Court Manager in this issue The Integration of Judicial Independence and Judicial Administration NACM Midyear Conference Keynote Presentations Showcase Workshop Summaries The Changing Face of Justice in a New Century Exhibitors and Sponsors

A Publication of the National Association for Court Management The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 1 Volume 24 Number 2 Summer 2009 contents

p. 6 p. 16 p. 19 p. 30

features departments 3 president’s Message 5 The Integration of Judicial Independence and 4 editor’s Notes Judicial Administration: The Role of Collegiality 32 Washington Review in Court Governance 34 Jury News By R. Dale Lefever 38 a Question of Ethics 42 Technology FACTs 13 NACM Midyear Conference 44 naCM New Members 47 sustaining Members 14 Keynote Presentations 48 naCM Board of Directors 48 membership Information 16 Showcase Workshop Summaries

25 The Changing Face of Justice in a New Century: Editor Andra Motyka The Challenges It Poses to State Courts and Superior Court Administrator, Pierce County Superior Court 930 Tacoma Avenue S., Room 334, Tacoma, WA 98402 Court Management (253) 798-3963, Fax: (253) 798-7214, [email protected] By Chief Justice John T. Broderick Jr. Managing Editor Lorie J. Gómez Publications Manager, National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Ave., Williamsburg, VA 23185 31 Exhibitors and Sponsors (757) 259-1532, Fax: (757) 564-2114, [email protected]

A Publication of the National Association for Court Management Court Manager Volume 24 Number 2 Summer 2009

©2009, 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 Marcus W. Reinkensmeyer

“Judicial independence will be guaranteed less by mandate than by enhancing court managerial credibility to the point where the other branches will accord a wide latitude to courts in financial and budgetary management.” Robert W. Tobin and Kenneth G. Pankey Jr., Managing Budget Cutbacks, NCSC, March 1994

Observers of the current recession describe the situation streamline case processing and litigant support, e.g., online as a global economic meltdown, a calamitous financial court services, e-filing, and video technologies, including collapse and the “perfect storm.” Unquestionably, the deep remote interpreting. These efforts to “reinvent” the court can global recession is placing massive pressure on government save money, while also improving customer service. Other functions at all levels, including the delivery of critical judicial jurisdictions, most notably California, are taking advantage of branch services. Although some economists point to early lower construction costs to build much-needed courthouses signs of economic recovery, most state and local governments and to launch other “shovel ready” capital projects. are faced with long-term structural deficits and no clear timetable for stabilization. In fact, in the aftermath of double Guidance on budget strategies is provided in NACM’s Core digit budget cuts, many court jurisdictions now face another Competency guidelines, specifically in “Resources, Budget round of staff layoffs, unpaid furlough days, court closures, and Finance” on the association’s Web site, http://www. and permanent downsizing of programs. nacmnet.org/CCCG/cccg_7_corecompetency_resources.html. Timely information regarding the fiscal crisis and current Serving as our NACM liaison, I am privileged to meet court budget planning is available on the National Center for and discuss the budget crisis with representatives of the State Courts’ Budget Resource Web Site, http://ncsconline. Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court org/wc/budget/home.asp and in the center’s new publication, Administrators, the American Judges Association, the National State Courts and the Economy, http://www.ncsconline.org/ Center for State Courts, other professional associations and Newsletters/economy/index.asp. court managers from some of the hardest hit states, e.g., Arizona, California, Iowa, Nevada, Michigan, Oregon and American University has invited NACM to contribute to a others. In these exchanges, I am truly impressed by the depth briefing paper/resource guide on “Dealing with the Current of strategic thinking and the long-range view espoused by Court Fiscal Crisis,” a project being undertaken by the Bureau our leadership judges and court managers. Central to the of Justice Assistance Criminal Courts Technical Assistance discussion is a strong focus on the mission of courts (e.g., Project. My sincere thanks to Preeti Menon and Kim Norris at the “Purposes of Court”), preservation of core judicial branch BJA for supporting this effort; to Caroline Cooper of American functions, and public access to court services. University, for taking the initiative to create this paper on an expedited basis; and to Dan Hall (National Center for State Proven budget balancing measures include revenue Courts) and Professors Ernie Friesen and Carl Baar for their enhancement (e.g., new user fees and collection of extensive work and valuable insights in preparing this timely outstanding court-ordered financial obligations), exempting paper. We hope to have the paper available at the NACM mandated expenditures from the base budget (e.g., salaries 2009 annual conference in Boston, Massachusetts, of judges), prioritization of critical core functions, hiring and July 7 – 11, 2009. promotion freezes, elimination of overtime pay, reduction of travel, education, and expenses, outsourcing of labor-intensive Collectively, these resources can be a great help to court non-core functions, unpaid furlough days, early retirement managers, both in their local planning efforts and in educating incentive programs, and reductions in force. funding bodies and system stakeholders on the critically important role of the court in our society. With all of this Given the depth and duration of the recession, many information in hand, I still find that some of my best budget courts are going beyond these traditional approaches, solutions come from informal discussions with judges, clerks now embarking on extensive process re-engineering and of court, and administrators. Active NACM participation fundamental restructuring of court operations. Ideas that were helps to foster a deep network of gifted court professionals once considered politically unfeasible are now being fully with varying viewpoints, with colleagues who are “always considered, with the understanding that this is an opportune there when you need them.” I am encouraged by all of you time to make long overdue organizational changes. Some who lend words of support and priceless advice, and by your transformational initiatives involve broad reallocation of staff unwavering leadership during this time of fiscal uncertainty. and other resources, while others leverage technology to

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 3 Editor’s Notes Andra Motyka

“High achievement always takes place in the framework of high expectation.”

Charles Kettering, Engineer

This issue’s lead article addresses a topic that never seems to in tradition and precedent, so it was refreshing to hear a court grow old — “dynamic tension between judicial officers and leader talking about the need for change in order to stay those responsible for the administration of the court over relevant in today’s world. His speech is printed for what judicial independence can and should mean as it relates your reflection. to the effective and efficient administration of justice.” From As you’ve grown to expect, Washington Review and Jury my experience, I believe this tension is more likely to develop News both provide very practical information for our use. as a court reaches a certain size and/or there is a turnover of A Question of Ethics has added a new member to its ranks judges. Dr. Lefever describes three self-governance models. His — Frank Maiocco, superior court administrator in Kitsap opinion is that the model based on collegiality has the greatest County, Washington. You may recall the name; Frank has been potential, and he suggests specific steps courts can take on a NACM board member and has responded to various ethics the road to collegiality. Will it be an easy trip? I suspect, like questions over the years. I’m sure you’ll respond when Frank most trips, you may encounter a detour or bump in the road, reaches out for your input. Chris Crawford explains FACT’s but in the end the destination will be worth the effort and the status regarding procurement reform. There will be more to miles traveled. come on this topic at the annual conference in Boston. The midyear conference in Portland, Oregon, took us back Say “Boston” and what comes to mind? Tea Party, outstanding to the basics: Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts. The 4th of July celebration, World Series Champion Red Sox, session reports give you a taste of the material presented. “Cheers”, Old North Church, Faneuil Hall, and NACM’s Judge John T. Broderick Jr., chief justice of the New 2009 Annual Conference (Tuesday, July 7 — Saturday, July Hampshire Supreme Court, one of the main plenary speakers, 11). Even though money is tight, remember you can claim the chose as his topic The Changing Face of Justice in a New conference and related travel as a tax deduction! Century. We are well versed in the fact that courts are steeped

4 www.nacmnet.org … there continues to be a dynamic tension between judicial officers and those responsible for the administration of the court over what judicial independence can and should mean as it relates to the effective and efficient administration of justice. The Integration of Judicial Independence and Judicial Administration The Role of Collegiality in Court Governance By R. Dale Lefever

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 5 Introduction In the classic professions of law, is to create an explicit court governance medicine, and religion, however, model — one that respects the As Chief Justice Warren E. Burger those in leadership not only define independence of each judge to render stated, “There can, of course, be no the vision, determine the goals, and independent case decisions, recognizes disagreement among us as to the set the policies for achieving them, the importance of the role of the chief imperative need for total and absolute they also are the ones who have the judge, and engages all the judges in the independence of judges in deciding primary responsibility to deliver the judicial administration process. This cases or in any phase of the decisional core services prescribed. For example, model, and the challenges involved in function. But it is quite another matter in medicine, physicians not only serve achieving it, will be described below. to say that each judge in a complex as policy makers and hold formal roles system shall be the absolute ruler of his such as department chairs and service manner of conducting judicial business chiefs, they also provide the clinical Three Models . . . Can each judge be an absolute care within the scope of the policies monarch and yet have a complex they themselves set for providing Basically, there are three forms judicial system function efficiently?”1 such care. In religious organizations, of “self-governance” active within the If we accept the rhetorical the clergy not only cast the vision for typical trial court: (1) a model based nature of the question, then the their congregation, they also teach on rights, which requires the exercise appropriate answer is “no, they cannot.” their “flocks” the theology and model of personal power; (2) a model based Independent of the logic of this the lifestyles required for living out on administrative rules, which requires conclusion, however, there continues to this vision within the church and the the exercise of authority; and (3) a be a dynamic tension between judicial various communities served. Similarly, model based on relationships, which officers and those responsible for the in the judicial system, the judges, requires the exercise of collegiality. It administration of the court over what through their local governance process, is understood these are ideal types and judicial independence can and should determine the administrative policies unlikely to be applied in their pure mean as it relates to the effective and and then proceed to deliver the justice form in any given court or across every efficient administration of justice. The services defined in these policies. In issue. For example, judges likely will intent of this article is to examine the essence, judges determine both the ends promote the model based on rights in impact of judicial independence on and the means of their work and expect debates over case management issues court administration and to propose a to have the authority and autonomy to but yield to the authority of the chief model of governance, under the label of do both along the lines of their personal judge regarding court budget issues. collegiality, which arguably strengthens judicial philosophy and preferences. It also is important to note many both judicial independence and It is this exercise of personal judges are not conscious of the actual management efficiency. autonomy, along with the relative governance model in place and would As a starting point, it is important absence of a management hierarchy, be ready to discuss alternatives if the to recognize every organization that creates a special set of challenges opportunity was available and the has a culture — a set of values and for chief judges and court managers desire to change was shared by their traditions that influences areas such (i.e., generic terms for judges and colleagues. The following analysis is as policy development, decision administrators in formal leadership designed to promote and guide such making, resource allocation, and positions) as they seek to integrate the discussions and to encourage the organizational communications.2 In needs of judges for autonomy with the judiciary to assess their current model, most organizations, this culture is needs of the court for administrative along with alternatives, against the established and reinforced by those coherence. In fact, it is not too extreme standard of how well it contributes to in key leadership positions as they to suggest that one of the most difficult, the effective and efficient administration convey their vision and goals for what and most important, roles of court of justice. they believe the organization should leaders is to manage these equally become and do, and then delegate the important but competing values. responsibility for achieving these goals One approach for satisfying the to their subordinates. constructive application of each value

6 www.nacmnet.org Model Based on The first is the relatively low sense of in American legal culture, powerfully organizational identity that results from influences contemporary debates Individual Rights the selection process. The argument, about efficiency and accountability The first option (i.e., a model based which is not illogical, is that if the within the judicial branch.”3 As an on rights) is not unique to the courts. court does not select the judge, then example of this phenomenon, a large, As mentioned above, physicians, clergy, it should have little to do with respect general jurisdiction trial court voted and most academic faculty members to how a judge administers his or her overwhelmingly to adopt a court- have a strong sense of individual own affairs. Consequently, the initial designed sentencing guideline program discretion and “academic freedom.” allegiance of many judges often is for misdemeanor cases. However, There are two special features within stronger toward the electorate or the several of those who dissented decided the courts, however, which make this appointing authority than it is to the not to participate, which indicates model especially relevant to the work of court as an organization. This certainly that even the consensus of colleagues judicial administration. The first is the can change over time and be mitigated is not always compelling on any one way each judge comes to hold his or her by the selection process if it is skillfully individual judge. judicial position, and the second is the implemented in appointed and even The second factor, which tends way in which the constitutional form of elective systems. Regardless of the way to promote a governance model based judicial independence is interpreted and in which a judge comes to office, this on the individual rights of judges, is applied to administrative affairs. specific aspect of independence explains the interpretation and application of The way a judge assumes office the low interest many judges exhibit in judicial independence in the area of is a critical factor in any discussion the administrative affairs of the court judicial administration. Beyond the of court governance. Regardless of and why they believe they have the separation of powers, as it relates to the whether a judge is elected, appointed, “right” to operate, administratively, third branch of government concept, or appointed and then retained in an with their own sense of what is best judicial independence at the individual unopposed election, the selection of a for them and their chambers. In many level refers essentially to the freedom new judge most often results from the ways, each judge functions as a private of judges to render impartial rulings choice of a person or group external to law firm within the context of the based solely on the law and the facts the court in which they will serve. For larger court. This is why some judges, in each case. This decisional autonomy example, the chief judge does not, as do when confronted with a proposed court is regarded as sacred, and when efforts senior executives in other organizations, reform to which they are opposed, to gain administrative efficiencies at create a position description, note the will state, “If the people who elected the expense of this value collide, the preferred qualities, interview, along or appointed me don’t like the way judicial demand for independence most with other judges, the top candidates, I function, they can end my term. often does and should prevail. As one and ultimately select the next judge. Otherwise, I plan to function as frustrated judge stated, “If they want More accurately, the chief judge wakes I see fit.” me to be more efficient, the next time up one morning and reads whom the In addition to a relatively low I conduct an arraignment I will say to governor appointed, the state legislature sense of organizational identity, the the first person, ‘you have the right to selected, or the citizens elected. Each selection process also influences the remain silent, pass it on.’” new judge, therefore, initially enters the attitude of many judges toward the However, while it is recognized that organization of the court with her or chief judge or other judges attempting due process is not inherently efficient, his own sense of legitimacy apart from to serve in a governance role. As Doris this does not mean that decisional the court in which they will function Provine states, “A tradition of concern autonomy should be regarded as and independent of the chief judge for preservation of the sovereignty of the ultimate goal. As Alexander and other judges with whom they judges circumscribes policy initiatives Hamilton stated, “The Constitutional will associate (i.e., the vast majority of at each level. In our country, judicial protections of judicial independence judges don’t recruit their colleagues; independence means not just freedom were instrumental and expedient to they inherit them). from control by other branches secure a steady, upright, and impartial There are several important of government, but freedom from administration of the laws. Judges need ramifications of this factor for control by other judges. This ideal of independence, not for their own sake governance that deserve mention. autonomous judges, with roots deep (author’s emphasis), but because an

