Trial Court Administration Work Group

June 6, 2000

Members Present: Jim Cayce, Chair; Jay Fossett, Robert Alsdorf, Kathleen O'Connor, Susan Hahn, Leonard Costello, Sara Derr, Gary Crutchfield, Rod Fitch, James Heller, Dean Logan, Mike Planet, Yolande Williams, Maury Baker, Mike Shelton, Deborah Perluss

Others Present: Janet McLane, Kathy Gerke

Overview of Project 2001

Paul Steere, Co-Chair of the Project 2001 Committee reviewed the goals of the project, noting that the recommendations will be presented to the newly structured Board for Judicial Administration for their action. Both short-term and long-term improvements for the courts are expected. The Board will inherit long-term recommendations for Judicial Administration for continued work. Each work group is charged with specific areas of concentration, but each has autonomy to undertake other issues as appropriate.

The timeline for the project was reviewed.

Brief History of Court Reform in Washington

Materials recounting previous court improvement efforts were presented in the notebook. Themes that run throughout many of these efforts are:

• Increase state funding responsibility for judicial salaries and other judicial system programs
• Diminish duplication of jurisdiction among trial courts
• Strengthen role of presiding judges
• Combine judicial district to enable all judges to be full time.

Brief Overview of Court Reform in California

Judge Cayce asked Yolande Williams for an account of the court reform efforts in California. Yolande emphasized:

• Significant reform has taken place slowly over nearly 15 years
• An underlying goal was to increase efficiency in the use of resources in the judicial branch
• The state did make an early commitment to significantly increase state funding to courts as improvements were achieved - a coordinated plan evolved among all three branches of government
• Planning teams of administrators were formed to operationalize the merger of trial courts, focusing first on finance and accounting aspects, then on personnel issues (labor contracts, retirement systems, staffing standards etc.).

What were some improvements achieved in California that might take place without a consolidation of courts?

• Regional approach to programs - more resource sharing
• Pooling personnel recruitment efforts - why have separate recruitment efforts when courts are looking for the same staff?
• Implement policy, statutory, court rule changes regionally - make better use of training and implementation resources.

Overview of Administrative Sharing in Washington Courts

Members reviewed materials in the notebook describing current innovative sharing of court administrative personnel. Judges Hahn and Fitch elaborated on the combined administration of the Yakima Superior and District Courts, noting the following benefits

• Increased sharing of courtroom space, personnel, interpreter management, accounting staff
• Enabled trial court judges to speak more uniformly with a single voice
• Realized "extra" staff resources by combining tasks each court was doing separately e.g. purchasing, thereby freeing up a staff person to do other things.

Gary Crutchfield offered an analogy to the courts' challenge of improving administrative efficiencies by describing the decision of the tri-cities (Kennewick, Pasco, Richland) to remain independent while finding ways to eliminate unnecessary duplication of city services and programs. Judge Derr commented that Spokane County and City had entered into a number of interlocal agreements to use resources efficiently.

Mike Shelton noted that Island County is moving toward an agreement with the major cities to provide municipal court services through the district court. While "circuit-riding" has been limited, the addition of a court commissioner may allow for the judicial officer to travel to the municipalities more.

Maury Baker said that Kitsap County has consolidated many court services, but voiced his caution that we should look at reengineering the business of courts rather than simply find new ways to do the same tasks. We should eliminate non-value-added tasks from the courts, such as the role of collection agency for DOL.

In response to a question about which work group would work on "core mission" of courts, Judge Cayce indicated that there is some overlap expected among the groups and it will fall to the chairs to parse out specific areas of emphasis.

Charge

While there is general agreement that courts are underfunded, the charge of the Trial Court Administration work group is to identify ways that courts can use current administrative resources (staff, technology etc) most efficiently. How can courts realize the greatest benefits from current resources? Where are there impediments to the effective use of administrative resources? With this in mind the work group listed the following work/study areas:

• Administrative difficulties in transferring/combining cases for specialty courts such as family court, domestic violence court etc. What keeps this from happening smoothly?
• Duplication of court administrative resources - Create an inventory of best practices for most efficient use of staff. Examples of study areas: jury recruitment (are there counties that do NOT use centralized recruitment?) multiple probation department supervision of a single defendant (would a centralized method of supervision be more effective?), universal cashiering, and electronic access for payments and appearances
• Core Mission of Courts - Are there functions that should be performed outside the court setting? Examples discussed include traffic infraction payments, child support enforcement activities, collection of restitution and other obligations
• Facility Standards for Access and Safety.

Role of Presiding Judge

As an explicit part of the charge, the work group reviewed the current court rules describing the role of the presiding judge in the superior and limited jurisdiction court. They also reviewed California's pending presiding judge rule. Term of office, leadership ability, experience, and training were viewed as the important components in designing the role of presiding judges. There appeared to be consensus among the group that while Washington's rules may not require a complete overhaul, a stronger and clearer statement about the expected role of presiding judges would be beneficial, particularly in the areas of assignment of cases and sanctions for non-compliance. Also considered was a way to alter the general view that "everyone gets a turn" at being PJ regardless of interest or experience, perhaps with a statement that characterizes the specific attributes and skills that are crucial to being a successful presiding judge. Interest in having comprehensive education/training tracks for presiding judges was also noted.

Next meeting

The next meeting is scheduled for July 18, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., West Coast, Cascade Room, Seatac. Members suggested the following information be presented:

• California's development of a functional analysis for determining administrative staff resources (Williams/McLane)
• Examples of how efficiencies were achieved among the tri-cities through interlocal agreements, sharing of program costs etc. (Crutchfield)
• Overview of Trial Court Performance Standards
• Case Studies - how to optimize court administrative resources

ADJOURN