Jurisdiction & Portability Work Group

July 20, 2000

Portability and Specialization Subcommittee

Present: Larry Gossett, Rena Hollis, Jon Ostlund, Kathy Gerke, Janet McLane

The group revisited the decisions made at the June 29 meeting concerning the areas of court operation that could be coordinated to achieve more efficiency of resources. Throughout the meeting discussion turned to the various ways coordination or "functional consolidation" could be productive in Washington courts. Several issues emerged

• A suggestion that municipal courts might be able to shoulder additional workload if they were given jurisdiction, concurrent with district court, of civil matters.
• A suggestion that the current statute (RCW 3.50.810) that prevents a municipality from re-establishing a city court for ten year after it terminates such a court may have the unintended affect of discouraging cities to consider coordinating their court services with a county district court. Without a reasonable "escape clause", cities may feel a chilling effect if they consider contracting with a district court.

The group agreed to organize the list of court operational areas that could be coordinated in a chart that describe each in greater detail. Janet McLane will work on a draft.

The subcommittee spent considerable time discussing the core mission of courts and determining which potential areas of operation might be conducted outside the court system. The group also attempted to identify where such business areas might go if they were moved from the court system:

• 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 group 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 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 are immune, should continue this duty. 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. Janet McLane will work on drafting 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 whatever entity 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.)