In This Issue

A Publication of the National COURTAssociation for Court Management

MANAGERVOL. 23 NO. 2 SUMMER 2008

IN THIS ISSUE Managing Organizational Change: Integrating the Purpose, the People, and the Process Superior Court of Maricopa County Night and Saturday Family Court A Strategic Planning Process That Has Yielded Signiﬁcant Results: The Experience of Two Michigan Courts A Team of Two Relationship: The Effective Organizational Consultant and the Stay-In-Charge Court Administrator

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 1 A Publication of the National COURTAssociation for Court Management MANAGER VOL. 23 NO. 2 SUMMER 2008 FEATURES

5 Managing Organizational Change: Integrating the Purpose, the People, and the Process By DAle lefeVer

8 Superior Court of Maricopa County Night and Saturday Family Court By PhIllIP KNOx AND DIANA r. hegyI

page 6 10 A Strategic Planning Process That Has Yielded Signiﬁcant Results: The Experience of Two Michigan Courts By BreNDA J. WAgeNKNeChT-IVey, Ph.D. AND KeVIN J. BOWlINg, J.D.

17 A Team of Two Relationship: The Effective Organizational Consultant and the Stay-In-Charge Court Administrator By rONAlD J. STUPAK, Ph.D. page 10

DEPARTMENTS

3 President’s Message

4 Editor’s Notes

EDITOR 20 Washington Review ANDrA MOTyKA Superior Court Administrator 22 Jury News Pierce County Superior Court 930 Tacoma Avenue S., room 334 25 A Question of Ethics Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 798-3963 30 Outside the Box fax: (253) 798-7214 [email protected] 34 Technology FACTs MANAGING EDITOR 37 Sustaining Members lOrIe J. góMez Publications Manager National Center for State Courts 38 NACM New Members 300 Newport Ave. Williamsburg, VA 23185 41 NACM Board of Directors (757) 259-1532 fax: (757) 564-2114 41 Membership Information [email protected]

©2008, National Association for Court Management; printed in the United States. Court Manager is published quarterly by the National Association for Court Management. Opinions expressed and procedures explained in the articles are not necessarily those of NACM or of the National Center for State Courts. Publication of advertising in the Court Manager does not imply NACM or NCSC endorsement or approval of the product or service. The association encourages submission of material that will interest or benefit its members. Address correspondence to either the editor or the managing editor; inquiries about advertising should be directed to the managing editor. All rights are reserved to reject, condense, or edit any ® article or advertisement submitted for publication.

2 www.nacmnet.org President’s Message PAUL J. BURKE

We recently completed a most successful midyear conference in Charleston, South Carolina. The city, weather, and facility were great. The theme of the educational program — “Public Perceptions, Community Collaboration, and Funding of the Courts” — contained issues that are always with us but proved to be particularly timely in light of the struggling economic condition of the country. Hopefully participants picked up valuable insight from the plenary speakers and the breakout sessions to help them face the challenges in their particular court. My thanks to all who contributed to the conference’s success.

In a few short months we will be together again for our annual conference in Anaheim, California. The conference theme — “Partnering for Justice, Case Management, and Service Excellence” — addresses the concept that as we move to improve the delivery of services we must work effectively with all who use the court. There will be three keynote presentations and more than 30 workshops to help us focus on these issues. The Conference Development Committee, under the direction of Chair and President-Elect Marcus Reinkensmeyer, has been hard at work all year planning this event and is just putting the ﬁnishing touches on all the activities that are part of our conference. My hope is that many of you will be able to join us for an exciting educational program and all the opportunities that Southern California has to offer.

One of the enduring beneﬁts of the NACM presidency is the opportunity to meet and discuss issues of common concern with many of the other organizations that support our justice community. I have met with the leaders of organizations such as the Conference of Chief Justices, Conference of State Court Administrators, National Center for State Courts, American Judges Association, Federal Court Clerks Association, National Conference of Appellate Clerks, National Conference of Bankruptcy Clerks, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National Court Reporters Association, and the National Judicial College to discuss issues and explore any collaboration that may mutually beneﬁt us. I thank them for their time, courtesies, and the cooperation extended to me on behalf of NACM this past year. I would ask of them that these discussions and potential collaborations continue to take place.

Finally, as I near the end of my term as president, I want to thank my fellow ofﬁcers, board members, the membership, and all others who contribute to our mission and goals. It is through the efforts of all that our organization continues to meet with a level of success. I continue to challenge each of you, as I did in my ﬁrst message, to get involved, express your ideas and suggestions, and consider your leadership role in our profession.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 3 Editor’s Notes ANDRA MOTYKA

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

JAMeS A. BAlDWIN

Everyone is willing to accept change on some level; our task is minimizing the fear of that change. Dale Lefever’s article is a good reminder of how to be successful with change. I say reminder, because most of us do know how we should approach changes in our courts, but because of various pressures we may fail to follow the process that will aid us in achieving success. So when you are faced with implementing change, use his article as a road map for success.

Night courts and whether they are a viable option have been discussed for years, and Maricopa County Superior Court appears to have a success on its hands. As you read this very interesting article, consider whether they followed Dale Lefever’s process. This program (night court and Saturday court) is the epitome of customer service, a fundamental performance measure for courts.

There are articles on strategic planning and then there is this article on strategic planning. The distinguishing aspect is that this article about the experience of two Michigan courts gives court managers the lessons learned and suggestions on how to avoid pitfalls. You can be sure to encounter some of the same stumbling blocks in your process. As the saying goes, forearmed is forewarned.

Consultants — we rely on them, so we should understand their strengths and avoid their (and/our) weaknesses when we work with them. “A Team of Two Relationship” will help us navigate that relationship.

FACT is an important organization to court managers and certainly to NACM, and Chris Crawford explains the vital part it has played and continues to play.

“Outside the Box” brieﬂy explains the history of juries and then goes on to discuss changes in jury “passivity” by Ret. Judge Dann. Alex Aikman supplements the article with some very interesting comments on how the future (which is now) may drive further changes.

Speaking of change — Court Communiqué is set for big changes. See the insert for speciﬁcs.

NACM is gearing up for another annual conference, and even with the budget woes hitting across the country, I’m happy to report that registrations are strong. I believe that the excellent educational programs are the reason. See you in Anaheim. (I’ll be the one with Mickey Mouse ears!)

4 www.nacmnet.org MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE INTEGRATING THE PURPOSE , THE PEOPLE , AND THE PROCESS BY DALE LEFEVER

“Change takes place no matter what deters it . . . There must be measured, laborious preparation for change to avoid chaos.”

PlATO

“In its most raw and destructive must be felt and understood by other form, change is truly “chaos” — key members of the organization and, a loss of control. When leaders in particularly, by those most affected by organizations initiate change or respond the change. The challenge, according to an imposed change with adaptations to Kotter, is “to make the status quo that increase productivity, we call it seem more dangerous than launching innovation. But, how can change be into the unknown.”3 harnessed to competitive advantage? To create a critical mass of under- And, how can “chaos” be avoided?”1 standing regarding the need for the The purpose of this article is to provide proposed change, it is essential to court leaders some specific guidance clarify the impetus, the purpose, and for managing the changes involved in the scope of the proposed change. moving an idea from its inception through to implementation. Impetus refers to who or what is disturbing the status quo. It is based The initial premise is that the status quo is not an option. every on the concept of inertia, the “tendency of an object at rest to remain organization will either change or be changed. One of the primary at rest; or, if moving, to keep moving in the same direction, unless responsibilities of leaders is to either champion an intended change affected by some outside force” (Webster’s). Impetus describes the (e.g., e-filing) or to help the organization cope with an externally forces responsible for bringing the proposed change to the point mandated change (e.g., sentencing guidelines). In either instance, of consideration. The forces for change can be people, a new chief the primary issue is not whether courts will experience change, judge or court manager, new legislation, an external audit, a national but only how well the change process will be managed. As noted trend such as drug courts, or a growing challenge such as addressing by psychologist harry levinson, “the most critical problem leaders the needs of pro se litigants. People simply want to know where the have is that they don’t understand the powerful impact of change idea is coming from and whether or not the impetus is important on people. They are wise about the mechanics of change, but stupid and legitimate. about the dynamics of transition. That stupidity is dooming many of Second, the purpose addresses the benefits of the change and their change efforts to failure.”2 This is strong language but a key for whom. If the purpose is not clear, extra effort in implementation point to consider. will not fill this intellectual vacuum. There needs to be “legibility of This article presents a three-stage model designed to guide court purpose” from the start of the process or the integrity of the change, leaders in managing the process of change. The three stages include: and those leading it, will be compromised. Many people are skeptical (1) establishing the need for the change; (2) creating a clear vision for of “stated goals,” often assuming a “hidden agenda” and/or the the future; and (3) institutionalizing the change in the organization. “slippery slope” phenomena is at work. leaders, therefore, should While the change process is not a neat and tidy affair, which reflect on the last change the organization experienced andhow occurs at an even and predictable pace, each of these three stages well this was managed. In the world of change, friends disappear and will occur in some form and will need to be managed intentionally. enemies accumulate! The concept of scope describes the purposes, procedures, ESTABLISHING THE NEED and people that will be affected. frequently, leaders underestimate (INTELLECTUAL ACCEPTANCE) (intentionally or unintentionally) the full magnitude of the change to The first step is to establish, and not assume, the intellectual get people to ‘buy in’ and then have to manage the fall out when the basis for the proposed change. It is not enough for proponents of the true magnitude of the change becomes reality. change to feel and understand the need for the change. This need

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 5 ESTABLISHING THE NEED deserve to be told directly about the change by those making the (EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENTS) change. Democracy does not say everyone gets his or her way. It does Once the intellectual (content) aspect of the change has been espouse, however, that everyone should get his or her say. leaders of addressed, the impact of the proposed change on people needs change need to be firm about the purpose of the proposed change to be carefully assessed. In this regard, it must be understood that but flexible regarding a variety of methods for its implementation. As there is no direct cause-and-effect relationship between a person’s one manager stated, “I let the people visit pity city once a week, but intellectual support for an idea and their readiness to exert the I don’t allow them to move there.”4 emotional resolve necessary to implement it. This seeming paradox results from the fact that change is not a rational process. It is not CONFIRMING THE VISION (RELATIVE ADVANTAGE) irrational but simply non-rational. People basically behave in ways that make sense to them based on their values and on how they People will find it hard to let go of the current situation until they believe the proposed change will alter their current situation in the know what it is they are expected to embrace in its place. Bridges refers organization. Simply stated, knowing and doing represent two distinct to this stage as the period of “disorientation” where people are in levels of behavior, and the first is not predictive of the second. One limbo. They are convinced things are about to change and accept this comedian stated it well in the story of a couple who both smoked reality, but they do not know to what it will change. The issue, however, and lost their dearly loved dog to cancer. The woman immediately is not the “absolute advantage” but rather the “relative advantage” stopped smoking, and the man went out and bought a new dog! here (i.e., how the proposed change will be better than the program or are some reminders of the emotional adjustments often required in procedure it is designed to replace). And the relative advantage needs the face of an impending change. to be substantial and not just cosmetic. The process of change simply People know how the current system works but can only imagine is too demanding to have the results be barely significant — “we went or speculate as to what the new situation will be like. It is not that the through all of that for this?” current situation is perfect but that people often believe what is being proposed actually could be worse (i.e., fear of the unknown). As one CONFIRMING THE VISION (ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS) pundit of change stated, “If you think you have a problem now, wait until you have solved it.” This concern gives rise to the situation where With the vision and the relative advantages of the proposed people often will prefer a “bad” known to a “good” unknown. change established, leaders must present an honest assessment of the Perhaps the greatest concern in the face of change is the sense organization’s capabilities for delivering on the vision and achieving of loss people believe they will experience. As Shel Silverstein notes, the proposed advantages. The leader must assess the timing for the “If you are an early bird you get up early. If you are a worm, you learn change and determine how well-positioned the organization is to to sleep late.” Consequently, the degree of perceived, personal loss implement the change. In conducting this important assessment, the depends both on what each person values and on what each person following issues should be addressed: believes the effects of the change will be in relationship to these values. No organization operates in a vacuum. If there is inadequate In the process of change, everyone listens to the same radio frequency political support, internally or externally, for the proposed change, (i.e., WIfM — what’s in it for me). leaders need to remember things it will likely fail. leaders should be aggressive in building political can and do change fast but people do not! partnerships with other affected organizations and be extremely Most people draw a significant level of their self-esteem from careful about pushing a change through without such support. The performing their work in a competent and professional manner. A question is not whether another group should have jurisdiction over change, however, often threatens their sense of personal competence the project but whether they do. as it requires them to learn new skills, assume new responsibilities, or leaders should identify the key individuals or groups and assess perform their current work in a new and unfamiliar way for which they their relative role in support of the project. for example, are these feel inadequately prepared. The need to learn new technology, be individuals opposed to the change and prepared to challenge it, simply part of self-directed teams, or be cross-trained to perform a range of willing to let it happen without actively supporting it, ready to help duties all could be embraced intellectually as good ideas but be met it happen, or committed to making it happen? every change effort by resistance at the individual level. needs a champion, and every champion of change needs to build a Those directing the change often focus so intensely on the content coalition of support. of the proposed change they overlook the consequences the change every organization is faced with legitimate needs that exceed will have for existing and important personal relationships within the available resources. The proposed change must have a priority for organization. If, as a result of the change, people will be rearranged resources within the organization and likely will need to compete into new teams, moved physically to new locations, or have new with resources already committed to other programs. Too often those reporting relationships, the change could be very difficult for them affected by the change are asked to personally support a change the to accept. organization itself is not willing or able to support. frequently, this No criticism of the change process is more prevalent then is the result of “low balling” the originally proposed change to gain the complaint by those affected that they were never consulted or its acceptance only to have the real “sticker shock” revealed later in informed of a change that affected them directly. even when people the process. The underestimation of the full costs of change, either realize they have no choice about the change, they still believe they intentionally through deception or unintentionally through ignorance,

