAgenda Item III.

Occupied positions

In order to maintain the prioritization described above, salary cuts will have to be taken where vacancies are available. It is anticipated that this may have a disparate impact on a court or courts.

With that proviso, however:

To the extent possible, the DCABC will endeavor allocate cuts in a manner that is equitable to each court in light of agreed-upon workload and resource measures.

As and when resources are restored to the DCAs, the DCABC will allocate them among the courts based on agreed-upon workload and resource measures with priority to given to restoring all courts to their equitable share of resources.

Page 25 of 73

IV. FY 2020-21 Budget

Page 26 of 73

District Courts of Appeal Budget Commission

June 18, 2020

Zoom Meeting

Agenda Item IV.A.: Start-Up Salary Budget

FY 2020-21 District Courts of Appeal Salary Budget

START-UP (As of May 31, 2020)

1 47,027,660

2 110,645

3 21,585

4 194,541

5 13,192

6 Total Projected Payroll Liability through June 30, 2021 47,367,623

7 (46,749,256)

8 Projected Liability OVER/(UNDER) Salary Appropriation @ Full Employment 618,367

9 74,527

10 692,894

1 Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability has been adjusted to remove the 8.0 unfunded FTE.

Projected Staff Attorney Below Minimum Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2021

Projected DROP Liability through June 30, 20212

Projected Full Employment Payroll Liability through June 30, 20211

2 Projected DROP Liability for all participants was $363,111. The DROP Liability has been reduced by ($252,466), removing

the participants reported to stay throughout the fiscal year. Please note the additional liability of $252,466 will be incurred

in the fiscal year that the participants exit the Judicial Branch and may increase/decrease annually as employer costs are

adjusted by the Legislature.

Projected Staff Attorney Incentives Pay Plan Liability through June 30, 2021

Projected Overtime Liability through June 30, 2021 (Based on three-year average)

Estimated Salary Appropriation

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

Projected Leave Payouts (Based on three-year average)

Prepared by the OSCA Office of Budget ServicesPage 27 of 73

Supreme Court of Florida 500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 CHARLES T. CANADY

CHIEF JUSTICE RICKY POLSTON

JORGE LABARGA

C. ALAN LAWSON CARLOS G. MUÑIZ

JOHN D. COURIEL

JUSTICES

MEMORANDUM

JOHN A. TOMASINO

CLERK OF COURT

SILVESTER DAWSON

MARSHAL

THOMAS D. HALL

CLERK OF COURT

TO: Chief Judges of the District Courts of Appeal

Marshals

FROM: Chief Justice Charles T. Canady

DATE: June XX, 2020

SUBJECT: Budget and Pay Administration for Fiscal Year 2020-21

I have established the following budget and pay administration policies for fiscal

year 2020-21 2019-20, consistent with the recommendations of the District Court of

Appeal Budget Commission (DCABC) and also addressing other issues. Deletions

from the prior year’s policy are stricken, and additions to the prior year’s policy are

underlined. Because the changes from the prior-issued memorandum are extensive, this

memorandum does not present the language in legislative format with additions

underlined and deletions stricken-through. Reference the fiscal year 2017-18

memorandum for comparison purposes.

A. Salary Budget Management

1. The DCABC shall continue to monitor the salary budget and impose such restrictions as necessary to cover payroll costs through the end of the fiscal

year. The state courts administrator shall inform the chair of the DCABC

if any action(s) authorized by this memorandum could cause the district

courts to exceed their rate or salary appropriation.

Page 28 of 73

Budget and Pay Administration

June XX, 2020

Page 2

2. The DCABC shall manage collectively and on a statewide basis rate and salary dollars necessary to equitably meet the salary needs of each district,

including but not limited to:

a. Law clerk appointment, incentive adjustments, and promotional increases in accordance with the policies outlined in the Appellate

Court Law Clerk Pay Plan, a current copy of which is found in

Attachment I;

b. Allocation of FTE and targeted rate adjustments supported by the Guiding Principles adopted by the DCABC, a current copy of which is

found in Attachment II;

c. Positions approved for reclassification, lead worker, or administrative worker;

d. Promotional increases, overtime, leave payout, and overlap costs; and

e. Approved chief judge exception requests under Section B, “Personnel Actions.”

