Jurisdiction & Portability Work Group

August 4, 2000

Merger Subcommittee

Members present: Wayne Blair, chair, Andra Motyka (for Dave Hardy), Mike Kilborn (replacing Doug Mincher), Bob Harris, Steve Holman, Richard Fitterer, Janice Niemi, Larry McKeeman, Deborah Fleck, Joe Gavinski, Marianne Walters, Morris Rosenblum.

Also present: Mary McQueen, Mike Sennett, Janet McLane, Gil Austin

Review of Materials from Other States

The group reviewed materials describing trial court consolidation in:

Michigan - Initiated in 1996, the Supreme Court selected six pilot jurisdictions with diverse characteristics to consolidate operations of the general and limited jurisdiction courts. A 1999 National Center for State Courts evaluation concluded that support for continued trial court consolidation should continue in Michigan, noting the following benefits from consolidation:

• Promotes efficient use of judicial resources
• Hastens delivery of judicial services to families
• Reduces operational costs
• Reduces the age and size of pending caseloads
• Employs information technology
• Promotes strong court leadership
• Generates strong support from local government
• Promotes more efficient budgeting
• Promotes coordination of record-keeping, probation functions.

Maine - Maine initiated steps toward unification of the two trial courts in 1989 which resulted in authority to cross-assign judges, equal pay for judges, unified budgeting and financial systems for the trial courts, unified court rules, and other changes. In 1999 additional steps were taken to streamline case management (direct appeals of district court matters to the Law Court (Supreme Court) exclusive divorce jurisdiction in district court, move all jury cases to superior courts, create a unified docket for scheduling and management of misdemeanor cases and traffic cases in superior court). Further, Maine created an Oversight Group to monitor implementation of these changes, and identify future on-going goals to be pursued.
(The subcommittee discussed the desirability of moving RALJ appeals directly to the Court of Appeals, or creating a motion on the merits type of review in superior court - topics being reviewed by Sam Cozza's subcommittee)

Minnesota - In the mid-80's Minnesota began a process to allowing local jurisdictions to proceed with a unified plan to merge the county, municipal, and district court into a single general jurisdiction court. Each jurisdiction has defined provisions relating to how it will be administered and how cases will be assigned.

Oregon - Judge Bob Harris described his understanding of the consolidation efforts in Oregon, which he characterized as largely driven by local government financial concerns. The state first took responsibility for certain cost, e.g. indigent defense, and then later merged the trial courts. Today all trial judges sit as general jurisdiction judges; court employees work under a single personnel system; the state funds the entire system with the exception of facilities. The system uses referees for traffic infractions. The County Clerk is elected.

Presentation about Municipal Court Issues

Judge Steve Holman presented survey results from 16 municipal court judges. The survey presented the advantages of city courts as perceived by these judges, as well as the financial incentives. The survey also asked judges to report on the way they manage conflicts of interest arising from their appointed status or their status as part time judges who have other employment.

The committee had extensive discussion about the appropriate role of municipal courts. All agreed that some problems, for example conflict of interest issues, pertain to all part time judges, whether they sit in district or municipal court. This led to a discussion about finding the values or attributes that should be associated with all courts. What services should all courts be expected to provide as part of a fundamental definition of being a court? For instance, a minimum driving distance for citizens and law enforcement? Probation services? Well-trained, competent and ethical judges?

To this end, the committee considered several possible areas of recommendation:

• Mandatory judicial education requirements for all judges.
• A set of minimum court operational standards that could be embodied in court rule (see proposed ARLJ 7) with consideration about the course of action to be followed if courts do not comply. Prior to the next meeting, the minimum standards for courts of limited jurisdiction adopted by DMCJA a couple of years ago will be distributed.

Consolidation - Costs Examples

The group reviewed cost estimates for the current trial court system, and several examples of how those costs might shift under various models of court consolidation.

Discussion and Consensus

The chair asked members to give their views of court consolidation and whether we should continue to explore it. All members expressed views that gains could be achieved by better and more deliberate coordination of court services, short of consolidation. None favored merger of trial courts; all favored increased cooperation and coordination. Some members noted that from a business perspective, consolidation may make some sense, but as a practical and political reality, Washington cannot achieve such a radical change. Mike Kilborn stressed the importance of setting goals that state the fundamental values or standards of courts and gave an example of a municipality that wanted to contract and pay for some district court services, but not others. A minimum level of operation should be established for all courts.

Jurisdictions represented on the committee have varying degrees of "coordination", some very informal and personality driven, while others have established more institutionalized ways of communicating and sharing resources. Members generally agreed that if "political will" is an impediment to greater coordination, more formal means of achieving it must be found. Major points of consensus were:

• Coordination committees made up of judges, court managers, clerks, lawyers and others should be established by court rule in each jurisdiction and asked to develop and implement a coordination plan for that jurisdiction.
• Financial incentives or rewards should be available for jurisdictions that want to institute specific court coordination activities pursuant to a plan. One specific strategy mentioned was a legislative budget note. Another idea was that the Board for Judicial Administration could administer such funds using "best practices" criteria.
• Specific examples of coordination should be formulated. They should be aimed at identifying cost effective methods for more "seamless administration" of courts. An obvious coordination example should include activities that increase the jurisdiction's ability to cross assign judges between the trial courts.

Next Meeting's Work (August 25)

• The group will expand the discussion of coordination among trial courts, reviewing a grid of services being prepared by Judge Fritzler's subcommittee and Theresa Doty's subcommittee (Trial Court Administration Workgroup).
• Determine the composition, authority, and role of "coordinating committees"..
• DMCJA Minimum Standards for courts will be reviewed in conjunction with proposed ARLJ 7.
• Discussion of the potential expansion of municipal court jurisdiction (civil, small claims)