Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

projections but referred to them as “conservative.” 175 In the face of this detailed analysis and support, it cannot be suggested that court restructuring will have anything other than a significant, positive financial impact on the state’s economy and its citizens. The Effect of Restructuring on Nonjudicial Employees There are approximately 15,000 nonjudicial personnel employed by the Unified Court System. 176 These comprise a broad spectrum of employees required to maintain the smooth operation of our courts. The courts employ security officers, clerks, law secretaries and court reporters, in addition to custodial and maintenance staffs. Some have expressed the concern that a restructuring of the courts could result in the elimination of jobs for nonjudicial employees as the courts are streamlined and made more efficient. We do not see this as a valid concern. First, the overall caseload of the courts would remain the same under a restructured system. While these cases would be handled more efficiently and quickly, the need for skilled personnel to operate the courts should not be diminished. Second, to the extent there is any question about the effect of restructuring on the labor unions for nonjudicial personnel, this, too, should not be a concern. The array of labor unions servicing the court system is complex. There are twelve such unions, which are referred to as “statutory bargaining units” since their existence is codified by statute. We do not believe that any changes to the structure of these unions would be required under a restructured court system. Without detailing here the long history of labor relations for nonjudicial employees, we observe that nearly all of the changes that one would expect to result from 175 See Appendix iv. 176 TWENTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 130, at 1. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 97
a restructuring have already been completed through prior labor relations agreements. 177 As a consequence, if the courts were merged, there would not appear to be any reason why the affected employees would not continue to be represented by the same unions, given that the unions do not now track the current court structure. Accordingly, we do not believe that court restructuring will have anything other than a positive effect on nonjudicial employees or their statutory bargaining units. Indeed, we believe that the prestige and profile of the court system – and its personnel – will only be enhanced by reform. 177 For example, all court officers are already paid on the same pay scale, so that if Family Court is merged into the Supreme Court, there should be no changes for the court officers of each of these courts or for their respective unions. Similarly, there has been a mixing over time of different job titles among the various unions such that today, even prior to restructuring, one union cannot be said to represent only one type of employee. 98 A Court System for the Future, February 2007
Page 1 and 2:
ACOURT SYSTEM FOR THE FUTURE: THE P
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On July 17, 2006,
Page 5 and 6:
A. Vincent Buzard Partner, Harris B
Page 7 and 8:
Counsel to the Commission</
Page 9 and 10:
More fundamentally, the fragmented
Page 11 and 12:
“New York has the most complex an
Page 13 and 14:
“For 30 years, New York’s trial
Page 15 and 16:
— SECTION ONE — THE CURRENT STR
Page 17 and 18:
system grew exponentially. By the t
Page 19 and 20:
issue from the Supreme Court or a c
Page 21 and 22:
igation, family-related matters or
Page 23 and 24:
Article VI of the New York State Co
Page 25 and 26:
The Appellate Division was establis
Page 27 and 28:
CURRENT STRUCTURE Court of Appeals
Page 29 and 30:
state Constitution on November 4, 1
Page 31 and 32:
jurisdiction would become Superior
Page 33 and 34:
In short, when it comes to the stru
Page 35 and 36:
Given this reality, it is in the in
Page 37 and 38:
The following is the testimonial of
Page 39 and 40:
“Notwithstanding the results of t
Page 41 and 42:
for by HRA) because my welfare bene
Page 43 and 44:
husband told the judge that I was a
Page 45 and 46: Costs to Individuals, Businesses, M
Page 47 and 48: appear as witnesses), or to family
Page 49 and 50: The Tweed Commission</stron
Page 51 and 52: Court upstate as well as the transf
Page 53 and 54: y the Legislature and were approved
Page 55 and 56: proposed a concurrent resolution to
Page 57 and 58: efforts), make the case for reform
Page 59 and 60: Groups representing the indigent al
Page 61 and 62: Commercial Division of the New York
Page 63 and 64: safety and facilitate access to spe
Page 65 and 66: Courts in Hempstead and Syracuse al
Page 67 and 68: The details of our proposal are ref
Page 69 and 70: continue to handle such matters whi
Page 71 and 72: We recognize that some have express
Page 73 and 74: The diagram below outlines the stru
Page 75 and 76: Under a “merger in place” plan,
Page 77 and 78: Judicial District. By contrast, jud
Page 79 and 80: Today, the Housing Court, as this P
Page 81 and 82: The issues concerning the Justice C
Page 83 and 84: five years. 158 Therefore, it is no
Page 85 and 86: of preservation. The use of citatio
Page 87 and 88: CURRENT STRUCTURE Court of Appeals
Page 89 and 90: JSC status, thereby increasing the
Page 91 and 92: significant authority over our stat
Page 93 and 94: The Supposed Ease of an Administrat
Page 95: Supreme Court Justices hear every y
Page 99: the constitutional amendment is pas
show all

Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?