Over the past several years, the amount they have paid for administrative costs has skyrocketed; they’ve got, I believe 17 administrative assistants at the Supreme Court [working on court education]. He also claimed that administrative costs had gone from 23 percent to 44 percent, and that several judges, whom he declined to name, had approached him calling for removing the council from the direct control of the Supreme Court. Eleventh Circuit Judge Scott Bernstien, chair of the Conference of Circuit Court Judges, spoke against the bill. The notion that the cost for judicial education has skyrocketed, and the out-of-pocket costs of the administrative costs is not accurate. There were not three people doing this work in 2000. The number of people doing this work has been relatively stable. The difference is where the money came from. Back in 2000, they were paid out of general revenue and that was later at some time shifted to the trust fund. The number of people has remained the same. Bernstein, a good child custody lawyer in the Tampa, FL area, said the bill, amended to conform to HB 175, is moving through the lower chamber, and apparently has some drafting errors. But, there’s just one problem. Not everyone is on board, and there’s a reason for this. A bipartisan bill would be most appropriate, but this local family law attorney in the saint petersburg, florida area may be one individual to put a halt to this. But there’s a local document preparation company in the St. Petersburg-Tampa, FL area that has a lot to say about this. Her thoughts, while a bit, impervious to her colleagues, still remains a front and center topic for the Senate.