Chapter 6

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings

1. The Traffic Violations Bureaus originally were placed in the counties, but were transferred to the State Judiciary in 1965 as part of the general transfer of the county district courts to the State. Aside from a few brief passing references, the role and responsibilities of the TVBs have never been established by statute.

2. The TVBs have evolved into an active, integral part of the traffic violations system. Their responsibilities include creating the initial computer entry for both the traffic crimes and the decriminalized cases, recording payments made by defendants, producing the calendar for court hearings, rescheduling defendants, handling deferred payments, producing the disposed calendar, and transmitting the information to the counties to put on and take off license and operator stoppers. They also perform the crucial function of citation book control, keeping track of citations to ensure that every citation that is written is accounted for.

3. When the legislature decriminalized most minor traffic violations in 1993, the effect was not to make these offenses administrative but to allow them to: (a) be handled less formally, (b) eliminate long and tedious arraignments, (c) facilitate and encourage the resolution of minor offenses through the payment of fines, (d) use judicial, prosecutorial, and law enforcement resources more efficiently and effectively, and (e) simplify procedures from the public's point of view.

4. The current system permits defendants to make one of three choices: to admit the offense and pay in advance of a hearing; to plead guilty with a written explanation to be ruled on in chambers by the court; or to assert innocence at a court hearing. The TVBs are entwined with all three of these options. The role of the TVBs actually increased with the advent of decriminalization, as the additional choices provided to the defendants resulted in more work for the TVB staff in processing paperwork and servicing the public.

5. The TVBs also handled and continue to handle traffic crimes, such as DUI and reckless driving, whose paperwork and public service requirements are similar to that of the decrim cases.

6. In the larger courts, the TVBs are separate entities with defined job descriptions. However, in the smaller courts, the TVBs tend to have staff assisted by other court personnel and who in turn assist those personnel in their non-TVB functions. In the smallest offices, TVB work is often done by various staff members working together, regardless of whether they are denominated TVB or court staff.

7. In addition to handling decriminalized traffic cases and traffic crimes, the TVBs also handle non-traffic citations for other county agencies, including the Building Department, Motor Vehicle Control Office, Board of Water Supply, and Liquor Commission, and also for a number of state agencies, including the Harbors Division, Airport Security, and Marine Patrol of the State DOT, the Public Utilities Commission, the Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement (DOCARE) of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Aloha Stadium, and the Department of Agriculture's Weights and Measures, Plant Industry, and Animal Industry Divisions. The TVBs also handle citations from the Hawaiian Humane Society and certain federal citations arising from crimes committed by juveniles on federal property.

8. As the TVB performs so many functions, there is some uncertainty as to which functions it might be appropriate to transfer. For example, currently the court calendar is printed out at the TVBs and finalized there. That seems to be a function better left to the court rather than to be retained by the TVB. Another example is the handling of default judgments. Currently, when a defendant fails to show up in court and a default judgment is issued, the paperwork returns to the TVB and the defendant must come to the TVB to reschedule. The TVB will then resubmit the paperwork to the court for the court hearing. It would be cumbersome and inefficient to cycle the paperwork from TVB to court and back again if the TVB is transferred to the county.

9. The Bureau queried each court as to the feasibility of transferring the TVB operations as they presently stand. The responses from, in the case of the larger TVBs, the TVB managers, and in the rest, the district court administrators responsible for the entire district court operation, were in the negative. Two thought that transfer might be feasible if significant changes were made; one, if the adjudication of offenses was given to an administrator instead of the court, and another, if the TVBs were stripped of many of their current responsibilities. The rest saw a myriad of problems, including: (a) public confusion over which agency is handling which aspect of the same citation, (b) less efficiency, (c) no cost savings for the State (assuming all TVB realizations were turned over to the counties), and (d) between the State and the county, the need for more government workers than are presently required. As there appear to be no reported problems with effectiveness, efficiency, or public service of the TVBs, the TVBs queried the need for any kind of transfer.

