Untitled - National Center for State Courts

, ',

CD I

00 ' on

A Publication

92002, National Association for Court Manage-

ment;printed in the United States.

The Court Manager i s published

quarterly by the National Associa-

tion for Court Management.

Opinions expressed and

procedures explained in the

articles are not necessarily those

of NACM or of the National Center for

State Courts. Publication of

advertising in The Court Manager does not imply

endorsement or approval of the

product or service by NACM or NCSC.

The association encourages

submission of material that will

interest or benefit its members.

Address corre- spondence to

either the editor or the managing

editor; inquiries about advertising

should be directed to the managing editor. Al l rights are reserved to

reject,condense, or edit any article or

advertisement submitted for

publication.

COVER

Portland, Oregon

(Photo courtesy of Portland

Oregon Visitors Association)

6 8

9 33 35 44

47

49

58 60

62

63 79

3 4

66 68

71

76 79

FEATURES

Conference High1 igh ts

Conference Opening and Keynote

Educational Program Summaries

Awards

Justice Achievement Award Submissions

Justice Achievement Award Winner

Justice Achievement Award Acceptance Speech

Culturally Competent Responses To Latino Family Violence

Knowledge Fair

Vendor Exhibition

2002-2003 Board of Directors

Committee Reports

Sponsor List

D E P A R T M E N T S

President's Message

Editor's Notes

The Washington Review

Jury News

A Question of Ethics

New Members

Sustaining Members

BY STEVEN WELLER AND JOHN A. MARTIN

EDITOR Marcus Reinkensmeyer

Court Administrator for General Jurisdiction Courts

Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County 201 W. Jefferson St.

Central Court Building, Fourth Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 (602) 5060186 Fax: (602) 5067867 E-mail: [email protected]

MANAGING EDITOR Lorie J. Gomez

Publications Manager

The National Center for

State Courts

300 Newport Ave.

Williamsburg,VA 23185 (757) 259-1532 (757) 564-2 1 14 [email protected]

They're depending on you

i

NOW more than ever, courts are called upon to share

information with the greaterjustice community in the interest

of public safety.

But providing accurate, timely information can be a

challenge. Resources and funding are often limited.

Workloads continue to increase. Courts need technology to

help them do more with less.

At ACS, we understand your needs. We know that

organizations like yours need proven, integrated solutions

to share vital information. And we know it because we

collaborate with our clients, partners, and the justice

community to develop proven, stable technology found-

ations that you can build upon today and count on for

tomorrow.

More than 800 courts around the world have selected

ACS justice solutions to manage complex caseloads, ensure

positive juror management, or integrate disparate systems.

Ranked #1 in service quality by Federal Computer Week,

1 ’ PRESIDENT9S MESSAGE

Greetings. It is a pleasure and an honor to be addressing you once again from the pages of The Court Manager. The intervening year, since Marcus so ably took over as editor, has brought many changes to our organization and, indeed, to our nation. On behalf of your NACM officers and board of directors, I want to thank you for your continued support of our great association and for the trust and confidence you have placed in us to direct its course over the next year. It is truly an honor to serve you, our colleagues, and our nation’s pre- miere association for court management.

Over the past year, your professional development committee worked diligently to plan our 17th annual conference, which was held July 21-25 in Portland, Oregon. With the support of our friend and curriculum advisor, Geoff Gallas, and the Oregon Association for Court Administration, “Justice for All: Serving Diverse Communities” was a resounding success. Not only did we have one of the highest membership attendance levels for a NACM annual conference, the weather co- operated and, for once, we were not in the hottest region of the country!

I am pleased to report to you that the work to revise the NACM Strategic Plan was completed at the conference board meeting, and I would like to encourage you to take a look at it on our Web site. Significant progress was also accomplished by the Professional Development Advisory Committee, in its work to finalize the 10 NACM Core Competencies. I am also pleased to report that our membership numbers remain strong and that our association remains fiscally sound.

Over the next year, your board plans to address significant effort to growing the NACM membership base, improving our association’s Web site, maintaining the high quality of our publications and developing quality professional development opportunities for our members. As we undertake this work, it is important that we hear from you. While I will have this opportunity to communicate with you via The Court Manager, I want you to know that you can communicate with me, or any of our board members, on issues that are important to you. Please do not hesitate to call or e-mail your questions, concerns, issues and feedback to any of us. We are here to serve you and our association. Cheers, and happy reading,

Joi

THE C O U R T M A N A G E R V O L U M E 1 7 N U M €3 E R 3 3

m 9 1-l-

EDITORS 1Y OTIES

At 80 pages, this special conference edition of The Court Manager stands as one of NACM’s largest publications to date. The sheer number of education program summaries and the volume of substantive material reflect the breadth and depth of NACM’s 17th Annual Conference, “Justice for All: Serving Diverse Communities,” held this past July in Portland, Oregon.

Looking back on this year’s conference, I am struck by the considerable progress in court management over the last several years. The conference featured both fundamental and advanced educational programs on all of the NACM Core Com- petencies, key trends in court management and “best practices,” all reflecting the growing quantity and quality of course offerings. Our thanks, again, to the nationally recognized fac- ulty, to the authors of the Core Competencies and to the NACM members who provided written summaries of every educational session. In reviewing the summaries, you will note we

have included speakers’ contact information, relevant Web sites and other valuable reference materials.

Other highlights from the conference include this year’s Justice Achievement Award submissions; the Wisconsin Su- preme Court’s Justice Achievement Award-winning project, “The Wisconsin Courthouse SecurityTraining Program: A New Approach to Deal with a Critical Issue;” court programs and projects showcased at the Knowledge Fair; the vendor exhibition; and, full text of “Culturally Competent Responses to Latino Family Violence,” (the Winner of the Solicited Paper Contest for the 2002Annual Conference), by Steven Weller and JohnA. Martin.