3. Subject to available rate and salary appropriation, which has been verified by the state courts administrator, the DCABC may approve a rate

allocation to the individual district courts for use by the chief judges as

authorized under Section B, “Personnel Actions.” When it is anticipated

that allocations for a district court will not be used by June 30, the DCABC

will assess the health of the salary budget and determine whether to re-

purpose the funds, allow the allocation to carry forward, or revert for

statewide management.

4. The pay rate of the district court clerks and marshals shall be equalized. No clerk or marshal will be eligible to receive a salary increase unless the

DCABC approves an equal increase for all clerks and marshals of the

district courts.

Page 29 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 3

B. Personnel Actions

1. Application

Other than regulations limited by these “Personnel Actions” and the

sharing of sick leave donations across the district courts, all regulations in

the State Courts System Personnel Regulations Manual

(https://intranet.flcourts.org/osca/personnel/bin/personnel_regulationsmanu

al.pdf) remain in effect. Unless otherwise limited by this memorandum,

the provisions of Section 7 of the Personnel Regulations Manual by

operation of this memorandum apply to appellate personal staff. Where

authority is reserved for the chief justice or his or her designee in the

Personnel Regulations Manual, the DCABC is the “designee” unless

otherwise noted below. All requests requiring DCABC approval or

requesting an exception to these “Personnel Actions” should be e-mailed to

the chair of the DCABC with copies to the state courts administrator.

2. Original Employment Rates

a. Original employment rates up to 10% over the minimum of the class pay range may be approved by the chief judge when the candidate is

exceptionally qualified as a prescribed in Personnel Regulations

Manual Section 7.02(1) and the additional rate is within a district’s

available rate allocation as established by the DCABC.

b. If the chief judge documents that a 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, the chief judge may advertise and approve an appointment up to

10% over the minimum of the class pay range.

3. Special Pay Increases

Individual special pay increases up to 10% may be approved by the chief

judge pursuant to Personnel Regulations Manual Section 7.03(4) when the

rate is within a district’s rate allocation as established by the DCABC.

Individual increases over 10% must be approved by the chief justice.

Page 30 of 73

https://intranet.flcourts.org/osca/personnel/bin/personnel_regulationsmanual.pdfhttps://intranet.flcourts.org/osca/personnel/bin/personnel_regulationsmanual.pdf


June XX, 2020

Page 4

4. Attorney Increases

One-year incentive adjustments and promotional increases to senior law

clerk or career attorney made at the discretion of the employing judge and

chief judge shall be consistent with the Appellate Court Law Clerk Pay

Plan.

5. Acting Managerial Appointments

An employee appointed as “acting” clerk, marshal, or director of central

staff for two months or more is eligible for a 10% pay increase. If the

appointment period exceeds six months and the employee meets the

minimum qualifications of the position, the chief judge may request that

the DCABC increase the employee’s pay for an amount up to the

minimum of the class for the period the employee serves in an acting

managerial capacity.

6. Overlap in Position

Overlap in Position pursuant to Personnel Regulations Manual Section

7.10, including overlap for periods longer than the periods specified in that

regulation, may be approved by the DCABC, upon a determination that

sufficient salary dollars are available, and the overlap period is necessary

to avoid disruption or for the efficient operation of the district.

7. Effective Date of Salary Changes

a. The effective date for special pay increases authorized by the chief judge may not be prior to the first day of the month that a Personnel

Action Request (PAR) can be processed on the regular monthly payroll.

b. The DCABC shall determine the effective date for actions requiring DCABC approval. The DCABC may approve retroactive salary

increases. However, retroactivity may not be more than two pay

periods, and in no instance shall the effective date be earlier than the

date of the request.