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 7 essential protection of public liberty was ability to enhance the fair and impartial this only weakens the court as the having judges decide cases on the basis administration of justice (the end), third branch of government, creates a of legal principles alone.”4 The group which requires decisional independence governance model best described as Justice at Stake echoes this concern on the part of the judge (the means). an adhocracy, and even can undercut as they have placed their focus on the This focus on the goal and means as the prime value of equal protection. As fair and impartial administration of they relate to judicial independence is a John Gardner stated, “Our pluralistic justice (the end) rather than on judicial more accurate and healthier foundation philosophy invites each organization, independence (the means).5 for court governance than “I am an institution, or special group to develop The relevance of this point to independent constitutional officer and and enhance its own potentialities. But court governance is that the area of free to function as I please.” the price of that treasured autonomy decisional autonomy is best viewed as Clearly, there are legitimate and self-preoccupation is that each a means to an end and not as an end elements to a model based on institution concern itself with the in itself. In other words, judges are free individual rights, especially as they common good. That is not idealism, from something (i.e., interference in relate to decisional autonomy, which it is self-preservation. The argument rendering their decisions), in order to must be protected even when some is not moralistic. If the larger system be free to do something (i.e., dispense administrative inefficiencies result. fails, the subsystems fail. That should meaningful justice). If individual However, individual judges need to not be such a difficult concept for the judges and court leaders can agree to understand while they can hold the contending groups to understand.” 6 start from this premise, then the test of court hostage through non-cooperation any proposed court reform can be its in the areas of judicial administration,

8 www.nacmnet.org Model Based on Rules or “an equal among firsts” (federal courts). They might try to cajole or The second option for judicial persuade, but the idea of exercising self-governance is a model based direct authority over a colleague usually on administrative rules — which is viewed as the last resort, unless requires the exercise of some form of the issue rises to the level of referral organizational authority to enforce. to a board of judicial qualifications. One of the most common approaches While the bench often will view the for integrating the needs of judges for chief judge as someone who needs to autonomy with the needs of the court to protect them from outside interference operate with administrative coherence and the one responsible for garnishing is to elevate a member of the bench important resources, they rarely view to the position of chief judge and to the chief judge as their “boss.” appoint a court manager with whom Second, many chief judges often s/he can partner in the management of continue to carry a relatively full the administrative work of the court caseload and simply don’t have the time (e.g., budget, technology, space). And, and emotional energy to expend on independent of the process by which a administrative affairs and the related judge comes to this leadership position conflicts that often emerge with their (e.g., election, seniority, rotation, colleagues over these issues. Even when appointment by the state supreme chief judges, usually in a larger court, court) and the preparation and interest are granted the option of a reduced judges that if any one individual serves they might have for and in the position caseload, many refuse to accept this for in this role “too long” they will develop (including “my turn in the barrel”), the fear of appearing not to be “pulling their a power base that might threaten the important factors are this person is a own weight” in the case management autonomy of the other judges. The judge and not a “non-judicial officer” system. Therefore, it is much easier, and incumbent chief judge, therefore, and is a member of her or his respective more comfortable, for chief judges to is reluctant to challenge a colleague court (i.e., a colleague). focus on their individual calendars and who could be the future chief judge While this governance structure reserve administrative matters to the — an informal détente where the is common in both state and 30 minutes routinely scheduled for understanding is “If I don’t mess with federal courts, and at most levels of these issues at the quarterly you, you won’t mess with me.” jurisdiction, this form of governance judges’ meetings. And, lastly, many chief judges do often operates with limited effectiveness. Third, in many courts, the term not believe their respective supreme In fact, even though many states have for the chief judge is relatively brief court “has their back,” if they should worked to strengthen the role of the in comparison to the time required choose to challenge a colleague on an chief judge by crafting new documents to learn the position and exercise the administrative issue. Waving the new outlining their authority (i.e., a new leadership required in relationship chief judge rule in front of a colleague chief judge rule), most chief judges still to the growing complexity of issues simply is unlikely to be compelling are reluctant to exercise the authority that now confront the court (e.g., the unless there is strong support for the behind the stronger words (e.g., “all economic crisis; the increase in attacks chief judge who has the courage to judges should to all judges will”). on judges for making unpopular challenge another judge on her or his There are several possible explanations decisions). In fact, the stress of the manner of doing their judicial business. for this. position and the fact there most often Again, while a model based on First, the exercise of authority are no monetary incentives attached rules — which requires the exercise among colleagues is understandably to it combine to make a limited term of authority — is a common structure awkward and potentially damaging to a condition for some judges to even in court governance, its successful a relationship between peers. What accept this leadership role. application among the judiciary is most chief judges understand is they Fourth, and related to the issue are “a first among equals” (state courts) of term length, is the concern of other

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 9 random at best unless codified into importance and reality of individual the needs and rights of individual a more formal governance structure, rights as well as the need for a modicum judges with the needs and rights of including written bylaws, and of administrative authority. It also the court for effective and efficient supported by a judicial consensus conveys the sense that neither of these judicial administration. regarding the court’s direction in the is sufficient in itself nor should they The application of collegial areas of court reform (discussed be imposed on others (i.e., neither an governance should be viewed as further below). adhocracy nor a bureaucracy is a viable a comprehensive model that cuts model for sustainable governance). across such issues as case disposition Collegiality, however, should not be decisions; trial/courtroom practices; Model Based viewed as a soft compromise between administrative activities and personal/ on Collegiality adhocracy and bureaucracy that is off-the-bench conduct. And, in each of designed to appease any one person these areas, it is critical for the judges to The third option for court or group. As Jim Collins explains in discuss and decide the degree to which governance, and the one which has Built to Last, the goal in structuring an individual rights, the authority of the the greatest potential for integrating effective organization, in any sector of chief judge, and the consensus of the judicial independence and judicial our society, is to replace the tyranny of bench should prevail. In this regard, it administration, is a model based the “or” with the genius of the “and.” is important these decisions be codified on relationships — which requires In other words, it is not meaningful so they transcend the individual term the exercise of collegiality. In order judicial independence “or” effective of any one chief judge and become the to evaluate this option, however, judicial administration, but meaningful “best practices” for governance of the it is important to understand what judicial independence “and” effective court. In one sense, these governance collegiality means in the context of judicial administration that should be principles should serve as a set of governance as used in this article. the goal of court governance. As Collins bylaws for the court with respect to Quite often, the word collegiality is states, “We’re not talking about mere judicial administration. viewed as synonymous with civility — balance here. ‘Balance’ implies going to demonstrating a professional courtesy the midpoint, fifty-fifty; half and half. to other judges or refraining from A visionary organization doesn’t simply Steps to Achieve public criticism of other judges. While balance between preserving a tightly Collegial Governance this definition and application certainly held core ideology and stimulating There are several steps that would are worthy ones, they don’t carry vigorous change and movement; it assist in this process. First, a shared the full measure of what is intended. does each to an extreme.” 7 Therefore, set of institutional standards should Collegiality is a governance concept collegiality is recommended as the most be developed with full participation that refers to the (willful) sharing of robust form of court governance; it is by the bench in each of the four areas power and authority among colleagues. the model that can go beyond balance mentioned above: case disposition It is an approach that recognizes the and compromise and actually integrate

“‘Balance’ implies going to the midpoint, fifty-fifty; half and half. A visionary organization doesn’t simply balance between preserving a tightly held core ideology and stimulating vigorous change and movement; it does each to an extreme.”

10 www.nacmnet.org decisions; trial/courtroom practices; that focus on jury management in an the impact of a lack of uniformity is felt administrative activities; and personal/ effort to improve the performance of the most acutely. They also tend to work off-the-bench conduct. court in both areas. As Doris Provine in relative isolation from the central In the area of case disposition writes, however, “No two judges, it administration of the court, focused decisions, where the sensitivity to seems, do anything in precisely the most on their chambers, and simply violations of judicial independence is same way in such areas as scheduling never see the larger consequences understandably the greatest, uniform procedures, motion practice, alternative for the court. This is why it is practices likely will be minimal. This dispute resolution programs, and recommended, especially in developing area, however, should not be ignored, voir dire. Litigators ignore these local a consensus on court administration since the criterion for the value of idiosyncrasies at their peril.”8 procedures, that the court executive any proposed court reform or claims In the area of court administration, officer be included in these discussions. of judicial independence should be there are case management issues While, as Ralph Waldo Emerson stated, its contributions to the impartial with respect to managing such things “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin administration of justice and not the as the time to disposition, the role of little minds,”9 there are areas where individual rights of judges or the of continuances, and the equitable procedural consistency is an important arbitrary exercise of authority. For distribution of cases. Interestingly, in application of collegiality and results in example, in one three-judge court, one the court culture, the reward for a judge the common good. judge sentenced every first-time DUI being current with her or his cases is The final area that should offender to a weekend in jail. The result the assignment of more cases from those be covered by discussions on was that the other two judges ended up judges who are not — an interesting governance in an effort to reconcile with a calendar packed with DUI cases. reward system. There are similar issues judicial independence and judicial In another instance, one judge allowed in the areas of personnel, budget, and administration is personal/off-the- a partial payment of fees, but the others technology. The main point is that the bench conduct. While some of this is did not, which brought claims of unfair consequences of a lack of consistency covered by the cannons on ethics, there treatment by attorneys on behalf of their in administrative procedures often are: are many other “gray areas,” which clients. The point behind both of these it increases the complexity and costs would be worthwhile to review. For examples is not the rightness of either of administration and adds confusion example, the scheduling of vacations practice, but that the action of any one for those outside the court who need can be “surprisingly” volatile. In fact, judge has implications for other judges, to use its services. If the core values of one chief judge who advocated that for the court as an organization, and for the court include cost-effectiveness and any judge who planned to be gone for the need to guarantee equal protection. stewardship, the impact of numerous, more than five consecutive days should This factor, in itself, should be sufficient individual administrative practices by notify the chief judge was removed to warrant an open and civil discussion judges warrants some discussion. The from office. Apparently, the “slippery on the absolute power of a judge in the underlying question in these discussions slope” argument prevailed — today it area of case disposition decisions. is whether in a seven-judge court, for is notification, but tomorrow it will be The same case could be made example, there are seven courts with approval. As the chief judge noted, “all in the other three areas as well. For one judge each or there is one court I was trying to do was serve the public example, in the area of trial/courtroom with seven judges? by making sure there were enough practices, issues regarding voir dire and On the topic of administrative judges present to meet the demands the number of jurors that need to be inefficiencies that can result of the docket. If we cannot manage a called might be worth discussion, since from a misapplication of judicial vacation policy, we are doomed.” While this has a direct impact on the court’s independence, it is important to note it is unlikely the court is doomed, this budget. Is it really the appropriate many judges are not aware of the situation does point to the difficulty application of judicial independence, administrative procedures of other managing the personal time of judges for example, to have the court policy judges or the impact of their own can entail. A second common area of be 40 jurors with one or more judges decisions on the administration of the contention involves a judge leaving insisting on 100? There already are court. Judges enter the system laterally for the day once his or her calendar is national efforts on preparing judges rather than working their way up complete rather than being available in trial court management and groups through the management ranks where to the court to assist other judges or

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 11 Conclusion As Alexander Hamilton stated, “The administration of justice contributes, more than any other circumstance, to impressing upon the minds of people affection, esteem, and reverence towards their government.”10 This is a high calling and one every judge should take personally and seriously as they decide on the form of judicial self-governance they desire and are willing to support. If the goal of judicial independence is the fair and impartial administration of justice, than litigants. And a third example involves a sustainable governance model in the the goal of court governance needs to the frequent issue of who should court is a healthy debate over how align with this priority. A court that is represent the court with respect to the best to reconcile a judge’s need for not well-governed will never be media? It is not uncommon for a chief independence and the court’s need to well-administered. A collegial form judge to read in the morning paper a function with administrative coherence. of governance, with its practical focus scathing criticism of the court or to have These debates should take place at least on the common good, offers one a local or state political official receive in the four areas of case disposition solid option for achieving this a private communication challenging a decisions, trial/courtroom practices, important integration. position taken by the local or court administrative activities, and state court. personal /off-the-bench conduct, with ______

One of the maxims of any advancing the meaningful dispensation About the author governance model is to debate with of justice serving as the primary R. Dale Lefever, Ph.D. is Emeritus Faculty, many voices but govern with one. criterion for resolving any conflicts. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Contact him at The first step, therefore, in developing [email protected].

notes References 5. www.justiceatstake.org. This article was triggered by presentations 1. Burger, Hon. Warren E. and Wallace, 6. Gardner, John W. On Leadership. The and workshops by the author at the 2007 annual Hon. J. Clifford. “Judicial Administration in a Free Press, Simon and Shuster, Inc., New York, conference for the National Association for Court System of Independents: A Tribe With Only New York, 1993, page 95. Management and his work on governance with Chiefs.” Brigham Young University Law Review, 7. Collins, James C. and Porres, Jerry I. state trial courts. Volume 1998, Number 1, Pages 56-57. Built to Last. Harper Business, 1997, page 44. Special thanks to Kevin S. Burke, 2. Ostrom, Brian, Ostrom Jr., Charles, 8. Provine, Doris Marie. “Governing Minnesota District Court judge, and Geoff Hanson, Roger, Kleiman, Matthew. Trial Courts as the Ungovernable: The Theory and Practice of Gallas, NCSC/ICM Dean of the Court Executive Organizations. Temple University Press, 2007. Governance in the Ninth Circuit” in Aurthur Development Program, for their thoughtful 3. Provine, Doris Marie. “Governing D. Hellman, Restructuring Justice, 1990, Cornell reviews and feedback. the Ungovernable: The Theory and Practice of University Press, page 247. Governance in the Ninth Circuit” in Aurthur 9. Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Essays — First D. Hellman, Restructuring Justice, 1990, Cornell Series: Self-Reliance. 1841. University Press, page 247. 10. Hamilton, Alexander. In “Judicial 4. Hamilton, Alexander. In Judicial Administration: Its Relation to Judicial Administration: Its Relation to Judicial Independence. Independence.” National Center for State Courts, National Center for State Courts, 1998, page 13. 1998, page 2. Russell Wheeler (page 2). Russell Wheeler (page 13).