This issue of The Court Manager concludes with our timely and insightful regular columns: The Washington Review, Jury News, and A Question of Ethics.

~~~~~

4 V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 THECOURTMANAGER

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COURT MANAGEMENT

Publications Order Form ITEM PRICE Qu-

M i n i Guides: Members: $5 each (20 or more copies-$3 each) Nonmembers: $8 each (20 or more copies-$5 each)

M e d i a Guide

Court Security Guide

Public Information Programs for Courts Guide

Courts’ Response to Domestic Violence Guide

Holding Courts Accountable: Counting What Counts Guide

Disaster Recovery Planning for Courts

Community Dialogue

The Court Administrator: A Manual

TOTAL

Trial Court Financial Management Guide $150 each plus $5.50 postage and handling

Trial Court Personnel Management Guide $300 each plus $5.50 postage and handling

Virginia residents add 4.5% tax

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE

Name:

Court/Company :

Address:

City: State: Zip Code:

Phone: Fax: E-mail:

PAYMENT:

0 Check (made payable to NACM) 0 Cash

0 Credit Card 0 Mastercard 0 Visa

Card# Exp.

Name Signature (please print)

National Association for Court Management c/o National Center for State Courts

300 Newport Avenue (Zip Code 23 185) PO. Box 8798

Williamsburg,Virginia 23 187-8798 (757) 259-1841 (757) 259-1520 (fax)

,

SERWG DIVERSE COMMUNITIES HILTON PORTLAND

PORTLAND, OREGON, JULY 21-25 Beautiful Portland, Oregon, was the site of the seventeenth

annual conference of the National Association for Court Man- agement in July 2002. The weather was moderate, opportunities for networking were exceptional, and the educational sessions were timely and well-done.

The theme of this year’s conference was “Justice for All: Serving Diverse Communities,” and many workshops did an excellent job of presenting the challenges and potential solutions to effectively providing justice that works for all people. The concerns of court managers were reflected in the sub- jects chosen for educational sessions. Information technology, from choosing the best hardware and software to writing effective RFPs, was the subject of many sessions. An entire day was devoted to NACM’s Core Curriculum Guidelines,with sessions appropriate for advanced practitioners as well as the new ones. As courts across the country work to increase opportunities for the self-represented, NACM offers insights to its membership on how to do just that.

Annual conference also offers a unique opportunity to bring attention to the good work being done in the court community through the presentation of awards. The 2002 Award of Merit and the Justice Achievement Award were among those presented during this year’s conference. This year’s Award of Merit was presented to J. Dennis Moran,Wisconsin Director of State Courts. The Wisconsin Court House Security Program received the Justice Achievement Award. The winner of this year’s Institute for Court Management scholarship was Tom Ulbricht.

Of course, there is always time for fun at NACM conferences. On Monday night, members gathered at the Portland Art Museum for a private tour of the exhibit Splendors of Im- perial Japan, followed by an evening of dinner and dancing. Wednesday’s highlights included the annual fun run/walk and golf and tennis tournaments. On Thursday, the conference’s official closing was followed by the traditional closing dinner and dance.

Participants from Russia enjoy NACM sessions with the help of their translator


1

Educational sessions remain the core of NACMs conference.

A good laugh never hurts, eithex

A private viewing of the exhibit Splendors of Imperial Japan at the PortlandArt Museum includes a stop at the gift store!

J

A p in swap was a f u n new feature at this year’s conference.

T H E C O U R T M A N A G E R V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 7

CONFE REN CE NOTE

Conference Opening Reporter: Margaret Guidero

President Juanita Hicks welcomed the more than 700 attendees and acknowledged the efforts of the many NACM members who helped coordinate the conference. She also identified the foreign countries represented at the conference: Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, France, Romania, Russia, South Africa, and the West Indies.

Chief Justice Wallace Carson of the Oregon Supreme Court reminded everyone of the overwhelming tasks faced by the courts. He made a special effort to acknowledge the fact that courts could not operate without court managers. The chief reminded everyone that in this climate of extreme fiscal con-

straints,funding agencies may want to accept a new paradigm, i.e. look not to the traditional “return on investment,” but to the “value on investment.”

After the chief‘s remarks, Hicks presented the Award of Merit to Dennis Moran, director ofWisconsin State Courts.The award was accepted on his behalf by Greg Moore.

Nancy Miller, director of juvenile services at the AOC in Oregon, acknowledged the efforts of all court employees. She closed with the phrase,“there is no justice without you” referring to the thousands of court employees who ensure timely and effective access to the courts.

CLmL for Equal Justice Speaker: Bill Irwin (and friend)

Reporter: Art Bernardino

Bill Irwin presented a combination of inspiration, personal insights, and reflections on a number of topics during his keynote address. After losing his sight, he spent many years engaging in destructive behavior impacting his family, his relationships, and his own personal growth. However, a revelation experienced while helping his son deal with

Bill Irwin inspired his substance abuse turned his life around, audience the helping him overcome alcoholism and

self-pity. Irwin candidly shared the depths keynote address.

of his despair and the journey he began with that revelation - a journey that led him to become the first blind person to hike the entire 2,168-mile Appalachian Trail. Accompanied by his guide dog, Orient, he tackled a daunting physical and emotional challenge that continued the trans-

the ability to affect the lives of those around us and create a legacy. Humor as the “universal 1anguage”was also a key theme. The ability to ease emotional and/or physical pain with the use of humor and fun was one that has kept Irwin going in tough times and was recommended not only as a strategy for our work, but also for our personal lives. Finally, the characteristics of good leaders were enumerated, including being good listeners, encouraging others, setting a good example, becoming accountable, making good decisions, commitment, and the ability to embrace change.

The last theme discussed during this session was the ability to change and the numerous opportunities individuals have to embrace change. Irwin’s point was that only when the alternative to change is unacceptable to the person will that person embrace change, particularly if it is difficult or painful.

This session was greatly enjoyed by all attending, judging by the thunderous applause accorded to Irwin.

formation he had begun years earlier. Despite the physical challenges presented by the trail and

the well-meaning reservations of numerous friends and strang- ers, Irwin completed a journey that most sighted individuals would not attempt. Each obstacle he faced, each time someone told him that he wouldn’t make it, he had a chance to abandon his quest.Yet, he persevered.

Among the insights Irwin shared were his reflections on access to justice, the justice system, and leadership and change. Conference attendees were treated to his sometimes humor- ous, sometimes introspective thoughts. Personal anecdotes peppered the talk, giving flesh to ideas often heard as max- ims.

Perseverance was cited as one of the most important character traits in accomplishing goals, allowing individuals to move beyond success to significance. Significance was explained as

To the delight ofparticipunts, Irwin signed copies of his book, Blind Courage, right next to the signature paw print of his fuithful companion.

8 V O L U M E 1 7 N U M 6 E R 3 THE COURT MANAGER

EDUCATIONAL OGRAM SUMMARIES

MONDAY, JULY 22

Developing Cultural Competency Speaker: Diane Burbie Reporter: Tim Dowel1

What is cultural competency? Being competent includes being proficient in the following skills: Showing respect for each other, being helpful, acknowledging and understanding other’s views, assessment of staff and customer needs, awareness of language and the meaning of words, communicating with words that have a single meaning versus words with multiple interpretations, accepting the reality we are dealing with people, not just datum and systems, and finally, having the proper attitude and acknowledging that we live and work in a diverse community. To be a member of this community we need to be self-assessing all of the time, aware of our preju- dice, stereotypes, and bias.

Comfort with cultural competency is reachable with training. We should be aware that 70 percent of communication is through body language and avoid jumping to conclusions based on our perceptions of another’s body language. Training can develop strong inquiry skills to base actions on facts versus opinions, and recovery skills for the inevitable mistakes. Em- ployees also need effective coping skills for the times they become the target of someone else’s bias. What are the boundaries of acceptable behavior? Do we have to take everything that is thrown at us? Management must set boundaries, and the staff and public need to know the court’s expectations with regards to behavior. Prejudices, stereotyping, and bias, real or perceived, have consequences for everyone and significantly impact the public’s trust in the court.

How does one sustain a high level of cultural competency?

Seek information and understanding while

Make decisions based on facts, not assumptions

Develop recovery strategies when you make

Live in the moment and be conscious of what you

When you have the influence to make something

Take a stand for yourself because you want to, not

When you have little influence, make a statement as

withholding judgments.

and opinions.

a mistake.

are doing.

right, use it.

because someone else says you should.

to where you stand.

The Tower of Babel:

Working with Interpreters in Legal Settings Speakers: Alee Robbins and Gloriela Webster

Reporter: Douglas Swart

The speakers, both interpreter supervisors for the Oregon Judicial Department, discussed how Oregon uses interpreters, the types of interpreting, testing procedures and sample test questions for interpreters, and the overall impact of the rapidly increasing diversity, culture, and demographics effecting the courts.

Oregon has 71 certified Spanish interpreters, six certified Russian interpreters, and one certifiedvietnamese interpreter. Approximately 10 percent of Oregon’s cases require an interpreter, and there are not enough to handle the workload. Sev- eral programs have been developed to resolve this problem, including the use of qualified interpreters in lieu of certified interpreters. Qualified interpreters are used on a limited basis, frequently in rural areas. In fact, a great number of their cases occur telephonically. There are limitations to this program. Hearings cannot be longer than two hours, and no evidence can be presented. Therefore, no trials can be conducted and no witness testimony can be taken. Pleas and arraignments can be conducted telephonically.

The Oregon Judicial Department is using whatever resources it can find to assist the interpreter services program and provide access for all its customers. For example, the department has scheduled all Spanish-speaking traffic matters in a rural court on the same day so a certified interpreter can be present. The department will contact the state ofwashington for assistance when the need arises. The department has also set up an interpreter Web page that includes an interpreter list so courts can directly contact an interpreter. Forms and rules, a hierarchy structure, and claim forms can also be accessed.

