Minority and Justice Commission
Evaluation and Implementation Sub-Committee
Office of the Administrator for the Courts
Two Union Square
September 10, 1999
Judge James M. Murphy, Co-Chairperson, Presiding
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Judge James M. Murphy at 10:00 o'clock in the morning, in conference room 1606, Two Union Square in Seattle.
Present at the meeting were: Judge James M. Murphy, Mr. Leo Hamagi, (attending in behalf of Robert Boruchowitz), Judge Ronald E. Cox, Ms. Denise C. Marti, Judge Kenneth H. Kato, Ms. Leana Lamb, and Ms. Donna V. McConnell Adams.
Persons not attending (with excused absences) were: Mr. Robert C. Boruchowitz, and Judge Deborah D. Fleck.
Judge James M. Murphy reinstated the goals of the Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee to keep task oriented. Judge Murphy addressed to the subcommittee, these goals through background information on the Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee, arising from Dr. George S. Bridge's report "A Study on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Superior Court Bail and Pre-Trial Detention Practices in Washington." Judge Murphy asked for a consensus regarding opening discussion on either the Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee Recommendations section of Dr. Bridge's report, or analysis of Court Rule 3.2. The subcommittee agreed by common consent, to review the recommendations for formal action.
The Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee reviewed the Court Rule 3.2 project concerning analysis and development of a task force. The Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee concluded that the basis for deciding the current objectives of the subcommittee are:
In relation to Dr. George S. Bridge's report the Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee discussed, and agreed, that any addendum should be presented through the commission in a formal administrative structure, upon its release
- Development of a relationship between the Research Subcommittee and the Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee.
- To evaluate Dr. George S.Bridge's study recommendations.
- To determine whether to initiate the analysis project.
Task Force Recommendations
The Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee reviewed the priorities listed under the "Task Force Recommendations submitted to the Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee for Formal Action" list. These priorities are:
The Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee established that more discussion was in order in regards to the "Brochures and Seminars on the Judicial Selection Process," from the "Task Force Recommendations submitted to the Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee for Formal Action," list. Judge James M. Murphy announced that he would discuss with Chief Justice Richard P. Guy in regards to the full implementation of the Task Force's Equal Employment Opportunity Proposition, covered under the same list.
- Increase the number of minorities hired as bailiffs, law clerks, magistrates, and commissioners at all levels of the judiciary.
- Measures to encourage cooperative approaches between tribal and state courts.
- Development and review of a complaint referral process of procedure.
- Establishment of a community law education program.
- Development of a workforce diversity program for the court system.
- Adoption of a workforce diversity program.
The Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee discussed recommendations for possible solution of the priorities. The recommendations to priority 1 (the increase of minority judicial workers) are:
- Suggest to the Workforce Diversity Subcommittee the development of a pool and process.
- Address perceptions that an applicant has to be ranked #1 and #2 in the scoring and selection process to even be considered as law clerks.
- Create minority bar associations, and a minority job fair related solely on the development of a diverse applicant pool.
- Hold a law-clerk seminar to advertise other court/judicial opportunities.
The Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee decided that the first step to solution of priority 2 (measures for cooperation between tribal and state courts) would be; to invite the Board for Court Education to attend the Judicial College, for purpose of Tribal Court representation.
The Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee discussed priority 3 (development of a complaint referral process), and suggested the consideration of appointing an ombudsman for purpose of collecting, and distributing the complaints received from public forums. The Subcommittee further added that it would be necessary to educate the public as to the availability of this service.
Court Rule 3.2
The Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee moved the discussion to the topic of Court Rule 3.2. Through discussion, questions arouse surrounding the direction to be taken with Court Rule 3.2. The questions were:
- What parts of Court Rule 3.2 need to be delegated for discussion with the Research Subcommittee?
- Is there a sufficient amount of information currently on Court Rule 3.2?
- Should the Rules Change Process be put into effect?
- Is there built in biases surrounding Court Rule 3.2?
The Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee decided that an appointment of a body to discuss, and create a list of recommendations for Court Rule 3.2, was in order. The Subcommittee also agreed that the biases of Court Rule 3.2 should be listed, and cataloged for review. Mr. Leo Hamagi raised the issue of other body factions that are currently analyzing relevant objective factors concerning 3.2 biases. Mr. Hamagi added that would develop a cataloged list of the relevant objective factors of Court Rule 3.2, to present to the subcommittee.
Chair Person Judge James M. Murphy asked Mr. Robert C. Boruchowitz, to lead the development of a study group based on the relevant factors of Court Rule 3.2. The Subcommittee also recommended that the rule should be officially applied in Judicial College Education. The subcommittee discussed the recognition of the Task Force of affected people under the relevant factors of Court Rule 3.2. This task force is composed of defenders, and the Judicial Commission. The Subcommittee recommended the development issuing a task force name list. Judge James M. Murphy announced that he would speak with Mr. Robert Boruchowitz to obtain these names. The Subcommittee agreed through common consent that it would allocate necessary funding for meetings that will be created upon development of a study group for the relevant factors of 3.2. The Subcommittee concluded that further group action in regards to Court Rule 3.2 would be based on the combined resources of both the Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee, and Research Subcommittee.
Judge James M. Murphy announced to the Evaluation and Implementation Subcommittee, that he would ask Judge Monica J. Benton (of the Minority and Justice Commission), for feedback, comments, and further discussion concerning the "Racial/Ethnic Disparities and Exceptional Sentences in Washington State," and the Racial and Ethnic and Ethnic Disparities in the Prosecution of Felony Cases in King County" reports. Judge Murphy told the subcommittee that he would make a formal recommendation, or action to either re-distribute reports for comment or closure based on Judge Benton's input.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m.