Some of the material in is restricted to members of the community. By logging in, you may be able to gain additional access to certain collections or items. If you have questions about access or logging in, please use the form on the Contact Page.
This study examines the impact of 1998 Revision 7 to Article V of the Florida Constitution (hereafter referred to as Revision 7) in shaping governance of Florida's courts system. Revision 7 shifted the major costs of funding the courts from the county level to the state level. Under our tripartite system of government, the judicial system is dependent on the legislative branch for its funding. An adequate and stable source of funding is required to govern the courts system, and essentially to execute their constitutional and statutory mandates. Since the implementation of Revision 7 in Florida, the courts system primarily depends on the Florida Legislature to determine its level of funding. Very little has been written about state courts, and specifically, state courts administration in public administration literature, so this study has something valuable to contribute to public administration, both theoretical and substantive, through the perspective and experiences of court administrators/leaders. This study is rooted in the case study tradition employed by various disciplines and asks this central question: How has Revision 7 impacted governance in Florida's courts? This study was conducted by giving voice to court insiders who experienced the governance structure of Florida's courts pre- and/or post- Revision 7. From the data derived through the interview and journaling processes, an overall picture of the experiences of the participants and the meanings that the participants construct of their experiences was drawn. Nineteen court administrators/leaders participated in the study, and the information gathered from those participants formed the basis for the overall findings of this study. Based on the results, two main themes regarding the participants' experiences emerged from the data – politics and collaboration. Court administrators/leaders need to better understand the budget process and legislative behavior, as well as need to study, embrace, and engage in the political process; and, court administrators/leaders need to stride a better balance between political and judicial forces. Conclusions based on the data were included, implications were discussed as well as recommendations for further study.