 Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm very pleased to be here this afternoon before the task force and appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. I'm deeply grateful to the ABA and to all of the members of the task force for the time and effort you've put in into this very significant subject that will undoubtedly take the concerted effort of both the bench and bar to bring to ensure the rights and freedoms and our system of justice that we enjoy as Americans to ensure that it will continue to flourish. I also appreciate your indulgence in taking me somewhat out of time. It's only a two-and-a-half hour drive from Providence but I had the commitments this morning up here in the morning. I will say I know you're near in the end of a very long day and as Chief Justice I often invite counsel to rest on their briefs. I do have prepared remarks and I will not take offense if you ask me to rest on my brief. I recently gave a commencement address and quoted the following words to the graduating students to no one will we sell to no one will we deny or delay right or justice. Now those words are not from the federal Constitution they're from the Magna Carta of 1215. They are the underpinnings of our judicial system. Today justice may not be for sale but it certainly is delayed in many of our courtrooms and for a growing number of people who lack the resources to access our justice system it is indeed denied. Much of what I say will be undoubtedly repetitious of what you've already heard but I suspect that there are common themes that you will discover as you would travel across the country. I also suspect that you will find that each state has its own unique experience depending on the structure of its government and its history. The Rhode Island experience is shaped largely by its size and by its history. We certainly have an interesting history in Rhode Island. We were the first colony to declare its independence yet the last of the original 13 to ratify the Constitution. In fact we were so fiercely distrustful of a strong central government that we refused to send any delegates to the Constitutional Convention. In large part that was due to the fact that the colonial charter the 1663 Charter of King Charles II granted to Rhode Island an inordinate amount of self-governance and autonomy for that period. Rather than adopt a Constitution as the citizens of Massachusetts and New Hampshire did, Rhode Islanders was so seemingly content with our colonial charter that it defined the structure of government and we continued to operate under the charter until our first Constitution went into effect in 1843. Now one aspect of an enlightened government that the charter did not provide was an independent judiciary. Trial judges were elected by the General Assembly until 1935 when the power of appointment was conferred on the governor and members of the Supreme Court were elected by the House and Senate sitting in grand committee until 1994. Our Constitution also contained a provision that allowed the General Assembly to declare a seat on the Supreme Court vacant on the first day of the session after each election. A power which it exercised in 1935 removing all five members of the Supreme Court in what is known in Rhode Island history as the bloodless revolution. As recently as 1999 our Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion stating that Rhode Island's history is that of a quintessential system of parliamentary supremacy. That opinion added impetus to a growing movement for governmental reform which culminated in the adoption of a separation of powers amendment to our Constitution in 2004. Today we are a unified court system consisting of a supreme superior family district and work is compensation courts as well as a traffic tribunal. Approximately 88 percent of our budget is derived from state general revenue funds with a balance coming from federal funds and restrict restricted receipts. I would like to highlight this afternoon what I believe are three broad challenges to the judicial system. The first is what I would call a direct challenge and that is the attempt to remove a judge for having rendered a controversial decision. The problem is obviously most acute in states where judicial officers are elected or must stand for retention. That is a concept that is far into Rhode Island we are appointed as our federal counterparts for life on good behavior so I will not dwell on the subject. The foundation of our judicial system however is an independent judiciary and our policy should support the independence. Judges may not be immune to public opinion but their responsibility and allegiance must always be to the rule of law and not the popular will. The second challenge I would mention is ignorance or a lack of understanding of how the justice system works and its proper role in a free society. Some of this is certainly attributable to a declining emphasis on citizen education in our schools today. I would suggest that the underlying causes are far broader than the judicial system is capable of solving. I do believe however that the judiciary has an important role to play. We have long considered public outreach to be one of our missions in the Rhode Island judiciary. Our Supreme Court holds court sessions in area high schools twice a year. On Law Day all of our judges and many members of the bar speak at high schools and middle schools and recently we have embraced the iCivics program that is being championed by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. We have tested it in four schools and found that the enthusiasm is great not only among the students but among the teachers. It is a way of providing civics education at a relatively low cost. I do believe that outreach and education are legitimate functions of our courts and are proper elements of a judicial budget. People must understand that the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government and not simply a state