Commission on Justice, Efficiency and Accountability
August 17, 1998
August 17, 1998
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Douglas Beighle, Commission chair.
It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the June 22, 1998 meeting as published. The motion passed unanimously.
Judge Donohue reported the subcommittee has recommended the adoption of the Trial Court Performance Standards and the formation of a Court Improvement Clearinghouse.
Constance Proctor questioned if other states have adopted the standards and if the Gender and Justice and Minority and Justice Commissions have looked at the standards. Questions were also raised about the measurement system and how the pilot courts in the state performed against the standards. Walt Howe asked who measures the performance in the states that have adopted the standards. Mary McQueen responded that in California the measurement was performed by the Judicial Council. Doug Beighle suggested it would be helpful to develop a presentation that explains the trial court performance standards and related measures, and how courts could be expected to use them. The presentation could be use examples of business areas within a court that could benefit from a trial court performance evaluation.
Doug welcomed Representive Huff. He indicated that there will be much competition for funds during the next legislative session. He summarized Referendum 49 and its impact on criminal justice funding.
Judge Berschauer indicated he had sent the Funding Subcommittee's chart out to all superior court judges. The Board of Trustees have not taken formal action on the options listed in the chart. Judge McBeth indicated the District and Municipal Court Judges Association is comfortable with the concepts and would support the recommendations. Contingent upon further feedback and comments from the trial court associations, Commission members agreed that a general discussion of the Funding Subcommittee's ideas with interested parties should continue.
Nancy Sullins reported on the subcommittee's discussion draft. It was suggested the report include an explanation of each of the functions discussed so that non-court readers could better understand what each of the areas entail. Nancy commented that much of this explanation is in my committee minutes. Also, it was suggested that each of the functional areas should indicate which court level currently performs the function.
An open discussion time with the chair and three subcommittee chairs was discussed. A question and answer time would also be included. Use of the responder units to gather opinions on funding options was also mentioned. Each commission member should be individually invited to attend the fall conference session.
Mary distributed the document "Trend in the State Courts." It includes a description of four state funded trial court systems. All four states have funded trial courts in a different manner.
The next meeting was set for October 14, 1998, time and location to be announced.
|Courts | Organizations | News | Opinions | Rules | Forms | Directory | Library|
|Back to Top | Privacy and Disclaimer Notices|