Utah courts ask lawmakers for pay increases for frontline staff, additional judges and oppose proposed travel cut

The Utah Judiciary asked the Criminal Justice Appropriations Subcommittee on Feb. 4 to approve a package of budget requests intended to reduce staff turnover, cover growing caseloads and preserve court services statewide. State Court Administrator Ron Gordon told the panel the Judicial Council’s top priorities include pay increases for frontline positions, adding judicial officers in high‑need districts and funding essential court software.

Why it matters: Court leaders said high turnover among judicial assistants — the employees who run courtrooms, manage electronic case files and operate WebEx hearings — is creating delays and risks to court operations. The judiciary described pay and training investments as necessary to maintain timely hearings and public safety.

Gordon and finance director Carl Sweeney walked the committee through seven Judicial Council priorities. The council’s top personnel request is $3.0 million ongoing to provide roughly a 5% increase for three job categories: probation officers (in the juvenile system), judicial assistants and administrative staff. Gordon said the positions are now “professional-level” roles that require specialized training; he and judges who spoke described an average of about 18 months to reach full proficiency for a new judicial assistant.

The analyst from the Legislature’s Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst (LFA), Gary Sifas, opened the item with a budget overview. He said the courts’ total budget — including the Office of Guardian ad Litem — is approximately $218 million, of which roughly $188 million is general fund. The LFA presented possible reduction options, including reclaiming some in‑state travel savings (about $119,500 identified by the analyst as an unspent portion) and proposing a transfer of select general fund costs to the courts’ restricted court security account. Sifas flagged roughly $5,000 in contracts/leases that merited review and proposed the security fund as a resource for some IT security spending.

Gordon and court staff opposed one proposed reduction tied to in‑state travel savings, telling the committee those freed dollars had already been redirected by the courts to pay for juvenile specialized counseling and other services. Gordon said the judiciary could identify more than the LFA’s suggested $188,000 to shift to the court security fund — “I think we’re close to $300,000” — and therefore the proposed transfer could be larger if the Legislature wanted to pursue it.

Judicial assistants and judges described the work demands. Judge Sushata Bazell (Fourth Judicial District) told lawmakers the position has evolved from clerical tasks to a role that “requires extensive training and highly specialized skills,” especially after electronic filing and pandemic-era remote hearings became routine. Judge Larson (Sixth Judicial District) described hybrid calendar work and WebEx management that add duties to a single position and said her district’s judicial assistants are working unpaid overtime to keep calendars and jury operations moving.

The judiciary also requested new judicial officers. Gordon said the Judicial Council prioritized additional judges in the Court of Appeals, the First District juvenile court and the Sixth District district court because of rising filings and backlogs. The council asked for up to eight judges (plus two commissioners) overall; Gordon said the court of appeals filings have grown and the court had an “all-time high” of opinions and orders in 2024.

On staffing and training, the courts described existing efforts to reduce turnover: employee assistance programs, job‑duty reviews to reassign nonessential tasks and a multi‑month review with the National Center for State Courts to identify culture and process improvements. Committee members recommended partner programs — for example, engagement with higher‑education programs and stackable credential training to build a pipeline for court positions.

Guardian ad Litem: The Office of the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) presented separately to request parity for GAL attorneys compared with Attorney General salaries. Stacy Snyder, GAL director, said the GAL’s statewide budget is about $11–12 million and that disparities with AG pay scales make recruitment and retention difficult; she asked the committee to complete prior-year partial funding to equalize salaries, noting a high caseload and two vacancies in her office.

What the committee recorded: Lawmakers asked detailed questions about training time, cross-district staffing options, and whether the Supreme Court could shift appellate workload. Gordon noted the Supreme Court has distinct constitutional duties (rules and attorney discipline) that limit how much of its casework can be reassigned.

Next steps: The judiciary left the committee with budget handouts and a prioritized request list. Committee members suggested administrative-efficiency reviews and partnerships with educational institutions. The court asked the committee to consider one‑time or ongoing funds for essential software and for pilot moves into court security account funding for IT needs.

Ending: Court leaders emphasized that morale and retention concerns are practical risks to timely case processing and public safety; they urged funding to stabilize the workforce and to address rising caseloads in prioritized districts.