12 www.nacmnet.org National Association for Court Management 2009 Midyear Conference The Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts Marriott Portland Downtown Waterfront March 8 –11, 2009

National Association for Court of the Courts: Leadership Judges to talk with exhibitors and check out Management members traveled to and Court Managers to begin the their products. Tuesday morning, Portland, Oregon, for the 2009 midyear conference. Showcase workshops Chief Justice John T. Broderick Jr. of conference. Quirky spring weather did on topics related to the theme the Supreme Court of New Hampshire not dampen their spirits as they delved were offered Monday and Tuesday, gave the conference’s second keynote, into “The Purposes and Responsibilities including Inherent Powers of the addressing The Changing Face of Justice of Courts.” Court, and Ensuring Impartiality and in a New Century: The Challenges Oregon’s Chief Justice Paul De Independence. Attendees visited the it Poses to State Courts and Muniz offered a keynote address on Exhibit Show on Monday afternoon, Court Management (see page 30.) The Purposes and Responsibilities providing a unique, casual opportunity

Mark your calendar for July 7–11, when Boston, Massachusetts, hosts the NACM annual conference.

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 13 Keynote Presentations

The Purposes and Responsibilities of Honorable Paul De Muniz the Courts: Leadership Judges and Court Managers p r e s e n t e r Honorable Paul De Muniz, chief justice, Supreme Court of Oregon r e p o r t e r Linda Romero Soles

Case management is so much judicial branch; 2) Public trust and to others and ask themselves what is more than the activity of the court confidence in the judiciary — strive essential, what is necessary, and what docket. In these economic times, court to be a transparent and accountable can be delayed. Court leaders need to leaders and judges must ensure that branch of government; 3) Helping listen to others. Often it’s the employees justice is available and accessible to people resolve their disputes — having of the court who can identify ideas that everyone everywhere. Courts are the a public forum to resolve disputes; can produce efficiency and revenue. legal equivalent of the emergency room. 4) Build strong partnerships — as Today the needs of the judicial When the economy goes down, the leaders we must work in concert with branch are greater. The need for need for courts goes up. The need for many people. Judges must be active in adequate funding has risen to a level safe and adequate court facilities the community; and 5) Helping people of critical funding. We must never is important. resolve their disputes. take for granted the independence of Court managers and judges In addition to identifying goals, the judiciary. The Constitution creates need to identify the mission and court leaders must step beyond the the courts as a check and balance. goals of the justice system. Justice De usual and beyond the comfortable. Operating fairly and in a timely manner Muniz identified five goals: 1) Public Court leaders need to look inward is mandated in the Constitution. Always access — to court services and the on the delivery of services provided remember that justice delayed is justice denied.

14 www.nacmnet.org The Changing Face of Justice in a New Century: The Honorable John T. Broderick Jr. Challenges It Poses to State Courts and Court Management p r e s e n t e r Honorable John T. Broderick Jr., chief justice, Supreme Court of New Hampshire r e p o r t e r Bryan Borys

Chief Justice Broderick, whose New Second, he pointed out that agile, and committed managers Hampshire courts suspended jury trials attorney firms are now tech-savvy; it is and administrators.” Generational in the wake of budget cuts, sounded time for the courts to catch up. Courts differences are dimming the attraction a national alarm. “The system is in need to move from the paper age to of work in the courts. If we cannot trouble,” he stated. Justice Broderick the digital age; we are too far behind attract the best talent, we will not emphasized the need for creativity the curve. be able to meet any of the other and innovation in response. The court Third, he referenced “the cost of three challenges. environment is changing rapidly and justice for those who have counsel,” Justice Broderick emphasized that courts must keep up. pointing out that the current model “candor and action” will be required He identified four key challenges of civil litigation produces delay and and that there will be “awkward for the courts: excess cost. The reliance on settlement, moments” during frank discussions First, he argued for greater a response to the workload created by of the shortcomings of the courts. But attention to “our changing customer delay, deprives society of the jury trials court leaders cannot shy away from base.” This means more diverse that are crucial to maintaining public these challenges: “Impatience is our best language services, more help for trust and confidence. As more people friend, honesty our best weapon, and unrepresented litigants, more find mediation and arbitration more success our obligation. We have no time comprehensible proceedings, and helpful than the courts, the latter lose to waste!” more specialized dockets to ensure the their relevance. continued relevance of the courts to Finally, Justice Broderick pointed For the full text of Chief Justice Broderick’s important sectors of society. to the challenge of retaining “able, keynote speech, see page 30.

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 15 Showcase Workshops

Court Governance: The Art of Balancing Independence and Dan Straub Accountability p r e s e n t e r Dan Straub r e p o r t e r Kip Rodda

Dr. Straub led a discussion of ignore accountability in this struggle. • Have Clear, Well-Communicated, reasons why courts are among the most However, the Trial Court Performance Implementable Strategies complex organizations ever devised. Standards note that, “Courts must both • Work Beyond the Boundaries Chief among them is the institutional control their proper functions and — Develop Trade Routes need to maximize both judicial demonstrate respect for their coequal — Work on Relationships independence and the accountability partners in government.” • Think System that comes from interdependent The purpose of the session was to relationships with other agencies of inspire a discussion about why and how • Take Frequent “Public government and the public served by balance might be achieved and began Opinion Baths” the court. Traditionally, the ability of a with a review of several of the Federalist • Let Your Court Managers court to do this has been a function of Papers and their authors. During the Do Battle for You its perception of the meaning and the session, participants were asked to share • Foster Trust importance of these concepts. Although experiences of hurdles, obstacles, and ______judicial officers must be organizationally successes in achieving effectiveness in enabled to make independent decisions, this area of court management. Contact information Dan Straub, PH.D. independence does not mean autonomy. The session concluded with (412) 429-1322 Yet it is easy to compromise that Dr. Straub’s “Toolkit for Managing [email protected] independence when having to advocate Independaccountability.” and fight for “sum sufficient” to run the • Have a Clear, Well- court. There are temptations at times to Communicated Vision

16 www.nacmnet.org Ensuring Impartiality and Independence: Why and How p r e s e n t e r carl Baar r e p o r t e r Demarco Pennington

Carl Baar’s session focused on the several examples of impartial judges individuals still operate in a biased concept of impartiality. He believes and their unfair trials. way? If judges become problem there are three basic principles of Impartiality as a process works solvers, will they remain impartial? impartiality: As an Attitude/way of best in trial courts by controlling biases An impartial court requires the part of thinking, As a Process/way of working, through testing their relevance and an active administrator, says Baar. All and As Institutional Impartiality/way the real meaning of the presumption court systems should remain fair and of organizing. He bases many of his of innocence until proven guilty. impartial, a key goal of independence. findings onGovernance Through Crime, Institutional impartiality asks: Are written by Jonathan Simon. Baar gave institutions impartial? Can impartial

Impartiality as a process works best in trial courts by controlling biases through testing their relevance and the real meaning of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 17 Inherent Powers of the Court, Separation of Powers, and Judicial Ernest Friesen Restraint Case Study p r e s e n t e r Ernest Friesen r e p o r t e r Eric Hall

Ernest Friesen led this interactive A number of scenarios were presented duty. If the duty is required under the workshop that explored the doctrine in which courts might assert inherent constitution, then the legislature must of inherent powers of the court. powers as a means toward judicial provide adequate funding. Inherent powers describe those resource acquisition. What if state Friesen argued that courts have powers essential to the function or local governments do not provide a duty to assert their inherent powers of the court and necessary for the adequate funding to pay jurors? What when faced with inadequate resources. effective administration of justice. if the state does not provide adequate Historically, when courts have done The theoretical basis of the doctrine funding for court support personnel? so, they have been threatened with is closely tied to the separation of What if the state legislature repeals dire consequences. However, these powers doctrine. Friesen began with judges’ cost of living increases or consequences have rarely materialized. a discussion of how framers of the benefits? Applying the doctrine of Friesen added that when courts do constitution envisioned the judiciary inherent powers, courts may take assert their inherent powers, they need as a separate and independent branch the position that if they are required to make an effort to communicate with of government. They saw the courts to perform a duty, then the state is the public and the other branches of as playing a crucial role in protecting required to provide adequate resources government to ensure an understanding individuals from the “tyranny of the for the courts to perform that duty. of the important role the judiciary majority,” and, as stated in the Federalist Failure to provide the resources plays as an independent branch Papers, having a duty to declare as void necessary to carry out a statutory duty of government. all acts contrary to the constitution. may constitute a repeal of that statutory

18 www.nacmnet.org NACM Model Code of Conduct for Court Management Pam Harris Professionals p r e s e n t e r s Pam Harris, Peter Kiefer, David Slayton, and Karl Thoennes r e p o r t e r Stephanie Hess

During this session, the presenters that being said, what are a court issue merely a staffing issue? Or found an entertaining yet meaningful staffer’s ethical obligations when a does it become an insubordination way to discuss the National Association family member asks for an attorney issue when a staffer refuses to for Court Management’s Model Code referral? Should courts provide complete a duty as required? What of Conduct for Court Management court users with a list of attorneys are the supervisor’s responsibilities Professionals. The code was developed as a point of contact? in this situation? with the understanding that judicial 2. May a court administrator who service is rooted in public trust; court is well-known in the community The presenters were successful in professionals must pledge to uphold serve as the chairperson of a maintaining a light-hearted approach that trust as well as the United States committee to oppose a specific to several very important ethical issues. Constitution and federal and state laws. ballot issue in that court’s Following the skits, the presenters Adherence to the code should be above jurisdiction? If so, will the court led the group in discussions on these loyalty to other affiliations and persons. administrator’s position with the topics. While the goal was not to The presenters discussed the code’s court influence the public’s view provide black and white answers to the content by using a series of skits and of the ballot issue? Or would issues posed, thoughtful debates were group discussion. The skits presented requiring the court administrator helpful to the group in cementing the the following ethical issues: to refrain from participation be an importance of the code. 1. Court staffers are not permitted to infringement on free speech? The National Association for Court refer court customers to specific Management’s Model Code of Conduct 3. Lastly, may a court staffer refuse to for Court Professionals may be found attorneys, nor can court staffers perform a job-related duty due to discourage court customers from on NACM’s Web site at http://www. personal beliefs related to the law nacmnet.org/codeofconduct.html. using a specific attorney. With that duty is based upon? Is this

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 19 Purposes and Responsibilities of Tom Langhorne Courts Workshop (MSU #1–4) p r e s e n t e r Tom Langhorne

The Purposes and Responsibilities 1. The discussion focused on the Key Points of Courts Workshop was a four-session doctrines of “judicial review” 1. There are external forces that do presentation tracing the antecedents and “separation of power,” not support the judicial branch, but of the American court system to the referencing the Magna Carta, the courts still have a responsibility to current practices and emerging trends. Articles of Confederation, the U.S. bring justice to every case. Because each session emphasized Constitution, Bill of Rights, Evarts different aspects, the workshop Act of 1891, and Roscoe Pound’s 2. The courts are viewed by the public sessions were independent, but all speech of 1906. Langhorne also as though looking into a fish bowl. four presented a comprehensive picture. referred to Marbury v. Madison, a 3. The judicial branch must have The Purposes and Responsibilities landmark U. S. Supreme Court case independence and accountability. of Courts sessions are part of in 1803, which formed the basis for 4. As court managers, we must carry Michigan State University’s Judicial exercise of “judicial review” under out our jobs daily. In closing, we Administration Program. Article III of the Constitution. asked ourselves: “What do I do everyday? How does it play in the Purpose responsibility of the court?” Workshop I (MSU 1) The purpose was to explain the r e p o r t e r Sylvia Juarez separation of powers. Langhorne directed the group to draw three Langhorne began with the example vertical lines to symbolize the executive Workshop II (MSU 2) r e p o r t e r Kathleen Gross of a funnel, which starts off large at the branch, the legislative branch, and top and coils down to a basic core. The the judicial branch. In the center was judicial branch is similar to the funnel a horizontal line that symbolized the Building on the historical in that the historical and constitutional separation of state and federal powers. background of the first session, the milestones set by our founding fathers The “separation of powers” provides the second session focused on the current continue to shape the judicial branch’s checks and balances of our government. tension concerning the “real” role of the values and operations. courts and the growth of “therapeutic justice.” The competing visions for the judicial branch between the

