Jurisdiction & Portability Work Group

July 20, 2000

Members Present: Wayne Blair, chair, Robert Harris, Steven Buzzard, Joe Gavinski, Sam Cozza, Deborah Fleck, Jeff Ramsdell, Joel Penoyar, Larry McKeeman, Susan Owens, Jon Ostlund, Madelyn Botta, Dave Hardy, Jill O'Cain, Rena Hollis, Marianne Walters, Larry Gossett, Jim Bamberger, Adam Kline, Richard Fitterer, Janice Niemi, Tom Swayze

Others Present: Mary McQueen, Kathy Gerke, Janet McLane, Gil Austin, Jan Michels, Gail Stone, Phil Talmadge

6/29 Minutes: Approved

Justice Talmadge addressed the workgroup and highlighted the following systemic problems which must be addressed by court reform.

• State finances are not as available because of I-601 and I-695
• Civil delay is unacceptable-in some jurisdictions three years to trial
• Courts are overwhelmed with criminal cases and the difficulty of resolving cases within the speedy trial limits
• Judicial resources are used on name changes, monitoring probation, probate cases etc., which should be handled by other, less expensive resources
• Need to upgrade technology in the judicial system
• 300,000 unenforced warrants
• Juror response is very low - in some counties only 20% of those summoned respond.
• There is organization duplication among trial courts - the public doesn't understand differences among the trial courts
• RALJ appeals to superior court waste time and could be better processed by appellate courts

Justice Talmadge observed that the increasing cost of the courts with declining state resources will cause state and local legislators to scrutinize the way courts do business, and question the duplication of roles and services in the system. Courts and judges will be expected to be accountable for greater efficiency.

He emphasized that the intent of court reform legislation introduced in the 2000 session was to give jurisdictions a set of options - rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. The bill addressed multiple areas of court improvement that do not require restructuring of the courts. What is required is the recognition that courts must change the way they have historically operated, across all aspects of their business.

Subcommittee Reports:

Jurisdiction and Pro Tem Subcommittee (Judge Cozza)
Judge Cozza reported the group is working on:

• ways to achieve cross-assignability of trial court judges.
• Redefining some lower level felony matters and raising the ceiling on some misdemeanors
• Mandatory arbitration in district court as an option
• Small claims court reforms
• RALJ appeals revisions
• Implementation of courthouse facilitators in all superior courts
• Issues concerning conflicts of interest with part time judges are also being studied.

Portability and Specialization Subcommittee (Judge Fritzler)
In Judge Fritzler's absence, Janet McLane reported the group continued discussion about the core mission of courts, and what, if any, functions should be handled outside the court system. The following areas were discussed:

• Name changes - recommend placing responsibility with county auditors
• Emancipation petitions - recommend keeping within the court system, but modifying from a superior court civil matter to a juvenile court civil action. The group believes the juvenile court is better equipped with social service expertise to assess these petitions.
• Monitoring guardianships - Upon discussion, the subcommittee changed its position on this area. Because of the potential for abuse, the interest of the legislature in protecting vulnerable people, and the absence of another appropriate authority to oversee these cases, guardianships should remain as a mission of courts.
• Detention - recommend as an executive branch function. Indigency screening - recommend screening be done outside the court, as long as the court has the ultimate authority to review screening decisions. Returning firearms to felons - recommend placing responsibility with county sheriff (note - at the full workgroup meeting, this recommendation was "overruled" due to the view that the responsibility carries considerable liability concerns, and as a result judicial officers who have immunity from prosecution in their official duties, should continue this responsibility. There was also the sense that the duty is more than administrative, and requires case by case consideration best done by a judge.)
• Coroner's Inquests - no recommendation. More information about the practice is required. Consideration should be given to the whole set of inquest proceedings.
• Truancy Petitions - recommend shifting responsibility for greater filtering of petitions by the schools. If schools had a social service worker to assess cases they could hold initial hearings at the school or with a community board. The courts should be involved later in the process for non-compliance. The subcommittee will work on a proposal. Receiving, transmitting, collecting accounting for funds - recommend a single entity at the local jurisdiction, within the executive branch, have responsibility for this activity. One suggestion was that county clerks assume this. Consensus is that the same entity that collects other local government payments should receive and collect court obligations. (note - at the full workgroup meeting, the subcommittee was asked to also look at the current duty of superior courts to hold penalty hearings for defendants who fail to pay financial obligations - Jon Ostlund will prepare a briefing paper on this.)