10. Another issue that was raised was that of support staff. At present, the Judiciary provides computer support, and the downtown Honolulu TVB provides data processing, record management, fiscal services, and printing services to all TVBs. It is unclear what entity would provide these services for county TVBs, particularly in the area of computer support.

11. One of the TVBs suggested keeping the existing TVB personnel in place, and having them be paid by the county. This was opposed by most of the other TVBs on the ground that it would be harmful to morale and would harm the cooperative atmosphere that some of the TVBs presently enjoy. It would emphasize the existing schism between the lower-ranked, lower-paid TVB staff and the higher-paid, higher-level district court staff, especially as the county TVB staff would be reporting to a state supervisor.

12. There are difficulties in determining how the TVB would be separated from the Judiciary and which of its functions would be transferred to the counties. As currently organized, the TVB would take with it important functions that directly support court services, such as preparing the court calendar, preparing the dispose calendar, rescheduling hearings for defendants with bench warrants, penal summons, and default judgments, and handling deferred payment. In Kaua`i, the TVB also handles post- court paperwork for probation, community service, and restitution. Removing the TVB as it presently stands would have a significant negative impact on the ability of the traffic violations system to process citations smoothly, and on the operations of some of the smaller district courts.

13. It is questionable as to whether the State will want to send the state citations and the federal citations to be handled at the county level and if not, the State will need to retain or rebuild a violations bureau to handle these other citations.

14. The State may want to transfer a truncated version of the TVBs, but it is not clear what an optimum truncated version would be. If the TVBs are only given the decriminalized cases, then defendants with multiple offenses, both decrim and traffic crimes, will have to appear in two forums if they contest the charges. If the TVB is given limited duties such as handling admissions of guilt and fine payment before hearing, the concept is more feasible but the system would then lack its current statewide jurisdiction, statewide record-availability, and uniformity of forms and procedures.

15. It is unclear how the State will handle compensation for mandating transfer to the counties. Under Article VIII, section 5 of the State Constitution, the State is obliged to share in the cost of new programs mandated to the counties. It is unclear whether the State would turn over all TVB realizations to the counties to fund the TVBs, or would choose some other option, such as paying a flat rate or a percentage of the realizations. This calculation is made more difficult by the uncertainty of which of the TVB functions would be transferred. If fewer functions are transferred, it is less clear that all realizations could or should be transferred. It is also unclear exactly what costs are associated with operating and supporting the TVBs. While the Judiciary was able to supply the Bureau with figures as to the most recent fiscal year's realizations, it is not set up to pull out all of the costs associated with running the system. It can pull up staff salaries, for example, but not benefits, nor can it isolate all the costs for support services. At least one county has stated that it does not believe that, when all the associated costs are considered, that it would be profitable for that county to take over its TVBs.

16. The TRAVIS computer system is on its way out; the Judiciary has already begun the design phase for a system to replace it and the entire district, circuit, and family court computer system.

17. Most of the TVBs had specific criticisms of TRAVIS and suggestions for the replacement system. Problems include lack of sufficient statistics, the need for duplicate entries, difficulty of use, and inability to handle needed data. Suggestions include using scannable citations, linking information so that it needs to be entered only once, more user-friendly attributes, using optical disk technology, automated citation machines for the officers, automated input, using computer kiosks in public places, and using of personal computers rather than a mainframe- based operation.

18. The TISD (Telecommunications and Information Systems Division) had serious reservations about transferring TRAVIS or its successor to the counties. First, TRAVIS is "an old system that sorely needs replacement and is very difficult to maintain". Transferring the TRAVIS database to the counties would lead to "significant costs in database software licenses, software development licenses, county mainframe compatibility issues, programming support issues on on old outdated system, and generally, a tremendous maintenance issue". It is unclear whether the State would support these costs or whether they would be the counties' responsibility. Second, it is also unclear whether TRAVIS would be compatible with the new system that the Judiciary is in the process of developing. Even if the counties were to take over TRAVIS, unless it could easily interface with the Judiciary's new system, it could cause considerable waste of time in duplicate data entries.