20 www.nacmnet.org “Federalists” and the “Anti-Federalists” Workshop III (MSU) judicial independence; 50 percent continue to dominate contemporary r e p o r t e r Michelle Brinkman of judges regret a position taken court decisions. under pressure during an Session III explored the concepts election campaign. Purpose of judicial independence and 2. Court performance standards To identify and examine the accountability and how to balance measurements can be a valuable competing visions that influenced and the two. Judicial independence must tool for strategic planning and for continue to influence major concerns be both decisional (relation to the establishing court accountability. such as civil rights. adjudication of cases ) and institutional 3. Traditionally courts have been (relating to how the courts conduct reactive; problem-solving or Key Points business, such as organizational, specialized courts are methods budgetary, administrative, and staffing 1. The historic debate between used to become adaptive. the “Federalists” and the matters). Judicial accountability has 4. Elements of a transforming court: “Anti-Federalists” continues to more to do with ensuring that justice is 1) increased responsibility for dominate contemporary court done and proactively communicating problem solving; 2) independence decision making. this to the people than it has to do with making decisions that conform to through collaboration; 2. The tension between the traditional popular opinion. 3) continuous learning; 4) strategic court roles and the emerging roles focus with no fads; 5) deals with of “therapeutic justice” and other Purpose the fast pace of change; and specialized courts reflects different 6) sets a direction and takes risks. interpretations of the purpose of Session III looked at what the courts. undermines and what enhances independence and accountability. It 3. Use a measurable, operational Workshop IV (MSU 4) identified some of the threats to judicial definition of “justice” to measure r e p o r t e r Carla Smith independence and how they might court performance. Reviewed be mitigated. It also explored ways the five Trial Court Performance Session IV focused on for courts to be accountable through Standards to determine if they understanding the purposes and initiatives that can be internal (through assisted in practically measuring responsibilities of courts in today’s transformational behavior) or external court performance. world. Courts are still striving to meet (through focused communication). 4. Reviewed and discussed civil the compelling challenges contained rights cases to demonstrate how Key Points in Roscoe Pound’s famous 1906 ABA courts anticipate and react to speech in which he discusses a unified 1. Lack of life tenure (especially true cultural changes. court system; application of modern of elected judges) can hamper public administration; elimination of duplicitous/concurrent jurisdictions; and delay reduction. The emerging trends and challenges shaping courts’ roles and responsibilities today include customer service and calendar management, as well as transparent and effective financial systems. Transforming the courts for now and the future increases the responsibility of problem solving.

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 21 ______Independence is achieved through Key Points collaboration and not by isolation, Contact Information 1. The identified trends are a result Thomas N. Langhorne, Esq. and there must be continuous learning of a preferred future whereby the The Langhorne Group, Inc., Richmond, Va. and strategic focus to deal with the 804-306-3822; [email protected] courts invent the future rather than fast pace of change. the future being the result of doing Michigan State University’s Judicial Administration Program nothing. Maureen Conner, Ph.D., Director Purpose (517) 432-1719; [email protected] 2. Stakeholders should be asked what With the large exodus of the we are doing well and what we are workforce, leaders have to communicate References doing poorly so the courts do not their values and culture to create Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation, become complacent due to lack Federalist Papers, U. S. Constitution, Marbury a smooth transition from a senior of communication. v. Madison, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), Evarts Act of workforce to a new workforce. There 1891, Roscoe Pound’s 1906 ABA Speech, Plessy 3. Prepare for the challenges shaping v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 547 (1896), Griswald v. was significant dialog on the theme Connecticutt, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), NCSC’s Trial of “change drivers” being the silver courts’ roles by discussing options Court Performance Standards and Measurement System, and NCSC’s CourTools society, immigrant nation, growth and goals. dynamics, economic transformation, 4. By embracing resistance and and globalization or the new forces at rewarding change, courts invent work; information revolution; privacy potential opportunities and vs. security; resource management, effectively contribute to society. polarized populace, and the idea of Langhorne asked, “Are we up to who is in charge. the challenge?”

22 www.nacmnet.org Report on the 2008 NACM Annual, 2009 NACM Midyear and Annual, and NACM Mission and Vision

Pr e s e n t e r s Marcus Reinkensmeyer, Suzanne Stinson, and Jude Del Preore Re p o r t e r Michele Oken

The closing plenary session was Upcoming conferences for 2009 The Publications Committee was conducted informally and solicited and 2010 were announced as follows: recognized for its hard work. The first input from attendees regarding future • 2009 Annual Conference: edition of Court Express (which replaces conferences — what they would do Boston, Massachusetts Court Communiqué) was disseminated differently and what works — as well Tuesday, July 7 – Saturday, July 11 by email the week prior to the as what other services NACM can “The Human Side of conference. Additionally, this year’s mini provide its membership. Attendees Court Management” guide on the theme “Go Green” will be agreed that the timing of sessions and distributed this summer. • 2010 Midyear Conference: not feeling locked in every moment Lastly, it is anticipated that a Colorado Springs, Colorado contributed to the success of this resolution stating that NACM will do a January 31 – February 2 midyear conference. Suzanne Stinson, better job to be diverse will be adopted “Court Space, Security, and Conference Development Committee this summer at the annual conference in Emergency Planning” chair, recognized committee members Boston. Courts are changing, and access for their hard work. NACM members • 2010 Annual Conference: to justice and diversity are essential. were encouraged to join committees New Orleans, Louisiana and apply for board positions. It was Tuesday, July 20 – Saturday, July 24 suggested that committee meeting dates “Wisdom in Action: Proven be posted on the NACM Web site. Court Practices”

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 23 The Framers Theory and an Independent Judiciary p r e s e n t e r Mary McQueen r e p o r t e r Pamela DeVault

This session examined the Madison, and John Jay and published set the tone in the courts and secure interconnectivity between court in New York State newspapers as a judicial independence as well as administration and judicial series of op-ed essays designed to administrative independence, including independence beginning with an convince the citizens to ratify the new accountability, transparency, and historical journey through the constitution. Mary McQueen discussed efficiency. Ensuring due process in cases development of the Constitution, the the historical basis for an independent is equally important as the outcome, if Federalist Papers, and the important judiciary, separation of powers, and the not more, and efficiency and timeliness events that followed. The Federalist concept of checks and balances. She cannot be sacrificed for liberty. Papers were written between 1787 and emphasized that effective administration 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James of justice is in OUR hands. We MUST

Through the Looking Glass: How Can Court Administrators Make Courts More Accessible? p r e s e n t e r Marie Provine r e p o r t e r Susan A. Laniewski

Dr. Provine spoke on how court of the goal of self assessment that as an security issues, upgrade costs and managers can make justice accessible organization can be threatening and yet restrictions in dilapidated or and at the same time manage the justice beneficial in implementing change. historical facilities, parking costs, process. She spoke about the difficulties Following a general presentation on public education, and the impact in providing access to justice, using accessibility and the barriers and cost attacks on judicial participants — the Trial Court Performance Standards restrictions that have plagued managers, judges, litigants, lawyers — has had relating to Access to Justice. Although a small group break-out session resulted on public perception. these standards may be due for an in intense discussions regarding which Managers were reminded to update, standards relating to Public standards are the most difficult to consider the Internet, Web pages, and Proceedings; Safety, Accessibility and achieve and how participating courts other public access technologies as Convenience; Effective Participation; have improved access to justice through tools to help reduce costs and provide Courtesy, Responsiveness, and Respect; innovative and cost-effective processes. community information. In providing and the Affordable Costs of Access Priorities varied, but most participants access to justice, managers were were found to still have relevance bemoaned budget shortfalls and urged to remember accountability for today’s court managers. While economic conditions as contributing and balance. tradition plays a role in accessibility, the factors in not fully achieving accessible The slides and summary results advent of mediation, court managers justice in their courts. Safety and of the group sessions were collated exercising flexibility in their process, physical access and affordability were and will be provided on the NACM and attention to local community needs top concerns. Web site. all have resulted in success. Court Access to justice concerns are managers were urged not to lose sight not only related to litigants, but also

24 www.nacmnet.org In my view, it is imperative that we redouble our efforts, judges and court managers alike, to sustain and creatively adapt our state justice system to meet the real world needs of the 21st century. The Changing Face of Justice in a New Century The Challenges It Poses to State Courts and Court Management

Remarks to the National Association of Court Managers (NACM) Of Chief Justice John T. Broderick Jr., Portland, Oregon March 10, 2009

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 25 It’s a genuine pleasure to be with into their lives as effortlessly as my How can it be that in this all of you this morning and an honor generation of baby boomers integrated new world, which is literally and to address you. I have great respect for television into theirs. In this new age, exponentially remaking itself with what you do. I know how difficult your impatience is up, immediacy is king, alarming speed through science, jobs are. And I also know this: without and interconnection is essential. technology, emerging markets, and your talent, dedication, and long-term Innovation is no longer just a good global interdependence, that the commitment the state courts in idea. It is a prerequisite to survival. American justice system can remain the America couldn’t do their invaluable As Thomas Friedman has said, “Just only institution in American life that work. Quite simply, you all have tough coasting along and doing the same old need not adapt, that need not adjust and important jobs. All of us are thing is not an option any longer.” As to current day realities? Quite simply, working for a common purpose they say in Texas, “If all you ever do it can’t. It just can’t. The American larger than ourselves. is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll justice system cannot sit idly by and The topic of my remarks this ever get is all you ever got.” Although expect to remain relevant and respected morning is the changing face of justice Friedman was using Texas wisdom to indefinitely. In time, public trust and in a new century and the challenges it address the challenges confronting the confidence in the state courts will erode presents for all of us. These are sobering United States on green energy, his if we do not take Friedman’s challenge times. We are all here this morning in words apply with equal force to all of seriously. As important as green energy the most perilous economic time in us who toil in the state justice system is, it is not guaranteed by the state and my memory. The economy has become across America. federal constitutions. What all of us do the elephant in almost every room in Some years ago there was a very and try to ensure each day is at the very America during the last year. popular movie starring Ernest Borgnine heart of our Republic. It is at the core No one has money — even banks and Shelly Winters entitled “The of the American experience and is the and private investment houses seem Poseidon Adventure.” In the film, a cornerstone of America’s promise. cash poor. Virtually every state is large cruise ship was flipped over by In my view, it is imperative that managing a difficult budget and hoping a tidal wave, and the passengers who we redouble our efforts, judges and for bailout dollars. Sadly, it’s everyone’s survived had to decide how to ensure court managers alike, to sustain and current reality, as hard as it is to accept. their rescue. Most elected to stay put creatively adapt our state justice system But state courts are traditionally under the water line in the hope that to meet the real world needs of the 21st underfunded — even in good times — they would be found and saved. A century. Change will come even if we do so we probably have a shorter distance much smaller number set out on a nothing, but it will not be the change to fall. That may be the only “good difficult journey to find the bottom of we want. Time and current economic news,” as bad as it sounds. the hull, which was now above water. realities do not make our task easier, As author and columnist Thomas Only those brave souls survived. but they certainly provide powerful Friedman would say, we all inhabit a flat The economy has been a tidal wave incentives for change. Change we create world. Our new reality is moving at the for the state courts, and I respectfully and manage. It is that needed change speed of light. suggest we can’t just wait to be rescued. that I would like to discuss with all Simply stated, we have become a We need to begin our climb out in of you this morning. Failure is not an nation of multitaskers, more anonymous search of a route to the 21st century — option because too many people are yet more integrated and interdependent. or at least begin the difficult planning counting on us. Incremental change Efficiency, speed, and transparency have necessary to join the new century. As will not suffice. become the watchwords of our time. someone once said, “A crisis is a terrible If all of us in this room today were Technology is developing and changing thing to waste.” With that caveat in asked to design a court system for the more rapidly than we can often master mind, this is a very opportune time to first half of the 21st century, with full and sometimes afford. Whether we discuss what the changing face of justice knowledge of the problems outside choose to acknowledge it or not, the should look like in this new era because the windows of our courthouses and a torch has already been passed to a whether we like it or not, yesterday is strong sense that the pace of change in younger generation of millennials, not tomorrow’s answer. And no one is the world around us was not likely to who were born after 1980. My young coming to rescue us. We need to take abate, it would be highly improbable grandchildren will integrate technology the first step. that we would design the exact same

26 www.nacmnet.org system with the same paperwork that problems. In my state, in 70 percent exists today. The population using our of all divorce cases, one or both sides courts has changed. The problems we is without counsel. Seventy percent. deal with in the courts have become The state court system was ingeniously more complex and often more nuanced; designed for parties with counsel who time is a more compelling factor than had enough money and enough time ever before; the cost of our services to let the process work as it always has. has increased and gone beyond the Increasingly, the users of the courts are reach of many. A private justice system without adequate resources and have is flourishing and is now entrenched too little time. It’s not their fault they as our competition, while at the same can’t afford a lawyer, but it becomes time we are not keeping pace with the our responsibility to deal with it. After advancements in technology. Bill Gates all, we’re the American justice system. would not likely buy stock in the state Chief Justice John T. Broderick Jr. Merely wishing we didn’t have this courts as they currently exist. challenge is not the same as meeting it. There is no doubt that we cannot The ever-rising tide of self- retool the state courts on our own. particular order of importance because represented litigants is a national We will need the help and input of all are critical and all are interrelated. phenomenon, a growing national the bar, the business community, our While my list is not exhaustive, I think crisis for state courts, which can be fellow citizens, our state legislators it is a good beginning. measurably addressed only by candid and governors, and also the federal The four great challenges I see discussion, openness to change, painful government. But, in the first instance, relate to our “customer” base; our truths, awkward moments, national we cannot delay and fall prey to making technology; the cost of justice; and, consensus, and coordinated action. the perfect the enemy of the good. It’s finally, ensuring proper staff and In addressing this new challenge, we always easier waiting for someone else management in the years ahead. not only need to adjust course, but to act or vision for us, but it would be Undergirding all of these is the need we also need to change attitudes and a mistake for us to wait. Who knows for adequate resources and less perceptions. Candidly, some of those better the problems and challenges than bureaucratic management. State courts, attitudes and perceptions may be we do? The burden falls to us to craft a I suggest, need to reinvent themselves our own. The fundamental promise vision in sync with the times in which for maximum efficiency. No one is or of America’s justice system, and the we live. If we fail, change will be largely should be exempt from that challenge. reason it has been admired worldwide, anecdotal and inadequate. But as we all Let me turn first to our changing is that it guarantees meaningful access know, change is hard. customer base and the new demands to the courts in a timeframe and at a But all of us need to embrace it places on judges, staff, and court cost affordable by our citizens. If that change and, more importantly, identify administrators. Not only are the users bargain ceases to exist, everyone loses. what change is most needed and design of the state courts speaking more The promise of equal justice is for it. Real change, in my experience, languages than ever before, more and inscribed above the threshold of our never happens in the shadow of a small more enter our courthouses without nation’s highest court and concludes idea, nor does it occur by perfecting lawyers. Many have little or no our pledge of allegiance. The promise yesterday’s practices. The train for this understanding of the rules, limits, or of equal justice is integral to America’s new century is leaving, and we best be processes which have become second unique identity and is fundamental on it — even if we run to catch it. Soon nature to all of us. Increasingly, many of to our core beliefs as Americans. The it may be too late. those without counsel are middle-class gap between those who can afford to In my opinion, there are four and small businesses. The poor now navigate the American justice system fundamental challenges we must have company. and those who can’t is widening. Time successfully confront if we are to The self-represented are real and circumstance are not on our side, ensure accessible, affordable, and people, not statistics or abstractions. and the gap will not narrow by itself. It understandable justice in state courts They live in our communities. They will never close if we remain silent. It across this country. I offer them in no have real needs and real-world will only get worse. Change is needed.

