IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE CONGESTION, DELAY, AND INEFFICIENCY COMMON IN LOCAL TRIAL COURTS IS DUE TO TWO FACTORS: RESISTANCE TO CHANGE AND LACK OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT CHANGE. JUDGES BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY WHEN A COURT RESISTS CHANGE. MANY JUDGES WOULD LIKE TO MODERNIZE CASE HANDLING PROCEDURES HOWEVER, SOME CANNOT BECAUSE OF THE FISCAL DEPENDENCY OF THE COURTS. ALTHOUGH THE JUDICIARY IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INDEPENDENT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, ITS VERY EXISTENCE DEPENDS UPON THE FINANCIAL CONTROL EXERTED BY LEGISLATURES OR COUNTY EXECUTIVES. THE SITUATION IN ARIZONA IS CITED TO ILLUSTRATE DEPENDENCE ON A LOCAL COUNTY BOARD. THE COURT RECEIVES NO PREFERENCE OVER OTHER AGENCIES NEEDING MONEY, SUCH AS THE STREET DEPARTMENT OR THE WATER DEPARTMENT. SINCE THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE A LARGE PUBLIC CONSTITUENCY, AS DO THE SCHOOLS, ITS NEEDS ARE ALWAYS MET LAST. AS A RESULT, IN ARIZONA 67 PERCENT OF LOCAL FUNDS GO TO SCHOOLS, ABOUT 4 PERCENT TO COURTS. EVEN PROBATION, WHICH IS TOTALLY WITHIN JUDICIAL DISCRETION, IS NOT WHOLLY CONTROLLED BY JUDGES. THE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR SENTENCING AND THE ABILITY TO RELIEVE THE WORKLOAD ARE BOTH CONTROLLED BY OTHERS AND BY LEGISLATORS OR COUNTY BOARDS. CURRENTLY COURTS DO NOT RECEIVE ENOUGH MONEY TO MAINTAIN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, MUCH LESS TO IMPROVE AND MODERNIZE IT. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE COURTS MUST HAVE THE INHERENT POWER TO DETERMINE AND COMPEL PAYMENT OF REASONABLE SUMS OF MONEY TO CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES. THIS POWER HAS EXISTED AS A MATTER OF CASE LAW SINCE 1838, HOWEVER, IT IS SELDOM USED. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COURTS MUST HAVE SOME ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER THEIR FINANCIAL DESTINY. THE ARTICLE IS HEAVILY FOOTNOTED. (GLR)