Page 31 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 5

8. Position Class and Lead/Administrative Worker Designations

Subject to the state courts administrator’s determination of proper

classification or lead worker or administrative designation, the DCABC

must approve the funding for:

a. Reclassification requests that will result in a rate increase of 10% or more over the original classification; and

b. Upward pay adjustments for positions designated as lead-worker or administrative worker.

9. Parameters Governing Personnel Actions

Notwithstanding any provisions in this memorandum to the contrary:

a. A district court judicial assistant position may not receive a rate increase that results in a rate of pay at or above the rate for a Supreme

Court judicial assistant.

b. District court marshals may not receive a rate increase that would result in a rate of pay exceeding 97.5% of the rate of pay for the Supreme

Court Marshal.

10. Donation of Sick Leave, Personnel Regulations Manual 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

the request for donations. Any chief judge may inform the employees of

his or her respective court of the request for donations.

C. Budget Administration

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

Page 32 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 6

from one operating budget category to another, please complete the transfer form

(in hard-copy or by e-mail) and send it to Sharon Bosley, Acting Chief of Budget

Services, so that appropriate budget amendments can be processed. Attachment

III provides instructions and the form for this purpose.

D. 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 IV for policy guidelines.

E. Authorized Travel

1. Mission Critical Determination; Approval Authority and Requirements

a. Section 103, HB 5003 111, SB 2502, Chapter 2020-XXX 2019-116, Laws of Florida, provides that “the funds appropriated to each state agency

which may be used for travel by state employees are limited during the

2020-21 2019-20 fiscal year to travel for activities that are critical to each

state agency’s mission.” 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.

Page 33 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 7

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 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.”

Page 34 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 8

• “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.

b. In order to implement funds appropriated in the 2020-21 2019-20 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 subsections 6,

7, and 9 below, provided that all expenses are paid with a source of

funding other than state funds.

Page 35 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 9

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

Association for Court Management Annual Conference, the National

Conference of Appellate Court Clerks Annual Meeting, and the Court

Technology Conference (CTC) (sponsored by the National Center for State

Courts) 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:

a. Annual and Midyear Meetings

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.

Page 36 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 10

b. Supreme Court-Appointed Committees

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

c. Selected Committees

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

• 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

• Mental Health and Wellness of Florida Lawyers Committee

Page 37 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 11

• 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

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 $175 $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 Bar committee or section seminars, symposiums, retreats, etc., will be paid unless the travel is approved in

advance by the Chief Justice upon a determination that the travel is in

support of the administration of justice.

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

Page 38 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 12

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 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. Education Travel

This memorandum constitutes advance written approval for in-state

educational travel funded through the Court Education Trust Fund. Such

travel is deemed critical to the mission of the State Courts System to promote

public trust and confidence by maintaining high standards of professionalism

and ethical behavior. Consideration was given to the use of teleconferencing

or other forms of electronic communication as an alternative to the travel.

Written approval from the Chief Justice distinct from this memorandum for

each specific event is not required. However, such travel is subject to

Page 39 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 13

approval by the Florida Court Education Council in accordance with its

established guidelines. In addition, a Travel Authorization Request (TAR)

form still is required if the event meets the definition of a conference or

convention.

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.

F. General Travel Guidelines

1. Rules Governing Per Diem and Lodging for Overnight Travel

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. See Rule 69I-42.006, Fla. Admin. Code. 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 unusual

circumstances that are justified consistent with the criteria in Rule 69I-42.006,

Fla. Admin. Code (e.g., late night or early morning job responsibilities and

excessive travel time because of traffic conditions).

2. Lodging Room Rate Limits

Pursuant to Section 104, HB 5003 112, SB 2502, Chapter 2020-XXX 2019-

116, Laws of Florida, “costs for lodging associated with a meeting, conference,

or convention organized or sponsored in whole or in part by a state agency or

the judicial branch may not exceed $175 $150 per day. An employee may

Page 40 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 14

expend his or her own funds for any lodging expenses in excess of $175 $150

per day. For purposes of this section, a meeting does not include travel

activities for conducting an audit, examination, inspection, or investigation or

travel activities related to a litigation or emergency response.”