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 27 A few weeks ago I was in the infuse our judicial system with user- concerned that within a decade state Phoenix airport to catch a flight home. friendly options. We will never have courts will be largely for the poor and I was uncharacteristically early, so I enough lawyers for the self-represented others without lawyers and for those actually had time for a late lunch. When nor will we ever have enough money to charged with a crime. I got off the escalator, I began looking hire enough staff to meet their needs. If that occurs, some legislators around the expansive mezzanine for Assuming more and more of the burden might wonder if we need the money the best fast food I could find. As I by expanding programs and creating we used to receive when our users were was deciding which unhealthy food I new positions is not the way to go. more diverse. Many in the business could eat without conscience, I heard We cannot expect our legislatures to community, who advocate for us now, a woman’s voice ask, “Can I help you?” increase our budgets by five percent may no longer come to our front doors It startled me. She had an official each year in perpetuity. We need to find but rather flee in increasing numbers looking pin on her lapel and told me ways to empower the self-represented to to America’s flourishing private she worked for the airport and that assist themselves. justice system. her job was to assist travelers. Meeting To do that, we will need more and If change does not happen, I her made me think we should have better technology for public kiosks in wonder whether we will attract the pleasant, knowledgeable, reassuring our courthouses. We need convenient best and brightest lawyers to preside people just like her in all of our self-help centers on- and off-site with in our courts or the best and brightest courthouse lobbies. They could help user-friendly technology. We need managers and administrators to tackle direct traffic and lower stress. The world-class self-help Web sites, and the difficult challenges of running and airport understood her value. When we need hardware and software in our managing a state court system. airports are ahead of us in “customer local libraries to assist those involved We also need to be more attentive relations,” it makes me wonder how far with the courts. We need to retool and and responsive to clients with counsel. behind we really are. simplify forms and process wherever Often they feel squeezed to one side by Can you imagine how frightened possible, and we need to infuse the influx of the self-represented and you’d be to walk into a courthouse the system with alternative dispute the near heroic efforts staff and judges representing yourself in your own resolution and rethink whether every make to accommodate them. More and divorce where you could lose custody dispute should go to court in the more of those who can afford it are of your children or have your visitation first instance. leaving the state courts for the private rights restricted if you did not If we, all of us, do not move justice system. This is particularly true understand the first thing about the aggressively and more publicly to of businesses. If the state courts become process — or even understand where to address the challenges of the self- largely irrelevant to the marketplace, go when you arrive? I’ll bet the woman represented to the fair, timely, and then the rules of the road will be I met in customer service at the Phoenix impartial administration of justice fashioned behind conference room airport would understand. The old in America’s courthouses, be assured doors without a public record and assumptions do not apply to our new there will be unintended collateral with no public input. and expanding customer base. If we consequences. None are helpful, but In my state, with the full support can’t find a lawyer for everyone who none are inevitable if we choose to act. of the legislature and the governor, we needs one, we have an obligation to If we opt for more of the same, I am have created a business court docket

The four great challenges I see relate to our “customer” base; our technology; the cost of justice; and, finally, ensuring proper staff and management in the years ahead.

28 www.nacmnet.org and are awaiting the appointment of Hanover Inn, just off the Dartmouth need more high-tech courtrooms its first presiding judge. I am hopeful Green. I was joined by the deputy clerk with real-time reporting. We have a it will be as successful as it has been of our federal district court. He had a strategic plan for technology but few in 19 other, states. I also believe if we high-tech laptop presentation and was state funds available to make it a reality. bring business disputes back inside demonstrating the use of “hyperlinks” Our Odyssey case management system, our courthouses, their respected voices in the federal system. Needless to say, I currently being installed in all our trial will advocate for court needs. Once we was a bit jealous and a bit despondent courts, will provide a platform for our lose the attention and support of the we were so far behind. When it was broader vision, but I fear that when it broader business community, we are at my turn to speak I said, “Hearing the is finally installed a new, better, and greater risk that our needs will not be deputy clerk discuss hyperlinks tonight faster system will be on the market. adequately funded. has given me hypertension.” Electronic Remember the first digital watch and Perhaps, in time, we should 24/7 filings are now commonplace in the first bulky car phone? Without consider licensing specialized our federal courts but years away in proper technology, meaningful paralegals, under the supervision the state system. We recently installed change across the system will be of a lawyer, to give legal advice in a drop box for after-hour filings at our nearly impossible. discrete areas where they are highly supreme court. While my colleagues Our third big challenge is the cost knowledgeable. Landlord/tenant and and I were pleased to offer this service, of justice for those who have counsel. social security come to mind. Perhaps its mere presence is a constant reminder In this new century, we need to an even smaller number responsibly explore re- of paralegals could be designing the courts from licensed to advocate for the front door to the judge’s clients in court as paralegal bench while adhering to core practitioners. Many people principles of due process. might be able to afford $60 I fear, however, that we an hour for a paralegal, who provide much process that could not afford $150 or is not due and that we have more per hour for a lawyer. needlessly driven up the cost In the world of medicine, of adjudicating disputes. there are physician’s Needed change should not assistants to deal with a be anecdotal or incremental. subset of patients who need I believe that more aggressive help but may not need to systemic change will wait in the long line to see be needed. a doctor. If medicine can Clearance rates in adapt, so can the legal professional. of how much further we need to go. some of our busiest courts are slowing. The second significant challenge Certainly the 21st century will demand The process of civil litigation has we face is technology. We are all making more than a drop box. become too protracted and much too strides but much too slowly. Many small For the first time in my state we expensive. There’s too much defensive law firms have better technology than have a Web master in the judicial lawyering and too much needless the state courts they work in. We cannot branch. He is helping to make a real discovery. Trial judges need individual long expect the “speed of light” world difference. But our capacity to retrieve dockets where they don’t exist, and all of commerce to bring its problems to and analyze meaningful data across the trial judges need to be more hands- the paper world of state courts. In my court system, to train staff remotely, to on. We need to track cases so that view, the larger the gap between the e-notice litigants, to allow electronic discovery is more proportionate to the technology in the marketplace and the filing and offer interactive forms is still size of a dispute. We also need to infuse technology in our courthouses, the less several years away. In the information our system with alternative dispute acceptable we become. age, several years is a long, long time. resolution, most often mediation, so A few months ago I was speaking Our courthouses have few public that litigants can have choices. Lawyers at a bar association gathering at the terminals and paper is still king. We also have to come to terms with the

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 29 billable hour. I don’t think the to mediation or arbitration behind less solid than it once did. We will need 21st century will tolerate it. closed doors. Disputes, which arise even more talented managers and staff The American Bar Association and in our communities, should be in the years ahead. I grow concerned the American College of Trial Lawyers resolved whenever possible in public that we will have difficulty attracting speak out more frequently about the courtrooms. The community needs to them from the private sector. We can’t decline — if not the imminent death — be engaged in dispensing justice, either offer what we used to. of the civil jury trial across our country. directly through juries or indirectly The challenges we all confront to As an old trial lawyer myself, I share through judges. In that way, everyone make justice accessible, affordable, and their concerns. The decline in civil knows the rules of the road and has a understandable are many, and none jury trials is national in scope. Since hand in applying them. are easy. We need to remain steadfast, 1950 and until 2005, the American When alternatives are needed, and inventive, and adaptive, and we need College of Trial Lawyers, the premier they often are, I would like to see the to persuade all the necessary players invitation-only trial lawyer organization state courts offering them. For the first to join us. Sometimes it is easy to get in America, required those eligible for time in my state’s history, we established discouraged by the sheer magnitude of membership to have tried at least an Office of Mediation and Arbitration it all. In that regard, let me close with 25 jury cases. Since 2005 the jury trial under the umbrella of the judicial an apocryphal story. minimum standard has been scrapped. branch. It has been well-received and One summer morning after a That’s a canary in the mine, and we should go a long way in helping us strong ocean storm, a small child was ignore it at our peril. compete with the private market place. walking the beach tossing starfish back Trial by jury in the civil arena is Competition needs to be our mindset into the receding tide. An elderly man increasingly being replaced by trial in this new age. was walking toward him and was taken by attrition. Cases tried with banker We need to find new ways to drain aback by the child’s optimism. “Young boxes filled with indexed files and expense and delay from the services we man,” he said in his wisdom, “There computer chips overflowing with bytes offer. If we don’t, I fear that a decade are hundreds of starfish that have been of information bringing laptops to life from now the state courts will not be washed ashore. The day’s heat will used to be tried not all that many years recognizable. likely kill them before you get to them ago from a single expansion folder. And The last great challenge before us all. I think you’re wasting your time. some really great trial lawyers did just is to attract and retain able, agile, and You really can’t make a difference.” The fine — and justice was well served. The committed managers and administrators young boy looked up, smiled politely, bar needs to be more disciplined, and and to find and retain first-rate staff. Far and reached down for another starfish, the courts need to be more timely. easier to say than to do. When I became which he cast gently into the ocean. “I Unless civil jury trials return in chief justice, I logged a lot of miles so made a difference for that one,” he said great numbers, we will, over time, lose I could visit every courthouse in New as he continued down the beach. the stamp of public approval. If you Hampshire and get a few minutes to Like that child, the choice is reflect upon it, much of the justice speak privately to every staff member ours. Both public trust and personal dispensed in our trial courthouses is and every clerk of court or register pride demand that all of us do more. dispensed by citizens who sit as jurors. of deeds. It was exhausting to do but Impatience is our best friend, honesty When the public’s voice is not heard in far more valuable than I could have our best weapon, and success our our courtrooms or is heard much less imagined. The people who work behind obligation. We have no time to waste. frequently, that is not good news for our counters are bright and committed. Thank you for listening and for all you any of us. Many have worked for the courts for do to fulfill the promise of the American The days have long since passed 20 to 25 years, and many are getting justice system. where if you wanted a dispute ready to retire. But most made a deal resolved you had to go to court. when they began their state service. Mediation and arbitration are written They would make less money than their into more contracts than you can friends in the private sector, but they imagine, and when they’re not, would have job security, excellent health more and more parties, especially benefits, and an honorable retirement. businesses, opt to take their disputes Every year that passes, that deal seems

30 www.nacmnet.org Exhibitors The National Association for Court Management wishes to sincerely thank the exhibitors who presented their products and services. Their contributions made the midyear meeting a great success.

ACS, Inc. Government Solutions Laserfiche AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. Metatomix, Inc. AmCad Multi Business Systems American Telesource, Inc (ATI) Municipal Services Bureau (MSB) BMI Imaging Systems NACM/FACT Brother International Corporation National Center for State Courts CourtCall nCourt Courthouse Technologies, Ltd. New Dawn Technologies CourtView Justice Solutions NTRESYS–TurboCourt DLR Group Point & Pay “E-Payment Services” D-MED Polycom FTR RevQ Global Connect Selectron Technologies, Inc. HDR Architecture Inc. The Court Brothers Heery International Tyler Technologies Jefferson Audio Video Systems (JAVS) Veri-Core, LLC Jury Systems Incorporated Wacom Justice Systems

Sponsors NACM would like to acknowledge and thank the following sponsors for their support and contributions to this conference.

