Justice in Jeopardy Implementation

June 12, 2008

 

Justice in Jeopardy Implementation Committee

SeaTac Office Center

June 12, 2008

1:30 PM to 4:00 PM

Meeting Minutes

 
Members Present: Judge Deborah Fleck, co-chair; Mr. Wayne Blair, vice-chair; Mr. Jim Bamberger; Ms. Sophia Byrd-McSherry (by phone); Mr. John Cary; Judge Vickie Churchill; Judge Sara Derr; Mr. Jeff Hall; Mr. Gregg Hirakawa; Mr. Kirk Johns (by phone); Judge Eileen Kato; Mr. Michael Merringer; Ms. Nell McNamara; Ms. Joanne Moore; Judge Marilyn Paja; Ms. Yvonne Pettus; Judge Christine Quinn-Brintnall; Judge Karen Seinfeld; Mr. Scott Smith; Ms. Kelly Stockman-Reid; and Ms. Gail Stone.
 
Staff Present: Ms. Wendy Ferrell; Ms. Mellani McAleenan; and Ms. Karen Castillo.
 
Call to Order: Judge Fleck called the meeting to order and asked if there were other items that members wished to have included on the agenda. Judge Quinn-Brintnall said that she would like to discuss a request for an additional judge for Division II of the Court of Appeals. She distributed information on that proposal.
 
Welcome and Introductions: Judge Fleck welcomed the members and asked everyone to introduce themselves.
 
Approval of Minutes: Judge Fleck asked if there is a motion to approve the minutes of the April 3, 2008 meeting. There was some concern expressed regarding the level of detail on the Environmental Scan discussion. Mr. Hall indicated the minutes would be revised consistent with the comments made and would be presented for approval at the next meeting. 
 
Environmental Scan:
Ms. McAleenan provided a list of legislative members not seeking another term, along with a brief update on the status of items discussed at the last meeting. She said that the filing week ended Friday, June 6, and there is nothing new to report. There are 12 House members not returning and two Senate members not returning.
 
Ms. McAleenan informed the committee that she, Mr. Bamberger, Ms. Moore, Mr. David Ward and Ms. Byrd-McSherry have been meeting with Judiciary Committee members and staff to update them about the Justice In Jeopardy (JIJ) initiative and impress upon them that it is intended to be a multi-year process and will be ongoing. She reported that the meetings have gone well, adding that the main concern they’ve heard is the worry expressed about the budget situation next year. They are anticipating approximately $1.5 billion – $2.5 billion deficits, so asking for money will be difficult. Ms. McAleenan further noted that people have remembered the effort and are supportive; there have been no negative comments. 
 
There were questions about identifying those who will step in for those legislators who are departing to take up the JIJ issues. Ms. McAleenan said that one of the goals of the meetings with individuals is to identify those who are interested in court issues. Decisions on leadership and committee chair roles won’t be made until after the elections in November.
 
There was discussion about recent emergency cuts to court budgets in several counties and the responses of various counties and county associations to the crisis. Judge Fleck said there was a press conference held in Seattle this week to inform the public about the court funding cuts and how that will impact the public. She added that several newspaper articles followed as part of the effort to inform the public of the need for a legislative fix for the counties’ budget problems.
 
Mr. Cary added that King County Bar Association Director, Mr. Andrew Prazuch, has written articles about court funding and has commented that this is more than a King County problem. Mr. Cary added that Mr. Prazuch expressed an interest in coming to the next Justice in Jeopardy Implementation Committee (JIJIC) meeting.
 
Judge Fleck inquired if there would be interest in taking a team approach with the counties and asked if members of the JIJIC should go talk to the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC). There was discussion about coordinating with WSAC and other city/county organizations and there was general consensus that it is a good idea to be in close communication with the counties and cities and to dialogue with them as much and as soon as possible to establish common goals. There were several ideas presented on ways to go about this that would encourage full engagement on the part of the cities and counties.
 
For the purpose of exchanging ideas and information, Judge Fleck suggested that the committee ask to have a representative invited to a WSAC meeting and also invite WSAC to send their legislative chair to attend a JIJIC meeting. Mr. Bamberger noted that this may be an opportune time to bring forward the JIJ initiatives to the counties and cities, to find where we can achieve common policy ground. He added that now would be better than waiting until legislative session. Mr. Cary agreed with Mr. Bamberger, saying that the JIJIC should invite counties and cities to sit with us, since we all have a common problem. He added that it’s important to work on the problem and talk to each other and that we should start now and pursue it on an ongoing basis. Judge Fleck noted that the next meeting isn’t until September, so the committee needs to be working now to make informal contact. 
 
Mr. Hall said that an approach touched upon is to try to engage the local judges to have the conversation with the local commissioners. He added that he’s not sure how it looks in the counties when a state group comes in, so having the local judges make contact might be better. Mr. Hall asked whether it’s too early to put together the Advocacy Guide to support local judges going to the county boards. Judge Fleck commented that Mr. Hall’s point is well taken; the Advocacy Guide was excellent. She added that the flow of the money is a bit complex and suggested that either Mr. Hall or Ms. McAleenan accompany the local judges to explain the major portions related to that, with the judges adding their perspective. Judge Paja commented that she agrees with Mr. Hall, adding that, to the extent that you can have local judges involved, it’s a good idea. Mr. Cary agreed, adding that there is a need to be sensitive to local officials. He said he thinks the committee needs to give more thought to what role they can play in this time of budget crisis. Judge Churchill stated that she feels it’s important for the JIJIC to be at the table when the counties are determining their funding priorities and weighing between streets/roads and the county justice system. 
 