When this limitation does not apply, hotel room charges that exceed $175

$150.00 per night (room rate only), still should be avoided, and less costly

alternatives secured when possible. Charges in excess of $175 $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.

3. 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 Rule 69I-42.002, Fla. Admin.

Code, and therefore require a TAR.

In addition to a mission-critical statement, as provided under Section E.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.

4. 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.

Page 41 of 73


June XX, 2020

Page 15

G. Senior Judge Compensation

Senior judge compensation is $375 for each day of service for FY 2020-212019-

20. Attachment V 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.

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

The 2020-21 2019-20 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 June XX, 2020 23, 2019 from Deputy State

Courts Administrator Eric Maclure.)

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 Sharon Bosley,

Acting Chief of Budget Services, at (850) 410-1484. Questions relating to personnel

matters should be directed to Dorothy Willard, Acting Chief of Human Resources, at

(850) 617-4028. Other finance questions should be directed to Jackie Knight, Chief of

Finance and Accounting Services, at (850) 488-3737.

CTC/sb

Attachments

cc: Lisa Kiel

Eric Maclure

Sharon Bosley

Dorothy Willard

Jackie Knight

Steven Hall

Page 42 of 73

ATTACHMENT I

FLORIDA STATE COURTS SYSTEM APPELLATE COURT LAW CLERK PAY PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES

The following policies shall govern appointments, incentive adjustments, promotions,

pay increases, and utilization of rate and salary dollars for Appellate Court Law Clerks, effective January 1, 1990:

APPOINTMENT

Law Clerks may be appointed to positions in the appellate courts by either an original or

a reinstatement appointment.

An original appointment may be made to the class of Law Clerk, Senior Law Clerk or Career Attorney, and involves placing a candidate on the State Courts System payroll for the first time. Law Clerks who have been admitted to the Florida Bar and who have less than one year of experience practicing law subsequent to passing the Bar shall be appointed at the minimum salary for the Law Clerk class. Law Clerks who have not been admitted to the Florida Bar shall be hired at 10% below the minimum salary for the Law Clerk class. Law Clerks who have been admitted to the Florida Bar and who have at least one year of experience in the practice of law subsequent to passing the Bar may be hired at up to 10% above the minimum salary for the Law Clerk class at the Chief Judge’s discretion. A Law Clerk with extraordinary, prior, nonlegal experience may be appointed at up to 5% above the minimum.

An attorney who has been admitted to the Florida Bar and who has at least two years

experience in the practice of law, subsequent to passing the Bar, may be appointed to the Senior Law Clerk class at the minimum salary. An attorney who has been admitted to the Florida Bar and who has at least three years experience in the practice of law, subsequent to passing the Bar, may be appointed to the Senior Law Clerk class at up to 10% above the minimum salary at the Chief Judge’s discretion. Original appointments to the Senior Law Clerk class in excess of the 10% above the minimum salary must be approved in advance by the Chief Justice.

An attorney who has been admitted to the Florida Bar and who has at least five years

experience in the practice of law subsequent to passing the Bar or five years experience as a Law Clerk, may be appointed to the Career Attorney Class at the minimum salary. An attorney who has at least six years experience in the practice of law subsequent to passing the Bar, may be appointed at up to 10% above the minimum salary at the Chief Judge’s discretion. Original appointments to the Career Attorney class in excess of the 10% above the minimum salary must be approved in advance by the Chief Justice.

A reinstatement appointment is the act of placing a Law Clerk on the State Courts System

payroll who has previously been employed by the State Courts System as a Law Clerk. A reinstated Law Clerk may be appointed at the discretion of the Chief Judge or designee at any rate within the pay range for the class to which the Law Clerk is being reinstated which is equal to or below the rate being paid at the time of separation. The Law Clerk shall not be eligible for

Page 43 of 73

adjustments in the pay range while not employed with the State Courts System; however, if the Law Clerk’s salary at the time of separation was lower than the current minimum of the pay range for the class, the Law Clerk shall be paid at least the current minimum rate. The Law Cle rk may be paid, at the discretion of the Chief Judge, up to 10% above the minimum of the pay range if the Law Clerk possesses training and experience at least one year in excess of the minimum experience requirements for the class to which they are appointed.