Several exercises, including simultaneous and consecutive interpreting, were conducted during the session to emphasize the importance of accurate interpreters. Simultaneous interpreting occurs when the interpreter interprets as the witness is speaking. In consecutive interpreting, the interpreter waits until the witness has concluded to interpret. Another type of interpreting is sight translation, which is interpreting from something in writing.

,

THE COURT MANAGER V O L U M E 1 7 N U M 6 E R 3 9

Access to Justice:

Principles and Practical Examples Speaker: John Greacen Reporter: Peter Kiefer

The session focused on various ongoing projects to increase access to the justice system. It started by discussing whether courts actually have an obligation to provide increased access. Some reasons why courts should increase access include: courts that citizens cannot use are useless as public institutions; some states include public access in their state constitutions; courts as a private club for judges and lawyers cannot garner public trust and confidence. The components of access include not putting up barriers, creating an inviting environment, and providing information on how to file a law suit. The Legal Services Corporation is expanding its services into new areas such as hotline advice, brief services, and un- bundled legal services.

Our country has seen the advent of “disintermediation” (i.e., eliminating the middleman), manifest by the increasing numbers of self-represented clients, particularly in domestic relations cases. Reasons why litigants decline attorney services include: litigants cannot afford lawyers, the case is simple enough to handle themselves, and litigants choose not to pay for a lawyer even though they can afford one. Many are inca- pable of representing themselves effectively.

The impact of self-represented litigants in court operations includes reduced court time in family and criminal, small claims cases; increased court time in civil; and fewer court hearings.

Characteristics of Increased Access to Courts

Self-Help Programs Legal services attorneys Special masters Volunteer attorneys Family law facilitators Simple explanations on what is going to happen

Forms in plain English Forms in foreign languages

in court

Facilities Plants and artwork Available food and water A smoke-free environment Waiting areas Available parking Accommodations for the mobility, hearing, and visually impaired Automated attendant telephone systems Electronic access to the docket Interactive, electronic filing Tracking electronic forms for data gathering

General Court Operations Elimination of legal jargon Full service hours Bilingual court staff Easy-to-use procedure manuals for court staff Available maps/courthouse layout Providing bus tokens Certified interpreters

Jury Services Efficient juror usage Comfortable facilities Courteous staff Reduced jury terms Comprehensive jury pools Interpreters for jurors

Financial Operations Web-based payments Drop boxes Drive-up widows Accept credit cards

Communicating Across Cultures Speaker: Or. Donna Beegle Reporter: Sarah Brown Clark

PWT (or PWTT) are insensitive descriptors frequently used to describe economically and socially disadvantaged whites. The initials are an acronym for PoorWhiteTrash and PoorWhite TrailerTrash. Beegle, noting the majority ofAmerica’s poor are white people, focused on three major aspects of socially disadvantaged white culture: the cycle of generational poverty, the experiential context, and communication styles. Beegle’s background personalized the life experiences of socially disadvantaged whites (SDW) who experience stress, confusion, fear, failure, and feelings of inferiority whenever they come into contact with the more affluent mainstream culture.

Beegle nudged participants to consider their stereotypi- cal reactions to socially disadvantaged whites, noting that while the civil rights movement resulted in improved perceptions and opportunities for people of color, socially and economically disadvantaged whites continue to be victims of stereotypes and discrimination. This ongoing victimization negatively impacts personal and group development.

Communication barriers and identity issues pose other barriers to social growth and development for SDWs. For example, there is a distinct difference between what a job means to SDWs and what a job means to the middle class or to immigrants. For the middle class American and the immigrant, ern- ployment provides opportunities for economic and social growth, and better lives for families and future generations; but for an SDW, employment usually means moving from the ranks of the unemployed into the ranks of the “working poor.”

A sense of alienation, sometimes directly related to communication failures, is experienced daily by SDWs. An oral culture, SDWs frequently lack the skills to respond to printed


materials, creating problems in the court system and other areas of their lives. Strategies to address this communication barrier, such as merging oral and print cultures in court settings and breaking directions into steps, were suggested. Ri- valries between SDWs, white ethnics, and people of color are the norm. It is not unusual to hear SDW sentiments like,“Blacks and Hispanics get all the breaks.” Feelings of exclusion make it difficult for SDWs to identlfy not only with the American dream but also with other whites. The demographics of their lives preclude identification with successful people, an essential experience if SDWs are to move out of the generational cycles of poverty, incarceration, and illiteracy.

Dr. Donna Beegle can be contacted at 3306 N. Saratoga, Portland, OR 972 17; (503) 289-2926; [email protected]. Recommended reading includes Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong, War on the Poor by Herbert Jones, and http:// oamweb.com/business/dbeegle/.

Incorporating Citizen Feedbad? to

Improve Court Operations Speaker: Kathy Mays

Reporter: Cathy Nemecek

Kathy Mays, director of judicial planning within the state of Virginia,presented a very thorough review of a citizen feedback program that was used in her state. She presented tools and techniques that were used in soliciting information from both court users and non-court users. Some of the techniques that were used are as follows:

Suggestion Boxes - This type of tool provided the lowest cost and highest visibility. This method provided an anonymous way for users to “talk back to the judge.” Comments and suggestions were somewhat consistent and mentioned things like lack of parking and time in which it took to conduct business.

Exit Surveys - Surveys were handed out by court staff immediately following a “service encounter.” This format was used to determine whether improvements or changes were successful. Telephone Survey - These surveys are conducted every two years due to the cost, which can be up to $20,000 when using a research firm. This survey targeted both court users and the public at large. It developed a lot of data very quickly and included demographic information unavailable in any of the previous techniques. Focus Groups - A paid research firm moderated small groups comprised of jurors, litigants, attorneys, and court staff. Two, two-hour sessions were held where information was gathered from the group on their expectations of the court. Once this information was gathered, the same group was educated on the Trial Court Performance Standards, then again asked whether this information changed or added to their expectations. Venture Teams - Multidisciplinary groups were asked to brainstorm on new programs or solutions to perceived problems. Internet Feedback - Provides a 24/7 means for feedback.The same questions were used here as in the telephone survey.

The main points made within the presentation were that you must “begin with an end in mind.” A means to collect and analyze the data is certainly important, but more important is the commitment from the court to implement any improvements. To ask users to provide input and then to ignore their perceptions or requests will only continue to add question to the minds of the users on whether courts are truly customer- oriented or whether we are just another bureaucratic organization that is not interested in the needs of the community.

THECOURTMANAGER V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 11

Immigrants’ View of Courts and the Judicial Process

Speaker: Judge Adele Grubbs Reporter: Sandy Lacey

Judge Adele Grubbs, Superior Court of Cobb County, Geor- gia, discussed immigrants’ views of the court and the judicial process. Immigrants are increasingly appearing in court as parties, defendants, and as jurors. The problem is that we in the court system expect the immigrants to act like us and to understand how the system works; however, most immigrants cannot become culturally assimilated quickly. Often it takes an immigrant 10 years to become stable in our society and accept the cultural changes between our country and the country from which he/she immigrated.

For example, in some countries, the elders or family members resolve issues; our societal dictates may violate the immigrants’ sense of family, tradition, or social values. Some immigrants will agree with authority under any circumstances, and their hierarchy of respect may dictate that one not look another person (or the judge or jury) directly in the eye. Their hand gestures may be different from ours. Some immigrants speak “textbook”Eng1ish and may not understand,for example, that the word “freeze” means “stop.” Some immigrants do not trust any attorney or interpreter that the court, or “government,” appoints for them.

The purpose of this session was to remind us that while we cannot expect immigrants to change quickly and adapt to our norms, we must try to understand the immigrants’view of the court. Judge Grubbs recommended a book entitled Immi- grunts in Court by Joanna Moore. She also recommended that we be patient and try to understand that many immigrants are living in a country they don’t understand and are trying to navigate through the court system with a language they don’t fully understand. Immigrants may seem to be rude, but they just don’t understand our country’s traditions and our legal rights. Because immigrants tend to congregate, especially during their difficult first year in our country, Judge Grubbs also suggests that we find immigrant group leaders or their church leaders and teach the groups about the court system.

Despite the difficulties encountered in our country, most immigrants are proud to be here and are proud to be Ameri- cans. People immigrate to America because they have the freedom to achieve here. We in the court system must try to understand the difficulties facing immigrants and understand that they are trying to do what is right.

IT Forum Track - State of the Industry What’s on the Radar Screen?

Speaker: Michael Stein Reporter: Lawrence G. Myers

Michael Stein, director of Gartner State & Local Govern- ment Consulting, said the factors currently driving public sector technology decisions are: political media attention, business of government, September 11: new priorities, rein- venting relationships, self-service government and an IT skills shortage. He then focused on the most critical emerging technologies: 12 V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 THECOURTMANAGER