Alliance One (Hospitality Suite, Monday) FACT (Education Program) HDR (Schedule at a Glance) Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP (Coffee Break, Monday) National Safety Council (Keynote Speaker, Monday) Thomson Reuters (Opening Reception)

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 31 Washington Review Kay Farley

Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations Approved Mark Lunsford, father of murder victim Jessica Lunsford, called for tougher registration laws and tracking systems and Congress approved the fiscal year (FY) 2009 omnibus enhanced public notification. Ernie Allen, National Center for appropriations bill (HR 1105), which the president signed Missing and Exploited Children, observed that Congress has March 11, making it PL 111-8. not fully funded SORNA in the three years since the legislation Congress has now turned attention to FY 2010 appropriations was enacted and that states need additional time to comply bills. The House and Senate Budget Committees have with the requirements. approved their respective resolutions (H Con Res 85 and Madeline Carter, Center for Effective Public Policy, and S Con Res 13), which set spending limits for FY 2010. Floor Detective Robert Schilling, Seattle Police Department, called debate on the resolutions began this week. Budget resolutions on Congress to reconsider the offense-based classification do not have the force of law but set guidelines and spending system of SORNA in favor of a risk assessment-based caps for the Appropriations Committees. The Appropriations classification system. Committees in both Houses are holding hearings. Thirty-eight jurisdictions (22 states, Guam, and 16 Indian tribes) have been granted their first one-year extension to Hearing Held on SORNA Implementation achieve substantial compliance with SORNA. (Jurisdictions may be granted up to two one-year extensions.) The state The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, guidelines and information about implementation can be and Homeland Security held a hearing March 10 to receive found at http://www.ojp.gov/smart/. testimony regarding the implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). In calling for the hearing, Chairman Bobby Scott (D-VA) asked for input on any National Study of Forensic Testimony barriers that the states have experienced in complying with Recommends Major Reforms SORNA (PL 109-248) requirements by July 26. In 2005, an Act of Congress directed the National Academy of Emma Devillier, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General, Sciences “to conduct a study on forensic science.” Thereafter, recommended that Congress extend the deadline for an all-star Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic compliance and reconsider some of the policies incorporated Science Community was established and co-chaired by Judge in SORNA. She asserted that the inflexibility of the tier Harry T. Edwards, former chief judge of the United States classification system, no consideration of the underlying facts Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. After years of effort, in individual cases, and the retroactive application to prior the committee’s findings, supportive research, and convictions have had an adverse impact on plea bargaining. 13 recommendations to Congress and other policymakers The impact of registration requirements on juvenile offenders was published this month. The 254-page resource is entitled was identified as a barrier by Amy Borror, Office of the Ohio “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: Public Defender. A Path Forward.” [An executive summary is available at www.nap.edu].

32 www.nacmnet.org Although the National Academy’s publication largely The federal government provides incentive payments to state addresses the practices and shortcomings of the forensic child support enforcement programs based on the strength science communities, law enforcement agencies, and of their program outcomes. States are required to use these medical examiner systems, the academy’s committee raised incentive payments to further strengthen their child support significant concerns about the admission of forensic evidence enforcement programs. in litigation. It notes that after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Under a new provision in the ARRA, these incentive payments interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in Daubert v. will be matched by the federal government. This ARRA Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in 1993, appellate courts provision temporarily reversed a change in policy from the have not been consistent or clear in imposing standards on Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that ended the practice of trial judges that ensure the application of scientifically valid providing federal matching funds for the state expenditure of reasoning and reliable methodology, especially in criminal incentive payments. cases. The committee asserts that the adversarial process and courts are not well suited to the task of finding “scientific The new ARRA provision is effective October 1, 2008, through truth.” Consequently, the committee urges the creation of September 30, 2010. States will receive the additional match an independent agency — the National Institute of Forensic funding based on any expended incentive funds during FY Science — to develop and fund better forensic practices. 2009 and FY 2010. A federal match of 66 percent is available It also calls upon forensic scientists, laboratories, and law for state administrative costs of carrying out child support enforcement agencies to establish facilities, quality control enforcement program activities under title IV-D of the Social practices, and codes of ethics that promote reliable forensic Security Act (Act). States will access the additional funds analyses and conclusions. as they currently do, through grant awards based on quarterly expenditures.

State administrative costs for carrying out child support Child Support Enforcement Funding enforcement program activities under title IV-D of Act can On March 27, the Office of Child Support Enforcement include judicial branch expenditures. Some courts have (OCSE) announced the availability of approximately $1 billion memorandums of agreement or contracts with their state child American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) funds for state support enforcement programs for reimbursement of expenses programs that establish, enforce, collect, and distribute related to clerk of court activities, hearing officer expenses, child support. information exchange, and automation.

______

About the author Kay Farley is executive director of Government Relations for the National Center for State Courts.

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 33 Jury News By Paula Hannaford-Agor

Google Mistrials, Twittering Jurors, Juror Blogs, recalcitrance by tech-savvy jurors? Or is it some combination and Other Technological Hazards of the two that contributes to the apparent refusal of jurors to follow a few simple rules? In the past few months, we have heard numerous stories about mistrials and appeals from jury verdicts that resulted because With respect to jurors’ communication with outsiders, a useful one or more jurors used the Internet to obtain ex parte place to start is to ask whether the communication would information or to communicate with outsiders. In Miami, constitute juror misconduct had it been done using non- for example, a juror sent a number of “tweets” describing technological means. For example, if a juror “tweets” about his deliberation experiences, including one that boasted of the conditions of the jury assembly room, the long wait with “giving away $12 million of someone else’s money.” In another no seeming court activity taking place, and other frequent case, the trial judge was told that one of the jurors had used (and too often legitimate) complaints of jurors, why should his BlackBerry to look up information about the criminal we be any more alarmed than if he or she simply complains defendant, including previous criminal records and media to their fellow juror sitting in the adjacent seat or to their reports about the case. When the judge questioned the jurors spouse or family members when they return home at the about the impact that this information might have had on end of the day? The communication does not jeopardize the the jury, he discovered that eight of the other jurors had also juror’s impartiality or communicate case-specific information. engaged in their own Internet research despite an explicit Similarly, if a juror blogs about the jury service experience, admonition not to do so. Examples of juror misconduct via including reflections about the trial and jury deliberations, technology have become so widespread and alarming that after the trial is over, is this any different from the juror a new expression has developed to describe the problem: writing a newspaper editorial or even a full-length book Google mistrials. about their experience?

Concerns about this latest variation on juror misconduct Juror research about case facts is a more troublesome are two-fold: jurors may use the Internet to obtain ex parte issue because, by definition, it is case-specific and can information about the case without the knowledge of the introduce inaccurate or prejudicial information to jury court or trial counsel, and jurors may violate the privacy of deliberations that have been intentionally shielded from jury deliberations by communicating with outsiders. Both jurors for legitimate reasons. Jurors want to do their best to of these concerns are as old as jury trials themselves, but the render fair and accurate verdicts, but their frustration with ubiquitous nature of modern Internet technologies seems evidentiary restrictions on information can sometimes lead to give the problem a more ominous cast of rampant juror them to inappropriate activities. The convenience of Internet disregard for basic rules of trial conduct. Proposals to prevent technologies to engage in those activities — Google Earth these problems run the gamut from better instructions to that permits jurors to view the traffic intersection where confiscating juror technologies at the courthouse door to an accident took place or www.dictionary.com to look up complete juror sequestration. Before looking at the merits of the definition of an unfamiliar term in the jury instructions any of these proposals, it is useful to first pinpoint the nature — makes it much more difficult for courts to police juror of the problem. Is it the technologies themselves? Intentional behavior during trial and deliberations.

34 www.nacmnet.org Like the Luddites of old, however, it is deceptively easy — and Juror Orientation incorrect — to believe that simply barring these technologies Every court should have a clear and consistent policy on at the courthouse door is sufficient to prevent incidents juror access to communication technologies, and information of juror misconduct. Overreaction to the potential risks of about that policy should begin with juror orientation and then juror access to technologies fails both to recognize and take be repeated frequently throughout each juror’s experience. advantage of the self-policing behaviors of trial jurors while Most juror orientation videos and DVDs predate the Internet punishing jurors who rely on these technologies for legitimate age, so information about communications technologies purposes. These technologies should routinely be permitted must be provided orally by jury staff during the morning to jurors in the jury assembly room. They allow jurors to orientation session as well as in pamphlets, brochures, and work productively and offer harmless ways to relieve the booklets about jury service. If the policy permits jurors to use boredom and anxiety that often accompanies jury service. Any these technologies in the jury assembly, tell them so, but be constraints on juror access to these technologies should only sure to also explain any policies related to juror use of these apply to jurors during jury selection, trial, and deliberations. technologies during jury selection and trial. Consider, for And, to use a legal term of art, those constraints should be the example, the following statement, which includes both the least restrictive available to prevent jurors from accessing ex policy and the justification for the policy: parte information or communicating with non-jurors during trial and deliberations. All cellular telephones, PDAs, BlackBerries, laptop computers, and other communication technologies MUST be TURNED OFF when you are in the courtroom for jury Better Solutions selection. The judges need to have your full attention so that you don’t miss important information about the case A key characteristic of American culture is the extraordinarily or distract others from hearing that information. high regard for personal freedom. Americans have never been Jurors should be reminded of the policy and given an wont to acquiesce blindly to arbitrary rules, particularly those opportunity to turn off these devices before leaving the imposed by government. Members of the Gen X and Gen Y jury assembly room for jury selection. generations are even less likely to do so than their parents. So although jurors are remarkably good about following instructions, and making sure their fellow jurors do likewise, Voir Dire they do require a clear and persuasive explanation for the rules themselves. This is particularly important with respect Once the jury panel has arrived in the courtroom for voir to modern communication technologies, which have become dire, either the judge, the lawyers, or both should use the so second nature that many individuals do not fully appreciate jury questioning process to identify tech-savvy jurors and to their social meaning. For some, tweeting and blogging are educate and raise awareness of the circumstances under which simply an extension of thinking, rather than a form of written use of these technologies is inappropriate. For example, the communication. Juror education at every stage of jury service judge or lawyers might ask the following of prospective jurors: should be the first and foremost preventative measure against • Do any of you routinely use any of the following Google mistrials. communication devices: cellular telephone, PDA or other BlackBerry device, or laptop computer?

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 35 • Do you have an email account? Jury Instructions

• Do any of you have a Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, After the jury has been selected and sworn, the jurors should or similar social networking account? be admonished about all restrictions on their activities It should go without saying that the judge and lawyers should during trial and deliberations, including a repetition of the know what these technologies are and how they are used, admonition about using communication technologies. The particularly insofar that new variants on these technologies New York Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions has are being developed almost daily! It is very difficult to frame proposed the following instruction, which I recommend intelligible questions for jurors if the questioner does not fully to you as a model: understand what he or she is asking about or, for that matter, 1. Do not converse, either among yourselves or with anyone the responses of individual jurors to those questions. else, about anything related to the case. You may tell the people with whom you live and your employer that you are In response to affirmative answers from jurors, the judge a juror and give them information about when you will be or lawyer should then explain that the individuals who are required to be in court. But, you may not talk with them or selected as trial jurors in the case will not be permitted to anyone else about anything related to the case. use these types of communication technologies either to 2. Do not, at any time during the trial, request, accept, agree to conduct their own investigations or to inform others about accept, or discuss with any person the receipt or acceptance the case. The explanation should also provide the reasons of any payment or benefit in return for supplying any for the prohibition — namely, that if the juror uses these information concerning the trial. technologies to do their own research about the case, they 3. You must promptly report directly to me any incident might run across information that is inaccurate or highly within your knowledge involving an attempt by any person prejudicial to the litigants; the judge and lawyers would have improperly to influence you or any member of the jury. no way to know that this has happened nor have the ability 4. Do not visit or view the premises or place where the charged to correct it. Similarly, jurors cannot talk with others until crime was allegedly committed, or any other premises or after the verdict has been delivered to prevent them from place involved in the case. And you must not use Internet hearing opinions of family, friends, or blog lurkers that might maps, or Google Earth, or any other program or device to influence their verdict. The judge or lawyer should then ask search for and view any location discussed in the testimony. each juror whether they will be able to abide by those rules. 5. Do not read, view, or listen to any accounts or discussions This dialogue with prospective jurors makes them aware of of the case reported by newspapers, television, radio, the the legitimate reasons behind these rules and provides other Internet, or any other news media. jurors with persuasive arguments with which to police each 6. Do not attempt to research any fact, issue, or law related to other and, in the worst case scenario, to ignore “information” this case, whether by discussion with others, by research in a provided by a misbehaving juror. library or on the Internet, or by any other means or source.

36 www.nacmnet.org In this age of instant electronic communication and research, is in the same condition as it was on the day in question. I want to emphasize that in addition to not conversing face to Second, even if it were in the same condition, once you go to face with anyone about the case, you must not communicate a place discussed in the testimony to evaluate the evidence in with anyone about the case by any other means, including by light of what you see, you become a witness, not a juror. As telephone, text messages, email, Internet chat or chat rooms, a witness, you may now have an erroneous view of the scene blogs, or social Web sites such as Facebook, MySpace, that may not be subject to correction by either party. That is or Twitter. not fair.

You must not provide any information about the case to Finally, our law requires that you not read or listen to any anyone by any means whatsoever, and that includes the news accounts of the case and that you not attempt to research posting of information about the case, or what you are doing any fact, issue, or law related to the case. Your decision must in the case, on any device or Internet site, including blogs, be based solely on the testimony and other evidence presented chat rooms, social Web sites, or any other means. in this courtroom. It would not be fair to the parties for you to base your decision on some reporter’s view or opinion, or You also must not Google or otherwise search for any upon information you acquire outside the courtroom. information about the case, or the law which applies to the case, or the people involved in the case, including the These rules are designed to help guarantee a fair trial, and our defendant, the witnesses, the lawyers, or the judge. law accordingly sets forth serious consequences if the rules are not followed. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to understand why these rules are so important: I trust you understand and appreciate the importance of following these rules and, in accord with your oath and Our law does not permit jurors to converse with anyone else promise, I know you will do so. about the case, or to permit anyone to talk to them about the case, because only jurors are authorized to render a verdict. ______Only you have been found to be fair, and only you have About the author promised to be fair; no one else has been so qualified. Paula Hannaford-Agor is director of the Center for Jury Studies at the National Center for State Courts. For more information on the Center Our law also does not permit jurors to converse among for Jury Studeis and its work, visit www.ncsc-jurystudies.org. themselves about the case until the court tells them to begin deliberations because premature discussions can lead to a premature final decision.