The other alternative is for the counties to participate in the Judiciary's new computer system. This also raises cost issues, as the software licensing costs would increase if the counties participate in it, and there would also be considerable costs of obtaining the necessary hardware on which to run the new system.

19. The Judiciary's new computer system is presently being funded by an additional fee placed on all traffic abstracts. If that function and those revenues were to be transferred to the counties, some arrangement should be made to continue the funding of the computer project.

20. While other states do have TVBs at a county or city level, for the most part these TVBs are tied to a county or city court. They are not attached to the executive branch of government, as would have to be the case in Hawai`i as Hawai`i currently does not have any county-level courts.

21. It is not clear that a transfer of the TVBs is supported by the counties. The response from Maui county was negative. Hawai`i county needed more information before it could offer its position. There was no official response from either Kaua`i or Honolulu. Transfer will not be effective without full county support, as the counties will need to work closely with the State in most potential scenarios.

22. It is difficult to find precise cost estimates for running the TVBs. The Judiciary figures include salary only, not benefits, and encompass designated TVB personnel only. The figures exclude the borrowing of personnel as happened frequently in the smaller offices, and does not include support staff, including computer support. While the overall total TVB realizations may still seem to exceed costs, if the TVB were truncated so that it handled bail forfeitures only, it may be that operational and equipment expenses would exceed bail forfeiture realizations.

23. The moneys that come to the TVB from payment of fines and bench warrants should not be viewed as "revenue" of the system. The purpose of the fines is to punish past disobedience with the law and compel future compliance. To view the TVB as a "moneymaker" for either the State or the counties is to misapprehend its function.

24. If the counties take over the TVBs, the executive branch of the county government would handle all functions of traffic enforcement: it would issue the citations, prosecute the defendants, assist in their adjudication, and share in the fines paid. This could give rise to the public perception that traffic fines are merely a closed-cycle revenue-raising tool of the county, and breed disrespect for the laws as legitimate tools to protect public health and safety.

25. There has been no showing or even any supported allegations that transferring the TVBs to the counties would be more efficient, serve the public better, or save money. On the contrary, it appears as though separation would be less efficient, would require more county and State personnel to be hired to do the job presently being done by the TVBs and their district court staffs, and would doubtless lead to public confusion on which agency to go to at which time for each contested citation.

Recommendations

1. The Bureau recommends that the TVBs not be transferred to the counties. If the Legislature wants to compensate the counties for their share in the traffic violations enforcement process, the Legislature could simply provide the counties with part of the realizations from the system without requiring them to take on the TVB functions.

2. If the Legislature still wants to transfer the TVBs, the Legislature has several options:

a. Transfer the decrim TVB operations as they are currently structured and add additional personnel on both sides to coordinate transfer of paperwork and computer function;

b. Transfer all of the traffic violations functions currently held by both the TVB and the district court to the counties and establish by statute a county-level traffic court to handle the whole process; or

c. Transfer just the "front desk" operations of the TVBs to the counties so that they will only handle initial data input and "bail by mail"/fine payments in advance of court hearing.

3. If the Legislature transfers the TVBs, it is recommended it not be done until the new traffic violations computer system is in place and the counties are able to access it. It makes no sense to perpetuate TRAVIS, which has long outlived its heyday, especially if it will not be able to interface with the Judiciary's system.

4. If the Legislature transfers the TVBs, the Legislature needs to make provision for the state and federal citations currently handled by the TVBs. The Legislature may want to consult with the Attorney General to determine whether jurisdiction over the citations can be transmitted to the counties as well.

Conclusion

After studying the issue of transferring the TVBs to the counties, including examining the structure of the system; the purpose of the decriminalization of traffic offenses; the functions of the TVBs as currently organized, including their servicing of other state and county agencies; personnel issues; and the lack of an expressed desire on the part of the counties to assume this responsibility, the Bureau concludes that a transfer of the TVBs to the counties would result in reduced efficiency, public confusion, and higher total costs for the whole system. Therefore, at this time the Bureau concludes that a transfer is not feasible.

	Table of Contents	LRB Reports