Best Practices Committee

October 23, 2006

Board for Judicial Administration
Best Practices Committee
October 23, 2006

Meeting Minutes

Members Present:	Judge Julie Spector, Chair
(all present via conference call)	Ms. Pat Austin
	Ms. Linda Bell
	Judge Steve Brown
	Ms. Tricia Crozier
	Ms. Kim Eaton
	Judge Janet Garrow
	Mr. John Gray
	Judge Michael Lambo
	Judge Eric Lucas
	Justice Susan Owens
	Ms. Yvonne Pettus
	Judge Ann Schindler
Members Absent:	Ms. Pam Daniels
	Ms. Andra Motyka
	Mr. Dave Ponzoha
	Mr. Warren Swanson
Guests Present:	Mr. Charles Benedict
Staff Present:	Ms. Meagan Eliot
	Mr. Jeff Hall
	Mr. Carl McCurley

1. Approval of Minutes

Ms. Eliot asked if there were any changes to the September 20 minutes. There were none. The minutes were accepted as written.

Four questions were posed to the committee. The committee’s response to each question is described below:

1. Does the measure appear to give meaningful information about court performance?

   The committee agreed that it provides sufficiently meaningful information to move to the phase two testing. Staff recommendations for changes to the survey will not be included.

2. Are the objectives stated appropriately?

   The committee approved the objectives as stated.

   In addition, new language was adopted for question #2 of the survey. It will now read: “Courthouse facilities or procedures can accommodate the need to separate parties.”

3. Is the measure scope adequate?

   Concern was raised about expanding the timeframe for identifying attorneys that have practiced in the court; it could further lower the response rate by getting more attorneys in the sample that rarely appear in the court. Because it will not significantly lower the response rate and because the respondents can be looked at in separate groups (regularly vs. rarely appearing attorneys), the committee decided to approve the scope as recommended by staff.

4. Is the standard methodology and evidence appropriate and sufficient? Would it persuade a knowledgeable person?

   The committee agreed to adopt the staff-recommended methodology for phase two testing, directing staff to find an online survey tool that will prevent multiple responses by one attorney as much as possible and to identify a cost-effective method for sending printed surveys to attorneys without email addresses.

The committee unanimously approved the measure for advancement to phase two, with the above changes incorporated.

The committee will be notified with possible dates for the next meeting – likely after the 2007 legislative session is finished.