Core Technologies: Experts believe current base technologies will continue to dominate through 2006. Gordon Moore’s law will continue through 201 1. Beyond 2006, quan- tum computing will offer enormous gains in use of computa- tional resources, the size of a single transistor will be 20 na- nometers by 2007, massively parallel processing will “trickle down” into mainstream uses, we will see more grid computing, and network convergence will be nearly complete by 2010.

Supranet: Key technologies will enable mobility through 201 1, including location sensing and wearable devices for net- worked computing. Location-based services are projected to be used by 90 percent of enterprises by 2010; by 2010, more than 75 percent of the U.S. and EU population aged 15 to 50 will use wearable devices.

Content Management (CM): The “hottest technology area for enabling efficient Web sites and workplaces,”has eight components: paper scanning, forms capture and processing, integrated document management (IDM), Web content management (WCM), electronic record management, digital asset management, work process management, and integrated document archive and retrieval system (IDARS). By 2004, the few remaining stand-alone imaging vendors will be acquired or exit the market,and major CM players will build or buy records management functionality. By 2005, all major stand-alone IDM vendors will have evolved into CM suite vendors or smart electronic suite vendors, andWCM will become commoditized into infrastructure applications.

Human-Computer Interaction Directions to transform user interface (UI) include: natural language speech dialogues, speech recognition, gesture and vision, retinal displays, electronic ink, and biometric recognition. Gartner projected that by 2005,5 percent of the U.S. and EU population will regularly experience biometric recognition, rising to 20 percent by 2010. Speech recognition will dominate the next generation interface.

Leading-edge technologies typically return value in one or more of the following: better product design; better products; new revenue sources; improved customer service; improved employee effectiveness; increased process effectiveness; increased brand value; creation of intellectual assets, “connectedness”; and asset utilization.

IT Forum Track - State of Industry: What Do I Do With AU These XS?

Speakers: John Davenport and Roger Winters Reporter: Gordon Mulleneaux

Roger Winters discussed the need for court managers to learn enough about the technical side of IT, and especially XML, to be able to ask intelligent questions of IT personnel. Why we care and what we care about in the XML world depends upon our role in the organization. We must learn to encourage communications between the technical team and the non- technical users. As court managers, we must learn enough of the technical jargon to communicate with IT and ask legitimate and intelligent questions.

Winters emphasized that XML standards are here to stay. It is a valuable automation tool and will ultimately help the courts accomplish their mission. Court managers must un-

derstand its use and how it can help us in our leadership positions. We do not need to know the details, but knowing its purpose and potential application will enable us to be better managers and more valuable to the court.

John Davenport, in his more technical presentation, vali- dated Winter’s proposition that court managers need to have some level of familiarity and experience with XML. He also expressed his opinion that courts need personnel who know XML. A valuable contribution of his presentation was an explanation of how a smaller volume court might provide an adequate opportunity for its IT staff to be trained in XML. The approach would cost under $500 and includes books and various inexpensive software tools. A more sophisticated program would cost about $4,000. Davenport cited various Web sites and a book, X M L for the World Wide Web, by Elizabeth Castro.

The session concluded with Winters citing his experiences with implementing an electronic document management system in King County (Seattle),Washington. Overall, this session was very valuable to court personnel.

Keynote FoUow-up: C L d for Equal Justice Speaker: Bill Irwin

Reporter: Tina Shotwell

Speaker Bill Irwin gave a follow-up presentation that expanded upon his earlier presentation regarding the “Climb for Equal Justice.” Irwin was quite motivational and inspirational. He is the only blind person to complete the 2,168-mile Appa- lachian Trail. Completely at the whim of nature and with no control over his environment, he completed the trail in nine months with only his seeing eye dog as his guide.

Irwin emphasized the necessary qualities of leadership as stemming from the five basic human emotional needs: love, belonging, power, faith, and fun. Every single behavior is an attempt to satisfy those needs. As researched and written by Dr. Glasser, behavior consists of four major components: doing, thinking, feeling, and responding. Because of habits of behavior, people tend to resist change. In order to effectuate change, people need to be given enough information to re- place their current information. People won’t change until they decide for themselves that it is time for them to change.

Additionally, he felt that the court and other companies should adopt the management style of “lead management.” Its effectiveness has been proven by the Japanese, who adopted this system in 1950 and became the world’s economic power within 30 years. Lead management takes away the adversarial role of upper management and requires relationships with those below, lateral to, and above us. Lead managers listen and encourage dialogue with every member of the organization.

Cultural Competency for Court Managers Speaker: Diane Burbie

This session was presented by Diane Burbie of the Aspire Group and initially addressed the establishment of objectives in achieving cultural competence. Among those were increasing awareness about bias in the judiciary, exploring cultural factors that influence performance and service, and providing skills and techniques helpful in managing a diverse workforce. Burbie presented some examples of the types of things one should be aware of. For instance, drawing a distinction be-

tween knowledge and understanding, written versus oral communication. It was pointed out that 70 percent of communication is non-verbal. Burbie went on to explore the issue of cultural competence and how to obtain it by being self-assessing, perceptive, having a broad range of communication skills, knowing how to inquire about things, developing strong recovery skills and effective coping skills, and being a constant learner.

The session then explored the issue of bias in the judiciary. The “judiciary” in this instance being viewed in a broad sense to include court staff. We looked at different forms of bias. For example, favoritism based on status, an attorney having automatic preference over a proper, or a familiar attorney being treated preferentially to an out-of-town attorney. The question of why these biases exist and, perhaps more importantly, how court managers can provide effective coaching and feedback to court personnel in this area, was discussed.

In discussing creation of institutional bias we were sup- plied with a definition which identified a combination of consistent bias plus power as equating to an institutional bias. There is an actual progression of institutional bias commenc- ing with observation, generalization, and stereotyping though the use of power and oppression. We talked about the import in combating institutional bias, of being aware of perspectives other than your own, and how to be skillful in bridging the communication divide.

We discussed the importance of inquiry skills and asking clarifying questions while reserving judgment. Sometimes it is necessary to utilize recovery skills such as acknowledging that there is a misunderstanding and subsequently engaging in a dialogue on the issue.

The curative to the problem of institutional bias lies simply in making demonstrating bias or cultural insensitivity a high risk endeavor. By that, Burbie indicated that all within the court system need to understand and appreciate that not only is there a price attached to insensitivity, but individuals should know that there is a price to be paid by them.

Understanding the Cultures of People in Court Speakers: Judge PJ. DeMuniz and Joanne 1. Moore

Reporter: Grace Colosimo

The purpose of this session was to sensitize court managers to the need to improve the way information is delivered to people of different cultures. Court managers must also become informed about these differences and the effect they can have in obtaining justice in immigrant partys’ cases.

The session presenters used some very startling examples to show how unjust our system results can be for immigrant defendants in the absence of adaptations to provide meaningful delivery of information. They discussed the many differences in philosophy existing from one culture to another regarding the legal systems and procedures for implementing law enforcement. They described misunderstandings caused by cultural biases and language gaps, reviewing some of the most common misunderstandings about our legal procedures and their underlying philosophy.

The session made the point that access to justice is not equal under the conditions existing for most recently arrived immigrants. Court staff must learn about the cultural differ-


ences of the immigrant groups in their courts and make the necessary adaptations. Information must be meaningful and repeated often.

This session would be useful to all levels of court staff. There are many opportunities, from case filing through disposition, to supply information in a relevant way.

The session handout was a chapter from Moore’s book Immigrants in Courts, University of Washington Press, 1999. She is director of the Washington State Office of Public De- fense and can be reached at [email protected]. Judge DeMuniz, Oregon Supreme Court justice, can be contacted at [email protected].

Clash of Professional Cultures Speakers: Dr. Bryan Borys and Frederick Klunder

Reporter: Melody Tinsley

This session addressed ways to bridge the communication gap between information technology (IT) folks, managerial folks, and judicial folks so that they can each understand the other’s position enough to work through automation projects to everyone’s satisfaction. Suggestions were provided to make the presentation of ideas for implementation of technology a win-win situation for both the IT and non-IT person. Technology has revolutionized and will continue to revolutionize processes in the court system, and players must learn how to interact successfully in order to reach common ground and implement successful automated solutions to court challenges.

Important points from the session include the following.

A. IT staff does not necessarily understand the court organization, philosophy, or intricate procedures. Business requirements come from the operational side. Courts need to align IT goals with organizational goals.

B. Culture, language, and opinion reflect norms, expectations, and values, both good and bad, that characterize a particular profession. These may cause a person to discount what is being said or heard. Presenters need to respect the norms and values of the audience in order to truly be heard.

Technical people tend to be objective and rational. Managerial or operations people tend to be

Judicial people tend to rely on norms that value systematic, bureaucratic, political.

precedent.

C. Presentation has everything to do with how the information will be received.

Technical people tend to be enthusiastic about

Managers tend to approach change with caution. Judges may not like change when there is no

change, automation solutions, and new technology.

precedent.