6 www.nacmnet.org is a predictable cause of failure in many change efforts. for example, implementation period. This is a difficult but important situation to many projects, such as drug courts, which have been initiated with manage. People want to be treated fairly in general, but in times federal funds, have collapsed or been significantly compressed once of change perceived fairness is the most critical value. Those most local or state funding was required. affected by the change want to see the “equity of sacrifice” at work. It is common for a good and innovative idea to challenge long- Two approaches to handling this are for those directing the change standing traditions and customs. The leader should learn the history to model the new behavior personally and to initiate the change at of the issue being addressed and the values and norms that support the point in the organization where it is most needed and the benefits the current practices targeted for change (i.e., there is a reason why will be most clear. things function as they do, and no matter how bad something appears One of the common complaints during periods of change is to be, someone likes it that way). The best idea in the world will be the communication of “mixed messages.” leaders can gain needed seriously challenged if it conflicts with deeply held beliefs and values support for the change by affirming those cooperating with the change within the organization. for example, the intent to develop uniform through the appropriate distribution of resources and rewards (i.e., procedures for case management across the various chambers often the people who get the new equipment or training first are the ones fails due to the perceived conflict of this initiative with the value of who need it and not those with a higher status who want it). judicial independence. There is generally substantial interest and focus on a change at No organization can afford to commit all of its resources to any the point of implementation. People, if not enthusiastic, are often one specific change. The organization must continue to function while at least willing to give the new activity a chance to succeed. This implementing the change. The leader should assess the number and “honeymoon” period, however, will not last forever. People will want types of people needed to successfully implement the change, the to know whether the new system is working. The leader must provide technology required, and how much support from other areas of the this feedback and celebrate where success is being realized. for organization is available to assist with this specific change. The leader example, if pretrial settlement conferences are designed to increase also must consider what other changes in the organization will be efficiency in case processing, there needs to be evidence this in fact required to support the desired change and recognize that any change has occurred. “real transformation takes time, and a renewal effort in one part of the system likely will have implications for the entire risks losing momentum if there are no short-term goals to meet and system. for example, “teleworking” has been made possible through celebrate. Most people won’t go on the long march unless they technology, but it also changes the dynamics between people in an see compelling evidence within 12 to 24 months that the journey office and particularly between employees and their supervisor. is producing expected results. Without short-term wins, too many people give up or actively join the ranks of those people who have INSTITUTIONALIZING THE CHANGE (CRITERIA) been resisting change.”3 The final stage of the change management process addresses the need to integrate the proposed change into the existing system on SUMMARY an ongoing basis. In reality, the most difficult challenge of managing Adherence to the above three stages of the change management change is not the ability to generate a good idea or even to start its process and the related issues will not guarantee success, but it will implementation, but to sustain it over time. In this regard, one should greatly enhance it. While there often will be unexpected consequences, expect, and plan to manage, the situation where things will probably a well-managed change process will reduce such contingencies and get worse before they get better. It is in this transition period, when the make them more manageable, if and when they do occur. leaders need “bugs” are being worked out, that the change is the most vulnerable to remember change is not an acute event, but a series of transitions. and will require visible support from top leadership. Many important changes have been reduced in effectiveness, or even The following issues are critical during this final transition stage destroyed, because the leadership did not attend to managing the and, if applied, will guide leaders in moving toward the ultimate stage purpose, the people, and the process involved in change.5 of institutionalization. People need to understand the new behaviors well enough ABOUT THE AUTHOR to perform them. This will require education, training, or at least R. Dale Lefever, Ph.D., is Emeritus Faculty, Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. orientation. regardless of the sophistication of the new skill, procedure, Contact him at [email protected]. or process, people will need direct guidance and supervision during the transition period to make the break with the old system and to NOTES feel comfortable with the new way of doing business. A common 1. Schoonover, S.C., and Dalziel, M.M. 1986. Developing leadership error is to put maximum energy into getting people to “buy in” to for change. Management Review July: 55-50. the change and then failing to support them during implementation 2. Bridges, W. 2003. Managing transition: Making the most of change. (e.g., spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on equipment with Second edition, Cambridge: Peseus Books, 19-50. barely anything on training). It is estimated, for example, that only 3. Kotter, J.P. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review March-April: 59-67. about 10-15 percent of the capability of the technology purchased is actually used by those it was designed to help. 4. Duck, J.D. 1993. Managing change: The art of balancing. Harvard Business Review November-December: 109-118. It is highly probable that influential people who refuse to cooperate will challenge every change sometime during the initial

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY NIGHT AND SATURDAY FAMILY COURT BY PHILLIP KNOX AND DIANA R. HEGYI

Maricopa County (Arizona) opened Northeast regional Court alternatives to childcare needs and other personal issues. This benefit Center, its third regional courthouse facility, in September 2005. At alone might alleviate stress and reduce some financial burdens. the ceremony to dedicate the opening of the building, Max Wilson following a number of stakeholder meetings, the project was of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors offered a challenge to initiated by a request for funding that was formally submitted to the courts. As this and other regional courts were increasingly located the county in 2006. The project was approved by the Maricopa in the communities, he opined that they should offer more services County presiding judge and ultimately funded by the local board for the county’s constituents. In particular, he envisioned that these of supervisors, who dedicated nearly $377,000 to the court for this buildings would not only be open during regular business hours but program. The funding created new positions for a court commissioner would stay open into the night. Ultimately, better use of the existing and staff, a conciliator, two administrative support staff, and court buildings could then lower county costs through a reduction of future security officers. lesser funding amounts were requested from the construction costs. sheriff’s office and clerk of court to support the program. A similar Court leadership, both judicial and administrative, felt project was funded during the same budget cycle for a juvenile night compelled to quickly and positively respond to this challenge. and Saturday court. Judge Norman Davis, the family court presiding judge, and court A multi-departmental planning committee was formed that administration responded by establishing a committee of identified included judicial officers, court administrators, court technology stakeholders to assess the resources needed to support extended staff and administrators, court security supervisors, the Sheriff’s hours and possible options for after-hours court programs. Judge Department, the clerk of the court, Public Information and Access, Davis said, “The creation of night and Saturday court recognizes human resources, Court Interpreter Services, and facilities personnel. that the judicial branch of government exists to serve the people The committee held monthly meetings for six months between July of Maricopa County at times that are convenient to them. The court 2006 and January 2007. goals for the timely implementation of the belongs to the people, and meaningful public service includes an program were identified. Issues were raised and problems were understanding that not everyone can have their case heard during solved in a collaborative, problem-solving atmosphere. for example, traditional business hours. the committee determined what services would and would not be A successfully designed program might not only enhance offered at night and Saturday court. After thorough discussion, it was the building use but would provide greater access to justice. A decided that the team wanted a full-service night and Saturday court. courthouse open after hours in the community could allow citizens Accordingly, night and Saturday court were planned so family courts to attend hearings and conferences, and attend to other matters users could: at the courthouse without the need to miss work. It would provide • Attend a hearing for a default divorce • Attend a family court trial • Modify child support • fill out and file family court documents • Seek enforcement of child support orders • Attend a hearing on an order of protection • enforce parenting time orders • Attend educational seminars • have a conference to mediate disagreements between parents about child custody or parenting time • have children interviewed by a mental health professional provided by the court

Presiding Judge Norman Davis hears matters at night court.

8 www.nacmnet.org • exchange children in the presence of a neutral hearings on Saturdays have declined because of lack of capacity. professional where necessary to avoid arguments Approximately, 54 percent of all default hearings scheduled are or violence scheduled for night or Saturday court, thus reducing the daytime • have a professional evaluate disagreements between calendar demand, leading to other economies and best use of parents over child custody and parenting time calendar time. Court users were recently surveyed to determine citizen opinion. There was considerable discussion regarding which hours and from that survey, it was learned that 74 percent of the citizens would days of the week the court should be open. It was suggested by request night or Saturday court in the future. Ninety-six percent the committee members that feedback from court users would be of the responses indicated that our citizens think it is important to beneficial. In response to this, a survey was detailed and each and have night and Saturday court hours available at a courthouse near every person that had filed a family court pleading or called the their community. court for services in family court was asked about their preferences. The Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County implemented Surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of responses suggested that a night and Saturday family court to make it convenient for citizens services be provided on Saturdays. Prior to this poll, being open on to attend court hearings without losing time from work. Before family the weekend was not anticipated. But now, instead of solely opening court opened the night and Saturday courts, most citizens had to obtain night court, the committee agreed that the program should include leave from work to attend family court hearings and conferences. This calendars on Saturday. often created a serious financial burden and sometimes threatened the This decision certainly created logistical problems and staffing parties’ continued employment. There were no alternatives to holding issues. Would court employees work on Saturday? Would they family court hearings and conferences on week nights and on Saturday, receive overtime pay? Would the sheriff’s office be able to provide because the court’s objective was to allow parties to attend court security? Did the clerk of court have enough courtroom clerks to hearings at dates and times that were convenient for them. having work on Saturdays? Were the computer systems supported on services and hearings available outside of regular business hours Saturdays? The committee remained focused on the common goals and on weekends achieved that goal. Additionally, it has alleviated and worked on the schedule. Ultimately, it was agreed that litigants crowded dockets and allowed better use of courthouse facilities. should be able to come to court to resolve family court matters The various innovative programs and services designed to Tuesday through friday from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and Saturdays from alleviate litigant stress and reduce time to disposition in Maricopa 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. family Court are referred to as the “Maricopa Model.” The court’s As information regarding night (and now Saturday) court was self-service center and eCourt project provides litigants with a means disseminated, court staff began calling and asking to work the to create customized pleadings online for filing. The early resolution alternate hours schedule. The six family court judges who were management conference program enables self-represented litigants assigned to hear family court matters at the Northeast Courthouse to meet with an attorney case manager who will assist with developing became excited about offering the public the opportunity to hold and drafting final agreements. The decree on demand program allows hearings on Saturdays, and they each volunteered to sign up and work litigants to schedule a hearing for a default divorce within 24 hours certain Saturdays each year. Judges assigned to other courthouses following a request. A newly established child support modification and volunteered to work at the Northeast Court house on Saturdays. enforcement court schedules parties for one hearing and completes all Still more benefits have been realized as the courthouse at their concerns and a commissioner issues court orders at the conclusion Northeast is open in the evenings and on Saturday. The adult and of that event. juvenile probation officers inquired as to whether they could meet The Maricopa Model is a dramatic and innovative change that has with their probationers at the courthouse during the evening and on reduced unnecessary bureaucratic delay at a very stressful time in the Saturdays. The committee agreed that this would provide a secure lives of our citizens going through divorce or locked in struggles over environment for probation officers to meet with their probationers. child support or parenting time. It moves the cases brought by self- Adult and juvenile probation also utilize the courthouse to teach represented litigants forward efficiently and reduces frustration. This, cognitive intervention, life skills, and drug diversion classes. in turn, reduces financial hardship and prevents further deterioration Since the courthouse was open on friday evenings, starting an of family relationships that is inherent in family court litigation. With on-site supervised child exchange program for parents who could the implementation of night and Saturday Courts, these innovative not exchange the children without supervision was suggested. In Maricopa Model programs are offered at convenient times to the addition, community counseling agencies use the courthouse to teach citizens of our County at a regional location in their community. a mandatory parent information class that is required of all parents ABOUT THE AUTHORS who are divorcing. finally, a parent conflict resolution class for high- Phillip Knox is superior court administrator for the trial courts in Maricopa conflict parents is taught on Saturdays. County, Arizona. Contact him at [email protected]. Night and Saturday court opened for the first time on Diana Hegyi is special projects administrator for Maricopa County Tuesday, January 30, 2007, and has been operational since that Superior Court. Contact her at [email protected]. time. During the first year of operation, 8,050 litigants have made use of the various services offered. Occasionally requests to have

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 9 A STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS THAT HAS YIELDED SIGNIFICANT RESULTS THE EXPERIENCE OF TWO MICHIGAN COURTS BY BRENDA J. WAGENKNECHT-IVEY AND KEVIN J. BOWLING

INTRODUCTION Although part of Michigan’s “One Court of Justice” (Michigan In 2004, the 20th Circuit Court and Ottawa County Probate Constitution, Article VI), the trial courts in Michigan are largely funded Court — two western Michigan trial courts — embarked on a strategic at the local level. Judicial salaries are the notable exception; they planning process, culminating in the first, joint long-range strategic are paid through a state appropriation to the supreme court. The plan for the two courts. The strategic plan sets forth its strategic Michigan trial courts include the general jurisdiction circuit court, and 3 priorities and comprehensive strategies for addressing important, the probate and district courts, both with limited jurisdiction. long-term issues such as resources, access to the courts, efficient and The 20th Circuit Court has four elected judges and 161 staff, and effective operations and services, collaboration with partners, and the probate court has one elected judge and six staff. locally, the 20th organizational structure and employee interests. Circuit Court functions within three primary divisions: Since 2004, the courts have remained focused on their strategic direction and priorities, and have successfully implemented and 1. The Trial Division, which includes appeals, civil, criminal, followed the strategic plan, completing many shorter-term strategic domestic relations without children matters; projects. In short, the courts have not only developed a strategic 2. The family Division — friend of the Court Office, which plan that has proven to be a useful strategic roadmap for the courts’ includes domestic relations with children, primarily Title IV-D leadership and staff but also have succeeded in sustaining their focus (child support enforcement) matters; and and momentum for more than three years. 3. The family Division — Juvenile Services, which includes The purpose of this article is to share with other courts the juvenile detention, treatment, and casework services. strategic planning experiences of these two courts, including a description of the planning and implementation processes they used, These divisions are further identified on the organizational chart benefits realized from the process to date, and lessons learned. We in the strategic plan (www.miottawa.org). hope that the relevant history of these trial courts may inspire and help for many years, these circuit court divisions, as well as the probate other judicial officers and court executives to pursue and successfully court, operated as totally autonomous units. One desired outcome of use long-range strategic planning in their efforts to improve the courts the strategic planning process was to break down the “silos” between and ultimately to improve the administration of justice. these divisions and improve communication and collaboration among court divisions and between courts. OVERVIEW OF OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN Within this general environment, a decision was made in 2003 (prompted by a change in court administration) to embark on a long- To put this experience in context, it will first be helpful to range strategic planning process for the two courts. Previously, some understand Ottawa County. Until recent years, this western Michigan strategic planning had been done in the Juvenile Services Division, but county was viewed as a rural, agricultural area with a notable Dutch since court divisions historically operated as independent units, the population in its southern city of holland. The county seat, grand benefit of the planning was never shared with other divisions, nor was haven, is a beach/boating community nestled on the shore of lake the chief judge aware the planning had taken place. Thus, the newly Michigan and is a summer tourist destination. Several years ago, the hired court administrator, with approval of the chief judges of the county population began a rapid growth spurt, and now the estimated two courts, outlined a plan to build on the Juvenile Services Division population is 270,000 within a county of 565 square miles, representing planning process, expand the effort courtwide, and to include both an 11.7 percent increase in population over a seven-year period, circuit and probate courts. according to the U.S. Census.1 The county is comprised of six cities, given the task at hand, the court’s leadership team (i.e., the one village, and 17 townships. There are 11 county commissioners court administrator and senior administrators from each division), and six elected county officials.2 decided to hire a strategic planning consultant to assist the courts. LOCAL COURT ENVIRONMENT The courts selected Dr. Brenda J. Wagenknecht-Ivey, president of PrAxIS Consulting, Inc., of Denver, Colorado, given her expertise A brief description of the local court environment also provides in strategic planning, her experience working with courts nationally some important contextual information for understanding the strategic and internationally, and her direct knowledge of and experience with planning experiences and lessons learned. the Michigan court system from prior work, including assisting the

10 www.nacmnet.org Michigan Supreme Court in the development of its strategic plan. On that basis, the courts successfully applied to the State Justice Institute (SJI) for initial funding to begin a comprehensive strategic planning effort in 2004. The strategic planning process designed and used by the courts built on the strategic planning approach designed for courts in the early 1990s per an SJI grant as well as the Visioning and Strategic Planning Core Competency published by the National Association for Court Management (NACM).4 In addition to SJI funding, the courts received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project through American University to partially support its ongoing implementation efforts.

