C >ounty of Santa Clara
Olfit c <)( tiK' l^ofird of Siipoivisors
CoiinlN' f;o\'('rnm('nl Ornlci',
VS'inj;;
70 VVpsI I l('(l<iiMg SIrc'ci, loili Plodr
Sail lose.(:alili)min OS I l o

(-108) 200-2328
FAX 208-8400

ri 10 003-8272

lames I . ncall. li .

Siipeivisor, ivnirlh l)i,siri<

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Ridiard Wittenberg
County Executive

FROM:

fames T. Beall, Jr. •L

Supervisor, District^

DATE:

May 13,1996

SUBJECT:

Court Conscjinclation

After reviewing your response on court consolidation, I believe that more
effort is necessary in order to move toward consolidating the courts. The

focus of this effort must come from the administration, the courts and the
Board.

Therefore, 1 would like to make a referral to the administration that it

formulate a court consolidation policy for approval by the Board of
Supervisors, lliis policy should include how the administration is going to
monitor and encourage and support the court's efforts toward court
consolidation. This could be accomplished by eitlier establishing an oversight
committee within the administration to provide monthly report backs to tire

Board on the accomplishments made toward court consolidation or by

having the Crime Task Force perform this function. Please submit this policy
to the Board for approval no later than June 4, 1996.

The county must continue maintain its fiscal responsibility by taking every
opportunity available to reduce its costs and save money within every branch
and every department.

c: Gary Graves, Director, OBA
Phyllis Perez, Clerk of the Board
Dan Vasquez, Director DOC

Exhibit IV.l

Coordination/Consolidation Matrix
by Program and Evaluation Criteria

Superior and Municipal Court

table shows the cross-referencing of courts according to

coordination/consolidation evaluation criteria.
Court

Superior

Similar Purpose?
Municipal

Municipal Superior

Overlapping

our

Similar Processes

Clients?

or Functions?

Municipal

Mxmicipal

Superior

Superior

This table shows the number of times our coordination/consolidation

evaluation criteria were met between program areas.
Exhibit IV.2

Frequency of Program Linkages Identified
using Evaluation Criteria

Superior and Municipal Court
Court

Municipal

Superior

3

76

the management positions in each ofthese
areas in banta Clara county show that they are very similar.
Current annual salary and benefits costs for the management positions in the

two courts that oversee these functions is as follows:
^

Table IV.3.1

Current Costs of Key Court Administrative Positions

Position

Municipal Superior

Executive Officer
Fiscal Officer

$113,358

(Personnel Function)

Information
Coordinator

$116,849

86,754
71,123

Management Analyst

Total

$230,207

80,996
66,448

167,750
137,571

Systems

TOTAL

78,883

♦

$350,118

-78.883

$264,293

$614,411

* No position here but court incurs co^ts for information systems contract

approxta^elfsMn

^administrative positions would result in savings of

ss,s's.t?L‘z=ss-,sS” “»•

••

Table IV.3.2

Savings Resulting from

Eliminating Duplicate Administrative Positions
Deleted

Position

Retained

Salaries Salarie.s

Executive Officer

$113,358

Fiscal Officer

80,996

Management Analyst

(Personnel Function)
Information Systems Coordinator

66,448

TOTAL

86,754

71,122

*

78.883

$260,802

$353,608

* Contract costs of an undetermined amoimt

78

$116,849

-

ACTION IV,4 - QONSOLIDATED ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AND MA^JAnFMc^r
• BY ADOPTING ONE ORGANIZATION
STRUCTURE FOR THE TWO COURTS BASED

ON COMMON

FUNCTIONS, EXISTING

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT POSITIONS
COULD BE BETTER UTILIZED AND THE
NUMBER OF DIVISIONS AND MID-LEVEL
MANAGERS COULD BE REDUCED FOR AN
ANNUAL SAVINGS OF $361,425.
Introduction

of the courts proceeds beyond the administrative functions

^scussed m Section IV.1, other aspects of the courts can also be consolidated As
orgamzation structure will be appropriate to better

support
consolidated judicial processes. As discussed in Section IV.A, the organization
struct^es of the two courts are not the same. Municipal Court is organized around
its facilities and Superior Court s staffis organized

by function.
By using a single model of organization structure in a consolidated court like
functions could be merged and the number,of division managers reduced At the
same time, existing executive management could be better utilized by assuming
more management responsibility.

