Problem Definition Work Group
Meeting Notes
March 27, 2003

Members in attendance:

Jan Michels, Co-Chair	Sharon Blackford
Judge Pat Burns	Judge Robert Harris
Judge James Heller	Rena Hollis
Ron Miles	Sharon Paradis
Janet Sweeney	Marianne Walters

Guest: Wayne Blair

Staff: Yvonne Pettus, Colleen Clark

Welcome and Introductions

The meeting was called to order. Jan Michels introduced herself and asked other members to introduce themselves.

Information/Materials Presented

The group reviewed the materials provided by the members and staff. There are to be six sections to the final report.

1. Introduction

2. Risks Associated with Inadequate Funding

3. Mission of the Trial Courts

4. Current Inadequacies

5. Cost of Core Functions

6. Balance of Funding

It was noted that most sections have had at least preliminary work done on them, with the exception of Section V, currently there are two versions to Section I.

A lot of information has been gathered, although it may be a bit too general and more detail needs to be inserted. For example:

• Include the importance of public service and public access

• Target legislators, discuss the liability of not having adequate staff training (risk management/enforcement)

• Probation services: should this be dispensed through the Judicial or Executive Branch? Ron Miles will draft a section for the report on this issue.

Special Testimony/Presenters

It was agreed by the committee that it might be good to ask a representative of the Supreme Court Civil Equal Justice Task Force to speak at the April meeting; and to have a representative from the Dispute Resolution Centers speak at the April meeting.

Issues Discussed

Courts need alternative dispute resolution services. There are three types of court-mandated arbitration: private, court-ordered, community dispute resolution centers. (see attachment) These may be required by statute, rule, court-ordered by a judge, or sought privately by the parties. Rena Hollis will draft a section of the report concerning alternative dispute resolution.

There was discussion about Office of Public Defense (OPD) and the inherent conflict of interest in contracting with them. It was noted that in some states the OPD falls under the Executive Branch. It should not be a court obligation to run the OPD. Ideally it would be the “State Office of Public Defense.” Sharon Blackford will draft a section regarding the provision of adequate defense.

There was also discussion of specialty courts (Uniform Family, Mental Health, Drug, Domestic Violence); and their importance in today’s changing world. Sharon Paradis will draft a section on specialty courts and research-based treatment alternatives.

A suggested catchphrase is "a more lasting and better restorative justice approach".

Problems Identified

Action/Decisions

The committee split up into subgroups to work on their parts of the report.

Yvonne will continue to refine the “Cost of Trial Court Mission Components” for the next meeting.

Topics/Materials for Next Meeting

The subgroups will continue to work together to polish their individual parts of the report. These reports must be emailed to Yvonne no later than Tuesday, April 8.

Future Meeting Dates

The next meeting date will be April 10 at Two Union Square, Suite 1606 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.