DEVELOPING THE LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC PLAN There were three phases to the courts’ initial strategic planning process. Phase 1 focused on forming a strategic planning task force and establishing a meeting schedule. Phase 2 included gathering information from justice system partners, community leaders, other local stakeholders, and court staff. finally, the content of the strategic plan was developed by the task force through a series of facilitated meetings in Phase 3. each phase is described below. (refer to the attached gantt chart for more detailed information and the timeline.)

PHASE 1 Forming the Task Force and Designing a Process and Schedule One of the first tasks of the strategic planning process, which began in 2004, was to establish a strategic planning task force. The charge of the task force members was to work together to develop a long-range strategic plan for the circuit and probate courts. The task force was created by special invitation of the chief judges of the circuit and probate courts. Care was taken to insure the task force included people from all areas of the courts, including judges, administrators, mid-level supervisors, professional staff, support staff, unclassified staff, and union officials. The task force consisted of 20 individuals. This phase also included (1) finalizing a project schedule to include task force meeting dates and (2) preparing for the focus group meetings of external justice system partners, community leaders, other local stakeholders, and court staff. Developing a meeting schedule up front for the entire strategic planning process was instrumental in clearing calendars and enabling task force members to attend all task force meetings.

PHASE 2 Gathering Input from Stakeholders Phase 2 of the process included conducting six focus group sessions of external stakeholders and court staff. The purpose of the focus groups was to gather information and views from attendees to inform and ultimately assist the task force in developing a strategic plan for the courts. examples of the information gathered included (1) participants’ expectations of the courts, (2) local or regional trends impacting the courts, and (3) big issues the courts must address in the years ahead, to name a few. In sum, the focus group sessions ensured that the views and ideas of external stakeholders and court staff were included in the strategic planning process.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 11 PHASE 3 Third, the courts formed five strategic issue implementation/ Developing the Strategic Plan action teams, which were organized around five strategic issue This phase, which included a series of facilitated task force areas: meetings (see Attachment A), focused on developing the content • Team 1 resources of the courts’ strategic plan. Specifically, the task force developed • Team 2 Access to Courts mission and vision statements, completed a trends analysis and organizational assessment, and identified strategic issues, long-range • Team 3 efficient (Timely) & effective Operations goals, strategies, and strategic projects for the courts to pursue. each and Service task force meeting was a working session that included (1) walking • Team 4 Collaboration with Partners through a comprehensive strategic planning approach developed • Team 5 Organizational Structure & employee Interests and facilitated by Dr. Wagenknecht-Ivey and (2) a variety of large and small group sessions that were extremely effective in engaging In 2005, court staff volunteered to be on the various members, encouraging creativity, and building consensus among task implementation/action teams. As needed, a few team members force members. were recruited, especially where specific expertise was needed. In for example, at one of the facilitated meetings, task force subsequent years — 2006 and 2007 — a majority of the original team members (1) reviewed social, demographic, and other trends members have chosen to remain on their respective teams, some new impacting the courts, (2) assessed the implications of these trends on volunteers have been added, and a few team members have rotated the courts, (3) constructed several plausible future scenarios given the to other teams. interactions of the various trends, and (4) began to develop proactive The implementation teams have been a very effective way to and responsive strategies to address the likely future implications on build enthusiasm for, and generate momentum and follow-through the courts. engaging in a comprehensive trends analysis helped the on, the courts’ strategic projects. The courts have realized secondary courts anticipate some of the likely future pressures and demands they benefits from using cross-functional implementation teams, including will face and develop effective long-term responses and strategies. increased courtwide collaboration and communication and enhanced The task force completed its charge by the end of 2004, thus knowledge of both courts. In sum, the courts are pleased to report completing the courts’ first, joint 2005-2007 long-range Strategic that many staff have volunteered to work on these teams, all of which Plan (www.miottawa.org). The strategic plan includes: (1) the mission have remained active and focused on their strategic projects for more and vision statements of the courts; (2) the courts’ long-range strategic than three years. examples of some of the strategic projects that the issue areas (e.g., resources, access to courts, efficient and effective implementation teams have worked on or completed include: operations and service, collaboration with partners, and organizational structure and employee interests); and (3) long-range goals, objectives, 1. Conducting a court user satisfaction survey and strategic, shorter-term projects in each of the strategic areas. 2. Developing a technology master plan Summaries of stakeholder assessments, trend analysis, focus group 3. enhancing employee training summaries, etc. also are contained in the appendices of the first strategic plan. 4. Improving the court intern program 5. Improving public service by studying the need for and IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGIC PLAN expanding public court hours The courts committed substantial time and resources to 6. establishing new bench/bar training activities and much more developing the strategic plan. The courts’ leadership team and task force members were equally insistent that it would be a useful fourth, a kick-off meeting with the co-team leaders and all roadmap to the future. To that end, building on lessons learned from members of the implementation/action teams was conducted in other organizational experiences and based on the existing court January 2005. The purpose of the kick-off meeting was to help orient culture, the courts took deliberate steps to ensure the strategic plan team leaders and members to the task at hand and ensure that the was implemented and followed. Below is a brief description of the teams got off to a fast and productive start. In particular, goals of actions taken by the courts to ensure implementation. the meeting included conveying the charge and expectations of first, the strategic plan included a list of specific, strategic the teams, helping the teams get organized by completing a team initiatives/projects to focus on during the first year. Naming strategic charter, providing them with information about the development of initiatives/projects helps to identify concrete things an organization the strategic plan and on becoming a high-performance team, and can complete, moving it in a desired future direction. providing them with time to begin working on an action plan for their Second, the courts conducted an “all staff” meeting in January specific projects. each year the courts have repeated an organizational 2005 to communicate the importance and substance of the plan. The meeting with the implementation teams, although in recent years it assembly was received favorably by the staff and judges; consequently, has been less extensive than the first year. it has been repeated in 2006 and 2007 as a method of communicating fifth, the courts established a Strategic Planning Oversight Team the status of strategic planning projects, celebrating successes, (SPOT). At the request of members of the task force, they transitioned recognizing court staff, and maintaining focus and momentum on the to become the new SPOT, demonstrating their commitment to courts’ strategic priorities. following through on the strategic plan. The SPOT meets three

12 www.nacmnet.org times per year to discuss progress of the five implementation/action teams; to review the status of strategic projects; to build support and enthusiasm for strategic projects; to maintain focus on goals, objectives, and priority projects; and to acknowledge and celebrate accomplishments. SPOT and the five teams have continued their work throughout 2005, 2006, and into 2007, making great strides on a variety of court strategic projects. Sixth, the leadership of the courts continues to remain focused, and to review and monitor progress, on the strategic plan. for example, the senior leadership team, comprised of the court administrator and division directors from the two courts, has added a standing agenda item at its biweekly meetings. Thus, at each meeting, they discuss the status of the strategic planning activities. further, the court administrator meets regularly with the chief judges of the two courts — and the other judges as appropriate — to discuss the progress and status of strategic planning initiatives. Also, the division directors discuss strategic planning activities at their staff meetings. Initially, the leadership team reviewed and approved specific action plans from each of the five implementation teams to insure they were on the right track and had adequate resources to proceed. finally, the courts have continued to communicate and share information about strategic planning activities through their bimonthly newsletter, annual report, and the like. Accomplishments and progress are communicated and shared at every opportunity, keeping focus on the courts’ strategic priorities.

INSTITUTIONALIZING STRATEGIC THINKING AND STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP The NACM core competency emphasizes the importance of institutionalizing strategic thinking and strategic leadership, moving beyond the mere development of a strategic plan. Additionally, it stresses the need to differentiate among operational thinking, strategic planning, strategic thinking, and strategic leadership. Specifically, many court leaders are focused on the operational requirements of running courts daily, leaving little time for reflection or time to anticipate problems and issues that affect the courts capacity to deliver services over the long-term. According to the NACM core competency materials, strategic thinking enables leaders to anticipate, promote, and sustain change.5 In Ottawa County, the shift to strategic thinking and strategic leadership has been a difficult process and has not yet been fully achieved, although progress is being made. Some of the steps taken include (1) periodic judicial briefings so the judges are aware of and can provide support for strategic activities and projects; (2) a permanent change in the leadership team biweekly agenda, which now includes a regular update on strategic planning initiatives; and (3) development of a communication plan to insure regular updates about project status to all staff and improved efforts to communicate among implementation teams to avoid duplicating efforts or working at cross-purposes on similar strategic projects. In sum, the courts’ leadership team continues to strive for a balance between tending to operational matters while remaining focused on the courts’ long-term, strategic direction and priorities.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 13 BENEFITS GAINED FROM THE STRATEGIC PLANNING abilities, including those who are willing and able to: (1) see AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES the “big picture,” and think long-term and for the good of The processes described above have yielded significant the entire court (rather than their respective division/area); benefits for the two courts. Below is a brief summary of a few of the (2) share diverse views while collaborating with and listening benefits realized to date. The strategic planning and implementation effectively to others; (3) commit to attend and participate processes have: actively at the meetings; and (4) actively support the process among their peers. 1. fostered long-term and courtwide thinking and planning. 4. Carefully select an external consultant, if possible. If you 2. enhanced courtwide communication and collaboration. have the benefit of using an external consultant, ensure that he/she understands the court environment and designs 3. Involved and engaged many managers and staff in ongoing a strategic planning process to meet your court’s unique improvements efforts, accomplishing many strategic projects needs. Also, ensure that he/she has the requisite knowledge that have improved services and justice to the public. and experience to facilitate an engaging process while assisting and teaching task force members the steps of 4. Provided the courts’ judicial and administrative leadership strategic planning and how to develop the content of the with a strategic roadmap outlining priorities, which provides strategic plan. focus and assists in making management, operational, and funding decisions. Gathering Input from Stakeholders (Phase 2) 5. Determine what information you want to gather from 5. Provided the courts with a tool to communicate its priorities stakeholders to help inform the strategic planning process and resource needs to funding sources, stakeholders, before you identify stakeholder groups and/or participants. and partners. Defining the purpose of your data gathering efforts and determining the type of information you want to gather will 6. Increased the accountability of the courts by using help you identify the appropriate stakeholder groups and the strategic plan as a tool to assess progress and specific participants. accomplishments. 6. Inform stakeholder participants up front as to how their 7. Demonstrated how the strategic planning process can input will be used in the formulation of a strategic plan. achieve desired goals and be reasonably blended for example, advise them that their ideas and input will be within existing caseloads and court workloads. summarized and shared with the strategic planning task force. The task force will consider and use their ideas/ LESSONS LEARNED input as it deems appropriate in the development The lessons learned from the courts’ strategic planning experiences of the strategic plan. are listed below. They are provided in hopes of helping other courts around the country succeed in developing and implementing a 7. Assure focus group participants that their ideas/input will be strategic plan and successfully transitioning to strategic thinking and anonymous. Specifically, assure them that there will not be strategic leadership. any individual attributions (to them) in the written summary. Be cautious in writing up the summary so as to adhere to Forming the Task Force and Designing a Process and this promise of anonymity. Schedule (Phase 1) 1. Insure there is commitment from the bench prior to 8. Use an external consultant to facilitate the focus group announcing the start of a strategic planning effort. sessions, if possible. An external person is more likely to Ongoing judicial support is key to any strategic be viewed as a neutral, impartial information gatherer. planning and implementation process. Developing the Strategic Plan (Phase 3) 2. Develop a meeting schedule at the beginning of the process 9. establish operating agreements at the onset of a strategic and stick to it. Doing so allows task force members to plan planning process that will foster healthy group norms ahead and helps to assure high attendance at strategic among members of the task force. for example, promote planning meetings. open communication, equal and active participation of all members, productive resolution of differences, and working 3. Carefully select task force members. That is, select a diverse toward consensus. group of people from all areas and levels of the court who are formal and informal leaders within the organization. Also, 10. Avoid drafting sensitive statements or lengthy documents select people with the right mix of knowledge, skills, and in a large committee setting. When it is time to wordsmith

14 www.nacmnet.org a final mission statement, vision statement, strategic plan, etc., it is more efficient to gather the necessary input from the task force and assign the task to a small working group/ subcommittee with good writing skills.

11. Continually show task force members where they are in the strategic planning process and how the various steps are contributing to the development of the strategic plan. It is important to show continual progress to avoid frustration or loss of momentum.

12. Care for, nurture, and develop members of the task force throughout the process. That is, recognize the additional work they have undertaken, value their contributions and participation, support them along the way, and teach them the steps of strategic planning so they can continue the efforts in the future. Doing so yields great benefits, including improved satisfaction and overall morale, improved trust and relationships among members, greater creativity and risk taking, a feeling of hope and purpose, and enthusiasm for participating in implementation efforts.

13. Celebrate the completion of the strategic plan. Thank and recognize task force members for their hard work and contributions to this important activity.

Implementing the Strategic Plan 14. establish reasonable timelines and workloads for completing the strategic projects. Specifically, if a strategic planning task force identifies many projects to work on during the life of a plan, it helps staff morale to establish a reasonable timeline so staff do not feel they have to accomplish all projects immediately or in the first year in addition to the regular court workload.

15. Develop a standard protocol for allowing staff to request to be on or opt off an implementation team. That is, it is helpful to have a standard protocol that allows staff a gracious way to opt on or off implementation teams in the event they find there is a project they really want to work on or if they discover they cannot handle the extra workload in addition to their regular job.

16. Use a court newsletter or some other means of regular communication with staff to: (1) inform staff of strategic planning updates and progress; (2) recognize the efforts of staff as they achieve project milestones; and (3) maintain enthusiasm for strategic planning in general.

17. encourage and thank the staff who are not involved with strategic planning implementation teams but who keep the court offices running while other staff are gone, attending strategic planning meetings and doing strategic project work.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 15 18. If possible, use the assistance of a trained, strategic 2. Further county information is available at www.miottawa.org. planning consultant to help keep implementation efforts on 3. The jurisdiction of the circuit includes the following types of track and to serve as advisor to the court’s leadership and legal matters: general jurisdiction; criminal/felony, civil > $25K, domestic relations, and juvenile, etc.; the jurisdiction of the probate court includes: implementation teams as needed. limited jurisdiction; estates, guardianships, mentally ill cases, etc; and the jurisdiction of the district court includes limited jurisdiction — criminal- ABOUT THE AUTHORS misdemeanor, civil < $25K, trafﬁc, small claims, etc. Brenda J. Wagenknecht-Ivey, PhD, is president of PRAXIS Consulting, Inc. 4. Drs. Brenda J. Wagenknecht-Ivey and John A. Martin were the Kevin J. Bowling, JD, is court administrator for the 20th Judicial Circuit Court primary authors of both the SJI strategic planning approach and the in West Olive, Michigan, and a member of the NACM Board of Directors. NACM Visioning and Strategic Planning Core Competency Guidelines. 5. www.nacmnet.org, Core Competencies, Core Competency NOTES Curriculum Guidelines, Visioning and Strategic Planning, NACM/PDAC, July 3, 2003, p.4. 1. Additional social/demographic data are available in Attachment 1 of the revised strategic plan.