PROMOTION

Eligible Law Clerks may be promoted to Senior Law Clerk or Career Attorney with a

promotional pay increase of up to 10% of their base rate of pay or raised at least to the minimum salary for the class to which they are promoted at the discretion of the Chief Judge.

To be eligible for promotion to Senior Law Clerk, the Law Clerk must be a member of

the Florida Bar and have had two years experience as a Law Clerk or a combination of experience as a Law Clerk and in the practice of Law. Experience in the practice of law must be subsequent to admission to the Florida Bar. Experience as an Appellate Court Law Clerk prior to admission to the Bar will count as long as the Law Clerk is admitted to the Florida Bar prior to the promotion to Senior Law Clerk.

To be eligible for promotion to Career Attorney, the Law Clerk must be a member of the

Florida Bar and have had five years experience as a Law Clerk or a combination of experience as a Law Clerk and in the practice of law. Experience in the practice of law must be subsequent to admission to the Florida Bar. Experience as an Appellate Court Law Clerk prior to admission to the Bar will count as long as the Law Clerk is admitted to the Florida Bar prior to promotion to Career Attorney.

INCENTIVE ADJUS TMENTS

Law Clerks who complete one year of service with a court and at the request of their

supervising judge commit to a second year may be granted an incentive adjustment of between $1,500 and $2,500. Chief Judges may authorize an incentive adjustment not exceeding $2,500 upon the recommendation of the supervising judge. Incentive adjustments are not automatic and are at the discretion of the Chief Judge.

PAY INCREASES

Pay increases may be made in order to induce a Law Clerk to remain with the Court, e.g.,

incentive adjustments up to $2,500 or special pay increases up to 10%. In addition, pay increases may be made in association with a Law Clerk’s promotion to Senior Law Clerk or Career Attorney, e.g., promotional pay increases up to 10% of the employee’s base rate of pay or an amount sufficient to bring the Law Clerk being promoted up to the minimum of the class to which they are appointed. Special pay increase of up to 10% of the employee’s base rate of pay may be made to Law Clerks for the purposes determined justifiable by the Chief Judge. An employee may not receive special pay increases totaling in excess of 10% during the fiscal year.

Incentive adjustments exceeding $2,500, promotional pay increases in excess of 10%,

unless necessary to bring the Law Clerk to the minimum of the class to which they are being

Page 44 of 73

appointed, and special pay increases exceeding 10% of the employee’s base rate of pay during a fiscal year must be approved in advance by the Chief Justice.

UTILIZATION OF LAW CLERK RATE AND SALARY DOLLARS

All appointments, promotions, incentive adjustments or special pay increases, whether

approved by the Chief Judge within his/her delegated authority or by the Chief Justice, are subject to available Law Clerk rate and salary dollars. Appellate courts may not take any action affecting a Law Clerk's salary which will create a rate or salary deficit without prior approval. Law Clerk rate will continue to be controlled separately. Surplus rate and salary dollars which may accumulate may be applied to other court support positions, if the Court has satisfied the requirements for basic incentive adjustments for Law Clerks who have completed their first year of service.

ESTABLISHED: January 1, 1990 REVISED: December 14, 1993 AMENDED: August 27, 1998 AMENDED: November 1, 2001

Page 45 of 73

ATTACHMENT II

District Court of Appeal Budget Commission Guiding Principles for Formulating Budgetary Decisions

A. Allocation of resources among the DCA’s must be fair and equitable, based on identifiable allocation measures.

B. The allocation and use of resources must be transparent. No method of distributing our resources can be reliable unless we all are accountable. Each court should promptly and accurately report the manner in which it is using the resources allocated to it.