Merger Subcommittee (Wayne Blair)
Wayne Blair reported the subcommittee continued a lively discussion about the pros and cons of structural consolidation of the trial courts. The materials furnished at the meeting included legislation, court rules and reports from California that described in more detail the process initially of coordination (cooperation) and later of consolidation (merger) of the trial courts. The subcommittee also considered some materials prepared by Judge Robert Harris regarding his initial views on the cost to the state of a total trial court merger. Jan Michels was asked to present her observations on improving trial court administration based upon her 18 years as the King County Superior Court Clerk and as a member of the Advisory Committee to the National Center for State Courts study on Trial Court Structure and Performance (1996). This report studies eight jurisdictions that have consolidated their trial courts and evaluates whether consolidation of trial court benches and administrative functions are associated with an enhanced level of trial court performance. Attached is a summary of her comments. Steve Buzzard, a part-time municipal court judge, gave some of his observations on why cities form municipal courts. He cited as some of the reasons: less cost to prosecute a case and more local control. He does not see issues such as lack of judicial experience, judicial independence or possible conflicts of interest as a problem in most municipal courts. The municipal courts are expected to provide additional information at the subcommittee's August 4 meeting about the incentives of cities to form municipal courts. The subcommittee will also review the proposed ARLJ 7 which concerns certification of courts of limited jurisdiction, and more materials collected from California and other states.

Timeline and next meetings:

Judge Swayze reinforced the necessity for groups to make decisions and complete their work by end of September. The next meetings for the J and P Workgroup are:

Principles for Court Improvement

By Jan Michels, July 2000

Project 2001's intent is to develop a court improvement agenda. I believe that this agenda could focus on establishing a series of principles that are later assigned to implementation teams which are funded and staffed and are charged with developing the "how" of implementing the principles. From my perspective I offer the following possible principles for court improvement.

1. Presiding Judge Authority and Training Presiding Judge's need ultimate authority over case management, judicial calendar assignments, and court administration. Presiding Judges need special training and at least two-year terms to be effective at these tasks.
2. Local Judicial Coordination: Each county or judicial district should create a judicial district governance structure with authority to reassign cases, judges, case types, or other matters.
3. Flexible use of Judicial Resources: Eliminate restrictions for using elected/ appointed judges from any court level or any jurisdiction.
4. Specialty Courts: Consolidate specialty courts (drug, mental illness, family) to one per judicial district or groups of districts and assure adequate authority to have that court deal with the ancillary matters to the specialty.
5. Joint Administration: Where courts are co-located (define as "within X blocks") or courts have few judges (define as under X) share or consolidate administrative staff and functions.
6. Court Management of Cases: Require that Courts establish effective case management practices to assure compliance with the established time-in-process standards.
7. Court Control of Court Functions: Define court support to include all functions of record management, calendars, jury management, courtroom minutes, public access, caseload management, administrative support (budget and facilities), information technology, and special services (facilitators, DV advocates, probation, social workers, GAL, etc.) as critical judicial branch functions. Develop methods to meet the needs without bifurcated management or duplication of overhead.

   Define all court records as the court's records and assert court authority over access, maintenance, ownership, and management of the courts records whether the record is hard copy, digitized or digital.

   Specify court ownership and authority over the content and use of electronic data; limit access where there is a privacy concern but clarify that court needs must prevail.

8. Best Practices by Case or Process Type: Establish that courts that comply with best practices and hit waves of case filing increases, unusually demanding cases, or other unusual circumstances are entitled to special relief or funding.
9. Court Staff Giving Procedural Advice: Allow court staff to dispense procedural advice; authorize and grant "hold harmless" by Supreme Court Order
10. Court Certification: Eliminate non-attorney and part time judges; do not allow courts to work under legislative or executive authority- require certification before a "court" can be created. Develop minimum standards and best practices before "courts" can adjudicate cases.
11. New Approach to Family Law Matters: Develop new, non-adversarial processes for family matters.
12. Judges Manage Court Proceedings: Implement sanctions and discipline for lawyers who prolong the process of adjudication or engage in unprofessional tactics. Assure the public that courts protect citizens and other professionals from the corrosive effects of uncivil and unprofessional tactics.
13. Increase Access and Friendliness of Courts: Create new forms of pro se access and assistance. Aim to reduce costs and delays; speed the process; reduce "legalese" and other impediments.
14. Internet Use: Establish ".Courts" geared to helping citizens interactively navigate and understand the justice system. Let the site develop filings, assist the self-represented, and 'drill down' to concrete assistance.

Principles for "How"

1. Funding as an Incentive: Create incentives for courts and local government to migrate toward the improvement principles by offering state funding, incentive grants, and other support to courts and programs that implement the principles.
2. Judicial Voice: Increase the amplitude and force of the statewide third branch for adequate funding, case management, and administrative support for courts. Base the needs on the public interest and solicit public demands for effective and responsive courts.