Washington Courts: Judicial News Report Detail

Trial Court Coordination Councils take shape to Increase cooperation, collaboration amongst trial court levels

Leaving turf boundaries and egos far behind, six counties in Washington State sent teams of judges, administrators and clerks to form the core of what may soon become a buzzphrase among the court community, "The TCCC".

Trial Court Coordinating Councils-or TCCC's-are now being formed by counties throughout the state with a specific purpose in mind: to work toward maximum utilization of judicial and court resources among all trial court levels.

From discussions of creating a universal phone number for all court levels to providing court customers with the assistance of a community court 'concierge', inter-jurisdictional teams from Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane Counties took up the TCCC challenge by attending the March 21-23 Court Management Institute (CMI) program entitled, "Team Building for Court Leadership: 2001 and Beyond."

Sponsored by the Board for Court Education, faculty included Spokane County Superior Court Judge James Murphy, co-chair of the Board for Judicial Administration (BJA); Judge Ernest Borunda, a former judge in San Diego County and current Dean of the National Judicial College; and Yolande Williams, Administrator for Seattle Municipal Court.

Project 2001 Initiative

In taking a fundamental look at court reform, the BJA's Project 2001 Committee included a cornerstone recommendation to increase cooperation, coordination and collaboration among the trial courts.

The goal included three distinct actions: Increasing the authority of presiding judges; allowing for the 'portability' of judges among the trial court levels; and fostering collaborations among trial courts. In regard to TCCC's, the report recommended:

Trial court judges, clerks, court administrators, lawyers, citizens and other local officials in other branches of government including cities and counties must 'come to the table' to discuss trial court coordination in a meaningful way, and thereafter be willing to work together to develop and implement a plan of coordination.

The CMI offered an opportunity to help facilitate such a discussion, along with providing the tools to formulate TCCC's throughout the state.

"It was an excellent conference that gave all the participants an opportunity to sit down and really talk about the various ways we could do business," explained Spokane County Superior Court Presiding Judge Neal Q. Rielly. It also provided a semi-formal setting, with facilitators to help monitor and guide the discussions in a productive manner.

Making collaboration work

According to several participants in the program, the key to successfully starting such discussion is the ability to check unwanted baggage at the door.

"One of the most important aspects of making this work is to put aside preconceived notions, and to really work together," expressed Marianne Walters, County Clerk and Superior Court Administrator from Jefferson County.

As a court clerk and administrator, she has been a facet of a collaborative team for the past ten years between the district, superior and juvenile courts. Through partnering, their county has created cross-jurisdiction exchanges in the areas of jury management, personnel and facilities.

"The conference provided a real sense of validation to what our county has already embarked upon," said Walters. Although not formalized into a TCCC until now, the county was able to share their experiences in starting the process.

For other courts, however, the conference served as a great opportunity for everyone to come to the table for the first time, set aside differences, better understand each other's courts and brainstorm on what could be done in their jurisdiction to improve services.

Motivating change

In addition to addressing practical problems, such as the communication barriers that exist when multiple courts undertake joint programs, the bulk of time at the session was spent by teams working on a specific coordinated project for the courts in their jurisdiction.

For inspiration, the six counties started the process by preparing vision statements for their TCCC. One county strives to create, "a community where each jurisdiction respects and acknowledges the strengths and resources of each court and maximizes those resources through collaborative efforts and initiatives so as to increase access and achieve efficiency."

Several variations were created by other counties, including one, which stated the need to be grounded in reality, and another abiding by the common-sense approach of treating customers as they would like to be treated.

From these visions, several projects began to take shape in the short conference timeframe:

	An inter-jurisdictional domestic violence protection order project, which would allow court users who live anywhere in the county to go to any courthouse and receive a protection order.
	Creation of a "community court concierge" position to be cross-trained to provide information across court jurisdictions. In addition to directing customers to the proper courtroom or office, the position could serve as a facilitator for self-appointed litigants who need help in the areas of domestic relations, small claims, domestic violence, CHINS, adoption probate or guardianship issues.
	Creation of a united substance abuse and mental illness courts at the district and superior court levels. Also termed a "dual-disorder" court, it would allow for better control and service to the 30% of substance abusers who are also identified as having mental health issues and the 70% of mental health court users identified as having substance abuse problems.
	Improved access to all trial courts, including the creation of a central phone number for all court levels in the county; information boards; brochures and maps.

Next steps

At the conclusion of the program, each team worked to create an action plan for implementing a coordinated court improvement program, and the tools for establishing a trial court coordination council appropriate for their area. Reports from each team will be sent to the Board for Judicial Administration as their projects move forward.

The Office of the Administrator for the Courts will share information about the progress of coordination efforts - both among the teams and statewide - through a special page on the courts' website. Future opportunities for additional inter-jurisdictional teams to attend similar sessions are envisioned in the next biennium, as well as a session at this summer's Presiding Judges Conference.

Aside from the feeling of personal accomplishment that such collaborations provide, Walters stresses to other courts the practical benefits that follow, "You have a true reduction in redundancies, so in essence you maximize your courts' resources."

Rielly agreed, and sees a real opportunity to increase the public's level of trust in the courts. "While our trial court levels have different purposes, there are lots of things we can do together to become more user-friendly for the general public," he said. "The bottom line is, this will allow us to become better public servants."

For more information on starting your own Trial Court Coordinating Council, contact Yvonne Pettus at the Office of the Administrator for the Courts via e-mail at Yvonne.Pettus@courts.wa.gov or at 360/705-5314. For a copy of the full Project 2001 report, visit the Washington Courts website at www.courts.wa.gov or call 360/705-5307.