Our law also does not permit you to visit a place discussed in the testimony. First, you cannot always be sure that the place

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 37 A Question of Ethics Frank Maiocco and Peter Kiefer Frank Maiocco Peter Kiefer

Outside Employment A court professional may:

Over the years, Karl Thoennes and Peter Kiefer have discussed • engage in outside employment that does not conflict with various scenarios involving outside employment in search the performance of their official responsibilities or violate this code. of that “line” that demarks ethically serving the court from engaging in inappropriate outside employment. Over time, possibly because of the economy, they have sensed that court Respondents staffs throughout the country have subtly shifted their view on this theme. People appear to have broadened their view on We are pleased to have Theresa Ewing, court administrator what is acceptable outside employment. for the Bremerton Municipal Court, Bremerton, Washington; James Murchison, trial court administrator for the Marion We are experimenting with this column. (Please welcome County Trial Courts, Salem, Oregon; Mark Hinnen, manager Frank Maiocco to this, his inaugural column.) Rather than of the Eugene Office of the United States Bankruptcy Court, delving into a single scenario, we think it may be instructive District of Oregon; and David Lauver, supervising probation to look at a series of short “vignettes” containing variations officer, Juvenile Probation and Parole for the Lancaster County on a single theme. We then ask respondents to react to the Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, available to ethical implications of each variation. Our underlying question respond to the vignettes. is straightforward — Do any or all of these vignettes describe inappropriate outside employment as defined in Canon 1 3.1 of the Code? The Vignettes

A court professional shall: 1. Outside Contractor

• avoid outside activities, including outside employment, Court Administrator Shirley contracts with CourtTrim, a business activities, even subsequent employment and nationally known court consulting firm, to travel to a court business activities after leaving judicial service, that in a neighboring state and to work weekends and nights reflect negatively upon the judicial branch and on one’s consulting on a new case management system. Occasionally own professionalism. Shirley works on weekdays but then takes vacation leave. • notify the appropriate authority prior to accepting work CourtTrim pays Shirley for her night and weekend (and or engaging in business outside of one’s court duties. occasional weekday) work.

• not request or accept any compensation or fee beyond that Is Shirley’s consulting work ethical or unethical? received from their employer for work done in the course of their public employment. Mark Hinnen, Jim Murchison, and Theresa Ewing all said Shirley’s consulting work was ethical. Mark said it was okay as long as she was keeping her consulting activities separate from her work and the work was appropriate to her position.

38 www.nacmnet.org Theresa and Jim thought that as long as Shirley notified her 3. Adjusting the Workday employer that she was engaging in outside employment and The project’s demands increase, and Shirley gets permission she used vacation time to cover her weekday work, she was to start coming to work early in order to make up for being not violating the ethics code. available for CourtTrim conference calls that take place late David Lauver said Shirley’s consulting was unethical. He said in the afternoon. that Shirley needs to decide who she really works for and stop splitting her time. “I believe it is a violation of the canon Is Shirley’s adjustment of her work day ethical or unethical? because she is being paid for her vacation time as a court employee to do work for and receive compensation from Mark, Theresa, and Jim believe it was ethical. Mark said that, CourtTrim.” assuming the court uses flex time, and as long as her judge knows what she is doing and is supportive, it is well within the court’s prerogative to allow her to adjust her hours. Jim 2. Unpaid Leave thought it was close to crossing the line and that Shirley needed to take care to account for her schedule. Theresa Shirley’s vacation time on her regular court job runs out thought Shirley should not be at her place of employment to about three quarters of the way through the fiscal year, take the conference calls. so her presiding judge allows her to use unpaid leave. David Lauver reiterated that Shirley’s actions were unethical since the lines had been blurred from the beginning as to Is Shirley’s use of unpaid leave ethical or unethical? when Shirley was working for the court and when she was David saw Shirley’s use of unpaid leave as unethical and a working for CourtTrim. violation of the canon. It is her responsibility to plan her time so she has sufficient vacation time. “I question how effective she is in performing her job duties in either job.” 4. Negligible Outside Work

Theresa, Mark, and Jim’s view was that Shirley’s use of Shirley finds herself responding to CourtTrim email unpaid leave was ethical. Theresa and Mark thought that as during work hours, but the time she uses to respond long as the court (her judge) was aware and supportive of seems negligible. her employment, she was not in violation. Jim thought, “It should not matter whether she is using vacation time, other Is Shirley’s response to CourtTrim emails during work forms of paid leave, or unpaid leave. She needs to make sure hours ethical or unethical? that she is not ‘on duty,’ but she can still work outside her court employment as a consultant for other court– David, Mark, and Theresa all determined that it was related projects.” unethical. Shirley was using public work time to conduct private outside business for profit. David depicted Shirley as “stealing” from the court. Mark wondered whether she was using court or private email. Theresa reminded us that most jurisdictions have strict prohibitions against using court equipment for private use.

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 39 Jim said that it depended on how “negligible” the CourtTrim 6. Work on the Jury System for a Local Attorney Firm work was. “However, she needs to see what the employer’s CourtTrim gets a third contract with the private law firm of policies on her personal computer usage are.” Williams & Bradshaw to analyze and better understand the functionality of the jury system in Shirley’s state. CourtTrim has Shirley working nights and weekends detailing how 5. The Nearby Court the statewide jury system operates. Although Shirley begins CourtTrim contracts with a court in a county adjacent to to wonder what Williams & Bradshaw is doing with her Shirley’s and assigns her to also consult on this project. analysis, CourtTrim does not delve into the law firm’s This new assignment, again, requires working nights and motives; it simply turns Shirley’s analysis over to them. weekends. Shirley has worked professionally with the court administrator at this other court. Is Shirley’s analysis of the jury system for a local law firm ethical or unethical? Is Shirley’s consulting working at a court in an adjacent Mark and David saw it as totally unethical. Shirley should county ethical or unethical? not have been receiving outside money for work affecting Mark and David said it was unethical. Mark felt this was her own court. “Any work she is doing that ultimately affects a matter of professionalism. “She should not be receiving her own court should only be on the court’s time; plus, the outside money for work that affects courts within her lawyers may appear in her court, giving the appearance of own state regardless of where her salary comes from impropriety or favoritism and possibly providing them inside while employed by the court.” David said that Shirley is information the law firm can use to their advantage.” overextended. “The more work that she does for CourtTrim, David pointed out that Shirley was now in a position of the more the lines are blurred as to whom she is working being paid (through CourtTrim) from a law firm that does for — the court or CourtTrim.” business with the court.

Theresa thought it was ethical based on the same reasoning Theresa thought it was ethical as long as Shirley was used in response to the first vignette. Theresa did think, conducting her research legitimately on her off hours. however, that Shirley should ask CourtTrim if she could be “. . . the fact that this information is for a private firm excused from working on projects within her own state to should have no bearing.” avoid the appearance of impropriety. Overall, Jim’s opinion was that it was unethical. He said Jim thought that, in theory, it should not matter where that such research would be permissible only as long as the contract customer is located, however, he did think the information Shirley was providing was public record. in this situation it was too difficult to separate Shirley the “However, the risk is too great here that Williams & administrator from Shirley the consultant. Bradshaw would turn her analysis around and use it in her own court to their advantage (and therefore to the disadvantage of others.) Since providing such information would be expected within her own position, it is not ethical to accept outside compensation for doing so.”

40 www.nacmnet.org ______We want to again thank Jim Murchison, David Lauver, Theresa Ewing, and Mark Hinnen for their perspectives on About the authors the theme of outside employment. The variety of opinions Peter Kiefer is the southeast regional court administrator for Maricopa offered demonstrates that ongoing discussion on this theme Superior Court in Phoenix, Arizona. He has been questioning ethics for Court Manager since 1994. Frank Maiocco is court administrator for is still needed. If you would like to suggest an ethical issue the Kitsap County Superior Court, Port Orchard, Washington. for future discussion, or if you would like to be contacted to respond to a future scenario, please contact either Peter at NOTES [email protected] or Frank at FMaiocco@ 1. The NACM Code for Court Professionals adopted 2007. co.kitsap.wa.us. We also invite you to visit the National Association for Court Management’s ethics Web page to review a variety of ethical codes.

On a personal note, I want to express my heart felt appreciation to Jim Murchison, who will be retiring at the end of June. Jim has been a good friend and a wise mentor to me for many years. Jim, the profession of court administration will be the lesser for your departure to new adventures. — Peter

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 41 Technology FACTs By Chris Crawford

The road to procurement reform bid. Of course, these costs are eventually passed along to the court customer. As part of the Forum on the Advancement of Court Technology (FACT) 20th anniversary celebration this year, The topic of procurement reform is one of FACT’s primary we will tackle procurement reform as one of three initiatives goals, which are: that constitute the core purposes of the organization. • To provide educational opportunities for improved use of court technology Our first celebration effort took place at the National Association for Court Management (NACM) midyear • To streamline the procurement process conference in Portland, Oregon, in which half of the FACT • To promote the development of technology standards Steering Committee meeting was devoted to a focus group examination of court technology standards; these findings will • To identify court user needs for the purpose of product and service development form the basis for improved implementation of standards in commercial software and in courts. The second effort, which is • To serve as a resource to NACM and the National Center for the subject of this article, will address procurement reform at State Courts the NACM annual conference in Boston. The third effort will take on product development using paper-on-demand as our theme at the Court Technology Conference (CTC) 2009 What’s the plan? in Denver. FACT has retained the services of Michael Asner from RFPmentor.com to provide technical assistance in this effort. Asner is a renowned expert on public procurement and wrote Why procurement reform? the RFP Handbook, which serves as the seminal work on this Courts cannot operate efficiently without technology subject. He has also produced an impressive array of books, applications that enhance the administration of justice articles, and publications that are used by procurement and control costs. Yet acquiring necessary technology can specialists worldwide. sometimes be a burdensome process involving months or even Asner is currently writing a research paper for FACT in years of procurement efforts that do not always result in the which the various public sector procurement methods are purchase of the right product at the right price. Anyone who documented with recommendations for models successfully has ever had to write a request for proposal (RFP) or serve used in other public industries. This research paper will on a procurement evaluation team will tell you this can be serve as the focal point for an education session at the NACM an arduous process that does not always produce the desired annual conference in Boston, where the options will be results. As a private sector professional, I can assure you that covered and the conference participants engaged in vetting the process of responding to an RFP can be just as painful for proposed solutions. vendors, who often devote significant resources to preparing a

42 www.nacmnet.org ______What’s the end game? About the author Both public sector court managers and private sector providers Chris Crawford is chair of FACT (Forum on the Advancement of Court Technology), which is part of NACM, and president of Justice agree that our current procurement processes need reform. Served, a court management consulting firm. He can be reached at How do we honor the purpose of procurement safeguards that [email protected]. are in place to promote open, competitive purchasing with fairness, transparency, and good value for taxpayer dollars, Technology FACTs is a regular column written by industry members yet speed up these processes so that courts do not “ask for last of FACT, the Forum on the Advancement of Court Technology. An year’s technology in next year’s budget?” More simply stated, archive of past articles is available at http://fact.ncsc.dni.us how do we shorten the RFP process and reduce the risks? The end game is to create an RFP process that will permit courts to acquire software and services in less time and with less risk than now. The goal, for example, is to put a mechanism in place that will permit a court to evaluate, acquire, and implement a case management system in no more than 18 months, as opposed to two to three years or more.

FACT believes that by engaging a procurement expert, looking at other public sector purchasing models, and engaging our policy makers in this effort, we can promote procurement reform that will improve our current processes while maintaining needed safeguards. We also believe that in doing so, we honor our mission to improve the quality of justice through communication between those who develop and provide technology and services, and those who manage the courts.

So here is our challenge to you: Get involved, support this effort, and track our progress. For more information about FACT, including an online membership application and past Technology FACTs articles, please visit http://FACT.ncsc.dni.us.