D. Don’t drudge up bad history or state the obvious - this may offend current users. Start with the benefits. Show them success and how to get there. If they can find “what’s in it for me,” they will be more receptive, supportive, and enthusiastic.

E. Relate solutions to problems. Provide the pros and cons up front. Address negative possibilities, then knock them down with solutions. Focus on process improvement, not process.

E IT is ubiquitous; difference lies in the fact that information systems incorporate both business rules and their ongoing automation and alignment with each other’s areas. Who manages the cyber employee?

G. Executive and judicial areas are not interested in infrastructure unless it breaks. Information systems need to be responsive, effective, and stable.

For more information, contact [email protected] or [email protected].

NACM Strategic

Plan Presentation and Discussion Speakers: Frank Maiocco, Dottie McDonald,

Chelle Uecker, and Eric Silverberg Reporter: Paul Sherfey

The session provided a very engaging presentation and discussion. Strategic planning experts enthusiastically walked through the strategic plan adopted by NACM’s board of directors in July. One of their final comments summed up the intent of the recently adopted strategic plan: a strategic plan will serve as a living document, guiding the organization in the future.

The session’s objectives included:

Providing a brief history of the NACM Strategic Plan

Detailing the methods used to update the plan in

Obtaining additional ideas for future plan

Recruiting new members for this important and

development;

2001-2002;

incorporation; and

critical committee.

The mission and vision and corresponding goal statements have been revised. The mission statement now acknowledges “. . . the independence and interdependence of the judiciary with other branches of government.” The vision statement now points to the future and core value of our organization. The six enumerated goals describe with clarity the method of achieving the mission and vision.

1 . Develop and improve leadership in all courts through professional development opportunities,.

2. Promote the interdependence of court executive teams to achieve independence and public accountability of courts.

3. Recognize the diversity of NACM’s membership and encourage fellowship, networking, and a sense of unity through participation in the board and other governance activities.

4. Increase public trust and confidence while enhancing access to courts through community education and interaction.

5. Enhance and improve NACM communications media and related activities.

6. Enhance NACM’s organizational vitality through a continuing review process and a focus on the future of the courts.

The next step is finalizing the tasks associated with each goal and identifying the individual or groups of individuals responsible for accomplishing those tasks. As this is a topic of importance to all NACM members, the presenters emphasized the key to making this a living document: membership involvement. Anyone who might be interested in contributing ideas is encouraged to contact:

Frank Maiocco Chelle Uecker chelle.uecker@co. hennepin.mn.us Dottie McDonald [email protected] Eric Silverberg

fmaiocco@co. coconino. az .us

Eric. Silverberg@usdoj . gov


JULY 23,2002

Plenary: Access to Justice For AH, . A TecLnology BiU of RigLts

Speaker Richard Zorza Reporter: Norman Meyer

Building on his work with the state of Washington, Rich- ard Zorza described two important revolutions, access to justice and new technology, and how the legal community in Washington State is working to build an Access to JusticeTech- nology Bill of Rights. These revolutions have implications for the courts, including the areas of information retrieval, public interfaces with courts, presence and mobility, ready analysis of information, identity recognition, and transactions.

The access and technology revolutions combine to create areas of opportunity and danger for diverse communities. Op- portunities for improvement include enhanced equalization, support and assistance, cheaper services, monitoring and impact, and integration. Areas of danger include access barriers and discrimination, information distribution abuse, bypassing of process protections, and privatization of court processes and transactions.

Zorza outlined progress in the process of developing an Access to Justice Technology Bill of Rights. Among many related initiatives, the project is drafting a set of six core principles.

Issue- Access. There are huge potentials and risks, with profound implications. For example, e-filing court documents can either greatly enhance or bar access to justice.

Principle #I - Technology must be used by the justice system and all of the participants in the system to promote full, meaningful, and equitable access to that justice system for all, and to fulfii the rights of the people to access and participation in the justice system.

Issue - Equality and Balance. Problems with information accessibility imbalances abound.The courts need to play a neutral role.

Principle #2 - The justice system should advance the use of technology to maximize balance in access between the parties and to advance fundamental constitutional values of equality throughout society. It should develop procedures to make sure that changes in technology do not reduce access for any group or otherwise undercut these values and that they promote the rights to equality of access and fairness.

Issue - Information and a Just Result. The availability of and contextualization of information can greatly affect court outcomes, both in individual cases and systematically.

Principle #3 - The justice system should advance the use of technology and its ability to access, integrate, analyze, and distribute information to support the right to the most just result possible.

Issue - Visibility and Privacy. How court information is made public or protected is of great concern to many, and wide disagreement exists regarding the appropriate balance.

Principle #4 -The justice system should advance the use of technology to maintain the essential balance between rights of openness and visibility on the one hand and privacy on the other, and to protect against the inappropriate use of integration of personal information.

Issue - Transparency. Humans, not technology, should take the lead in keeping the courts open to view and review.

Principle #5 - Technology in the justice system should be deployed transparently and in support of general transparency (the idea that the way the system itself operates is open to view and review).Technology should be the engine for advancement of the values of the justice system and should be deployed in ways consistent with those values, not as an end in itself. Deployment of technology in the justice system should be evaluated in terms of the rights and values of the justice system and in terms of the extent to which it supports such a transparent approach to the system as a whole.

Issue - Protection of Transactions. Key justice institutions and values may be jeopardized by technology, just as technology can enhance the courts’ abilities to provide tools for the public to fully participate in justice processes.

Principle #6 - The justice system should advance the use of technology to maintain the role of courts as the fundamental neutral protectors of the less powerful.

Zorza stressed that we are at a critical juncture, with many choices being made in technology development that have profound impact on access to justice. He stressed how the history of rights, revolutions, and technology show the context of these choices. Technology gives us the opportunity to vastly improve processes, access to justice, and “level the playing field.” Finally, he challenged court managers to ensure that as we design and implement new systems we ensure they properly address these issues.

For further information, visit www.atjtechbillofrights.org. Contact Zorza at [email protected] or Donald Horowitz at [email protected].

Opening CourtLouse Doors

and Increasing Access Speaker: Richard Zorza

Reporter: Greg Blair

Richard Zorza focused on two areas: (1) the outlined vision of a self-help friendly courthouse and what it should look


like, and ( 2 ) 10 strategies the state courts can use to achieve this vision.

Zorza focused on designing a courthouse environment from the ground up to be helpful, informative, and deciding. He emphasized that the vision must be present in the community and in all stages of a case. Lawyer and information resources should be utilized up front at the initiation of a case to prevent a lot of wasted time and frustration.

Zorza emphasized the need for courts to get away from the idea that providing help violates the neutrality policy. He said the filing and progress of a case should be designed in a template fashion that determines whether a case was correctly fded and instructs the user on how to proceed in the court process. Zorza mentioned the Sacramento County Superior Court’sWeb site which features a wonderful small claims online frling system and the Orange County Superior Court’s I-CAN video self-help project as outstanding examples of court projects that promote a self-help friendly vision. In addition, the vision in the courtroom needs to be simple, visible, and provide an explanation of the structure of each case. Zorza gave the example of using a color-coded chart which could be mounted on the courtroom wall for all court users to see cases progress through the court system.

Finally, courts need to do more to help the enforcement of judgments. Programs need to help court users, gather data at the initiation of a case to assist in enforcement of judgments at its conclusion, and contain consequences for non-compliance.

Ten strategies state courts can use to achieve a vision of a self-help friendly courthouse include:

1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10.

Create Models Ethics Technology Judicial and Staff Support Bar Involvement and Unbundling Strategy Design Audit Enforcement of Decisions An Integrated Problem - Repetition Avoidance Research and Evaluation Collaborations

Zorza’s book, The Self-He@ Friendly Court:Designed from the Ground Up to Work for People Without Lawyers, is avail-

able through the National Center for State Courts. Additional Web sites that may be of interest are: www.probono.net www.lawhelp.org www.equaljustice.org/techno/indexintro. htm www. zorza.net/legalinfo

Information Sharing and Playing Nice in the Sandbox

Speaker: Robert Roper Reporter: Sally Cannady

This class, presented by the chief information officer for the Colorado Judicial Branch, was full of useful information on setting up a criminal justice information system sharing project.

The Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System was started with weekly roundtable discussions. In- formation is shared by the Department ofyouth Corrections, Department of Corrections, district attorneys, courts, and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

When setting up such a system, you must discuss people issues first, as people are the most important part of the project. You will have technical issues, organizational issues, governance, and agreement issues.

Individual agency perspectives and security must be identified. Funding will also be an issue. Definitions and terminology are important. Courts are no longer islands unto themselves - approximately 80 percent of shared information comes from the court. Information systems interact with each other, and interdependencies are formed.

To work together, you must recognize personalities and realize the different goals among your agencies. You must share the turf, deal with changing players, forget the past, and give and take. See the big picture. You must be able to bend the rules and ask for forgiveness rather than permission. Don’t forget to say you are sorry.