20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT & OTTAWA COUNTY PROBATE COURTS

Strategic Planning Process & Timeline (July 23, 2004) JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1. Meet w/Mgt. Team to finalize SP Approach & s Timeline; Plan focus groups

2. Plan for & conduct User/ Stakeholder & Staff focus n n groups

3. Strategic Planning Process Mtg. #1 SP Taskforce Mtg. s (1 day – July 23) Mtg. #2 SP Taskforce Mtg. s (2 days – August 25 & 27) Mtg. #3 SP Taskforce Mtg. (2 days –Sept. 29 s Tentative & Oct. 1) Mtg. #4 SP Taskforce Mtg. s (1 day – October 22) Mtg. #5 SP Taskforce Mtg. (1 day – November 19 s Tentative)

4. Begin Implementation: Kick-off Team Mtgs. & Comm. SP to Judges l & Staff (Dec. 16 & 17) s Taskforce Meetings l Implementation Team Mtgs. & All Judge/Staff Mtg. n Stakeholder & Employee Focus Groups

16 www.nacmnet.org A TEAM OF TWO RELATIONSHIP THE EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTANT AND THE STAY -IN-CHARGE COURT ADMINISTRATOR BY RONALD J. STUPAK

“I think that even though we need to have some outline, I am sure we make the road by walking.”

PAUlO frIereS freIre

INTRODUCTION consult turn out to be failures or see it as a part-time money supplement. Consequently, since I’ve experienced it as a “Important decisions are a form fertile area of research, teaching, learning, and leading, I’d of autobiography…” like to share with my professional colleagues my practitioner

Jeffrey TOOBIN and conceptual rules for effective consulting.

The foundations for this article are based on five personal, professional, 3) During my adult life, I have witnessed too many third-party experiential, intellectual, and academic observations made as an helpers (organizational consultants, executive coaches, organizational and leadership consultant over the past 30 years: family therapists, personal counselors, and even doctoral dissertation advisors) who, through their egotism and 1) I was introduced to consulting during my stays at the techniques, intentionally and unintentionally became a part federal executive Institute, the Washington Public Affairs of the organizational and interpersonal problems more Center (WPAC) of the University of Southern California, than contributors to the solutions: Lesson #3 … executive, and the National Center for State Courts. Some of my management, and supervisory leaders must learn “how to dominant impressions were that too many of my consulting Stay in Charge — even with a Consultant.” far too many colleagues had a one-size, cookie-cutter, fits-all formula organizational consultants make advocacy moves, power for “helping” any (and every) organization or “rode the plays, and egocentric interventions that manipulate leaders horse” of an instrument/questionnaire like the Myers/Briggs, into a dependency relationship. As a counterpoint, I want to Strength Deployment Inventory, etc. as a universal fix-it share procedures, techniques, and practices for supervisors, framework. In addition, there were other colleagues who managers, and executives that can help them to short-circuit thought that research by itself was the same as consulting this tendency. Consultants must, ethically and operationally, or confused training workshops with organizational avoid becoming an acting boss, an internal power broker, consulting interventions. And finally, today, with more and or a know-it-all tyrant. At the same time, the client must more consultants becoming computer literate and power be able to reassert his/her legitimate authority whenever point junkies, I find that increasingly they are developing a consultant oversteps the aforementioned relationship or frameworks and even research approaches that are driving power boundaries. them to force-fit organizations into their respective visual designs. Thus, too many consultants are putting the “cart” 4) During the past few decades there has evolved a body of of rationality before the “horse” of organizational realities: knowledge about how adults learn, along with a body of Lesson #1 … One size (of any kind) creates more distortions technology for managing that learning. Adult education and problems than it solves. In other words, problem solving has clearly affected the role of consultants and the practice (the what) too often precedes problem identification of consulting. The use of these adult learning principles (the why). is nowhere more apparent than in their relationship to successful strategic planning and performance improvement, 2) I was educated and trained as a political scientist and public which Fortune Magazine identifies as the most important policy academic and over the years have found almost management tools in today’s private, public, and non-profit nothing of substance about consultants and consulting in sectors: Lesson #4 … effective organizational consultants my major professional journals: Lesson #2 … Social science avoid lecture-style pedagogical consulting approaches and academics don’t value consulting. In fact, most who do instead emphasize adult educational principles that identify

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 17 clients as self-directing human beings who learn through • Always has an exit strategy. collaborative inquiry, team endeavors, decision-making • realizes that cultural anthropology is as important as participation, and lessons from experience. Therefore, my list business administration as a consulting framework. of the attributes of an effective consultant will contain several • Assists organization leaders to move away from things that rules of how to intervene successfully in an organization with must be done to choices that must be made. an activist set of action-driven adult learning skills. • Understands that the artful use of crisis can be instrumental to the management of organizational change. 5) In my publishing, consulting, leadership, and teaching • Understands that learning is as important as teaching. experiences, I have found (a) that most executives and • emphasizes that unlearning is as important as learning. managers don’t read; (b) that most corporate leaders • Blends imagination with memory … links hindsight are action learners; (c) that the most useless consulting to foresight. instrument is an extensive, academic-oriented bibliography; • Never gets between the leader (boss) and his/her team. (d) that professionals such as judges, lawyers, physicians, • Knows that trust is not a feeling; trust is a behavior. and/or engineers, etc., read next to nothing in the areas • Appreciates the reality that organization is just another word of management, leadership, and resource administration; for interdependence. and (e) that 95 percent of the feedback I receive on • Cares more about what is right than who is right. my publications comes from the short, action-oriented, • fosters independence; never cultivates dependency practitioner pieces that have appeared in publications relationships. such as the LA Times, the PA Times, Court Manager, The • Always moves at the client’s level of understanding and AAMA Executive, Court Communiqué, The Public Manager, ability to cope. etc. Clearly, executives, managers, and supervisors are • has had operational leadership experience. experience-based, short-burst, action-oriented learners: • realizes that style and energy are never an excuse for lack of Lesson #5 … I use lists as a format for some of my preparation and expertise. publications when I want managers, executives, supervisors, • Knows that process is as important as product … can blend human resource colleagues, practitioners, and consultants vision with resources. to read them. Surely, for individuals who rationally prefer a • Uses adult learning principles more than pedagogical formula rather than a list, this publication will be avoided, techniques. if not rejected. A list is deemed arbitrary in a way a theory • Understands that where one enters the organization is not, and yet, if logic and experience are legitimate determines the scope and depth of impact one will have as a foundations for teaching, then a list can be a supportive consultant in the organization. supplement that can be involved in theoretical development. • Believes that who one is, is as important as what one knows. In addition, I know the readership I want to reach, and based • Is an active listener. on the positive feedback I’ve received from those who have • Makes sure that he/she is ‘talking the talk’ that is compatible read my lists over the years, this article will engage the with the individuals at the level of intervention. audience I need in order to continue my conversations on • Nurtures interdependence by helping clients to span, effective consulting interventions. intertwine, and redefine organizational boundaries. • expects to spend time building teams and coaching one-on- RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE EFFECTIVE one with team members. ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTANT • Never attempts to take over the decision-making processes. With all of the above groundwork in place, I would like to share • Knows that the way forward is both to look ahead and at the with you, based on my collected, edited, and invented list of rules same time to look around. and guidelines, what, from my perspective, creates and defines • Can give and receive meaningful feedback. the successful organizational consultant. In essence, the effective • Understands that context makes a difference and that an organizational consultant ... organization’s culture is critical to any change effort. • Knows the differences between training, education, and • Prepares for each consulting encounter aware that a lack of development … and clearly knows when to use each preparation will linger so long as to be burdensome. of them. • Talks the language of the clients. • Believes that there is no one best technique, approach, or • Acknowledges that change is not a rational process. model that fits all organizational situations. • Asks questions and remembers the answers. • Believes that solutions are discovered less in concepts than KEEPING THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR IN CHARGE in practice. Based on the aforementioned axioms of an effective organizational • Contends that new perspectives often lead to new answers. consultant, as well as from my years as a consultant in the courts, I • Understands that coaching isn’t an addition to a consultant’s would make the following recommendations to court administrators to job, rather that it is an integral part of it. ensure their success in employing and teaming up with consultants at

18 www.nacmnet.org the highest level of performance. In essence, the successful, in-charge CONCLUSION court administrator: I contend that effective organizational consultants can influence the events, actions, and directions in public, private, and non-profit • fashions a “team of two” relationship with the consultant organizations by immersing themselves in the ethics, values, visions, in which the court administrator always retains the senior practices, theories, and cultural anchors of their consulting craft. partnership role in terms of power, performance, and And the evidence of one’s consulting mastery is to be found in decision making. behavior, productivity, and impact and not in a capacity to recite • Never lets a consultant manipulate him/her into a theories, formulas, or excuses. fundamentally, effective organizational dependency mode. consultants “make the road by walking” shoulder to shoulder with • Makes certain that any consultant hired values and court administrators and judicial leaders. encourages teams, participation, and transparency. • Always has both a completion date and an exit strategy for ABOUT THE AUTHOR the consulting project/relationship; clearly, never allows a Ronald J. Stupak, Ph.D., is Principal of, Fording Brook Associates. He was consultant to become a permanent fixture, knowing that a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the National Center for State Courts in 1994 and recipient of the Warren E. Burger Award in 1996. too much familiarity lessens the consultant’s ability to “think Contact him at [email protected]. outside the box.” • ensures that every consultant develops a plan, model, SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY or strategy that is specifically designed for the court Aikman, A. “The Need for Leaders in Court Administration,” administrator’s organizational culture, political context, and Court Manager (Spring, 2007), pp. 12-17. See especially p. 12, per the personal style. comparative list by Ronald J. Stupak on Leaders and Managers. • Knows that a good trainer is not necessarily an effective Byrd, R. “How to Stay In Charge — Even With a Consultant,” consultant; understands that each role requires different Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, pp. 150-160, N.D. (A Handout). skills, competencies, and perspectives. Doordan, M. and Stupak, R., “Behavioral Anchors: Building a Medical • receives systematic progress reports based on agreed-upon Center on Solid Foundations,” Journal of Health and Human Services Administration (Summer, 2005), pp. 54-67. performance measures from the consultant; retains the Elgin, C., Considered Judgment. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton authority to change directions of the effort and/or to change University Press, 1996. consultants, if needed. Fisher, F. and Fisher, P., Successful Consulting, New York: Universe, • expects to be challenged and confronted by a consultant; Inc., 2005. never “kills the messenger.” Fraser, L. and Stupak, R., “A Synthesis of the Strategic Planning • Wants a consultant who can blend style with substance, goals Process with the Principles of Andragogy: Learning, Leading, and Linking,” with budget, and process with product; knows that breadth International Journal of Public Administration (Fall, 2002), pp.1199-1220. is as important or more important than depth in developing Gert, B., Morality: It’s Nature and Justiﬁcation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. court strategies. Knowles, M., The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston, Texas: • Articulates clear objectives, goals, and performance Gulf Publishing Company, 1990. measures so that he/she becomes capable of “doing it Krystal, A., “Too True: The Art of the Aphorism,” Harper’s (February, oneself,” thus, ensuring that the consultant and the court 2008), pp. 83-89. administrator work toward a mutually beneficial separation. Martin, S. and Stupak, R., “Organizational Passages: Context, • Keeps searching for new, fresh, dynamic, and effective Conﬂuence, and Complexities,” Virtual Strategist, (Winter, 2005), pp. 1-7. consultants so as not to be barnacled with the same old, Mintzberg, H., The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York: The predictable consultants; in essence, when consultants Free Press, 1994. stay too long with a court administrator, hindsight, Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1990. incrementalism, and rigidity too often snuff out foresight, Stupak, K. and Stupak, R., “Finding Organizational Reality in Paradise: A Team of Two,” Public Administration Quarterly. Spring, 2006, pp. 11-21. creativity, and flexibility. • expects a consultant to be his/her one-on-one professional Stupak, R., “Court Leadership in Transition,” The Justice System Journal, (Fall, 1991), pp. 617-627. coach, personal advocate, and career enhancer. Stupak, R., “How to Grow a Public Executive: The U.S. Federal • Keeps repeating the fundamental mantra …”I must stay in Executive Institute Experience,” Indian Institute of Public Administration, charge, even with a consultant”…. (1988), pp. 261-276. Reprinted from The International Journal of Public Administration (April-June, 1987) pp. 262-276. By accepting that court administrators are the masters of their own Stupak, R., “Industrial Realities and Consulting Moralities are Miles Apart,” Central Penn Business Journal (March 30, 2007), p. 11; from a fates, effective organizational consultants must use the appropriate much longer version in the PA Times. learning methods, personal relationships, and professional skills to Stupak, R., “The Good Teacher,” PA Times, (October 10, 2001) make sure they are helping court administrators to transition into pp. 10-11. successful and insightful leaders for the years ahead.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 19 Washington Review KAY FARLEY

Committee Approves Court Interpreter Legislation The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act (S. 702) April 24 by a vote of 14-5.

This legislation, sponsored by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), would create a new grant program for the support of state court interpreter services in the amount of $15 million a year for a period of ﬁve years. The model for distribution of funds is the successful Court Improvement Program (CIP) with “highest State court of each State” as the only eligible entities to receive funds.

The bill now goes to the full Senate for consideration. It is imperative that state court leaders write or call their home state senators and urge them to co-sponsor S. 702.

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Kay Farley or Jose Dimas at (703) 841-0200.

SUPPORT NEEDED FOR COURT SECURITY LEGISLATION

The House and Senate Appropriations Committees are working on their proposals for the ﬁscal year (FY) 2009 budget. State court leaders are asked to contact their congressional delegation to garner their support for an appropriation in the FY 2009 budget for the newly authorized grant program to fund a threat assessment database (Title III, Section 303 of Public Law 110-177).

SEC. 303. GRANTS TO STATES FOR THREAT ASSESSMENT DATABASES

(a) In General — The Attorney General, through the Ofﬁce of Justice Programs, shall make grants under this section to the highest State courts in States participating in the program, for the purpose of enabling such courts to establish and maintain a threat assessment database described in subsection (b).

(b) Database — For purposes of subsection (a), a threat assessment database is a database through which a State can —

(1) analyze trends and patterns in domestic terrorism and crime;

(2) project the probabilities that speciﬁc acts of domestic terrorism or crime will occur; and

(3) develop measures and procedures that can effectively reduce the probabilities that those acts will occur.

(c) Core Elements — The Attorney General shall deﬁne a core set of data elements to be used by each database funded by this section so that the information in the database can be effectively shared with other States and with the Department of Justice.

(d) Authorization of Appropriations — There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for each of ﬁscal years 2008 through 2011.

20 www.nacmnet.org The law authorizes $15 million annually from 2008 to 2011 for a grant program to enable state courts to establish and maintain a threat assessment database. Under the law, the attorney general would be required to deﬁne a core set of data elements to insure that the information could be shared between states and with the U.S. Department of Justice. The highest court in each state would be eligible to apply for the funds. (A copy of the bill can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_ bills&docid=f:h660enr.txt.)