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 43 NACM New Members February – April 2009

Takisha Bland A Deputy Clerk C D.C. Superior Court Hadeel Abdel Aziz Claire Capristo, Esq. 3346 Curtis Dr., #301 Administration Team Leader Chief Deputy Court Admin. Suitland, MD 20746 Rule of Law Program – Jordan Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (202) 879-1593 Sweifiyeh Court Administration [email protected] Jordan 300 Frick Building – 437 Grant St. 962 77 9488000 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Mindy A. Breiner [email protected] (412) 350-4690 Probation Officer Fax: (412) 350-3930 Tukwila Municipal Court Sandra A. Acardo [email protected] 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Deputy Judicial Administrator Tukwila, WA 98188 Baton Rouge City Court Thomas J. Charron (206) 433-7145 233 St. Louis St., Rm. 208 Court Administrator Fax: (206) 433-7160 Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Cobb County Superior Court [email protected] (225) 389-8965 30 Waddell St. Fax: (225) 389-7656 Marietta, GA 30144 Keith Brin [email protected] (770) 528-1803 Chief Deputy Fax: (770) 528-8112 Lake County [email protected] Circuit Clerk 18 N. County St. Anne M. Clarke Waukegan, IL 60085 B Unit Mgr. III – Chief of Staff (847) 377-3310 Circuit Clerk’s Office, 22nd Judicial Circuit Melinda Balter Fax: (847) 360-6409 10 N. Tucker Blvd. Court Administrator [email protected] St. Louis, MO 63101 City of Billings Municipal Court (314) 641-8620 220 N. 27th St. Brooke Rogers Brooks Fax: (314) 641-8380 Billings, MT 59103 Deputy Court Administrator [email protected] (406) 247-8643 Superior Court, Eastern Judicial Circuit Fax: (406) 657-3075 133 Montgomery St., Rm. 616 Hon. Ronald Culpepper [email protected] Savannah, GA 31401 Judge (912) 652-7128 Pierce County Superior Court Melissa A. Berman Fax: (912) 652-7130 930 Tacoma Ave. S., Rm. 334 Assistant Clerk-Magistrate [email protected] Tacoma, WA 98402 Massachusetts Trial Court [email protected] Boston Municipal Court Dept. Nancy E. Brookshire 87 Shepard Rd. Court Project Analyst Bruce Cummings Braintree, MA 02184 Montgomery Co. Common Pleas Court Chief Marketing Officer [email protected] 41 North Perry St., Rm. 103 Municipal Services Bureau Dayton, OH 45422 6505 Airport Blvd., Ste. 100 Roger Bilodeau (937) 225-6299 Austin, TX 78752 Registrar Fax: (937) 496-7389 (512) 323-4231 Supreme Court of Canada [email protected] [email protected] Supreme Court Building 301 Wellington St. Patricia Bustamante Ottawa, ON K1A 0J1 Court Coordinator Canada County Court at Law No. 5 500 E. San Antonio St., Rm. 806 Jan Bjork El Paso, TX 79912 Court Administrator (915) 546-2004 18th Judicial District [email protected] 615 S. 16th Ave., Rm. 312 Bozeman, MT 59715 (406) 582-2091 Fax: (406) 585-9852 [email protected]

44 www.nacmnet.org NACM New Members

D H K

Victoria L. Dailey J. Kade Hendricks LeVica B. Kirvin Clerk of Court Court Administrator Court Administrator Chardon Municipal Court Mission City Municipal Court Mt. Pleasant Municipal Court 111 Water St. 6090 Woodson Rd. 100 Ann Edwards La. Chardon, OH 44024 Mission, KS 66202 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (440) 286-2622 (913) 676-8322 (843) 884-6796 Fax: (440) 286-2679 [email protected] Fax: (843) 856-2514 [email protected] [email protected] Roberto Hernandez Hon. Pamela P. Dembe Dep. Court Mgr., Justice Services President Judge Fulton County, GA Court of Common Pleas, 1st Jud. Dist. of PA 141 Pryor St. S.W., Ste. 10061 386 City Hall Atlanta, GA 30303 L Philadelphia, PA 19107-3260 (404) 612-3755 Robert Letzeisen (215) 686-8334 Fax: (404) 893-6474 CTO, VP Business Development Fax: (215) 567-7328 [email protected] Rover Technology Fusions [email protected] 5115 Joanne Kearney Blvd. Valerie A. Hoffman Tampa, FL 33619 Court Management Analyst (813) 435-7250 Reno Municipal Court Fax: (813) 325-6998 PO Box 1900 [email protected] F Reno, NV 89502 (775) 326-6602 Lillian Fanning Mark Levy Fax: (775) 334-6364 Court Manager Prothonotary [email protected] County Court at Law 5 Montgomery County Prothonotary Office 2310 Gollihar Rd. P.O. Box 311 Corpus Christi, TX 78415 Norristown, PA 19404 (361) 561-6056 (610) 278-3535 Fax: (361) 561-6142 J Fax: (610) 278-5994 [email protected] [email protected] Dominic Jaar Cyndi Festa CEO Hon. Jonathan Lippman Leader, Data Acquisition Canadian Center for Court Technology Chief Judge Dun & Bradstreet 4233 Marcil New York Court of Appeals 3501 Corporate Pkwy. Montreal, QC H4A 2Z7 230 Park Ave. Center Valley, PA 18034 Canada New York, NY 10169 (610) 882-7817 (514) 212-9348 (212) 661-6787 [email protected] Fax: (866) 606-6590 Fax: (212) 682-2778 [email protected] [email protected]

Sheela Jackson Robyn Lockwood Court Operations Manager Interim Court Administrator G Superior Court of California, Co. of Orange Mason County Superior Court West Justice Center 419 N. 4th St., 2nd Floor William Golt 8141 13th St. P.O. Box X President Westminster, CA 92683 Shelton, WA 98584-0078 Golt Adjustment Services (714) 896-7321 (360) 427-9670 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., Ste. 207 Fax: (714) 896-7848 Fax: (360) 427-8443 Wilmington, DE 19806 [email protected] [email protected] (302) 798-5500 Fax: (302) 429-0656 Althea Lowe-Thomas [email protected] Assistant Division Director Administrative Office of the Courts 455 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 (415) 865-4987 Fax: (415) 865-8795 [email protected]

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 45 NACM New Members

Ronald R. Ruffin M P Executive Court Administrator Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan Daniel McWilliams Patrick Parkinson 2 Woodward Ave. CFO Special Deputy 711 Coleman A. Young Municipal Ctr. Infax, Inc. Montgomery County Prothonotary Office Detroit, MI 48226 3400 Corporate Way, Ste. D P.O. Box 311 (313) 224-5261 Duluth, GA 30096 Norristown, PA 19404 Fax: (313) 224-6070 (770) 209-9925 (610) 292-4943 [email protected] Fax: (770) 209-0671 Fax: (610) 278-5994 [email protected] [email protected]

Hon. Sam Medina Demarco C. Pennington District Judge Court Record Supervisor S 237th District Court Decatur Superior Court P.O. Box 10536 556 N. McDonough St., Rm. G130 Karen S. Severns Lubbock, TX 79408 Decatur, GA 30030 CASA/GAL Program Director (806) 775-1027 (404) 687-3855 Coeur d’Alene Tribal Court Fax: (806) 767-9656 Fax: (404) 371-2635 29 Route 22, Old Sub Agency Rd. [email protected] [email protected] Plummer, ID 83501 (208) 686-2049 John R. Meeks Janice Poley Fax: (208) 686-5805 Vice President, ICM Senior Associate [email protected] National Center for State Courts DLR Group 300 Newport Ave. 100 E. Pine St., Ste. 404 Timothy Sheridan Williamsburg, VA 23185 Orlando, FL 32801-2761 Court Administrator (757) 259-1567 (407) 648-1331 Baltimore County Circuit Court Fax: (757) 564-2116 Fax: (407) 648-1433 County Courts Building [email protected] [email protected] 401 Bosley Ave., Rm. 421 Mailstop 3102 Laura Mickey Sonya M. Pollock Towson, MD 21204 Deputy Clerk Tax Officer (410) 887-2687 Wyoming Supreme Court D.C. Superior Court/Special Operation Div. Fax: (410) 887-4806 2301 Capitol Ave. 500 Indiana Ave. [email protected] Cheyenne, WY 82001 Washington, DC 20001 (307) 777-5117 (202) 879-1399 Fax: (307) 777-6129 Fax: (202) 879-1094 [email protected] [email protected] T

Nancy Todd Court Clerk N R Woodward Municipal Court 1219 – 8th St. Robert P. Nadekow Laurie Rice Woodward, OK 73801 Court Administrator Chief Duputy Clerk (580) 254-8585 Eighth Judicial District of Georgia Brevard County Clerk of Courts [email protected] P.O. Drawer C P.O. Box 999 Lyons, GA 30436 Titusville, FL 32781-0999 (912) 526-6116 (321) 637-6512 Fax: (912) 526-9387 Fax: (321) 264-6949 [email protected] [email protected] W Lynn E. Wagner Thomas Nestor Patti Roadhouse District HR Manager Director of Gov’t. Services Probation Division Manager Tenth Judicial District Progressive Financial Services, Inc. Pierce County District Court 7533 Sunwood Dr. NW, Ste. 306 1510 Chester Pike, Ste. 250 901 Tacoma Ave. S., Rm. 200 Ramsey, MN 55303 Eddystone, PA 19022-1375 Tacoma, WA 98402 (763) 279-0170 (888) 441-5080 (253) 798-7595 Fax: (763) 279-0178 Fax: (203) 364-9416 Fax: (253) 798-3389 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Hon. Margaret Ross Presiding Judge Pierce County District Court 930 Tacoma Ave. S., Rm. 601 Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 798-7788 Fax: (253) 798-6185 [email protected] 46 www.nacmnet.org SUSTAINING MEMBERS Alexander Gallo Holdings, LLC (Vice President of Business Development) Alexander Gallo Holdings, LLC (Chief Information Officer) AllianceOne, Inc. AmCad Case Management, LLC DLR Group DPK Consulting Dun & Bradstreet FTR Limited Global Connect High Court of Hong Kong Infocom Systems Services Inc. ISD Corporation Justice Systems, Inc. Kuban Associates LLC McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C. MSI Consulting Group, LLC Municipal Services Bureau RevQ Veri-Core LLC

The Court Manager Volume 24 Issue 2 47 National Association for Court Management National 2008–09 Board of Directors

officers ELECTED DIRECTOR 2008–10 Association VIRLYNN TINNELL PRESIDENT Clerk of Superior Court MARCUS W. REINKENSMEYER Mohave County Superior Court PO Box 7000 Court Administrator Kingsman, AZ 86402 for Court Superior Court of Arizona (928) 753-0713 x-4037 Fax: (928) 753-0781 Maricopa County [email protected] 201 W. Jefferson Phoenix, AZ 85003 URBAN DIRECTOR 2007–10 Management (602) 506-3190 Fax: (602) 506-7867 [email protected] DAVID W. SLAYTON Director, Court Administration The National Association for Court PRESIDENT ELECT Lubbock County District Courts & Co. Courts at Law SUZANNE H. STINSON P.O. Box 10536 Lubbock, TX 79408 Management is a nonprofit organization Court Administrator (806) 775-1020 Fax: (806) 767-9656 26th Judicial District Court dedicated to improving the quality of judicial [email protected] P.O. Box 310 administration at all levels of courts nationwide. Benton, LA 71006 RURAL DIRECTOR 2007–10 (318) 965-3739 Fax: (318) 965-3765 In carrying out its purpose, the association [email protected] LINDA ROMERO SOLES Assistant Executive Officer strives to provide its members with professional VICE PRESIDENT Stanislaus County Superior Court JUDE DEL PREORE 800 11th Street, Room 100 education and to encourage the exchange of Modesto, CA 95354 Trial Court Administrator (209) 525-7791 Fax: (209) 525-6385 useful information among them; encourages Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington Vicinage [email protected] the application of modern management P.O. Box 6555, 7th Floor Mount Holly, NJ 08060 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIRECTOR 2008–11 techniques to courts; and, through the work (609) 518-2510 Fax: (609) 518-2539 [email protected] MICHELE OKEN of its committees, supports research and Court Administrator development in the field of court management, SECRETARY/TREASURER Los Angeles Superior Court KEVIN J. BOWLING 210 West Temple Street, Room 6-520 Los Angeles, CA 90012 the independence of the judicial branch, and Court Administrator (213) 914-8742 Fax: (213) 625-7822 20th Judicial Circuit Court [email protected] the impartial administration of the courts. Ottawa County Fillmore Complex 12120 Fillmore Street LIMITED JURISDICTION DIRECTOR 2007–10 West Olive, MI 49460-8985 (616) 786-4123 Fax: (616) 786-4154 DEBRA DEBERRY [email protected] Chief Deputy DeKalb County Courthouse Membership IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT 556 N. McDonough Street PAUL J. BURKE Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 371-2025 Fax: (404) 687-3823 Director of Court Operations [email protected] The National Association for Court Trial Court of Massachusetts Housing Court Department Administrative Office AT LARGE (1) DIRECTOR 2008–11 Management needs your help to reach our Edward W. Brook Courthouse 24 New Chardon Street, 6th Floor CARLA SMITH 3,000-membership goal this year. Help us reach Boston, MA 02114-4703 Chief Deputy Judicial Administrator out to the next generation of court leaders and (617) 788-6535 Fax: (617) 788-8980 Orleans Criminal District Court [email protected] 2700 Tulane Avenue, Room 200 staying true to our goal of “Excellence in Court New Orleans, LA 70119 (504) 658-9100 Fax: (504) 827-3381 Administration.” Let’s sponsor new members! [email protected] Several categories of membership are DIRECTORS AT LARGE (2) DIRECTOR 2006–09 offered in the National Association for Court WARNER HASSELL LARGE COURT DIRECTOR 2006–09 Court Administrator Management: Regular, any person serving as PAMELA HARRIS Metropolitan General Sessions Court Court Administrator 408 2nd Avenue N., Suite 1140 clerk of court, court administrator, or in any Montgomery County Circuit Court P.O. Box 196300 court management, court education, court 50 Maryland Avenue Nashville, TN 37219-6300 Rockville, MD 20850 (615) 862-8317 Fax: (615) 880-2711 research, or court consulting capacity ($125); (240) 777-9103 (Fax): (240) 777-9104 [email protected] [email protected] Retired ($95); Associate, any person interested SMALL COURT DIRECTOR 2006–09 in the improvement of the administration of KIP RODDA justice ($125); Student, any person enrolled Assistant Court Executive Officer Superior Court of California, County of Lake full time in a degree program related to the field 255 N. Forbes Street Lakeport, CA 95453 of court administration ($95); Sustaining, any (707) 263-2575 Fax: (707) 262-1327 person, group of persons, firm, or corporation [email protected] interested in furthering the goals of the APPOINTED DIRECTOR 2008–11 organization ($350). PETER COOLSEN Court Administrator For more information about NACM or Circuit Court of Cook County 2600 S. California, Ste. #101 about joining the organization, please write to Chicago, IL 60608 the president or the National Center for State (773) 869-3385 [email protected] Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Va. 23185, or call (757) 259-1841.

48 www.nacmnet.org