Mr. Hall asked if the committee wants to put together a communication with some information the local judges can take to their county commissioners about what JIJIC’s goals are, and indicate to them that they can call upon anyone on the JIJIC to come and make a presentation.
 
Judge Fleck recapped the discussion saying that Mr. Bamberger would like to have a formal liaison, and Mr. Hall suggested we put together a relatively short, bulleted communication package for judges around the state to communicate accurately and concisely about what we’re doing and how we would like to link arms with the counties. 
 
Judge Fleck asked that someone wrap up this discussion with a proposal. Mr. Hall proposed 1) that the JIJIC invite WSAC and the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) to one of the JIJIC meetings, and 2) that they put out a short, bulleted sheet of talking points to send out to all the judges.
 
Judge Fleck asked those who have been meeting with legislators and staff if they would be able to take on the additional task of meetings with the counties. Mr. Hall suggested looking toward individual courts. Ms. McAleenan replied that some of the staff-to-staff contact is happening, and it wouldn’t be a bad idea to formalize that more. Ms. Byrd-McSherry remarked that she agrees that formalizing at the staff level would be helpful, and suggested opening up the invitation to staff to attend the meetings, as they would be people with whom the committee can stay in touch.
 
Judge Fleck asked if, by fall, the committee wants a communication plan where this group visits some of the editorial boards (either by the directors or Wayne, the Chief and herself, or some small group of people) to start making the case more broadly to the public.
 
Mr. Hall said the Supreme Court Budget Committee (SCBC) meets again on September 2, and that the next en banc is October 2 when the SCBC recommendations will be decided upon. They’ll be finalizing the Supreme Court Budget that goes to the legislature. He added that, as soon as the elections are over, it will be important to contact the newly elected legislators.
 
There was discussion about the process of developing dollar savings for the counties, which would provide incentive for the counties and cities to support the JIJIC package. 
The work of the Trial Court Operations Funding Committee was discussed and Judge Fleck asked Mr. Hall if it would be possible to provide to the JIJIC copies of the bills being drafted. Mr. Hall replied that after the next Board for Judicial Administration (BJA) meeting it would be appropriate to send it out.
 
Mr. Hall added that they do know that the local savings would be $9.4 million on the juror compensation and judges’ salaries pieces, but that there is no way of estimating savings on the interpreter funding piece; the practices across the state are so varied, and the data available so limited, it does not provide a broad enough sample to extrapolate statewide costs adequately.
 
Judicial Branch Budget Process and Status:
Mr. Hall provided updates on the Judicial Branch Budget Process. He said that the Supreme Court en banc did adopt the Principle Policy Goals vetted through the BJA and OPD and OCLA Advisory Boards. The final outcome is a good set of policy goals that, although originally drafted to frame the JIJIC budget request, will serve as more than that. 
 
Mr. Hall reported that the Court accepted as presented the recommendations of the SCBC. They approved putting the $4.4 million request for court interpreters through the Court’s budget. This will be developed and go through additional vetting.
 
Regarding the juror compensation request and judges’ salaries request, Mr. Hall reported that the SCBC did not include those in the budget, but supported moving them forward as policy legislation. He said that the SCBC decision was not a statement in terms of priority, particularly with respect to juror compensation.
 
Mr. Hall reported that the court also approved the Superior Court Judges’ Association (SCJA) request for $3.5 million for the Juvenile-Family Court Improvement Program, a $900,000 request by the county clerks for collections, and internal AOC budget requests totaling $2.8 million. 
 
There was additional discussion about funding issues and budget requests put forward by various stakeholders. Judge Quinn-Brintnall presented information regarding the request for an additional judge for Division II of the Court of Appeals.
 
Ms. Moore then had to leave, as did Judge Seinfeld and Mr. Bamberger.

Budget Document Letter of Solicitation:
Ms. Ferrell provided information about the Budget Document Letter to Request Proposals that has been sent out to various consultants. Also included was the list of consultants to whom the letter was sent. Ms. Ferrell noted that this is a combined effort with the Office of Civil Legal Aid and the Office of Public Defense to create a unified judicial branch budget document. She noted that July 18 is the deadline for submitting responses.
 
Mr. Hall added that this is not only a Justice In Jeopardy focus; this is a broader document including all of the court’s budget. He said that it will be discussed as the Judicial Branch budget in much the same way as the governor’s office talks about the Executive Branch budget. The goal is to send out the Judicial Branch budget in the same manner as the governor, including communicating to the public about the Judicial Branch priorities and how the court’s interests are intertwined with that of the general public.  
 
Next Meeting: 
The next meeting of the Justice in Jeopardy Implementation Committee is scheduled for Thursday, September 4, 2008 from 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM.
 
Mr. Hall noted that this meeting will be two days after the Supreme Court Budget Committee meeting at which they will determine their final recommendations to be made at the Supreme Court en banc scheduled for early October.
 
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
 

 

  

Privacy and Disclaimer Notices Sitemap

© Copyright 2025. Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts.

S5