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Kay Farley or Jose Dimas at (703) 841-0200.

ELDER JUSTICE ACT HELPS BOLSTER AWARENESS

Awareness for the need to address elder abuse was bolstered April 17 when the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing on the Elder Justice Act (HR 1783) and several other bills dealing with school safety and missing children legislation.

Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), the lead sponsor of HR 1783, noted in his testimony that the hearing was the ﬁrst time in 17 years that a House Committee was taking a look at elder abuse legislation. HR 1783, as introduced, would:

•฀ Increase฀prosecutions฀by฀providing฀technical,฀investigative,฀coordination,฀and฀victim฀assistance฀฀ resources to law enforcement and prosecutors;

•฀ Create฀new฀forensic฀centers฀to฀promote฀detection฀and฀increase฀expertise฀on฀elder฀abuse,฀neglect,฀฀ and exploitation;

•฀ Require฀immediate฀reporting฀of฀crimes฀in฀long-term฀care฀settings฀to฀law฀enforcement;฀

•฀ Provide฀grants฀for฀Adult฀Protective฀Services;฀and฀

•฀ Establish฀an฀Elder฀Justice฀Coordinating฀Council฀to฀coordinate฀activities฀of฀federal฀agencies.฀

The Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) submitted written testimony for the hearing. In the testimony, CCJ and COSCA noted that while state courts play a critical role in addressing elder abuse, the legislation, as introduced, does not recognize that important role. CCJ and COSCA recommended to the subcommittee that consideration be given to providing resources to state courts in a similar manner as the legislation proposes to do for prosecutors and law enforcement.

On the Senate side, the Senate Special Committee on Aging has been holding a series of hearings focusing on healthcare workers and the care of elders in long-term care facilities. The special committee does not have legislative authority but is raising awareness of the issues related to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 21 Jury News PAULA HANNAFORD-AGOR

Tales of “Tales” Juries Earlier this year we saw a spate of news stories about courts that were forced to send the local sheriff out in search of random citizens from various government ofﬁces and public businesses because too few people appeared for jury service that day. These “tales” (pronounced “tay-less”) juries occurred in places as varied as St. Johnsbury, Vermont; Greeley, Colorado; Sanford, North Carolina; and Allen County, Ohio. Corralling citizens from the streets of town and pressing them into jury service on a moment’s notice sounds draconian — and make no mistake — it is. Fortunately, today the practice of impaneling a tales jury is much rarer than one might guess from the number of recent media stories.

A tales jury is one that is composed at least partially of persons summonsed “from among the bystanders in the court.” The practice dates back to colonial times when jurors had to travel great distances, sometimes for days, to get to court. Often many of them would decide against making the trip, reasonably conﬁdent that the court wouldn’t attempt to enforce the summons because it would take too long to send the sheriff into the hinterlands to do it. Most states still have statutes that permit a court to impanel a tales jury if needed in an emergency.

In most instances, the need for a tales jury is simply a matter of too few jurors appearing for service on the day they were summonsed. In very lengthy or high-proﬁle trials, it can also occur when more jurors are excused or removed for cause than anticipated, leaving too few qualiﬁed jurors on the venire to impanel a full jury. On extremely rare occasions, courts might also seek minority “talesmen” from the local community to forestall a jury challenge based on under-representation.

Corralling citizens from the streets of town and pressing them into jury service on a moment’s notice sounds draconian — and make no mistake — it is.

In almost every instance, the need to impanel a tales jury involves a “perfect storm” combination of a trial that cannot be continued or postponed, usually due to speedy trial requirements, and an excessive failure-to- appear (FTA) rate that often has been ignored for far too long. Although the tales jury remedy might appear to be effective in the short term, the practice does raise legitimate concerns about the validity of the resulting jury pool. For example, does a “random selection” of Wal-Mart shoppers reflect a fair cross section of the community? For that matter, has the sheriff actually picked people randomly? Or has he intentionally or unintentionally selected people who appear less likely to raise a commotion at having their day disrupted with an unexpected jury summons? In the long run, impaneling a tales jury can also greatly undermine public trust and confidence in the court by treating local citizens in such an unfair and undignified way.

SPEEDY TRIAL AND UNCHECKED FTA RATES

The right to a “speedy and public trial,” enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ensures that the government cannot hold the threat of criminal charges and their attendant consequences (e.g., incarceration, excessive bonds, credit difﬁculties, personal and professional effects) over a defendant’s head

22 www.nacmnet.org indefinitely. The U.S. Supreme Court has never specified exactly when the speedy trial requirement begins or the timeframe in which the trial must take place, but state and federal statutes enacted in the 1960s and 1970s have clarified these issues by setting out precise time limits for each jurisdiction.

Most constitutional violations (e.g., violation of due process, violation of equal protection) can be “cured” with a new trial. For the speedy trial requirement, however, a new trial actually exacerbates the violation by prolonging the threat of criminal sanctions. Thus, the sole legal remedy for violating a defendant’s right to a speedy trial is complete and permanent dismissal of the charges. Although the court is technically the neutral arbiter of the defendant’s fate, it is also an instrumentality of the state. Under the law, therefore, the failure to summons a sufficient number of jurors for trial, or to ensure that those summonsed actually appear for trial, is no justification for delaying a defendant’s trial past the statutorily proscribed deadline. It is time to either “fish or cut bait,” as the saying goes.

Nationally, we know that FTA jurors account for an average of 9 percent of all summonses, but FTA rates can range from less than 1 percent to more than 50 percent in some jurisdictions.

Dismissing charges might be a reasonable option against a relatively low-level, nonviolent offender. But one can only imagine the public outcry that would result from the release of an alleged murderer, rapist, drug kingpin, or gang leader. Loud and angry editorials would be the least of it. More likely would be replacement of the judge, clerk of court, and district attorney at the next public election or reappointment hearing. Little wonder, then, that a judge would view a tales jury as the lesser of two evils.

So what about the problem of FTA jurors? Nationally, we know that FTA jurors account for an average of 9 percent of all summonses, but FTA rates can range from less than 1 percent to more than 50 percent in some jurisdictions. About four out of every ﬁve courts conduct some type of follow-up on FTA jurors, but the only approaches found to produce measurable reductions in FTA rates are those that issue a second summons to the offending juror. Controlling for jurisdiction size, courts that had implemented a second summons program had FTA rates that were 24 to 46 percent lower than those that had not done so. Robert Boatright found in his seminal study of FTA jurors that the single biggest predictor of whether a juror would report for service on the date summonsed was that juror’s expectation about whether he or she would face any signiﬁcant consequences for not appearing. The practical effect of a second summons program is to make FTA jurors aware that the court really notices when jurors fail to appear and is prepared to enforce the summons as it would any other court order.

Absent some really unusual circumstances — a freak snowstorm or other weather-related catastrophe, road conditions that make it impossible for jurors to get to the courthouse, or a mistake on the summons as to the date or location of the trial — FTA rates generally do not vary substantially from day to day. So a court that

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 23 is forced to impanel a tales jury as a result of an excessive FTA rate on the day of trial is most likely one that has had an FTA problem for a significant period of time and has simply ignored it until it has finally grown to the point of disrupting court operations across the board. The unfortunate irony of a tales jury is that the individuals who are “punished” for the court’s failure to engage in consistent enforcement efforts are not the scofflaw jurors, but rather those unfortunate souls who are enlisted as reluctant jurors without notice and the hapless defendant who now faces an understandably hostile jury panel.

LESSONS TO LEARN FROM A TALES JURY

So what should the experience of impaneling a tales jury mean to the jury manager? First and foremost, the jury manager should view the experience as a wake-up call that something is seriously amiss in the court’s routine jury operations and investigate immediately. In addition, the court should give consideration to the following approaches to prevent future emergencies requiring a tales jury.

1. When requesting a jury panel, the courtroom staff should indicate if the trial is subject to speedy trial requirements so the jury manager has adequate notice that there is no room for error in the event of a too-small jury pool and make adjustments to the number of summonses if necessary.

2. If jury yields have been unusually variable, the jury manager should ascertain if there is a pattern to the variability (e.g., by day of the week, by day of the month) and make appropriate changes to the number of summons mailed for upcoming service dates.

3. If FTA rates are higher than national rates for courts of similar size and jurisdictional characteristics, or if FTA rates have risen measurably over the past six to 12 months, the jury manager should implement an aggressive follow-up program if one is not already in place. If there is a follow-up program in place, the jury manager should review its effectiveness to determine how it might be improved (e.g., more timely follow-up on FTA jurors, more public outreach about the importance of jury service and consequences of failing to appear).

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Paula Hannaford-Agor is director of the Center for Jury Studies at the National Center for State Courts. For more information on the Center for Jury Studies and its work, visit www.ncsc-jurystudies.org.

24 www.nacmnet.org A Question of Ethics PETER KIEFER

Safe and Accountable The preamble of the model code calls on us, as court professionals, to be faithful to the fundamental values of the American judicial system, including being unbiased and impartial. The code also compels us to be held accountable to the trust given by the electorate, a trust requiring us to regularly reﬂect on our actions as they relate to our values.

Therapeutic courts offer an exciting new direction for rehabilitating defendants, restoring families, and increasing justice system effectiveness. These courts are also not without controversy. Some have criticized them as being too expensive and stretching actors beyond traditional roles. (“It’s not my job to be a black–robed probation ofﬁcer.”) Others have concerns that go to the heart of a court’s values and must not be lightly dismissed.

SCENARIO

For years, Judge Jacobs, the family court judge for a midsize trial court, has worked to staunch the national scourge of domestic violence. Three years ago he almost single-handedly organized and launched a preadjudication therapeutic domestic violence court (DV court). Jacob’s entire staff, as well as three staff members from the court administrator’s ofﬁce, now work in the DV court. Staff include DV court coordinator, Michael Lantana, who writes budget requests, hammers out rules and procedures, negotiates informal agreements with other agencies, and keeps the court organized. Features of the court include the following:

฀ •฀ The฀DV฀court’s฀motto:฀“Keeping฀Victims฀Safe;฀Holding฀Batterers฀Accountable.”

฀ •฀ Battered฀women฀can฀request฀emergency฀orders฀of฀protection฀via฀an฀audio–video฀connection฀from฀an฀฀ unrevealed local women’s shelter.

฀ •฀ Victim฀assistance฀representatives฀(VAR),฀some฀of฀whom฀also฀work฀at฀the฀local฀women’s฀shelter,฀freely฀฀ access the courtroom to assist victims while DV court is in session.

฀ •฀ Michael฀and฀the฀judge฀teamed฀up฀with฀Kevin฀Franks,฀an฀aggressive฀treatment฀specialist฀who฀฀ ฀ shares the judge’s passion against domestic violence. Kevin’s treatment program emphasizes batterers acknowledging their responsibility for abuse.

฀ •฀ Michael฀printed฀pamphlets,฀available฀throughout฀the฀courthouse,฀entitled฀“Are฀You฀a฀Victim฀of฀฀ ฀ Domestic Violence: What You Can Do about It.”

฀ •฀ A฀“safe฀room”฀for฀victims฀was฀established฀immediately฀adjacent฀to฀the฀DV฀court,฀where฀victims฀and฀฀ advocates can speak privately in a secure setting.

฀ •฀ Judge฀Jacobs฀routinely฀grants฀multiple฀emergency฀protection฀order฀requests,฀although฀many฀women฀฀ who come in have the same order dismissed just a day or two later.

฀ •฀ Michael฀had฀additional฀flags฀and฀reports฀programmed฀into฀the฀court’s฀computer฀system฀to฀easily฀match฀฀ “serial batterers” with their previous cases.

฀ •฀ He฀had฀the฀self-service฀center฀reprogram฀the฀electronic฀DV฀forms฀module฀to฀make฀it฀easier฀to฀complete฀฀ the request forms.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 25 All of this has been done by Judge Jacobs or under his active guidance.

Attorney Leonard Atkins, an established family attorney who represents mostly men, has loudly complained that DV court is blatantly biased against men. He has a long list of complaints including 1) the motto alone speaks to a bias against men; 2) there is no audio-video connection afforded to any men’s center (Atkins dodges the subtlety that there are no men’s centers in town.); 3) VARs, who assist women victims, have the run of the courtroom during court session; 4) Kevin Franks’ entire history manifests his bias against men; 5) there is no commensurate court pamphlet entitled “You’ve Been Wrongly Accused of Domestic Violence: What You Can Do About It”; 6) there is no “safe room” where accused batterers and their attorneys can confer; 7) the judge hands out protection orders like candy to women who abuse the court system by requesting an order one day, then having it dismissed the next; 7) the computer program developed to identify “serial batterers” has not been used for defendants or respondents of any other case types, not even criminal; and 8) the self-service center hasn’t gotten around to automating the protection order response forms.

Atkins takes his complaints to court administrator Bob, who (at least on paper) supervises Michael Lantana. Atkins wants Bob to reassign all court administrative staff out of DV court so they do not contribute to this bias and unethical “boutique” court. Bob asks Atkins why he doesn’t ﬁle an appeal, which will allow the court of appeals to weigh in, or why he just doesn’t request a change of judge. Atkins sidesteps Bob’s questions by saying he has to work with Jacobs and Lantana so he doesn’t want to upset that delicate relationship. He is conﬁdent, however, that Bob, using his diplomatic acumen, can reassign staff without having Atkins’ name come up.

RESPONDENTS

I’m pleased to have Pamela Harris, court administrator for the Montgomery County Circuit Court in Rockville, Maryland; James Murchison, trial court administrator for the Marion County Trials Courts in Salem, Oregon; and John Greacen, principal of Greacen and Associates, LLC, to comment on the column.

QUESTIONS

Are there ethical questions in this scenario that need to be addressed?

The Motto: “Keeping Victims Safe; Holding Batterers Accountable” Both John Greacen and Pam Harris thought the motto was gender neutral and appropriate. Pam did point out that since the court is pre-adjudication, adding “potential” before “victims” and “alleged” before “batterers” is appropriate. “To style the defendant as a batterer before trial is a de facto presumption of guilt and could make the court look biased, which in turn creates due process problems.”

No Audio-Video Connection to a Men’s Center Since no men’s center exists, Pam did not see this topic as ripe for discussion. John saw nothing inappropriate about the audio-video connection. “[The connection] . . . serves a legitimate purpose of protecting women who would otherwise be afraid to ﬁle for protection because of the possibility of encountering the abuser at the courthouse … The court would have no duty to extend a video link to an alleged abusers’ support organization or men’s organization because the purpose of the video link is to encourage alleged victims to come forward. This purpose does not apply equally to alleged victims and alleged abusers.”

26 www.nacmnet.org VARs Have the Run of the Courtroom Pam thought that the victim assistance representatives (VARs) should have access to the courtroom just as any other person during an open-court proceeding. “They should be able to assist a victim if needed during the proceeding, although those who are not lawyers should not attempt any form of representation. If the VARs’ policy is to assist any victim of domestic violence as opposed to just women victims, this policy should be publicized.”