The first person to enter the data is the owner of that data. Data will reside in each agency, and you come to the table as EQUALS. You must have a trusted host environment for security purposes.

Some things leaders can do to help the project are the Cs of CJIS listed below:

Commitment: Actions Communication: Positive and negative Cooperation: Playing together Consensus: Everyone agrees. NO votes Compromise: How everyone agrees community: Similar interest and impact CIO: Chief information officers

Competition: Should be healthy Collaboration: Doing things together Consistency:

to expect Constraints: Grow slowly Change: Customers:

must be independent

Partners need to know what

Recognize the need for change Know who your customers are

T H E C O U R T M A N A G E R V O L U M E 1 7 N U M 6 E R 3 17

What Court Managers

Need to Know ALout XML Speaker: John Greacen

Reporter: Gordon Mulleneaux

The purpose of this presentation was to provide an overview of XML and to help demystlfy it. John Greacen began with an introductory history of XML and its precursors. He explained the purposes of XML and how it can revolutionize the way we share automated information within the court family and local justice agencies. For example, local justice agencies (county attorneys, public defenders, county sheriffs, various other police agencies) generally have some form of automated information about defendants and criminals.

As a general rule, these different automated applications would have been developed independent of each other and would not necessarily be compatible. One might ask how various computer systems can share information about the same defendant or criminal without sending paper to each other for new manual data entry. Depending on a variety of circumstances, the XML markup language may be the tool that allows information to be shared between various computer applications. This then speaks to the importance of XML and why there is genuine excitement in automation circles about the technical attributes of this new approach.

Much of the session was organized to allow participants to experience at a very basic level how computer applications can be set up to share information. This was a valuable hands- on experience. The participants became aware that while automation is not beyond our understanding, it can be very detailed and exacting work. We should appreciate the work skill required from programmers and analysts.

The session was well-attended, individuals were encouraged with the insight they had learned, and participants seemed to have developed an increased appreciation for automation. This is “must training” for all who desire to be informed about automation possibilities in the court family and especially among local justice agencies.

Technology Serves the Community Speakers: Howard Chesshire and Judge James Bodiford

Reporter: Richard Vandiver

This session provided practical examples of how a court can obtain technologies for use in the conduct of its business. Howard “Skip” Chesshire, court administrator, and Judge James Bodiford provided a lively and interactive description of successful implementation of useful and interesting technology in their court. In addition to illustrating ways in which technology can be helpful to the court’s staff and those who come to court, the presenters described how they successfully pro- cured technology necessary for the projects.

Court technology examples included: (a) computer work stations for jurors; (b) e-mail for jurors requesting deferments; (c) modernized judge’s counters; (d) courtroom of the future; and, (e) superior court judges’ calendars on the Internet.

Computer work stations with Internet access for jurors allow them to make use of their time in the jury waiting area e-mailing friends and family and continuing to work. It helps


jurors feel better about waiting and helps the court’s public relations.

E-mail provides summoned jurors with a quick and easy way to seek a deferment and receive a prompt reply. All requests are authenticated. The judges are receiving positive feedback on the program, and it has increased juror interest in on-line jury orientation.

Modernized judge’s counters provide for cases to be dis- played during each day for the judge. It also includes access to the law library, all updated legal cases in law, and immediate reference to previous trials or the status of current trials.

Courtroom of the future is a special courtroom used for high-profile cases, school and civic tours, and counsel who request it for its access to advanced technology. It includes all the “bells and whistles” of modern technology, including an electronic white board for printing images drawn on it, computers with legal research capability at counsel tables, a 37 - inch jury monitor for better viewing of evidence, judge- controlled sound, and a media room with fax machines and television plug-ins. Superior court judges’ calendars on the Internet avoid messy communication and trial confusion and increases time efficiency.

Chesshire stressed the positive community response to the court’s efforts to provide the public with modern technologies. Many local businesses have donated technology. Rec- ognition that the court is modern and technologically advanced is also helpful for funding authorities who appreciate the value of providing innovative assistance to the community.

Jury Technology Improves Equal Treatment Speaker: G. Thomas Munsterman

Reporter: Diane Griswold

This session was presented by the director of the Center for Jury Studies of the National Center for State Courts. Many of the courts have been making significant advances in the areas of customer service and equal treatment for jurors. Tech- nology can create a more streamlined and efficient jury system by increasing juror participation and improving the yield of qualified jurors. Expanding master file lists, creating a more responsive court culture, and providing prospective jurors with aWeb-based system are representative of the types of improvements that can make a positive difference for jurors and courts.

Master file lists are presently the result of a process which merges multiple source lists, including, but not limited to welfare rolls and income tax files. Presently, 50 percent of the states in the United States use a combined list of registered voters and licensed drivers, satisfying geographic, demographic, and ethnic criteria. Maintaining an updated master file list can assist in assuring that all people will have the same prob- ability of being called for jury service when it creates the broad- est possible list, with random selection and no exceptions.

Some courts offer interactive access to a Web-based system or an InteractiveVoice Response (WR) system. Prospec- tive jurors accessing these systems can register for jury service and obtain information about court policies regarding the process of qualification, service, postponements, and excuses.

At the same time that the prospective juror is providing information to these systems, concerned citizens have raised issues of privacy and confidentiality. When questions that courts are attempting to address, including who should have access, how is privacy determined, and what information is considered private versus public are resolved by statute or judicial ruling, the courts’ responses will need to be incorpo- ,rated into the rules, procedures, and jury management software.

Although there has been a substantial increase of information available to a prospective juror, there are still many commonly asked questions regarding the jury system. The issues of salary protection, what will happen when they report for service, and what will happen if they don’t report are just a sampling. Some changes in court culture that have resulted in a higher degree of juror participation include access to a Web-based system or interactive voice response, increased monetary compensation, and the creation of childcare centers on court premises.

Serving the Self-Represented Speakers: Bob Cohen, Bonnie Hough, and Alan Slater

Reporter: Bryan Borys

This session covered three elements of using technology to help self-represented litigants: the technology itself, the partnerships necessary to make it useful, and the changes required of courts to implement such a project. The twin themes running through the remarks by all three presenters were (1) the need to break down barriers (&., between organizations and between the court and litigants) and (2) the need to reduce the complexity of processes and paperwork.

Bonnie Hough of the California Administrative Office of the Courts provided background on California’s Web-based effort to help self-represented litigants. With the backing of the chief justice of the California Supreme Court and in partnership with state and local bar associations, theAOC has been working to s imple forms and instructions, create a glossary of legal and court terminology, and devise a tutorial on alternative dispute resolution (“YOU Don’t Have to Sue”). The AOC then put this information on an easy-to-use Web site (http:// www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/). A concerted publicity effort and partnerships with law libraries and community colleges helps get out the word and increase access to the site.

Bob Cohen of the LegalAid Society of Orange County, Cali- fornia, provided an overview of the Interactive Community

Assistance Network (I-CAN!), a Web site that explains court forms and helps people fill them out. As to the design of such a system, Cohen advises: “Forget about technology - [focus on] the problem you’re trying to solve.” In Orange County, the problem was that in some areas, 90 percent of litigants were self-represented and did not have effective access to justice. The I-CAN! system simplifies forms and language, organizes information for the litigant, and educates the litigant. An independent evaluation conducted by the University of California at Irvine concluded that “users overwhelmingly find I-CAN! very helpful and would recommend it to others.”

Alan Slater, court executive officer of Orange County, Cali- fornia, explained the next logical step in the integration of such systems: e-frling. The Orange County Superior Court plans to link the I-CAN! system directly to the court’s e-filing system, simultaneously improving both litigant access and court efficiency.

Together, the presentations showed the power of Web- based technologies to help self-represented litigants and emphasized the need for careful planning and collaboration, as well as effective integration of technology-based systems into the courts’ systems and procedures.

An Antidote for Information UNDERload - How Can You Find Out What

Courts Are Doing? Speakers: Janet Cornell, Chelle Uecker, and Doug Walker

Reporter: Dawn Childress

NACM and COSCA, with IT support from the National Center for State Courts and grant funding from the State Jus- tice Institute and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, have developed the Court Information Portal that is accessible through The National Center’s Web site at www.ncsconline.org/ courtinfoportal. Its mission is to provide electronic access to all the court information and knowledge that is “out there” by enabling users to launch a meaningful search and to have electronic templates, structured information, and outlines of the available information and knowledge.

