Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary seeks sheriff contract funding and describes pilot accountability court costs
Summary
Judiciary officials told the committee negotiated sheriff courthouse security rates landed higher than expected ($57/hr), creating a $552,000 shortfall; they also described a 16‑week pilot accountability court with personnel costs of about $128,007 and requested committee follow‑up on limited‑service positions.
Terry Corsales and Greg Bowersley, speaking for the judiciary, told the Senate Appropriations Committee that sheriff contract negotiations produced higher hourly rates than originally budgeted and that the change requires a midyear adjustment.
Bowersley said the judiciary had built $54 per hour into its base budget but negotiations settled at a top rate of $57 per hour for some contracts, producing an unanticipated $552,000 increase to cover courthouse security in 11 sheriff departments. He emphasized that the contracts are primarily for courthouse security positions (walk‑arounds, parking‑lot checks and on‑site deputies) and are negotiated as a single statewide rate rather than on a county‑by‑county basis.
On criminal justice innovation, judiciary staff described an "accountability" pilot court in Geraldton implemented initially as a two‑month pilot and extended to roughly 16 weeks. The pilot required staffing (a retired judge, courtroom operator, judicial assistance and security) and set‑up for a separate courtroom block; the total expense sought to cover the pilot was listed as about $128,007.
Committee members asked whether elements of the pilot could be scaled without sustaining the separate courtroom and were told some components — including transport guarantees and provider presence at courthouse hearings — could be carried forward by carving out docket time in existing courtrooms rather than creating a standalone courtroom.
Judiciary representatives also discussed limited‑service positions: 35 positions (including 26 previously requested) were approved as limited service in the prior session, and staff raised concerns that uncertainty about permanence increases turnover and undermines institutional knowledge. Judiciary asked the committee to consider treatment similar to positions made permanent for other agencies during last session.