^

Executive Management

rwce

'

Court, there are four executive manager positions including the

OfficertClerk. In Superior Court, there is only one such
Court Executive Officer. The main difference between the two courts is
tnat there is no layer of management between the Court Executive Officer and the
division managers in Superior Court whereas there are the three executive
positions between Municipal Court’s Chief Administrative

Officer/Clerk ai^ the division managers. Table IV.4.1 summarizes executive

management staffing and annual salaries and benefits at the two courts.
Table IV.4.1

Annual Salaries and Benefits of Executive Management Positions
Superior and Municipal Courts

Classification

Municipal Superior

Clerk/Chief Admin. Officer

Assistant Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk

Deputy Administrator - Operations

Deputy Administrator - Court Services

Chief Executive Officer/County Clerk

Total

$113,358
88,621
76,635
76,635
^116.849

Total

$355,249
80

$116,849

$472,098

gipgRiw ami

« Superfop Court Judaea
0
>

f Court Comilsnloners 35iA

Cowty ClertyCourt nxccutfvo nfffeop
At)?1tHtSmT10H
HIMAH PESqiRCES/tAllOP PFI

1 MiAnt Anolyst

n

1 Asst Judiciol Sec

1 Contract Services

AnPIHlSTRATtVE StPPQgT
1 JurJiclol Sec

PLAVMtHn/RCSFARCII/CAtrwnAB

FA>11LT CtXfRT SERVtCTS

1

1 Accountant H

2 Account Clerk It (u)

COtAiDIHAriOH/APPFAIC

35^1

Director, FCS

1 Asst Director, fCS
1 Sr. Counsclor/Jtcdiater
13 Courwelor/Xodiator

1 Pers serv Clerk
1 Account Clerk II

1 Jucifeiol Secretary

6

2 Clerk Typist (u)
2_ Legal Clcrk/LCr (u)
21

1 Clerk Typist

1 Judicial See

7

Z Asst Judicial Sec

T

/

glS?

1 Dept Fiscal Officer

3 Legal Clcr;c

CPAST) JURY

o
D

flA^CET/ACCOUMriHS

• 1 Adn Asst - svjperlor Court

O

o

7

1 Dept Info Systoo Spec tl

1 Aest JiJtlicinl Sec

vJ

lUrORMATtOM SCTVrCFS
IHFORHATIW SYSTFWS

7

* Coortfiaatlofi of Family, Civil,

5

Crlnlnol & Juvenile Cnlcndbr

Fmctlons/Supv of Appeals
family RESOURCES DlVtStflM

Siporior Court Div Mgr ill
DEPEWnERCT
‘ OD

A'

pELIKOtJEKCT

family CtXJRT 3SSA

3S74

^ 1 Supv Legal Clerk

2 Asst Judicial See
A Legal Clcrk/LCT
1 Office Clerk

PRCOATE
3562
CXA.MIRCR

1 Staff Attorney

1 PrrJvitn O.valnor

1 AA»t Profvito Examiner
1 Asst Juiltcial Sec

1 Sipv Legal Clerk ,
11 Legal Clcrk/tCT
1

1

Lciial/La <u)

Asst Judiciol See

legal

35M

1 Staff Attorrxsy
1 Research Attorney
POMFSTIC CALFHOAR

I

Domestic Cal Clerk
Asst JirJicinl See

42

CIVIL DtVTSlnH

Assistant County Clerk - Olv Mgr
ItCCORDS

*^>70

CRIMtHAl CALEHOAR XS/A

Office Clerk

gUSfMESS

3 Legal Clerk/lCT <u)
CLERKS OFFICE

3;7?