John does not think that the court should pressure the women’s center to provide assistance to men. But the court does have a duty to provide equal access and services to both sides in every case. “From the facts presented, the court is not providing funding or facilities to the women’s shelter. If it were, then it would have an obligation to ensure that respondents were able to obtain comparable assistance at the courthouse.” Under these facts, says John, the court is obligated to allow alleged abusers to bring a support person with them into the courtroom.

No Safe Room for Alleged Abusers John saw no justiﬁcation for a safe room for alleged abusers to meet with their attorneys. “Abusers are not inherently intimidated by seeing their victims at the courthouse and the existence of the ‘safe room’ for alleged victims creates a separation from the alleged victim in those instances in which the alleged abusers ﬁle counter petitions alleging abuse by the alleged victim.”

Pam disagreed. She thought the safe room could make the court look to favor alleged victims and that the safe room must go unless another room for the alleged batterer and their attorneys could be added as well. “Many alleged batterers could be victims of divorce tactics and might need a safe room just as much.”

Kevin Franks is Biased Against Men Pam noted that women can be batterers as well. “Acknowledging responsibility once adjudicated is a therapeutic issue, not a legal one. It is very important for a therapeutic court to have access to high-quality abuser intervention professional programs.” John pointed out that acknowledging responsibility is a widely recognized therapeutic approach.

No Commensurate Court Pamphlet for Wrongly Accused Batterers John acknowledged that a foundation of courts’ impartiality is providing information equally to both sides of any dispute; Bob should produce a commensurate pamphlet as soon as possible. “It appears that the court is providing a pamphlet and automated forms for persons seeking protection orders; it is not providing comparable services to persons against whom those orders are being sought.”

Although the concept of a pamphlet for alleged batterers seems ridiculous, Pam did not see a problem with a pamphlet as long as it was informational only. “Anyone who feels wrongly accused can seek the services of a public defender or other attorney.”

Judge Jacobs Grants Too Many Emergency Orders of Protection If Mr. Atkins believes Judge Jacobs is basing his rulings on anything other than the facts of the cases before him, Pam thought Atkins was free to take action with the appropriate judicial oversight board or the court of appeals. “The judge is charged with weighing the evidence and reaching a conclusion and his/her thought process should not be hampered by the fact that the victim had a change of mind.”

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 27 John agreed, noting that Judge Jacobs cannot predict whether or not a petitioner will continue to seek the court’s protection after an emergency order has been issued. “His duty is to act on these requests by comparing the statements made in the petition with the requirements of state law; a woman who makes appropriate and credible representations is entitled to relief, regardless of how she may later choose to use, or even to maintain, the court’s order protecting her.”

Inappropriate New Computer Modiﬁcation Both Pam and John saw the court acting appropriately in identifying “serial batterers” through its computer system. The information is relevant to a judge in fashioning the terms of a protection order or in determining if an order is currently in place.

Self–Service Center Has Not Automated the Response Form Both Pam and John thought that having the petition forms, but not the response forms, automated is potentially biased. Court administrator Bob should automate the response forms as soon as possible.

Blatant Bias John noted that the court has a duty to ensure that judges do not have institutional biases toward or against litigants based on personal characteristics, therefore court administrator Bob needs to investigate any credible complaints of bias. “We cannot tolerate gender bias any more than we can tolerate racial or ethnic bias on the bench.” The scenario, however, does not present facts supporting Mr. Atkins’ complaint that Judge Jacobs is “blatantly biased against men.”

“It is a fact that most batterers are male; Judge Jacobs’ intolerance of domestic violence cannot be translated into intolerance of men.”

Both Pam and John felt Mr. Atkins needed to pursue the standard legal remedies available. John said, “Mr. Atkins does have two other fully adequate fora for this complaint — the appellate process and the state judicial conduct commission.”

John would support Bob talking with a couple of leaders of the local domestic relations bar to ensure that there is nothing to Mr. Atkins’ complaint. If there was a widespread perception of bias by Judge Jacobs, Bob would have to bring the matter to the chief or presiding judge, who would be obligated to discuss the matter with Judge Jacobs.

Jim Murchison expressed concern in a more general sense, that the courts have left their “pure” role behind, and that therapeutic courts have changed the traditional role of the courts from the neutral, fact-ﬁnding, law- applying arbiter of disputes, into a role as an advocate. “The judicial branch of government in our society was designed to be that neutral ground. While all things must change to some extent, I regret that courts have lost their original role. The treatment role and the enforcement role are responsibilities of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.”

“Whether it is the collection of monies ordered by the court, the oversight of individuals during probation, the operation of diversion programs, educational classes, or whatever, I do not think that these are the proper responsibility of the courts. In my view, the courts have inserted themselves into the executive processes because the executive ofﬁces have either abandoned their duties or failed in their efforts.”

28 www.nacmnet.org DOES BOB NEED TO ADDRESS ANY ETHICAL ISSUES WITH MICHAEL LANTANA?

Both Pam and John did not see Michael having any serious ethical issues in what he has done. As his supervisor, Pam did have some suggestions: 1) automate the response forms; 2) do not allow the VAR people to roam and disrupt court proceedings while it is in session; 3) change the motto to language regarding administering justice in a fair and unbiased manner; 4) provide another room for counsel and alleged batters to confer; and 5) vet all DV court processes and policy changes through the court administrator until court operations are well established.

John Greacen thought Bob needs to follow up with Michael on the pamphlet and electronic forms for respondents. “He should point out to Michael the ethical issue related to equal court services to persons on both sides of a case.”

DOES BOB NEED TO ADDRESS ANY ETHICAL ISSUES WITH JUDGE JACOBS?

John Greacen said, “Administrator Bob should meet with Michael and the judge to discuss with the judge the issue of providing equal services to both parties in a case and the role of the victim assistance representatives in the courtroom (if that is actually a problem).”

The judge did not have an ethical issue in Pam’s mind, but she would suggest he curtail the VAR activity. “His ethical obligation is to decide cases on the merits of the facts and to administer the law fairly and impartially. The fact that the judge feels protection of DV victims is important does not make him biased.”

Jim saw a deeper philosophical issue present. “Judges are not trained psychologists or counselors. They should not be inserting the judiciary into the executive function. The essential division between the branches (separation of powers) is being lost in this ‘creeping’ movement toward the courts voluntarily assuming roles and responsibilities, which I believe undermine the ability of the courts to be the neutral and impartial arbiter.”

I want to again thank Pam Harris, Jim Murchison, and John Greacen for their perspectives regarding the interesting and controversial subject of therapeutic courts, including the practical and philosophical questions that they raise. These comments clearly show the increasing need for an ongoing discussion of this topic. If you have an ethical issue, or if you have comments on this scenario, please contact me at pkiefer@superiorcourt. maricopa.gov. I also invite you to visit Karl Thoennes’ court ethics Web site, www.courtethics.org, where he has assembled a variety of ethical codes.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Peter Kiefer is criminal court administrator for Maricopa Superior Court in Phoenix, Arizona. He has been questioning ethics for Court Manager since 1994.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 29 Outside the Box

Inside the Box — the Jury Box That Is JUDGE B. MICHAEL DANN (RET.)

Most state courts and many federal courts are implementing jury trial reforms that should be of interest to court managers, if only because it may add duties and responsibilities to the already challenging workload of court managers. The old model of the passive juror is being transformed to that of an “active juror,” one who is active in ways that will improve her understanding and memory of the evidence and the law and that will keep her more fully engaged and satisﬁed. The active juror needs forms and supplies to fully participate in the trial, and that is where court administration comes into the picture. More on that later; ﬁrst, a little history.

A BRIEF DOSE OF HISTORY

Juries were ﬁrst used, in a rather crude form, on the European Continent and were exported to England as a result of the 11th century Norman Conquest of the islands. The early English juries were quite “active” in the sense that they were selected for their respected positions in the villages and were expected to know, or to ﬁnd out, about the crime or controversy, bring that information into court, and decide the case based upon all the “evidence” on hand. Later, jurors began to be chosen for their ignorance of the affair and were charged by the court to decide the case based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the parties. Thus began the tradition of the “passive juror.” The role and powers of the jury were further circumscribed by the rise of professional judges, lawyers, and lawyers’ guilds (professional unions).

The balance of power and control over jurors and the trial itself gradually shifted in favor of the judicial and lawyer classes. Rules and procedures were designed and implemented by the professionals to circumscribe the jury’s power and discretion. As a result, over time jurors became more and more passive, like mute bystanders to the action in the courtroom.

It wasn’t until the 1960s that any systematic study of juries and jurors was begun. The seminal American Jury Study by Harry Kalven and Hans Zeisel spawned a wide array of studies of jurors, jury trials, jury decision making, and juror competence. Many of these modern studies concluded that the traditional model of juror passivity was not serving jurors well in the courtroom. The traditional model also diminishes the role and stature of the institution of trial by jury as juries came to be blamed by the press and public for their decisions in many high-proﬁle cases. More and more trials exhaustingly involved complex subjects, issues, and evidence. Growing bodies of science produced a tidal wave of experts with often-technical and difﬁcult testimony. And the experts rarely agreed with one another, leaving the passive and unknowledgeable jurors to sort it out.

Most jury experts and a few reform-minded judges and lawyers began to call for abandonment of the old passive juror model in favor of an active juror, concluding that active learners make better learners. A large number of major procedural changes, or reforms, were suggested that would permit jurors to become active participants in the trial in ways that would both aid memory and comprehension and be consistent with the requirement of affording both sides a fair trial. Beginning in the mid-1990s, courts in a majority of states reformed their jury trials by adopting some or all of a long list of suggested reforms. The federal courts have begun to follow suit (no pun intended). Several of these important changes in jury trials will likely add to the work of court managers.

30 www.nacmnet.org THE MOST COMMON REFORMS: HOW THEY IMPACT COURT MANAGEMENT

Following is a table showing the most common reforms adopted around the country to date and how they affect or involve court management.

JUROR REFORM IMPACT ON COURT MANAGEMENT

Juror note taking Ensure supplies of note pads and pens/pencils on hand; discard notes following verdict

Mini opening statements before voir dire No impact

Preliminary jury instructions Prepare for large and expedited copy order and delivery to the judge

Juror multi-purpose notebooks Assist courtroom staff and attorneys to prepare and copy materials, as needed; maintain large supply of three-ring “neutral” binders; possibly assist with stripping notebooks at end of trial

Document control index Index exhibits taken into jury room for deliberation on pre-designed court form

Juror questions during trial Design (with judges) and provide forms for use; put used forms into case ﬁle

Interim summaries of evidence by attorneys No impact

Discussion of evidence by jurors during trial Design and post signs in jury rooms

Provide ﬁnal instructions to all trial participants Prepare for large and expedited copy order and delivery to the judge

Juror questions during deliberations Design (with judges) and provide standard question forms

Exchanges, in writing, between jurors and judge Design (with judges) and provide standard forms when jurors reach an impasse during deliberations; for: 1) the judges’ written “invitation” to the a “conversation” where jurors are invited to list jurors; 2) the jurors’ written response(s); and 3) issues of fact or law that divide them, which if the judge’s rulings on the jurors’ list of issues or addressed further by the court and/or counsel requests, if any. Once the verdict is rendered, the might help produce a verdict forms must go into the case ﬁle.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 31 CONCLUSION

If trial by jury in civil and criminal cases is to survive another 200 years, changes will have to be made to meet the needs of jurors of our time. Trial procedures must take account of the fact that jurors can now read and write (in contrast to early jurors), have certain well-recognized learning needs and preferences, and are used to experiencing modern technology. They expect time-tested communication techniques and learning tools that meet their needs. They deserve no less. For us to fail them amounts to disrespecting them as individual adult decision-makers and puts the institution of the jury at risk.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Judge Dann, now retired, has been active in the cause of jury trial reform for two decades and has written extensively about it and related subjects. Contact him at [email protected].

Another Perspective: Alongside the Bench ALEXANDER B. AIKMAN

Judge Dann has admirably reminded us of the history of juries and neatly summarized some of the important reforms of the last dozen or so years, many of which ﬂow from work he initiated and continues to promote. In his conclusion, Judge Dann states that, “if trial by jury in civil and criminal cases is to survive another 200 years, changes will have to be made to meet the needs of jurors of our time.” This statement suggests a need to examine two other areas that may force change in order for trial by jury to survive another 200 or more years. They probably will have to be thought about and addressed exclusively by judges and attorneys, but the answers may have incidental impact on court management.

MULTI-TASKING GENERATIONS

The fact that our children and grandchildren multi-task to an almost maddening and often disquieting extent is not news. It may be news that multi-tasking has spread to younger Baby Boomers and even to some older Baby Boomers. It is not the fact of multi-tasking that will impact jury trials, however. Jurors, in the end, can be forced only to listen to, observe, and assess what is presented in and through the witness stand. Multi-tasking challenges jury trials as we have known them because of the short attention span multi-taskers bring to all activities. Even in the modestly controlled environment of an ofﬁce, a person can take telephone calls, write notes, go on the Internet, and do computer and/or paper work all while listening to music. These are the same people raised on Sesame Street and, now, adult cartoon and even “live” shows that change the scene every six or fewer seconds.

In a courtroom, attorney questions are often plodding because rules of evidence and tradition require that each question covers only a very small element of the total picture. In only rare instances and for special circumstances are witnesses allowed to provide an uninterrupted narrative. It can take many minutes (or even hours) for the entire picture to emerge of only one element needed to prove a case. Meanwhile, our multi- taskers are chomping at the bit to draw conclusions and speed up the process of getting evidence in, and internally chaﬁng at the rules of evidence (or, they often think, the incompetence of counsel) that keep them from hearing about things they believe are relevant. Their six-second minds can start wandering.

A related but distinct point is the technology-savvy juror. Jurors used to ﬁnding and checking information on the Internet and to having ﬁve or six screens open at one time as they move among documents and tasks may get bored sitting and listening to typical questions and answers of witnesses. (“Just answer the question asked and no more” is good advice if you’re a lawyer but maybe not if you’re a juror.) We already are seeing jurors, although instructed explicitly not to, going on the Internet at home or via a personal electronic device during deliberations to “supplement” or “explain” evidence presented in court. The combination of a need for frequent

32 www.nacmnet.org stimulation and comfort with technological presentations of information may cause jurors to get angry at the style and pace of getting information into a trial.

Jurors still follow — almost all the time — the judge’s instructions to decide the case only on the evidence admitted. Most of the time (75-80 percent) judges and juries agree on the outcome, which is very good considering all the factors that could lead to a large divergence of conclusions in most trials. The question is, however: How long will citizens used to multi-tasking and with highly truncated attention spans feel comfortable with and accept the slow, methodical process of trying cases? I suggest it won’t be too much longer before jurors start complaining to judges about how cases are tried or we start hearing about jurors who were not paying attention when critical information was presented. Thank goodness for the availability of a record and 12 people who can backstop and cover for each other. I worry, however, how long we can rely on the marvelous checks and balances that having 12 people provides (or, regrettably, fewer in some states and in federal civil trials). I do not know how trials should be changed to address these issues, but it is something someone should be thinking about.

