Jurisdiction & Portability Work Group

August 25, 2000

Merger Subcommittee

Present: Members of Portability and Specialization Subcommittee: Randy Fritzler, Rena Hollis, Jon Ostlund, Gail Stone, Kathy Gerke; Members of Merger Subcommittee: Wayne Blair, Janice Niemi, Paul Parker, Richard Fitterer, Mike Kilborn, Dave Hardy, Ed Hansen, Steve Holman, Joe Gavinski, Marianne Walters, Morris Rosenberg, Larry McKeeman, Deborah Fleck, Bob Harris, Steve Buzzard, John Martin, Doug Levy, Ned Johnston, Paul Steere, Janet McLane, Yvonne Pettus.

Overview/Timeline

Paul Steere reminded the group of the process for review by the Project 2001 Committee and by the Board for Judicial Administration and the timeline for completion. The steering committee expects final Workgroup reports on 9/25.

Presentation and Discussion of Approaches to Court Administrative Cooperation and Coordination

Dr. John Martin presented to both this subcommittee and the Portability & Specialization Subcommittee a framework to encourage greater coordination of court services to achieve more efficiency and less duplication of effort. Significant strides can be made in coordinating the 1) core functions of courts, e.g. case management, record-keeping, adjudication etc. and 2) administrative infrastructure of courts, e.g. communications, budgeting, staff-training etc. The following are considered important considerations in helping the judicial system to actively coordinate activities:

• Flexibility - Jurisdictions can choose a variety of means toward greater collaboration depending on local needs
• Incentives - Financial help from the state to jump-start coordinating activities and promote them is important
• Assurances - Lingering fear of state control necessitates continued emphasis on the flexibility and oversight local jurisdictions are expected to exercise under a coordination approach.
• BJA - Leadership is crucial. The BJA can use a variety of methods to promote participation in coordinating activities. And it should direct the OAC to offer technical assistance, expertise, and guidance to courts wishing to change business practices.
• Oversight - A role of the BJA is to broadcast and promote the efforts of local courts and to respond to their needs for court rule changes or other assistance in solving the practical issues associated with coordination.

After the presentation, the Portability & Specialization Subcommittee met elsewhere to continue with its agenda.

Finding a Method for Promoting Coordination

While those present generally agreed that voluntary coordination of court services is desirable, less agreement could be found on the means to achieve it. The basic question for discussion was how to bring the important parties and stakeholders in a given jurisdiction to the table to discuss coordination in a meaningful way and thereafter be willing to work together to develop a plan of coordination. There was extensive discussion about the best way to accomplish this objective. At the prior meeting most of the discussion focused on some financial incentive from the state in the form of a simple budget note together with a court rule that would authorize trial court coordinating councils or committees in a given jurisdiction. Suggestions at this meeting ranged more broadly and included proposing specific statutory language, and/or a court rule, and/or a BJA resolution.

Representatives from city and county government voiced their concern that embodying this initiative in a court rule has a "non-inclusive" effect on the rest of local government outside the court system. Judge representatives suggested that changes in the way courts conduct their business should be led and managed by the judicial system in the form of a court rule or BJA resolution. Others viewed a partnership of cities, counties and the judicial system as the most effective way to promote voluntary coordination of services, particularly if a funding request is to be made to the legislature. After considerable discussion these points of consensus emerged:

• The leadership and initiative for court collaboration of business practices is expected to come primarily from the judiciary
• The executive and legislative branches of local government are expected to have a meaningful partnership role as courts plan, coordinate and reorganize activities.
• A combination of "authorities" should be devised to promote coordination activities, including a joint legislative initiative to request funding for coordination planning and projects, coupled with a court rule or BJA resolution to express the intent of the judiciary to pursue collaborative efforts.
• If provided by the Legislature, funding should be administered by the BJA.

Certification of Limited Jurisdiction Courts

The committee reviewed proposed ARLJ 7 and the set of Minimum Standards for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction adopted by the District and Municipal Court Judges Association in 1989. The city representatives raised the question of whether Supreme Court rules apply to municipal courts and presented relevant case law cites suggesting that such rules did not. They voiced the opinion that not all standards in either ARLJ 7 or the 1989 set are appropriate for all jurisdictions. Judge Buzzard noted that a committee of the District and Municipal Court Judges Association has undertaken a review of all the recommendations from the "Wilson" survey including the conclusion that a court certification process should be established. The Association has the committee's recommendations under advisement and will soon be taking a formal position. Although no formal vote was taken, all expressed support for the concept of some minimum standards for courts of limited jurisdiction, recognizing that the "devil was in the details."

Action: It was moved and seconded to table consideration of the proposed ARLJ 7, and recommend that BJA consider the proposed rule after receiving the report from the DMCJA on its review of proposals to establish minimum standards of certification for limited jurisdiction courts. All members except one voted in favor. The committee agreed that merger of district and municipal court services should be listed as one element of a coordination plan that jurisdictions should consider.

Next

A draft report from the subcommittee will be distributed prior to the September 20 meeting, which is intended to be the last meeting of the Workgroup. The meeting will be held at Two Union Square, 55th floor, Room 5537, beginning at 9:00 AM.