1 Supv Legal Clerk

CIVIL CALCrniAn/ARtllTRATIOH TSSn

1 Calendar Secretary

1 Aaat Calendar Secretary

cxxjRr iRvEsTirATinw

A Asst Judicial Secretary

1 SixJV Probate Jnv

6 Legal Clerk/LCT (ti)

7 Prebote Investigator
1 AftSt Judicial Sec

LAU AM) MOTIOH

1 Adv Clerk Typlnt (u)
'I

1
-»

3S7A

1 Legal Clerk (u)
LEGAL

3560

•

1 Staff Attorney

SSSO

Lau/Motion Examiner

1 Asst Law/Motlon Exmnlner
A Legal Clerk/LCT (u)
LEGAL

IRTERPERTERS

2,.fiesenreh Attorney

21

3SA0

1 Sipv Legal Clk <u)

1

Asst Judicial See

A9 Court Reporter

2 Legal Clerk/lCT (u>
1 Office Clerk

1 Assistant Judicial Secretary
CCURT SERVICES

1 Judicial Secretary

3S7A

6 Legal Clcrk/LCT

1 Supv Legal Clerk
13 Legal Clerk/LCT

&2 Co(/rtrooni Clerk

1

Ct Rm Clerk-Elec Cmltor

JiAtT Kcjn

y;s?

1 Chid Deputy Jury Cwi

2 Supv Clerk

2 Adv Clerk Typist (u)

2 Clerk Typist (u)

MAtlRpOM

2

MessetKjer/Oriver

4_ Legal Clerk/lCr

• Coordination

g-

16 Couptrtxm Clerk

1 Scoff Attorney
8_ Reacorch Attorney

.5

55

W

333.0 (docs not include

)

w
CT

16 Court Reporter

3560

sg.M

FACILITIES

1 Criminal Col Sec

1 Mlcrographlc Tech

PPERATtOiS OIVtSffX

Aslistont Court Executive - Oiv Ki

1 AflBt^tkllciol See

1 Supv Legal elk
3 Legal CLk/LCr
2 Clerk Typist

5

CRiytHAL Divistow/nnf wa

• 1 Superior Court Div Kgr in

)

1 contract service)

)

Exhibit IV.5

Proposed Court
Organization Chart

Judicial Positions

Court Executive

Assistant Court Executive

Deputy-Court Operations

Deputy-Administrative Services

Division Manager

fiscal Officer

Civil

fiscal Services

Division Manager

Info. Systems Coordinator

Criminal

Information Systems

Division Manager

Management Analyst

Traffic

Personnel

Division Manager
Family

Staff Attorney
Legal Support

Division Manager
Courtroom Support

Records

CJIC

Court Reporters

Jury Management

Grand Jury
Courtroom Clerks

Calendar Management

84

The following seven existing divisions are recommended for deletion as
organizational units. This does not mean the facilities would close, but they would
no longer have division status in a consolidated court organization. Employees at
each site would belong to a division that matches their function (e.g., civil courtroom

support, etc.).

Recommended Deleted Divisions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Gilroy Facility
Los Gatos Facility
Palo Alto Facility
San Jose Facility
Traffic Facihty
Stmnywale Facility
Santa Clara Facihty

Deputy Court Clerk IPs could become the officials in charge of each Mimicipal
Court facility rather than continuing to use Division Managers for that purpose
(this only applies to Municipal Court; Superior Court does not assign Division
Managers to each of its facilities). The 3.5 Chief Deputy positions now assigned to
Municipal Court facilities in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, and Traffic should

be reallocated to what would become the three large divisions of the consolidated

court; civil, criminal, and traffic.

The smaller administrative units for functions such as personnel and budget

would remain much as they are, though they would be consolidated between the two

courts.

in a

A reduction in the number of division managers from ten to five would result
gross cost savings of $361,425 in annual salaries and benefits ($72,285 each).

This might be partially offset by increases in the salaries of remaining Division
Managers.

CONCLUSION

By consolidating the organization structure of the Superior and Municipal
courts along fimction lines rather than on the basis of facilities, and reducing the
number of divisions in a consolidated court, the number ofDivision Managers could

be reduced. At the same time, establishing two new bureaus in the courts with the
existing two deputy administrator positions assigned management responsibility
would be a more effective use of these positions. Consolidation along functional lines
would allow for streamlining and increased efficiency in the processes employed by
the two courts.

86