THE “OBJECTIVE” JUROR

The second point, the personal histories jurors bring into the jury box, is not unknown as a risk in jury trials. That is why voir dire is allowed to get quite personal at times and can take so long. It is why jury managers have to send 15–30 more citizens into a courtroom than would be needed if we just sat the ﬁrst 12 plus a few more for excusals for cause.

I mention it here because of a recent study of jurors and their verdicts in rape cases conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology. The operative conclusion is that “juror judgments in sexual assault/rape trials are inﬂuenced more by the attitudes, beliefs, and biases about rape which jurors bring to the courtroom than by the objective facts presented ...” I do not believe that the fact that this is an Australian study should give U.S. judges and attorneys any comfort. As one who favors eliminating or virtually eliminating peremptory challenges, the study gives some pause. It also should raise questions about how effective voir dire is in ferreting out attitudes, beliefs, and biases that could materially affect verdicts. Finally, it raises questions about how much comfort we should take when a prospective juror says, “yes” in response to a judge (or attorney) asking if the juror can put aside a belief or attitude just admitted to and judge the case on the facts presented and the law. We’ve been willing to accept the ﬁction underlying this response in order to preserve trial by jury by a representative sample of citizens, but that acceptance sits on shaky ground.

Studies and experience suggest that the socialization process associated with voir dire, judges’ rulings and admonitions during trials, and jury instructions is very effective in causing jurors to put aside (or suppress) their previous attitudes and beliefs and decide cases on the evidence presented. Although, 13-plus years ago (November/December 1994 issue of Judicature (vol. 78, no. 3), Michigan State University Professor Norbert Kerr reported that in cases with high pretrial publicity, continuances, extensive voir dire, instructions to disregard, and deliberation itself did not overcome the impact of pretrial publicity. We instruct jurors to use their experience and judgment to assess evidence but get upset if they do it too overtly or openly, i.e., seemingly outside what they heard in court. The Australian study at least should lead us to ask if we should continue to count on the socialization process as much as we do in rape cases and probably others. Or, does continuing jury trials for the next 200-plus years require that we hold on to the ﬁction of objective, factually-passive jurors? Except that now and thanks largely to Judge Dann’s efforts, jurors will be allowed to be more active in gaining understanding of the evidence and its implications. Judge Dann’s reforms are highly desirable. But are they sufﬁcient to save jury trials?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Alexander B. Aikman is deputy state court administrator for program operations in the Oregon Ofﬁce of the State Court Administrator. He is author of The Art and Practice of Court Administration. Contact him at [email protected].

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 33 Technology FACTs CHRIS CRAWFORD

The 20th Anniversary of FACT (Part 1: How far we’ve come)

In 2009, the Forum on the Advancement of Court Technology (FACT) will celebrate its 20th anniversary. This article is the ﬁrst of two parts: Part 1 is a great opportunity to chronicle how we began and how far we’ve come, and Part 2, which will appear in the next edition of Court Manager, will lay out a vision of where FACT is going for our next 20 years.

HOW FACT BEGAN

In 1988, a conference was held in Ponta Vedra, Florida, sponsored by the National Center for State Courts and Mead Data, with the aim to explore ways to enhance the use of technology in state and federal courts by increasing cooperation between the private sector and the courts. Among the ﬁndings that the working groups participating in that conference recommended was the formation of a “forum for the exchange of information on a regular basis between the courts and private sector ﬁrms.”

As a follow-up to the 1988 conference, on October 13-14, 1989, a group of public sector court managers and private sector court technology professionals came together in Williamsburg, Virginia, under the name of FACT: Forum on the Advancement of Court Technology, with the following mission:

To improve the quality of justice through communication between those who develop and provide technology and services, and those who manage the courts.

It was agreed that one public sector and one private sector representative would serve as co-chairs, and the group would be called FACT. The first public sector co-chair was Kentucky Chief Justice Robert F. Stevens, and the first private sector co-chair was Vicky Cashman from Mead Data/Lexis. There was clearly a need for this neutral forum, and the next few years were spent refining the group’s mission and governance structure.

These goals emerged as the primary deliverables for FACT:

฀ •฀ To฀provide฀educational฀opportunities฀for฀improved฀use฀of฀court฀technology

฀ •฀ To฀streamline฀the฀procurement฀process

฀ •฀ To฀promote฀the฀development฀of฀technology฀standards

฀ •฀ To฀identify฀court฀user฀needs฀for฀the฀purpose฀of฀product฀and฀service฀development

฀ •฀ To฀serve฀as฀a฀resource฀to฀the฀National฀Center฀for฀State฀Courts฀and฀the฀general฀court฀community

34 www.nacmnet.org Other goals were named that FACT would be receptive to promote, including the ability to form public/ private partnerships wherever possible, build awareness of technology best practices, and to promote data and systems security.

An organization that is similar to FACT is the Integrated Justice Information Systems Institute (www.ijis.org), which is afﬁliated with the U.S. Department of Justice. FACT leadership participated in the development of the IJIS Institute and works in close cooperation with this group as it shares many of the same goals. However, IJIS tends to focus on criminal justice issues, while the state courts also have needs in the family, civil, probate, and juvenile areas. FACT serves as a resource in the court community and is a valuable neutral forum to address issues of mutual concern.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 35 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In the ensuing 20 years, FACT has made signiﬁcant progress, including the following accomplishments:

฀ •฀ Significant฀financial฀support฀and฀faculty฀sponsorship฀of฀dozens฀of฀educational฀programs฀for฀ Court Technology Conferences and NACM conferences.

฀ •฀ Publication฀of฀a฀guide฀called฀A Non-Technical Guide to Information Technology in Courts that has served as a handout and useful resource for judicial and staff orientation.

฀ •฀ Participation฀in฀dozens฀of฀IT฀standards฀development฀groups฀by฀private฀sector฀FACT฀members฀฀ ฀ addressing case management system functional requirements, data exchange protocols, and e-ﬁling.

฀ •฀ Sponsorship฀of฀several฀social฀events฀bringing฀private฀and฀public฀sector฀representatives฀together฀to฀฀ ฀ exchange ideas and share concerns.

฀ •฀ Presentation฀of฀procurement฀reforms฀in฀Canada฀at฀a฀FACT฀steering฀committee฀and฀sharing฀these฀lessons฀฀ learned with others.

฀ •฀ Adoption฀of฀a฀joint฀resolution฀at฀the฀NACM฀Annual฀Conference฀in฀Washington,฀D.C.,฀on฀July฀17,฀2003,฀฀ making FACT an ofﬁcial part of NACM

฀ •฀ A฀reorganization฀in฀2005฀to฀formalize฀the฀composition฀of฀the฀FACT฀Steering฀Committee฀and฀creation฀฀ of a single chair.

฀ •฀ Sponsorship฀of฀the฀newly฀formed฀Court฀Information฀Officers’฀Consortium฀(www.citoc.org).฀

฀ •฀ Service฀as฀a฀resource฀to฀the฀Joint฀Technology฀Committee฀of฀NACM฀and฀the฀Conference฀of฀ State Court Administrators.

฀ •฀ This฀regular฀column฀in฀Court Manager to highlight developments in court technology.

THE FACT HALL OF FAME

I apologize in advance for errors of omission in this list of individuals who either served as co-chair, served on the steering committees, were strong supporters of or otherwise did the heavy lifting to create and nurture FACT:

Robert F. Stevens Mary Lu Holter Jim Harris Marsha Edwards Kentucky Chief Justice Larry Polansky Suzanne James Dottie McDonald Vicky Cashman Charlie Ferrell Gary Egner Gary Wolfe Tom Ralston Paul Engel Alan Slater Marcus Reinkensmeyer Bob Wessels Craig Husa Janet Cornell Paul Burke Geoff Gallas Dale Kasparek Tom Dibble Skip Chesshire Tom Little Victor Ferreira Kathy Mays Chris Crawford Ron Warﬁeld Martin Gruen Jack Clarke Steve Ventre Hugh Collins Frank Broccolina Curt DeClue Tim Dibble Dave Byers Chelle Uecker Rick Fennell Mary McQueen Dennis Finch Keith Bumstead and many more. John Greacen George Hogshead Jim McMillan Alan Carlson Terrie Bousquin Linda Perkins John Doktor Moira Rowley John Matthias Mark Zaffarano

36 www.nacmnet.org WHERE NOW?

Part 1 of this two-part series concludes our walk through history in the creation of FACT. In the next edition of Court Manager, Part 2 will cover where FACT is headed in the future and current planned initiatives.

For more information about FACT, including an online membership application and past Technology FACTs articles, please visit http://FACT.ncsc.dni.us

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Chris Crawford is Chair of FACT and president of Justice Served, a court management consulting ﬁrm. He can be reached at [email protected].

Technology FACTs is a regular column written by industry members of FACT, Forum on the Advancement of Court Technology. An archive of past articles is available at http://FACT.ncsc.dni.us

SUSTAINING MEMBERS Access Capital Services, Inc. Dun & Bradstreet McCreary, Veselka, Bragg ACg, Inc. fTr, ltd. & Allen, P.C. ACS Inc. high Court of hong Kong MSI Consulting group, llC Alabama Supreme Court and State law library Infocom Systems Services Inc. Municipal Services Bureau AllianceOne, Inc. ISD Corporation National Traffic Safety Institute AmCad Case Management, llC Justice Systems, Inc. record Transcripts, Inc. Capital recovery Systems, Inc. Kuban Associates llC revQ Deloitte Consulting linebarger goggan Blair & Sampson, llP Veri-Core llC DPK Consulting Maximus

NACM 2008 ANNUAL CONFERENCE PLATINUM SPONSOR The Court Brothers National Safety Council DMJM h&N AeCOM

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 37 NACM NEW MEMBERS February–April 2008

A TERESA J. BROWN D JOSEPH DOWNEY Clerk of Court Deputy Project Chief HON. BAZA AL MAJALY franklin Circuit Court SHERRY I. DANNA Chemonics, Inc. Judge P.O. Box 567 Court Support Services Manager BearingPoint Camp APO DPK Consulting rocky Mount, VA 24151 Superior Court, San Bernardino County International zone McDonalds Swefieh Bldg 1st floor (540) 483-3065 8303 haven Ave. 33 1 7270 4237 PO Box 930473 fax: (540) 483-3042 rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 fax: 33 1 7270 4237 Jordan [email protected] (909) 948-4589 [email protected] (415) 284-7694 fax: (909) 948-4570 fax: (415) 495-6017 DENI KAY BUTLER [email protected] MYRA WALL DOWNING [email protected] Senior Administrator Sr. Court Program Analyst los Angeles Superior Court east District LISA G. DAVID Administrative Office of the Courts HON. MAMDOUH AL NAJADA 400 Civic Center Plaza District Clerk 1206 Quince St., S.e. Judge Pomona, CA 91766 Williamson County, Texas District Courts P.O. Box 41170 DPK Consulting (909) 620-3002 P.O. Box 24 Olympia, WA 98504-1170 McDonalds Swefieh Bldg 1st floor [email protected] georgetown, Tx 78627 (360) 705-5290 PO Box 930473 (512) 943-1212 fax: (360) 586-8869 Jordan C fax: (512) 943-1222 [email protected] (415) 284-7694 [email protected] JACQUELINE N. DRAKE fax: (415) 495-6017 SARAH P. CAMPBELL DAVE DEETS Student [email protected] Dispute resolution Coordinator Infax, Inc. University of Denver Supreme Court of Virginia HON. MUNTAHA AL QUDAH 3400 Corporate Way, Ste. D Sturm College of law-MSlA Program 100 N. 9th St., 3rd fl. Judge Duluth, gA 30096-2500 2330 S. Kearney St., Apt. 410 richmond, VA 23219 DPK Consulting (770) 209-9925 Denver, CO 80222 [email protected] McDonalds Swefieh Bldg 1st floor fax: (770) 209-0671 (469) 396-6595 PO Box 930473 GAIL CANNON [email protected] [email protected] Jordan Court Administrator ZABRINA W. DEMPSON JAMES C. DRENNAN (415) 284-7694 Auburn Municipal Court Branch Chief Professor of Public law and government [email protected] 340 e. Main St., Ste. 101 D.C. Superior Court Institute of government Auburn, WA 98002-5548 SHAWN L. AMACHER 510 4th St. NW, rm. 120, Bldg. B University of North Carolina (253) 804-5008 Court Administrator Washington, DC 20001 CB #3330 Knapp-Sanders Building fax: (253) 804-5011 Superior Court (202) 508-1611 Chapel hill, NC 27599-3330 [email protected] 133 Montgomery St., rm. 616 [email protected] (919) 966-4160 Savannah, gA 31401-3273 HON. RONALD D. CASTILLE fax: (919) 962-2706 BEN E. DIEPENBROCK (912) 652-7127 Chief Justice [email protected] Clerk fax: (912) 652-7130 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania lima Municipal Court VICTORIA DUFFY [email protected] 1818 Market St., Ste. 3730 P.O. Box 1529 Court Operations Manager Philadelphia, PA 19103 lima, Oh 45802 City of Charleston Municipal Court (215) 560-5663 B (419) 221-5275 180 lockwood Blvd. fax: (215) 560-5807 fax: (419) 998-7526 Charleston, SC 29403 SUZANNE M. BAILEY-JONES [email protected] [email protected] (843) 724-7465 Juror Officer SYLVIA CHERNICK fax: (843) 724-7171 Superior Court of the CHERYL DIXON-WHEELER regional Operations Manager District of Columbia Branch Chief riverside County Superior Court 500 Indiana Ave., NW, rm. 3130 D.C. Superior Court F P.O. Box 10264 Washington, DC 20001 500 Indiana Ave., NW Palm Desert, CA 92255-0264 JANET FASY (202) 879-1267 Washington, DC 20001 (760) 863-8127 Deputy Court Administrator fax: (202) 879-0012 (202) 879-1393 fax: (760) 360-9975 first Judicial District of PA [email protected] fax: (202) 638-5352 [email protected] 100 S. Broad St., 2nd fl. [email protected] SABRINA M. BAUCOM Philadelphia, PA 19110 GREG CHILDS Accounting Clerk/PC Tech. SCOTT W. DOBBS (215) 683-8007 Court Manager Norfolk Juv. & Domestic relations Court Administrator fax: (215) 683-8006 Provincial Court – Corner Brook District Court City of Billings Municipal Court [email protected] 84 Mt. Bernard Ave. 800 e. City hall Ave. 220 N. 27th St. P.O. Box 2006 MITCHELL D. FLEMING Norfolk, VA 23510 Billings, MT 59103 Corner Brook, Nl A2h 6J8 Branch Chief (757) 664-7364 (406) 247-8643 Canada DC Superior Court, family Court fax: (757) 664-7386 fax: (406) 657-3075 (709) 637-2207 500 Indiana Ave., NW, rm. JM-540 [email protected] [email protected] fax: (709) 637-2656 Washington, DC 20001 AMY BELL [email protected] HON. ELMER VERNON DOUGLAS (202) 879-1225 lead Clerk Circuit Judge fax: (202) 879-0017 KAREN W. COOPER Tukwila Municipal Court 3rd Judicial Circuit [email protected] Branch Supervisor 6200 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 2075 Superior Court of the District of Columbia Tukwila, WA 98188 lake City, fl 32056 500 Indiana Ave., NW, rm. 4001 (206) 433-1840 (386) 758-1010 Washington, DC 20011 fax: (206) 433-7160 fax: (386) 758-1188 [email protected] (202) 879-4789 fax: (202) 879-0146 [email protected] 38 www.nacmnet.org NACM NEW MEMBERS