agency. I also think it important that our efforts of outreach and education be targeted directly toward those who hold the proverbial purse strings state legislators. It is essential that the judiciary maintain an open continuing dialogue with the legislature. Fortunately because of our size in Rhode Island that's not hard to do. All of the players tend to know each other and we have frequent contact. What we are finding however and I suspect this is a national trend is that after each election there are fewer and fewer lawyers in the legislature. Thus fewer and fewer legislators who understand and appreciate how the judiciary functions. One successful program we initiated several years ago is a legislative orientation day. We do this every two years at the start of each legislative term. We pick the legislators up by bus at the state house and take them to the family and district courts first thing in the morning when the courtrooms and hallways are jammed. Then eventually we bring them to the Supreme Court for lunch. The program is primarily aimed at freshman legislators but we find that some come back year after year probably for the free lunch. With respect to outreach and education it is an area where the local bar associations can be of great importance. In Rhode Island the courts have a very good relationship with our state bar association. We have little trouble finding attorneys willing to visit schools on Law Day or to participate in civics programs. I also think that the bar association should be active in ensuring that our court systems are adequately funded and I was delighted to hear the efforts of the Boston Bar Association and what they are doing in terms of lobbying. The final challenge to our judicial system I would mention and probably of greatest importance to this task force is underfunding. Compared to other states that you may have heard from I suspect that Rhode Island is faring reasonably well. We have not had to shut down our courtrooms and we have not had to lay off employees. I do not consider this to be a cause for any optimism however. Our state is facing unprecedented shortfalls. Unemployment is hovering around 11% and most economic forecasters predict that Rhode Island will be one of the last states to emerge from the economic downturn. Moreover the budgetary cutbacks we have sustained over the past several years have had a discernible effect upon our delivery of services. In fiscal year 2010 our final budget was 12% less than our original request. This year we anticipate the total reduction to be approximately 6.4%. As over 80% of our budget represents personnel costs these reductions are very difficult to absorb. Our turnover savings rate or vacancy rate is approximately 7% resulting in the savings of nearly $5 million. This is up from a rate of 2.3% in 2008 and considerably higher than the state average of approximately 2.5%. Most of these unfilled vacancies are clerical positions. So although our courts are open we are barely keeping our heads above water. In addition to the high level of vacancies all judicial employees including all judges along with most state employees have undergone 12 unpaid days over the last fiscal year and a half. Some of those wages have been deferred and will be paid upon the employee's retirement. The balance will be compensated by additional vacation time. The impact of these budget cuts on our courts has been significant. Although we have not had to suspend all civil trials we did suspend jury trials in Superior Court for one day each week for a period of time to enable clerks to catch up on data entry and document filing and we are likely to do so again. The Superior Court business calendar was also suspended temporarily. This calendar has been very well received by the business community as it expedites cases involving commercial litigants. Budget cutbacks have also had a negative impact on our efforts to increase efficiencies and modernize our courts. We plan to initiate an e-filing system in all of our courts. This would make case management more efficient and ultimately decrease expenses. Unfortunately we have funds available only to convert the workers compensation court at this time which is the smallest of our courts. Our capital budget has been reduced by nearly 80% which jeopardizes our efforts to maintain our courthouses and adequately protect our assets. We have a relatively new courthouse with five unfinished shell courtrooms. Those courtrooms could be finished at a relatively modest cost yet we lack the funds to do so. Security is also an issue. The sheriffs do not fall under the authority of the judiciary. Rather they come under the executive branch. But they are essential to our operations. They are constantly understaffed and we often have too few sheriffs to man all of our courtrooms on a daily basis. Finally I would submit that it is all too often the case that the effects of inadequate funding fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable and those least able to afford it. The revenue received from IOLTA accounts for Rhode Island legal services, virtually the sole provider of civil legal services to low income persons in the state, has diminished from 975,000 to 245,000 over the past three years. It was cut in half this past year alone. These cuts are simply not sustainable if we are to fulfill our constitutional and statutory responsibilities. We must be provided resources to maintain adequate staffing and to implement technological advances. The simple solution is more revenue on the one hand and increased efficiencies on the other. The long term answer I believe is education. A greater emphasis on civics education and community outreach by both the judiciary and the bar. More immediately I would suggest that both pension bars should educate and lobby our legislators to make sure that they understand what we do and how vitally important our system of justice is. And I thank you very much and would be willing to answer any questions.