Justice Charles Z. Smith and Justice
Charles W. Johnson, Co-Chairpersons, Presiding
Call to order
The meeting was
called to order by Justice Charles Z. Smith at 10:35 A.M.
Present at the meeting were
Justice Charles Z. Smith, Justice Charles W. Johnson, Judge William W. Baker,
Judge Monica J. Benton, Ms. Madelyn Botta, Dr. George
S. Bridges, Ms. Myrna I. Contreras, Ms. Erica S. Chung, David J. Della, Judge
Deborah D. Fleck, Ms. Lourdes Fuentes, Judge M. Karlynn Haberly, Judge Douglas
W. Luna, Judge James M. Murphy, Ms. Denise C. Marti, Judge Richard F.
McDermott, Jr., Ms. Mary Campbell McQueen, Ms. Rosa M. Melendez, Tony Orange,
Kenneth E. Payson, Ms. P. Diane Schneider, Ms. Mary Alice Theiler, Brian A.
Tsuchida, and Judge Dennis D. Yule.
Persons not in
attendance with excused absences were Jeffrey A. Beaver, Robert C. Boruchowitz,
Judge James D. Cayce, Judge Patricia Hall Clark, Judge Ronald E. Cox, Lonnie
Davis, Dean Donna Claxton Deming, Judge Anne L. Ellington, Larry M. Fehr, Jose
E. Gaitan, Guadalupe Gamboa, Charles A. Jardine, Ms. Mary Elizabeth McKnew,
Judge Richard A. Jones, Justice Judge Kenneth H. Kato, Michael J. Killian, Ms.
Ada Ko, Ms. Lorraine Lee, Ms. Terry Mark, Judge Ron A. Mamiya, Judge Ricardo S.
Martinez, Judge LeRoy McCullough, Ms. Esther L. Patrick, Jose Quintana, Judge
Albert M. Raines, Jeffrey C. Sullivan, Judge Philip J. Thompson, Judge Vicki J.
Toyohara, and Judge Mary I. Yu.
Guests present were Judge Anthony P. Wartnik of King County
Superior Court and Ms. Judith Anderson of
the Administrative Office of the Courts to discuss the Fall 2002 Judicial Conference.
Justice Charles Z.
Smith thanked Ken Payson for hosting the Commission at the law office of Heller
Ehrman White and McAuliffe.
Justice Smith stated that the
Commission meeting format is different from the usual. Ms. Erica S. Chung indicated that the format
is similar to the Open Agenda meeting held in May 2001, but without a
facilitator. The purpose of the work session is for each
sub-committee, lead by the sub-committee chairperson, to review and modify
their goals established last May and to develop work plans
associated with each goal, finishing their goal(s) by the end of
the biennium June 30, 2003. The sub-committees will have two hours to
meet with their members, and then a representative from the sub-committee will
report back during the plenary session at The Education and Workforce Diversity Sub-committees
will meet for forty-five minutes to discuss the Fall Conference, then will break into their respective
Judge Monica J. Benton, chairperson, reported that
two new goals have been added: 1) Training Commission members to become
cultural diversity trainers/presenters. Idea is to develop a toolkit/curriculum
for trainers, then develop trainers based on the
toolkit/curriculum. 2) Incorporation of diversity in each training
session at the JudicialCollege. Education sub-committee will
incorporate diversity in one education session per year, starting with “Court
Management” at the 2003 JudicialCollege. Dr.
Bridges has agreed to obtain pro bono services from University of Washington
Law School students to develop scenarios that could be used by the trainers or
used in curriculum development at the JudicialCollege.
The Education sub-committee is continuing to work
with Judge Greg Sypolt, Spokane Juvenile Court, to provide training for
decision makers in the juvenile court system, such as police department,
prosecutor’s office, juvenile court, and more.
Evaluation and Implementation Sub-committee
Judge James M. Murphy,
chairperson, reported that proposed changes to CrR
3.2 has been published for comment by the Supreme Court and a decision whether
to adopt the rule will be made in July 2002. The sub-committee is moving towards a second
phase of the CrR 3.2 project, training on the proposed rule at the Fall 2002 Judicial Conference. The sub-committee will be presenting
the new rule and its applications, if
adopted by the Supreme Court, or the rationale for the need for the change, if
rejected by the Supreme Court. The CrR 3.2
choice session will review the old and new rules, followed by case scenarios
designed to stir discussion about its applications.
The sub-committee will review
the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government study
regarding disparity among drug offenders in prosecution and sentencing in
Washington and the role that the Research Sub-committee might play in looking
at the Seattle King County’s law enforcement practice of employing buy-bust
operations which creates disparity between the break down of membership in our
society as opposed to the percentage of minorities who
are in jail. Bob Boruchowitz will take the lead on this project.
Bridges stated that perhaps there are some resources
that could be marshaled to study the application of the Kennedy study
conclusions and results in action that could be taken by both the Superior
Court Judges Association and the BJA as well as the Minority and Justice
Commission, revisiting the ethnic disparity and prosecution considering the
role of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission and perpetuating this disparity in
light of the stated goal of trying to establish parity in sentencing and the
fact that this has not been true.
The sub-committee will also examine
the drug bill from the 2002 legislative session; its
application to drug courts and proportionality in sentencing. The
elimination of racial disparity in sentencing is also a project to remedy the
issue of wrongs that exist when a charged party gives an address at the time of
arrest and there is a subsequent change in address which eventually results in
the issuance of a warrant which works as a strike against the individual when
they are trying to get out of jail through application of Cr3.2
because they are considered a flight risk at that point. This
is a study being done at the present time and the project is to correct the
number of warrants going out to the wrong person or the wrong address.
Workforce Diversity Sub-committee
Judge Deborah D. Fleck stated
that the primary focus of the sub-committee meeting
was devoted to the Recruitment and Retention Manual being developed by Ms.
Sheryl Willert. The Sub-committee
discussed how to market the manual project for the Fall 2002 Judicial Conference. The
Sub-committee decided to produce and mail series
of post cards to create interest for the presentation at the Fall2002
Judicial Conference. Members
chose “A Smart Court
is a Diverse Court” as the
title for the recruitment and retention manual presentation because
it demonstrated content in a catchy brief statement. Kevin Payson and
David Della were asked to develop the post cards.
The sub-committee did not discuss
the other four goals due to the priority of the Fall Conference.
Brian Tsuchida, co-chairperson,
reported that discussion focused on the content and timeliness
of the publication of the newsletter. Examples of content
discussed were: more substantive legal information that could be very useful to
the lawyers who court staff and judges; articles of interest
from sub-committee members; and works of the commission as a whole. A
letter will be sent to Commission members to seek input on “themes” for the
newsletter. Members also agreed that one or two face-to-face
meetings of the sub-committee is
necessary to develop a work plan for various themes of the newsletter.
Mr. Tsuchida also reported that the sub-committee discussed incorporating
outreach activities; networking with resources
such as law schools and bar associations and generating
educational forums. Members are considering incremental
steps over the next two years due to the size of the sub-committee and budget.
a first step, the sub-committee offered its assistance
and coordinating a reception for Justice Rodriguez at the Fall 2002 Judicial Conference.
Many expressed preference for work sessions at
Commission meetings to facilitate more face to face meetings among members and
an opportunity to work with other sub-committees on projects
Justice Smith thanked the
Commission members for participating in the work
session and again thanked Ken Payson for hosting the Commission at his law firm.
Justice Smith indicated that after he retires from
the Supreme Court, he is interested in continuing on with the Commission but
would need to be appointed by the Supreme Court at the request of the