Currently, challenges court managers face in searching information are: they do not know where to go, it is time consuming, not enough information is available on the search topic, they don’t know the right words to use or where to find comparable courts or jurisdictions, they are not getting connected with the right person, and they don’t know how to narrow down the subject. The Court Information Portal provides a gateway to information and services such as e-mail, a search engine, and an online shopping mall. Its free text search engine provides good instructions on how to search and shows a list of documents matching the query submitted. The documents found are available in both Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format and html format, making viewing and printing easy.

What the Court Information Portal needs most now is for participants to provide structured sets of information from courts such as ADA activities, technology applications, jury management, and new innovations, as well as advertising the availability of and where to access this information. Please visit the Court Information Portal at www.ncsconline.org/ courtinfoportal and see for yourself!

THECOURTMANAGER V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 1 9

NCSC Model RFPs Speakers: Willet R. Willis, Terry L. Brown, and Susan Bates

Reporter: Linda K. Ridge

Purchasing information technology equipment or services can be a very difficult and risky task. Often there is a discon- nect between what the operations personnel communicate as to their “wants and needs” for technology products/applications and how the vendors interpret those needs vis a vis what their product can provide. The purpose of this presentation was to acquaint participants with a model RFP tool available for use by court managers to craft more effective RFPs for procurement of technology equipment and services and to explore methods for more efficient dissemination and processing of RFPs via the Internet.

In 2000, the Joint Technology Committee of the Confer- ence of State Court Administrators and the National Associa- tion for Court Management appointed a subcommittee to develop a model RFF? With funding from a Bureau of Justice Assistance grant, SEARCH and The National Center for State Courts jointly provided staff assistance to prepare this model RFP document to assist court administrators and court technologists with technology acquisitions. The document consists of a table of contents, a detailed explanation of RFP issues (developed by James Maher), and sample RFPs. The RFP format addresses three types of RFPs: case management systems, professional services, and commodity items. The model can be accessed via the Web at www.search.org/courts/ ModelRFP/general/intro.shtml.

In addition to the information presented regarding the model RFP, other valuable information was provided on NCSC’s functional standards, now available for civil, criminal, and domestic case types (e-filing, juvenile, and adult probation standards are in progress). The standards are intended to be functional blueprints for in-house application development or the procurement of an automated case management system. When used with the model RFP, they provide clarification of requirements, assist in determining scope of work, and demand an increased level of accountability on the part of the vendor. The standards are accessible on the Web via NCSC’s Web site: www.ncsc.dni.us/ncsc/stp/htdocs/standards.htm. (Click on cancel to bypass the security check.)

Additionally, Susan Bates provided an excellent overview of the process by which RFPs can be disseminated and pro- cessed and proposals can be received via the Internet. She included tips on establishing the Web site and e-mail account, and protocols for fielding vendor questions and receipt of proposals.

For more information, contact Willis at wwillis@ncsc. dni.us, Brown at [email protected], and Bates at [email protected].

STANDARDS Speakers: Terri Bousquin and Moira Rowley

Reporter: Lee Cole

Functional standards are necessary to ensure that systems can work together.

For example, the development of standards was critical in

Functional standards of case management systems Electronic filing processes Court filing XML standards Dictionary work Guidelines for court developing policies for public

the following areas:

access to court records

Instructors for this session compared standards to a light bulb and electricity. They explained that the light bulb is the end product the user receives, but there are standards that get the electricity to the light bulb. Today, we have technology in place in our courts. This class focused on the standards in place to develop those technology pieces.

There are four phases leading to the approval of standards: Initiation phase Development phase Comment phase Approval phase

Initiation phase - Chief justice’s resolutions begin the implementation of automation standards. The chief justices will encourage courts in the various states to comply with the applicable standards when purchasing new systems.

Developmentphase - Development of standards usually occurs through processes and partnerships with the private sector.

Commentphase - Once the development phase is completed, the standards are circulated for comment. The informal comment phase is published on the Joint Standards De- velopment Web site. A formal comment phase lasts for at least 60 days once the Joint Technology Committee accepts the proposed standards.

Approualphase -The JointTechnology Committee meets three times a year to make recommendations to COSCA and NACM boards for adoption of technical standards.

The purpose of this session was to educate the audience on standards for technology in the court environment and to categorize those standards so they are easier to understand.


This session was instructive in that it helps those of us who are end users understand the painstaking and meticu- lous work that occurs behind the scenes to produce the technology we now enjoy.

Information Technology Forum Track - State of the Industry

WLat’s On and Under the Radar Screen Speaker: William Kumagai

Reporter: Lawrence G. Myers

William Kumagai of Gartner State 81 Local Government Consulting shared his company’s view of information technology’s future in three major areas: IT Strategies in a Budget-Challenged World; Protecting Public Assets and Re- sources; and IT Human Capital Management Issues.

Strategies in a Budget-Challenged World IT budget/spending priorities will shift, rather than be

IT investments in 2002 face greater scrutiny and dramatically reduced;

must promise to deliver tangible business value to receive approval; Enterprises must carefully balance the need to save money with the risk of under-investing in IT; and IT budgets and spending will shift to emphasize security, disaster recovery, and communications.

Protecting Public Assets and Resources Apply the Internet analogy - E-mail survived while telephone, cell phone, and radio failed. Distribute EOCs, establish multiple remote accesses, and establish multiple communications channels; Plan business continuity from the start - integrate business continuity planning into the enterprise project life cycle to ensure recovery needs are identified in the project. Avoid unanticipated subsequent upgrades; Identify location of vulnerability - close to home, at low speeds; I d e n t e sources of vulnerability (in order from high to low) - what you do (or fail to do) to yourself, what your employees do (or fail to do), what your business partners do (or fail to do), what your customers/ public do (or fail to do), and what terrorists do.

IT Human Capital Management Issues: Gartner believes that through 2004, global demand for relevant IT skills and know-how will continue to outstrip supply by at least 25 percent. The company recently completed a survey of state and local governments that revealed more than 80 percent are experiencing lasting shortages of qualified IT staff; 87 percent of state governments and 80 percent of local governments continue to suffer a critical shortage of qualified IT staff; 86 percent of state agencies have 10 percent or more of their staff eligible to retire within five years, while 56 percent of local agencies are in the same position, with more than 10 percent of their staff eligible for retirement within five years. Skills shortages are found at all levels, but skilled IT staff are most lacking in the intermediate and advanced skills levels.

Contact Kumagai at [email protected].

IWG Report: Information System Security

Technologies in Integrated Justice Systems Speakers: Christopher Crawford and Alan Harbitter

Reporter: Linda Rodriguez

Information technology veterans Christopher Crawford, president of Justice Served, and Alan Harbitter, chief technology officer at PEC Solutions, presented an update on the efforts to integrate justice information systems in the Industry Working Group. In an effort to provide system security for integrated justice systems, non-profit organizations such as the Forum for Advancement of CourtTechnology work to create a product that will provide security for the justice system.To- gether, Crawford and Harbitter addressed the issue of unauthorized access into justice computer systems, the need for trained systems managers, and the large market available for security software packages.

According to the CERT Coordination Center, security in- trusion incidents have risen 17 percent in the past five years. Although no system is 100 percent hacker-proof, minimizing unauthorized access is relatively low-cost. There is a wide variety of software programs available on the Internet and in electronic stores, and there are many professionals who spe- cialize in systems security who can customize a software package for your particular needs.

In addition, systems managers must be trained and knowl- edgeable in order to properly evaluate the needs and threats against their computer systems and to take control. Managers must routinely update the security software in their computers since the war on hackers grows larger and more sophisticated each day. Harbitter stressed the need for project management and basic security technology.

Implementation of an integrated security system for data- bases is relative to the degree of security required for the system. Some of the basic security technologies include encryp- tion, public key infrastructure, digital signature, authentication, and network security. The most important thing to remember is that proper systems management is imperative to preserv- ing the integrity of our automated court management systems beginning with implementation of basic security technology.

For further information regarding the IWG, visit their Web site at www.ijis.org and the CERT Coordination Center at www.cert.org.

Justice Information Exchange Model Speaker: Lawrence Webster

Reporter: Judith 1. Baker

Larry Webster, justice information systems specialist with SEARCH, presented the Justice Information Exchange Model. Funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, JIEM’s mission is to improve the quality of justice through the use, management, and exchange of justice information by means of the application of technology and responsible law and policy.

JIEM assists justice system integration by connecting com- puterized information systems to provide justice system officials with access to complete, accurate, and timely information needed to make decisions - all in a paperless process. JIEM consists of five dimensions that identlfy exchanges. Each


exchange is a unique combination of entries for each dimen- sion, plus additional meta-data. The five dimensions are:

the exchange, i.e., investigation, detention, predisposition court, post-disposition court, predisposition supervision, post-disposition supervision, and incarceration. Event - decisions and actions that trigger exchanges, i.e., arrest, booking, filing decision, failure to appear, sentencing, and release from prison.

