Washington State Courts - Boards, Commissions, Programs, and Organizations

> >

Search | Site Map |

eService Center

BJA: Project 2001

March 10, 2000

Members present: Judge Tom Swayze, retired, co-chair; M. Wayne Blair; Judge Sara Derr; Chief Justice Richard P. Guy; Jeannie Hale; Dean Logan; Judge James M. Murphy; and Judge Jeff Tolman

Staff present: Jude Cryderman; Doug Haake; Janet McLane; Mary McQueen; and Yvonne Pettus

Call to order

Judge Swayze, co-chair, called the meeting to order.

Introductions

Judge Swayze asked each member to introduce themselves.

Preliminary Remarks

Chief Justice Guy stated the purpose of the committee is to not only study the overall court system, but to make recommendations for the system to work better for the public and the judiciary with less resources. Issues pointed out by the Chief included:

Judges performing non-judicial duties;
Overlapping courts - multiplicity of courts;
Courts more usable and efficient;
Decriminalize certain offenses which could then be handled in an administrative fashion; and
Addressing the needs of pro se litigants;

The Chief Justice advised the legislator's concerns were cases take too long and cost too much money. He continued, if the judiciary did not conduct a review of the courts system, the legislature would.

Chief Justice Guy said he'd like the committee to look at the issues through their subcommittee reports. The committee report should be very specific and in final format prior to the legislative weekends in December.

Chief Justice Guy stated this is an opportunity to make the system more responsive, change how work is accomplished, work more effectively and propose changes to the legislature.

Judge Swayze said given the number of legislators that sponsored the court bill, this should be seen as a wake-up call to the judiciary.

Judge Swayze noted the following areas should be studied:

Criminal sentencing at the superior court level (money has been approved for the Sentencing Guidelines Commission to conduct study);
Family/Domestic Relations (bill is introduced each session)
Visitation, custody, support
Discovery process in civil cases
Expensive and time consuming
Alternative Dispute Resolution
     Overlapping jurisdiction between superior and courts of limited jurisdiction
     "Single" trial court
    Exclusive jurisdiction
     Increase district court to $50,000 - look at exclusive juries
     Eliminate mandatory arbitration in superior courts

The legislators have indicated their concern with jury selection and pay and outstanding warrants.

Judge Swayze advised the committee that the legislature agreed to hold off passing the court consolidation bill based on the agreement that the judiciary would examine the "Talmadge bill."

Minutes

It was moved by Judge Roewe and seconded by Judge Tolman to adopt the minutes of the February 11, 2000 meeting as published. The motion passed unanimously.

