Open PDF File, 1.3 MB, for Report of the Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts Report to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall J. Donald Monan, S.J., Chair, Patricia McGovern, Vice-Chair, William C. Van Faasen, Vice-Chair Charles D. Baker, Wesley W. Marple, Jr., Ralph C. Martin, II, Honorable A. David Mazzone, Dorothy Terrell March 2003 The Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts March 4, 2003 To the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: Six short months ago, in August, 2002, you appointed us as a Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts, to provide an independent perspective on the state of management in the Judiciary and to make recommendations for its improvement. Our work brought a new understanding of the immense managerial challenge that the size and complexity of the Courts pose. The pride in the Judiciary and the dedication to its high purpose that you expressed in establishing the Committee, we found reflected in the hundreds of court personnel with whom we spoke in the course of our study. Throughout the Commonwealth, we found islands of managerial excellence. Other parts of the Court system do not share that advantage. But it is among the links that are needed to forge all the Courts into a unified system that we found the most significant managerial gaps. These gaps will not ultimately be bridged by personal talents of individual personnel, but by assuring that the best organizational structures and management practices are at work in molding the Courts into a true “system,” as opposed to a loose collection of parts. It is for this reason that neither our recommendations nor your acceptance of them can, of themselves, create a well-managed Court system. The Legislature, the Executive branch, and the public, must work with the Judiciary to undertake anew the challenge originally begun in the late 1970s and provide for the complex courts of the 21st century the organizational frame and the managerial know-how needed to deliver the justice the people of Massachusetts deserve. J. Donald Monan, S.J, Chair, Patricia McGovern, Vice-Chair, William C. Van Faasen, Vice-Chair Charles D. Baker, Wesley W. Marple, Jr., Ralph C. Martin, II, Honorable A. David Mazzone, Dorothy Terrell Office of the Chancellor - Boston College - Chestnut Hill - Massachusetts - 02467 REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT IN THE COURTS I. Executive summary.. ..........................................................................2 II. Introduction .......................................................................................4 III. Current situation: the case for change.. .............................................8 IV. Recommended actions......................................................................14 (a) Initiative 1: Commit to new leadership norms and structures........15 (b) Initiative 2: Create a culture of high performance and accountability. ....................................................................................24 (c) Initiative 3: Establish discipline in resource allocation and use.. ..31 V. Implementation plan.. ......................................................................45 VI. Conclusion: An aspiration for the Courts........................................51 Appendices Appendix 1: Overview of Basic Facts and the Status Quo in the Courts Appendix 2: Statutory and Constitutional Review of the Massachusetts Judicial System 1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Today, the Courts of Massachusetts are mired in managerial confusion. The impact of high-quality judicial decisions is undermined by high cost, slow action, and poor service to the community. The administration and management of the Judiciary is uneven at best, and oftentimes dysfunctional. Morale is near the breaking point, and there is little concern for customer service. Employees cry out for leadership. The public wants reasonably priced, quick, and courteous justice, but often receives the opposite. The Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts was appointed by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall last August to provide an independent perspective on the state of management in the Massachusetts Courts and recommendations for improvement. The Committee found that, despite pockets of genuine excellence, the management of the Judiciary is preventing the people of Massachusetts from receiving the justice they deserve. These failings have a significant impact on citizens of Massachusetts. Some citizens get better justice than others. Businesses avoid states with slow, unsteady courts, families suffer because of slow case resolution, and inefficiency wastes taxpayer money. With pro bono staff assistance from McKinsey & Company, the Visiting Committee has spent the last six months visiting courthouses across the Commonwealth, interviewing hundreds of judges, court personnel, and leaders of the bar and the community. The Committee identified three root causes of the deficiencies described above: a leadership culture and structure that hobble management, a lack of performance measurement and accountability, and an inability to manage costs and resources. The Committee’s report spells out three initiatives to address these causes: commit to a new leadership style and a revised organizational structure, create a culture of high performance and accountability, and establish discipline in resource allocation and use. Each of these initiatives comprises a number of recommendations and implementation challenges. Restructuring the Courts to clarify reporting lines and responsibilities within the system is the first recommendation. The Judiciary must clarify who is in charge of the Courts. Benchmarks and performance goals for employees, courthouses, and managers can then be established under the leadership identified. The Committee further proposes that the existing budget process be redesigned, and that resources be allocated according to demonstrated needs. The 2 Judiciary should eliminate overlap among administrative structures and geographic locations. Finally, the Courts should increase management experience in the administration of the Judiciary, and leverage outside turnaround talent to accelerate the transformation process. Though the Judiciary itself must lead these initiatives, transformation of the culture, organizational structure, and ultimately the performance of the Courts cannot succeed without the active cooperation and assistance of the other branches of government. All three branches of the Government have created this situation and all three must now participate in addressing its repair. No mere summary can do justice to the complexity of the Courts’ current situation or the sweeping nature of the Committee’s recommendations. This report attempts, in graphic exhibits as well as in text, a thorough analysis of the Courts’ current operations and statutory structure as the basis for its recommendations. This brief summary is intended to encourage thoughtful reading of the full report. If the Court system is to be transformed, it will require in-depth, thorough examination, and a commitment from all concerned to see the transformation through. 3 II. INTRODUCTION In 1780, the Massachusetts’ Constitution codified the role of the Supreme Judicial Court as the Commonwealth’s court of final appeal. John Adams’ system of checks and balances, whereby the Judiciary is separate from and co-equal to the Executive and Legislative branches, formed the model for our federal system. Massachusetts’ judicial history is a source of pride to the Commonwealth; the judicial decision- making in our state has a historical reputation for quality that is second to none. Yet today, our courts are drowning in managerial confusion. The impact of high- quality decisions is undermined by high cost and slow action. The administration and management of the Judiciary is uneven at best, and dysfunctional at worst. Morale is at the breaking point, and there is little focus on customer service. Employees cry out for leadership. The public wants reasonably priced, quick, courteous justice, but often receives the opposite. These failings make a significant difference to the citizens of Massachusetts. Managerial, administrative and financial incongruities in our system of justice mean that some of the Commonwealth’s citizens get better justice than others. While some courts appear to be running efficiently, the system as a whole is failing. Businesses avoid a state that has slow and uncertain courts. Families struggle when courts take too long to resolve cases, and taxpayers suffer when the Courts are not efficient. The Commonwealth as a whole suffers. Typically, the answer to such problems is more money. But over the last decade, court funding and personnel levels have increased, while problems have worsened. In today’s economic environment and based on past performance, there is little appetite for giving the Judiciary more resources. The Courts must do better, likely with fewer resources than they already have. As part of her efforts to address these issues, the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court formed the Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts. Our committee, made up of a diverse group of citizens from the law, academia, business and the policy arenas,1 was asked “to examine and make 1 J. Donald Monan, S.J., Visiting Committee Chair, Chancellor, Boston College; Patricia McGovern, Visiting Committee Vice Chair, Special Counsel and Senior Vice President for Corporate Affairs, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; William C. Van Faasen, Visiting