Jurisdiction & Portability Work Group

June 8, 2000

Members present: Wayne Blair, Chair; Jeannie Hale, Robert Harris, Sam Cozza, Deborah Fleck, Jeff Ramsdell, Joel Penoyar, Randy Fritzler, Stephen Holman, Susan Owens, Richard Fitterer, Madelyn Botta, Dave Hardy, Jill O'Cain, Doug Mincher, Rena Hollis, Marianne Walters, Jon Ostlund, Morris Rosenberg, Jerome Shulkin, Adam Kline, Jim Bamberger.

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. Recommendations for 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.

Wayne Blair reviewed the specific charge of the workgroup, noting the major topics assigned to the group are:

  • consolidation or merger of courts
  • specialty courts
  • efficient use of judicial resources, e.g. part time judges, retired judges, pro tem usage, CLJ/superior exchange, etc.
  • resolution of disputes out of the court setting
  • transferring cases to achieve workload balance (portability)
Some members expressed caution about a "one size fits all" solution to court problems since problems and constraints are different in each jurisdiction. Others noted the underlying problem of inadequate funding which leaves courts with little flexibility to solve their own problems. Other members noted the perceived problem of case delay as well as the responsibility of courts to continually look for better ways to manage cases, despite insufficient funds. The attempts in King County to move excess judicial resources in the district court to help with superior court matters was noted as an example of a good idea which has encountered policy or political impediments.

Another comment suggested that a "big bang" approach to court improvement probably will not be successful - that the Legislature is unlikely to significantly increase funding for courts without seeing certain reforms. Incremental steps that are taken in a coordinated way among the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches is the best approach. It was noted that while there is a perception that municipal courts are viewed as revenue producers, the Legislature has given cities little choice but to find revenue generating means to handle the mandates and new responsibilites placed on local governments.

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

Overview of Perceived Problems - Brief Review of Senate Bill 6191

Materials in the notebook gave members a summary of the problems - whether perceived or real- that are often articulated by legislators, court professionals, lawyers and the public. Members also reviewed a summary of the SB 6191, which contained a wide range of court reform ideas to address perceived problems within the current court structure.

Overview of Administrative Sharing in Washington Courts

Members reviewed materials in the notebook describing current innovative sharing of court judicial and administrative personnel. Clark County Judges Randy Fritzler and Bob Harris gave an overview of the combined trial court domestic violence calendar that effectively uses a centralized approach to resolving superior and district cases that involve DV. To accomplish this, several "impediments" were overcome: district court judges were appointed as superior court commissioners; district court administrative staff were "deputized" by the clerk to handle superior court matters. Benefits noted by the judges include:
  • Better use of judicial and administrative resources
  • Coordinated resolution of criminal and civil cases involving domestic violence
  • Long term "therapeutic" efforts to solve problems resulting in domestic violence

Overview of Proposals to Shift Workload between Superior and District Courts

Judge Sam Cozza presented several ideas, more completely described in the materials, to:
  • Establish exclusive jurisdiction in the district court for civil cases of $10,000 value or less
  • Give authority to superior court, on its own motion, to transfer cases to the district court that are within the civil jurisdictional limit of that court
  • Allow superior court to appoint district court judges as pro tems without consent of the parties.

Major Problems/Potential Study Areas for Workgroup

The group listed the following topics as potential areas of concentration:
  • Expand use of pro tem judges, to include consideration of retired judges
  • Modify jurisdictional limitations of trial courts, to include exclusive jurisdiction for district court, new subpoena powers, and an increase in small claims jurisdiction
  • Explore the "threshold" of certain crimes to see if an increase or decrease could improve the balance of workload and flow of cases
  • Explore types of cases that should be resolved without judicial resources
  • Evaluate a centralized method of probation supervision and payment of obligations to reduce duplication and confusion of multiple probation departments servicing a single defendant
  • Evaluate desirability of mandatory arbitration in limited jurisdiction courts
  • Consider state funded juror per-diem at a level comparable to minimum wage
  • Evaluate increased use of referees and mediators to relieve judicial resources
  • Insufficient funding for courts
  • Evaluate the effect of inadequate facilities on the efficient movement of cases, public access and security
  • Decentralize court services for better public service - less travel for citizens for infractions, small claims cases etc.
  • Identify impediments to coordinating cases for "specialized" case management e.g. family court, domestic violence
  • Evaluate expanded use of courthouse facilitators to additional types of cases
  • Promote reasonable access for all - improve pro se calendars and procedures; fund civil justice access.
Additional Materials Requested by Members:
  • Overview of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Assessment (Wilson) Study
  • Overview of 1999 court funding proposal
  • Summary of public opinion poll
  • Case studies of court system structure in other states
After considerable discussion, three subcommittees were established:

1) Merger of Trial Court; 2) Portability and Specialization; and 3) Jurisdiction and Pro Temp

Each member volunteered for a subcommittee. Specific charges for each group will be developed and distributed, and a leader for each will be designated by Wayne Blair.

A suggestion was made to schedule subcommittee work in conjunction with the next meeting of the full work group to capitalize on member travel time and expense.

Next Meeting Dates:

June 29, 2000, 9:00a.m. to 4:00.p.m., Financial Center, Seattle
July 20, 2000, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., West Coast Hotel, Cascade Room, SeaTac
August 25, 2000, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., location to follow

 

  

Privacy and Disclaimer Notices Sitemap

© Copyright 2025. Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts.

S5