CYDNEY C. FOWLER H MARCI JUMISKO M Court District Manager Budget Manager Superior Court of California, DANIEL J. HALL 19th Judicial Circuit Court YVONNE MARTINEZ VEGA County of San Bernardino Vice President Court Consulting 18 N. County St. Deputy Director of Criminal Division 235 e. Mountain View Ave. National Center for State Courts Waukegan, Il 60085 District of Columbia Superior Court Barstow, CA 92311 707 - 17th St., Ste. 2900 (847) 377-3809 500 Indiana Ave., NW (760) 256-4788 Denver, CO 80202-3429 fax: (847) 249-8442 Washington, DC 20001 fax: (760) 256-4706 (303) 293-3063 [email protected] (202) 879-4881 [email protected] [email protected] fax: (202) 638-5352 [email protected] EDWARD A. FRIEDLAND MEREDITH N. HOOKS K Assistant Court Administrator Case Manager LYNN MAXIM HON. ANN KNOX-BAUER eighth Judicial District Court Jarrard & Davis, llP Court District Manager Judge 200 lewis Ave. 1176 Olivet Dr. San Bernardino County Taylor County Circuit Court las Vegas, NV 89155 Sugar hill, gA 30518 Superior Court 224 S. Second St. (702) 671-4532 (704) 678-6806 8303 N. haven Ave. Medford, WI 54451-1811 fax: (702) 671-4548 [email protected] rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (715) 748-1435 [email protected] (909) 948-4524 fax: (715) 748-1524 KEITH E. HOTTLE fax: (909) 948-4570 [email protected] KRISTINA D. FROST Clerk of the Court [email protected] Clerk of Court fourth Court of Appeals Supreme Court of Ohio Cadena-reeves Justice Center L 65 S. front St., 8th fl. 300 Dolorosa, Ste. 3200 THOMAS L. MAXWELL Columbus, Oh 43215 San Antonio, Tx 78254 ALEXANDER LAMBACK Deputy Court executive Officer (614) 387-9546 (210) 335-2510 Security Program Administrator 11th Judicial District Court fax: (614) 387-9547 fax: (210) 335-2762 fulton County Superior Court 103 S. Oliver [email protected] keith.hottle.courts.state.tx.us 136 Pryor St. S.W., Ste. C635 Aztec, NM 87410 Atlanta, gA 30303 (505) 334-6151 GARY F. FURASH CAROL J. HUMPHREYS (404) 730-8829 fax: (505) 334-1940 Manager President fax: (404) 730-5368 [email protected] Deloitte Consulting llP Oregon Association for [email protected] 4338 e. Acoma Dr. Court Administration BRENDA MCCORMICK Phoenix, Az 85032 5064 Se Jerry Dr. DOMINIQUE LAMOUREUX Court Managing Attorney (714) 913-11046 Prineville, Or 97754 Judicial Administrator Superior Court of California fax: (714) 913-4046 (541) 447-6541 Tax Court of Canada County of Ventura [email protected] [email protected] 200 Ken St. 8083 Denver St. Ottawa, ON K1A 0M1 Ventura, CA 93004 G J Canada (805) 654-2965 (613) 992-0942 [email protected] LAURA E. GARDNER JOYCE A. JENKINS fax: (613) 943-8449 TARA MCKNIGHT Clerk of Court Supervisor [email protected] Senior Court Clerk richmond Juvenile & Domestic D.C. Superior Court GUNNAR L. LIGHT fernley Justice Court relations District Court 500 Indiana Ave., NW executive Vice President 565 e. Main St. Oliver hill Courts Bldg. Washington, DC 20001 fTr limited fernley, NV 89408-9537 1600 Oliver hill Way, Ste. C181 (202) 879-1343 2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 400 (775) 575-3350 richmond, VA 23219-1214 fax: (202) 879-1309 Phoenix, Az 85012 fax: (775) 575-3359 (804) 646-3638 [email protected] (602) 650-0958 fax: (804) 646-6103 LAURA M. MCLAUGHLIN VALERIE JOHNSTON fax: (602) 385-4990 [email protected] Caseflow Program Manager In-Court Clerk [email protected] Supreme Court of Ohio HON. MARK GIBBONS Tukwila Municipal Court SEAN E. LILLYWHITE 65 S. front St. Chief Justice 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Senior Administrative Analyst Columbus, Oh 43215 Supreme Court of Nevada Tukwila, WA 98188 Orange County Superior Court (614) 387-9416 201 S. Carson St., #300 (206) 433-1840 700 Civic Center Dr., West fax: (614) 387-9419 Carson City, NV 89701 fax: (206) 433-7160 Santa Ana, CA 92701 [email protected] (775) 684-1500 [email protected] (714) 834-2891 fax: (775) 684-1505 GINA MENDOZA NICOLE JONES fax: (714) 834-4737 [email protected] Case Processing Manager Court Administrator [email protected] Orange County Superior Court RONDA GUERRERO Portage County Municipal Court 23141 Moulton Pkwy., 2nd fl. Court Clerk 203 W. Main St. laguna hills, CA 92653 Municipal Court P.O. Box 958 (949) 249-5101 201-B W. gray St. ravenna, Oh 44266 gmendoza@occourts,.org Norman, OK 73069 (330) 297-3625 (405) 366-5325 fax: (330) 298-1112 fax: (405) 366-5294 [email protected]

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 39 NACM NEW MEMBERS

DEBRA K. MEYERS PAT PATTERSON S T Director, Staff Counsel Services Chief Technology Officer Superior Court, San Bernardino Superior Court of California CONTESSA L. SEALS HON. MARTIN TANGEMAN County County of Ventura Operations Manager, Criminal Divi- Judge 303 W. Third St., 4th floor 800 S. Victoria Ave. sion San luis Superior Court San Bernardino, CT 92415 P.O. Box 6489 Superior Court of California 1035 Palm St., rm 385 (909) 352-3452 Ventura, CA 93006-6489 County of Sacramento San luis Obispo, CA 93408 [email protected] (805) 654-5035 720 – 9th St. (805) 781-5421 fax: (805) 654-5110 Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected] LAURA MILLER [email protected] (916) 874-3585 Deputy Court executive Officer fax: (916) 874-5347 TERI J. THOMAS riverside Superior Court HEIDI PERCY [email protected] Court Operations Manager 46200 Oasis St. Manager Orange County Superior Court Indio, CA 92201 Snohomish County Clerk MICHELLE SEPULVEDA 1275 N. Berkeley Ave. (760) 863-7998 3000 rockefeller Ave., M/S 605 Supervisor fullerton, CA 92832 fax: (760) 863-8909 everett, WA 98201 Montgomery County Prothonotary (714) 441-3509 [email protected] (425) 388-3469 Court house fax: (714) 773-4639 fax: (425) 388-3806 P.O. Box 311 [email protected] O [email protected] Norristown, PA 19404-0311 (610) 278-3896 HON. ROBERT J. TORRES MARINA M. PROVENCIO Chief Justice BONNIE O’KANE fax: (610) 278-5994 Administrator II Supreme Court of guam first Deputy [email protected] los Angeles Superior Court 120 W. O’Brien Dr. Montgomery County Prothonotary 459 N. Del Mar Ave. JESSE SHADE hagatna, gU 96910 Court house San gabriel, CA 91775 Director of Court Solutions (671) 475-3300 P.O. Box 311 (818) 557-3451 Aptitude Solutions fax: (671) 455-3168 Norristown, PA 19404-0311 fax: (818) 557-0228 851 Trafalgar Ct., Ste. 160 West [email protected] (610) 278-3857 [email protected] Maitland, fl 32751 fax: (610) 278-5994 (407) 767-0576 PAMELA S. TOWERS [email protected] EDWARD C. PRUNIER JR. [email protected] Assistant Court Administrator Deputy Court Administrator eighth Judicial District Court Metropolitan Court BARBARA SHAW family Division TRACY A. OWNBEY P.O. Box 133 Court Management Analyst 601 N. Pecos rd., 3rd fl. Professional Computer Albuquerque, NM 87103 Supreme Court of Virginia las Vegas, NV 89101 Software Services (505) 841-8103 207 Brandon Point rd. (702) 455-4624 909 Wesley Ct., Ste. C fax: (505) 222-4800 locust hill, VA 23092 fax: (702) 455-5551 Boiling Springs, SC 29316 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] (817) 763-9295 fax: (864) 578-0980 JASON PRUSSMAN DEAN STANZIONE [email protected] research Analyst Asst. Director of Court W Institute for the Advancement of Administration P the American legal System lubbock County Administrative THOMAS C. WURST 2044 e. evans Ave #307 Office of the Courts Information Systems Manager CAROL PAGE Denver, CO 80208 PO Box 10536 fulton County Superior Court Admin. Trial Court Administrator (303) 871-6608 lubbock, Tx 79408 136 Pryor St., SW, C-640 grant Circuit Court [email protected] (806) 775-1987 Atlanta, gA 30082 201 S. humbolt St. fax: (806) 767-9656 (404) 893-2770 P.O. Box 159 BARBARA PUDGORSKI [email protected] [email protected] Canyon City, Or 97820 Supervising Clerk/CCA Pres. (541) 575-1438 Kern County Superior Court JENNIFER L. STEELE [email protected] 132 e. Coso Criminal Division Manager ridgecrest, CA 93555 Pierce County District Court FRANCISCA P. PALOCHAK (760) 384-5802 930 Tacoma Ave., S, rm. 601 Deputy Court executive Officer fax: (760) 384-5903 Tacoma, WA 98402 11th Judicial District Court [email protected] (253) 798-6601 207 W. hill St., Ste. 200 fax: (253) 798-6185 gallup, NM 87301 R [email protected] (505) 863-6816 fax: (505) 722-3401 I.S.K. REEVES V [email protected] President Architects Design group, Inc. CATHY J. PASHON 333 N. Knowles Ave. Court Administrator Winter Park, fl 32789 Sumner Municipal Court (407) 647-1706 1104 Maple St., Ste. 100 fax: (407) 645-5525 Sumner, WA 98390 [email protected] (253) 299-5621 fax: (253) 299-5629 [email protected]

40 www.nacmnet.org NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COURT MANAGEMENT National 2007-08 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Association OFFICERS PRESIDENT APPOINTED DIRECTOR and PAUL J. BURKE Website Committee Chair Director of Court Operations MICHAEL L. BRIDENBACK Trial Court of Massachusetts Court Administrator for Court housing Court Department Administrative Office 13th Judicial Circuit Court edward W. Brook Courthouse 800 e. Twiggs Street, room 604 24 New Chardon Street, 6th fl. Tampa, fl 33602 Boston, MA 02114-4703 (813) 272-5391 fax: (813) 272-5522 Management (617) 788-6535 fax: (617) 788-8980 [email protected] [email protected] URBAN DIRECTOR The National Association for Court Management PRESIDENT ELECT DAVID W. SLAYTON is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the MARCUS W. REINKENSMEYER Director, Court Administration Trial Courts Administrator lubbock County District Courts & Co. quality of judicial administration at all levels of courts Superior Court of Arizona Courts at law nationwide. In carrying out its purpose, the association Maricopa County P.O. Box 10536 201 W. Jefferson lubbock, Tx 79408 strives to provide its members with professional Phoenix, Az 85003 (806) 775-1020 fax: (806) 767-9656 education and to encourage the exchange of useful (602) 506-3190 fax: (602) 506-7867 [email protected] [email protected] information among them; encourages the application RURAL DIRECTOR of modern management techniques to courts; and, VICE PRESIDENT LINDA ROMERO SOLES SUZANNE H. STINSON Chief Deputy executive Officer through the work of its committees, supports research Court Administrator Stanislaus Co. Superior Court 26th Judicial District Court 800 11th Street, room 100 and development in the field of court management, P.O. Box 310 Modesto, CA 95354 the independence of the judicial branch, and the Benton, lA 71006 (209) 525-7791 fax: (209) 525-6385 (318) 965-3739 fax: (318) 965-3765 [email protected] impartial administration of the courts. [email protected] GENERAL JURISDICTION DIRECTOR and SECRETARY/TREASURER Planning Committee Chair JUDE DEL PREORE KEVIN J. BOWLING Trial Court Administrator Court Administrator Membership Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington Vicinage 20th Judicial Circuit Court, Ottawa County P.O. Box 6555, 7th floor fillmore Complex Mount holly, NJ 08060 12120 fillmore Street The National Association for Court Management (609) 518-2510 fax: (609) 518-2539 West Olive, MI 49460-8985 [email protected] (616) 786-4123 fax: (616) 786-4154 needs your help to reach our 3,000-membership goal [email protected] this year. help us reach out to the next generation IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT HOWARD “SKIP” CHESSHIRE LIMITED JURISDICTION DIRECTOR of court leaders and staying true to our goal of 637 Tabbystone St. DEBRA DEBERRY Marietta, gA 30064 Chief Deputy “excellence in Court Administration.” let’s sponsor (404) 276-4951 DeKalb County Courthouse new members! [email protected] 556 N. McDonough Street Decatur, gA 30030 Several categories of membership are offered (404) 371-2025 fax: (404) 687-3823 in the National Association for Court Management: DIRECTORS [email protected] regular, any person serving as clerk of court, court LARGE COURT DIRECTOR and AT LARGE (2) DIRECTOR administrator, or in any court management, court Membership Committee Chair WARNER HASSELL PAMELA HARRIS Court Administrator education, court research, or court consulting Court Administrator Metropolitan general Sessions Court capacity ($125); retired ($95); Associate, any person Montgomery County Circuit Court 408 2nd Ave. N., Suite 1140 50 Maryland Avenue P.O. Box 196300 interested in the improvement of the administration rockville, MD 20850 Nashville, TN 37219-6300 of justice ($125); Student, any person enrolled full (240) 777-9103 fax: (240) 777-9104 (615) 862-8317 fax: (615) 880-2711 [email protected] [email protected] time in a degree program related to the field of court SMALL COURT DIRECTOR and administration ($95); Sustaining, any person, group of Publications Committee Chair persons, firm, or corporation interested in furthering KIP RODDA Assistant Court executive Officer the goals of the organization ($350). Superior Court of California, County of lake for more information about NACM or about 255 N. forbes Street lakeport, CA 95453 joining the organization, please write to the president (707) 263-2575 fax: (707) 262-1327 or the National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport [email protected] Avenue, Williamsburg, Va. 23185, or call (757) 259-1841.

The Court Manager • Volume 23 Issue 2 41