Penal Code Section 1463.02
Court-Ordered Debt Task Force
1463.02. (a) On or before June 30, 2011, the Judicial Council shall establish a task force to evaluate criminal and traffic-related court-ordered debts imposed against adult and juvenile offenders. The task force shall be comprised of the following members:
(1) Two members appointed by the California State Association of Counties.
(2) Two members appointed by the League of California Cities.
(3) Two court executives, two judges, and two Administrative Office of the Courts employees appointed by the Judicial Council.
(4) One member appointed by the Controller.
(5) One member appointed by the Franchise Tax Board.
(6) One member appointed by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.
(7) One member appointed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
(8) One member appointed by the Department of Finance.
(9) One member appointed by each house of the Legislature.
(10) A county public defender and a city attorney appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(11) A defense attorney in private practice and a district attorney appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(b) The Judicial Council shall designate a chairperson for the task force. The task force shall, among other duties, do all of the following:
(1) Identify all criminal and traffic-related court-ordered fees, fines, forfeitures, penalties, and assessments imposed under law.
(2) Identify the distribution of revenue derived from those debts and the expenditures made by those entities that benefit from the revenues.
(3) Consult with state and local entities that would be affected by a simplification and consolidation of criminal and traffic-related court-ordered debts.
(4) Evaluate and make recommendations to the Judicial Council and the Legislature for consolidating and simplifying the imposition of criminal and traffic-related court-ordered debts and the distribution of the revenue derived from those debts with the goal of improving the process for those entities that benefit from the revenues, and recommendations, if any, for adjustment to the court-ordered debts.
(c) The task force also shall document recent annual revenues from the various penalty assessments and surcharges and, to the extent feasible, evaluate the extent to which the amount of each penalty assessment and surcharge impacts total annual revenues, imposition of criminal sentences, and the actual amounts assessed.
(d) The task force also shall evaluate and make recommendations to the Judicial Council and the Legislature on or before June 30, 2011, regarding the priority in which court-ordered debts should be satisfied and the use of comprehensive collection programs authorized pursuant to Section 1463.007, including associated cost-recovery practices.
COURT-ORDERED DEBT TASK FORCE
Chronology as of April 2013
|
Court-Ordered Debt Task Force established by the Judicial Council |
February 2011 |
|
Expenditure Survey: Surveyed county and court representatives requesting revenue and expenditure information as it pertained to criminal and traffic-related fines and fees in conjunction with Penal Code Section 1463.02 |
March 2011 |
|
Established the Priorities Subcommittee lead by Judge Couzens to examine current county practices with respect to priorities and rankings of distributions and report their findings to the Task Force as one way to meet the Task Force goal to "evaluate and make recommendations to the Judicial Council regarding the priority in which court-ordered debts should be satisfied." |
March 2011 |
|
Established the Collections Subcommittee lead by Judge Wesley to ascertain what information is already available through Enhanced Collections and what would be needed going forward as part of the Task Force goal to "evaluate and make recommendations regarding the use of comprehensive collection programs authorized by Penal Code section 1463.007." |
March 2011 |
|
Task force finalizes goals to be presented to the Judicial Council and Legislature
|
May 2011 |
|
Submission of mandated Legislative Report (Penal Code §1463.02) |
June 2011 |
|
Established the Data Collection Working Group to focus the survey efforts even further after the Expenditure Survey results were analyzed and were found to lack uniformity and structure |
September 2011 |
|
Special Fund Expenditure Survey: Distributed a revised survey instrument that excluded the General Fund and instead focused on 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 fiscal year "special fund" expenditures |
January 2012 |
|
Wobblette Survey: Distributed to capture the frequency and type of wobblettes utilized in each jurisdiction for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 fiscal years |
March 2012 |
|
AOC staff continues to collect, compile, and analyze all survey information |
April–May 2012 |
|
AOC staff perform survey analysis and conclude a lack of uniformity in revenue distribution activities in counties/courts statewide |
June–July 2013 |
|
AOC and SCO partner to reconcile Appendix C |
August 2012 |
|
AOC and SCO begin discussions toward the development of an enhanced training program for county/court staff who participate in revenue distribution activities to promote a common approach |
September 2012 |
|
AOC and SCO partner to deliver statewide revenue distribution training to county, court, city, and parking entity staff |
March 2013 |