Bill Analysis--Senate Bill 6191

Section Number	Effect of Section/Concerns/Comments
Section 1	Legislative Intent How does expanding create a variety of judicial forums? Adequate resources?
Section 2	Allows full-time elected superior, district and municipal court judges to vote to unify the trial courts in the county. Every full-time elected district and municipal court judge will become a superior court judge. It is assumed this section does not affect the status or existence of part-time district and municipal courts. Accomplished by majority election? What does this mean for elections? How will cases be transferred? What happens to appeals from the lower courts? What about transfer of staff? If municipal court opts in, are the cities responsible to pay for staff, cases, etc.? What about differences in systems county-to-county? Can superior and district courts vote to unify without eliminating municipal courts? "Opting-in" creates a less efficient system, more of a patchwork system. All courts using one JIS system?
Section 3	Requires the judges assuming the position of superior court judge to serve the remainder of the term to which they were elected. After that time, they would serve the unexpired portion of the superior court term and then stand for election again when all superior court positions are on the ballot. This may be confusing since some elected municipal court judges do not stand for election at the same time as district court judges. How/where are the voters benefiting in electing judges by this process (unconstitutional delegation)? Confusing election process--primary vs. general election. All superior and district court judges should be elected the same.
Section 4	Allows the county legislative authority to increase jury fees up to $50 per day. If the increase is mandatory, state should provided funding. This increase could put small counties "out of business." Jury size should remain the same. This issue should be put before the Jury Commission.
Section 5	Allows the presiding superior court judge in unified counties to organize and approve violations bureaus. The superior court presiding judge can also appoint hearings officers to hear cases in violations bureaus. Currently the statute does not allow violation bureaus to hear cases. Municipalities can establish violation bureaus but if a person requests a hearing, the case is transferred either to the city's municipal court or to the district court. If presiding judge is liable, staff should be employees of the court? Need to review the current employment systems. Would provide for no control over employees. JEA Core functions should be reviewed Should be assigned to the Jurisdiction Subcommittee.
Section 6	Reduces the number of statutorily authorized district court judges in counties that have unified. Need to update weighted caseload.
Section 7	Clarifies that in counties that have unified the number of full-time and part-time district court judges can be changed to accomplish the unification. Need to update weighted caseload.
Section 8	Clarifies that full-time district court positions may become superior court positions. Need to update weighted caseload.
Section 9	Allows the superior court presiding judge in unified counties to transfer the cases and personnel from the district court to the superior court. Different systems involved for payroll, records retention, computers. Could result in union contract violations.
Section 10	Provides that judges of municipal departments shall become superior court judges if the judges opt for unification. It is assumed that all cities operating under RCW 3.46 would lose their municipal court even if the court was not a full-time court. Part-time courts excluded.
Section 11	Provides that the city may select municipal department judges except when the courts opt to unify. All positions lost if unification takes place.
Section 12	Clarifies that in unified counties the statute governing municipal department positions being filled by election does not apply.
Section 13	Allows superior court presiding judge in unified counties to transfer the cases and personnel from the municipal department to the superior court.
Section 14	Clarifies that in unified courts superior court judges have the powers of the municipal court.
Section 15	Allows the presiding superior court judge in unified counties to organize and approve violations bureaus. The superior court presiding judge can also appoint hearings officers to hear cases in violation bureaus. Currently the statute does not allow violation bureaus to hear cases. Municipalities can establish violation bureaus but if a person requests a hearing, the case is transferred either to the city's municipal court or to the district court.
Section 16	Clarifies that in unified counties the status governing municipal court positions being filled by election does not apply.
Section 17	Clarifies that in unified counties the statute governing municipal department positions being filled by election does not apply.
Section 18	Clarifies that in unified counties additional positions created by the legislative body of the city or town are superior court positions.
Section 19	Allows the city legislative authority to increase jury fees up to $50 per day.
Section 20	Allows the superior court presiding judge in unified counties to transfer the cases and personnel from the municipal court to the superior courts.
Section 21	Established a two-tiered civil filing fee system in unified courts where civil filings meet the jurisdictional requirements for district court, the filing fee would be $31 and all other cases would pay the $110 superior court filing fee.
Section 22	Increases the small claims jurisdiction to $10,000. District court judges not in favor of increase. Discovery problems. Small claims trials, in some cases, take as long as other trials.
Section 23	Allows the presiding superior court judge in unified counties to organize and approve violations bureaus. The superior court presiding judge can also appoint hearings officers to hear cases in violation bureaus. Currently the statute does not allow violation bureaus to hear cases. Municipalities can establish violation bureaus but if a person requests a hearing, the case is transferred either to the city's municipal court or to the district court.
Section 24	Allows the city legislative authority to increase jury fees up to $50 per day in Seattle Municipal Court.
Section 25	Clarifies that the election of Seattle Municipal Court judges does not apply if the court unifies.
Section 26	Allows the superior court presiding judge in unified counties to transfer the cases and personnel from the Seattle Municipal Court to the superior court.
Section 27	Clarifies the two-tier system in the county clerk's fee statute.
Section 28	Requires that the presiding superior court judge in unified courts to establish a local justice advisory committee. This should be a local option. Change "shall" establish to "may" establish.
Section 29	Required a courthouse facilitator to be assigned to every superior court. There shall be at least one facilitator for every ten superior court judges. OAC shall implement procedures to comply with federal requirements for the allocation of federal funds to cover all or part of the costs incurred. It is unclear what federal funds would be available for this purpose. Does not eliminate the appearance problem. There is a fine line between procedural advice and legal advice. Expand beyond domestic cases to include: probate, landlord/tenant, guardianship.
Section 30	Provides that the supreme court prescribe by rule the duties and responsibilities for the presiding superior court judge. Presiding judge should clearly have ability to enforce non-salary payment sanctions. Review the process for selecting presiding judge. Should be assigned to Administrative Subcommittee.
Section 31	Creates an office of marshal for the state of Washington. The marshal would be responsible for the enforcement of all orders issued by judges of the supreme court, court of appeals and superior court. The marshal serves at the pleasure of the chief justice. It is assumed this does not include the enforcement of civil judgments and monetary amount ordered by the courts. Law enforcement opposes. Judges rubberstamp re-issuance of warrants. Should be assigned to Unserved Warrants Subcommittee.
Section 32	Allows the presiding superior court judge in unified counties to organize and approve violations bureaus. The superior court presiding judge can also appoint hearings officers to hear cases in violation bureaus. Currently the statute does not allow violation bureaus to hear cases. Municipalities can establish violation bureaus but if a person requests a hearing, the case is transferred either to the city's municipal court or to the district court. No comment.
Section 33	Allows the presiding superior court judge to have exclusive authority to organize and implement alternative dispute resolution programs within the county. Adequate resources and less time to resolution might eliminate the need for ADR. Would this be court sponsored or private not for profit? Hinders the continuing development of caselaw. Should be assigned to the ADR Subcommittee.
Section 34	Allows the presiding superior court judge to have exclusive authority to organize and implement nontraditional adjudication proceedings, with the consent of the parties. Can this be used with domestic relations cases? Should be assigned to the ADR Subcommittee.
Section 35	Allows the Supreme Court to alter filing fees for courts that accept electronic filings or that establish expedited adjudication or alternative dispute resolution programs. The change in the filing fee applies to all courts. Court should not have to raise the money required to operate. Impact of 695? Should be assigned to the Administration Subcommittee.
Section 36	The Board for Judicial Administration shall study the impact of the provisions of the act and develop rules for recommendation to the Supreme Court on electronic filings. The Board's report is due to the legislature and Supreme Court by January 1, 2002. No comment.
Section 37	The Board for Judicial Administration shall review statutes and court rules and make recommendations to the legislature for the use of nonjudicial personnel to process cases. No comment.
Section 38	The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) shall conduct a fiscal review of the state court system. No comment.
Section 39	The Washington State Institute for Public Policy shall study and evaluate the criminal laws and make recommendations to the legislature concerning provisions that may be decriminalized. Ask the Sentencing Guidelines Commission to consult judiciary during their study.
Section 40	The act may be known and cited as the Court Reform Act of 2000. No comment.
Section 41	Provides an effective date of July 1, 2001. No comment.

Supplemental Information

Ms. McQueen briefly reviewed the supplemental materials distributed to the committee.

Subcommittees

The committee reviewed each of the subcommittee charges. Several changes were suggested. These will be incorporated into the revised profiles.

Membership was suggested for each of the subcommittees. Those suggestions will be reviewed with the subcommittee chairs.

Committee members were requested to indicate the subcommittee on which they would serve.

Once revised, the profiles will be redistributed to the committee.

Other Business

The next committee meeting was set for April 14, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Jude Cryderman