C. To the extent possible, each DCA should have discretion and flexibility in its use of resources. Once the DCABC has determined how resources should be allocated among the five courts, each court should have the ability to govern its own use of those resources in accordance with State of Florida and State Court System rules and regulations.

D. To the extent possible, any reallocation of existing resources should be accomplished in the manner least likely to disrupt the workflow of the courts or the lives of the employees affected. Equitable, predictable allocation principles should promote stability in our courts, not destabilize them. Sudden and dramatic shifts of resources from court to court could significantly disrupt the workflow of an affected court and demoralize its staff.

E. All judges must be treated equally. Every judge should be afforded the same level of personal staff.

F. Every court is entitled to at least the minimum resources necessary to operate in its unique situation. Every court faces factors that it cannot control and that affect its minimum operating requirements, e.g., number of judges; nature, age and size of physical plan; local utility rates, etc.

Source: DCABC Resource Allocation Workgroup Report and Recommendations, February 17, 2012; Adopted by DCABC April 13, 2012

Page 46 of 73

Note: All referenced forms, in a writable format, are located on the OSCA Office of Budget Services intranet page.

ATTACHMENT III

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL BUDGET AMENDMENT

and

OPERATING BUDGET PROCEDURES

Budget Amendments

All requests for budget amendments should be submitted by the chief judge or his/her designee,

to Sharon Bosley, Acting Chief of Budget Services, via e-mail ([email protected]) utilizing

the attached form (III-A). All information fields on the form must be completed in as much

detail as possible.

The importance of sufficient detail on the budget amendment request form cannot be emphasized

enough. The narrative must include the purpose of the budget amendment, a problem statement

describing the events which are necessitating interim budget action, the proposed solution to the

problem, and the impact if the budget amendment is not approved. The Legislative Budget

Commission (LBC), in conjunction with legislative staff, will use the information provided in

order to make a decision on whether to approve or disapprove a budget amendment.

There are over 40 different types of budget amendments that can be submitted; however, not all

budget amendments require LBC approval. The OSCA Office of Budget Services is not able to

determine whether it will require LBC approval until it has reviewed the budget amendment.

Therefore, each budget amendment is treated as if it would require LBC approval until reviewed

and determined otherwise.

If a budget amendment requires approval of the LBC, it will be placed on the first available

meeting date. The LBC typically meets once each quarter. Budget amendment requests received

by the following dates and within the deadlines required by the Governor’s Office of Policy and

Budget will be placed on the first available LBC meeting:

September 1, 2020 December 1, 2020 March 1, 2021

October 1, 2020 January 4, 2021

November 2, 2020 February 1, 2021

Budget amendments requiring approval of the LBC for FY 2020-2021 cannot be accepted after

March 1, 2021. However, those budget amendments that are submitted and do not required LBC

approval will be subject to a different deadline, as outlined in the Fiscal Year End Deadlines and

Certification Forward Process Memorandum distributed approximately in May each year.

Permanent budget amendment requests must be submitted to the OSCA Budget Office by

December 31 for inclusion in the legislative budget request. After that time, there is no

mechanism to make budget amendments to legislatively approved appropriations permanent.

Page 47 of 73

Note: All referenced forms, in a writable format, are located on the OSCA Office of Budget Services intranet page.

Internal Budget Transfers

All requests for internal operating budget transfers should be submitted by the district court

marshal or his/her designee, to Sharon Bosley, Acting Chief of Budget Services, via e-mail

([email protected]) utilizing the attached form (III-B). All information fields on the form

must be completed in as much detail as possible.

Operating budget transfers are differentiated from budget amendments in the following ways:

1. Internal operating budget transfers will be completed internally at OSCA by Budget

Services staff and do not require legislative approval.

2. An internal operating budget transfer moves funds from one cost center to anot

meeting agenda thursday, june 18, 2020, 2:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m ... meeti… · judge clayton roberts,...

Documents