information, i.e., police department, prosecutor, public defender, trial court, probation, and corrections. Conditions - factors that determine what information goes to which agencies, i.e., if defendant enters a guilty plea, if sufficient evidence to file charges, if subject is charged with a misdemeanor, and if detainee is more than 18 years of age. Information - data exchanged between agencies, i.e., documents, data sets (groups of logically related data elements), and data elements (individual data).

Process - stage where the subject is at the time of

Agency - the entity that sends or receives

Webster presented examples of how the model works and described the JIEM tool in the SEARCH project. In the project, SEARCH maintains a server that runs a Web-based JAVA application. Participating jurisdictions, without charge, are able to access the server using only a PC with Internet access.

The reports option allows viewers to see various stages of the JIEM tool organized by process. Reports can be created in HTML or in an Excel spreadsheet for further data manipula- tion. The exchange audit report shows exchanges that may not have been delivered. Being able to see exchanges helps users understand how they fit together with all agencies and get the big picture of information exchange within their jurisdiction.

Webster said the role of SEARCH in using JIEM is that of application service provider. They are continuously enhancing the software, providing technical support, training and reviewing, evaluating and analyzing its use. Overall, courts participate in more than 78 percent of all justice system information exchanges. JIEM is an important part of the answer to integrating justice information systems. For additional information, visit www. infoexchange. search. org.

The Justice Scorecard t2 Six Sigma:

A Performance Measurement, Management,

and Continuous Improvement System

to Create A World-Class Court Speaker: Seeto Wei Peng Reporter: Susan Coleman

Seeto Wei Peng, senior deputy head of the research and statistics unit of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, shared her court’s vision to be “the first among equals in world judi- ciaries, to continue to lead the citizenship of the justice process, and to be a dynamic public institution.” She presented the court’s development of an automated performance management and strategic improvement system via video-confer-

ence from Singapore. The Justice Scorecard and Six Sigma systems developed by the Subordinate Courts of Singapore are based on the strategic management system found in Rob- ert s. Kaplin’s Balanced Scorecard, but they are redesigned to focus on the public institution instead of the private.

The court’s purpose in establishing the Justice Scorecard system was to more clearly link the actions of the courts with the vision, to gain a more balanced view of court activities, to move toward proactive management and communication, and to obtain simple, concise, and critical measures and indica- tors. In November 1998, they started with a pilot project in the small claims division and expanded organization-wide one year later. The Subordinate Courts of Singapore successfully created a computer-based system where performance and outcome measures linked to each division’s vision, goals, and objectives can be continuously monitored and used as a proactive management tool that provides early warning signals when targets are not being met.

Following the development and implementation of the Justice Scorecard, the courts developed a system for continuous court improvement they call “Six Sigma.” This system consists of a step-by-step process for identifying and implementing court improvement projects strategically linked to the court’s vision and objectives and tied to the Justice Scorecard monitoring and management system. The process calls for identiftcation of critical success factors, linking to goals and objectives, evaluation of costs, benefits, and resources required, performance measure monitoring, and re-evaluation and development of strategies for improvement. The court has successfully completed their first Six Sigma pilot project and is looking toward implementing the system in all areas.

Seeto Wei Peng can be reached by e-mail at SEETO-Wei-Peng@subct .gov. sg. The Balanced Scorecard Col- laborative, 1nc.Web site is located at www.bscol.com/. Two of many Web sites with information on Balanced Scorecard and Six Sigma software are: www.activestrategy.com and www.pbviews.com.

Technology First Aid Kit: What To Do With the Cool New System

the Judge Bought at CTC? Speakers: Francis Bremson and Laura Klaversrna

Reporter: John Doktor

Laura Klaversma of the National Center for State Courts introduced the topic by describing a two-year BJA-funded project now nearing completion being conducted by The Na- tional Center and SEARCH staff and consultants for the Tech- nology Reengineering Subcommittee of the Joint Technology Committee to develop a guide to “Business Process Enhance- ment in the Courts.” The guide was developed in part to address concerns about technology funds being spent unwisely.

The objectives of the project were to: Identlfy instances where courts have re-engineered

Document what guidelines, checklists, policies, and

Conduct four site visits, review published information,

effectively;

software were used;

review tools used; and


Produce “A Guide to Process Improvement and Process Reengineering for Judges and Court Managers Who Deal with Court Technology.”

Francis Bremson of SEARCH differentiated between Busi- ness Process Improvement (BPI) and Business Process Reengineering (BPR):

“Business Process Improvement” (BPI) is a disciplined approach to the simplification and streamlining of business processes, using measurements and controls to aid continuous improvement.

“Business Process Reengineering” (BPR) is a disciplined approach to the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business process to bring about dramatic improvements in performance.

He also distinguished between Business Process Enhance- ment (the range of alternatives between BPI and BPR) and strategic planning and project management:

“Strategic Planning” is a disciplined and systematic effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what a court or other organization is and ought to be, what it does, and why it does it.

“Project Management” refers to a set of management techniques applicable to any project to define, monitor, and control the resources to be applied to produce defined deliverables.

Tools observed by theTechnology Reengineering Subcom- mittee in use by courts included: workflow analysis using IDEE Use CaseTypes, and the SEARCH Justice Information Exchange Model (‘JIEM) Tool.

Klaversma stated that many tools are in use and you need to look at the individual organization and see what fits. For more information, contact Klaversma at Iklaversma@ncsc. dni.us or Bremson at [email protected].

COSCA/NACM Functional Standards Speakers: Edward L. Papps and Dr. Maurice Blacher

Reporter: Suzanne H. Stinson

Edward Papps brings to the National Consortium for Court Automation Standards his expertise from serving on the Advi- sory Committee on Technology for the National Center for State Courts, the board of directors of the World IT Congress, and the Association of Information Technology Professionals. According to Papps, we have more than 16,000 courts in the United States that spend $500 million a year on case management systems. The purpose of the consortium is to deal at the “what” level and not the “how” level on how automation is implemented so that .the courts can design standards for their particular needs.

Papps addressed the need for automation standards: 1. to provide guidance to courts procuring or

developing new automated systems or seeking to upgrade existing systems,

2. to provide a template for private sector service providers to use in developing products for the courts market, and

3. to ensure interoperability of systems requiring the transfer of information, such as electronic filing.

The Conference of Chief Judges (CCJ) has posted on the National Center for State Courts’ Web site Resolution 13 that sets forth the Implementation of Automation Standards (see www.ncsconline.org). Resolution 13 states in essence that every state will make every effort to implement national standards for case management when purchasing, building, or modlfying their systems.

The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a courier service that can be a universal means for transferring electronic filing data. This method was developed by the Joint Technol- ogy Subcommittee in cooperation with OASIS and is presently ready for public comment.

Dr. Maurice Blacher acts as technical consultant and has built an application with a systems architect. He indicated, however, that it may fall on the court administrators to implement the application. Model Request for Proposal (RFP) struc- tures, contractual language, and policy standards were also presented to the participants for review.


WEDNESDAY, JULY 24

NACM Past Presidents PresentatiodCLat:

NACM Vision and Mission Speakers: Janet G. Cornell, Suzanne H. James, Norman H. Meyer Jr.

Reporter: Richard Moellmer

Three of NACM’s past presidents chatted with the audience about NACM’s vision and mission statements. A vision statement defines a future ideal state; it describes the direction the organization intends to move toward. The vision should represent what an organization desires to become or what it should be at its best.

NACM’s Vision Statement The National Association for Court Management will con-

tinue to be a global leader in the achievement of an independent, interdependent, accessible, and forward-looking judicial branch that is committed to excellence. NACM will provide outstanding service to its members through quality professional development, relevant publications, collegial fellowship and opportunities to participate in the organization. The core values of integrity, diversity, vision- ary leadership, innovation, and collaboration will be reflected throughout NACM.

A mission statement, on the other hand, defines an organization’s purpose - why it exists. It helps an organization focus on what is important and provides a reference point for developing and prioritizing goals and strategies.

NACMs Mission Statement The mission of the National Association for Court Man-

agement is t o instill a commitment to excellence, develop proficient court elders, provide efficient and customer-oriented justice, promote partner-based research, and support the independence and interdependence of the judiciary with other branches of government.

NACM’s Strategic Plan brings the vision and mission statements alive. Six goals drawn from the vision and mission statement are further developed into objectives with action items and assigned responsible parties. The three participating past presidents encouraged NACM members to review the strategic plan at www.nacrnnet.org/StrategicPlanJuly2002.pdf. The plan was revised and adopted in July. Contact Janet Cornel1 at [email protected]; Suzanne James at [email protected]. md.us; and Norman Meyer at [email protected].

24 V O L U M E 1 7 N U M 6 E R 3 THE C O U R T M A N A G E R

JULY 25

Caseflow Management, Introduction Speaker: Dr. Barry Mahoney

Reporter: Roberta Tepper

In this session explaining the basics of caseflow management, Dr. Mahoney, president emeritus of The Justice Manage- ment Institute, began by discussing the core curriculum guidelines, the origins of modern court management, and what court managers need to be able to do.

Pointing out that surveys of the public about the courts typically point to the same complaints time after time - the process takes too long and costs too much - Dr. Mahoney discussed the need for and techniques of caseflow management. Implementing caseflow management makes processes more expeditious, cost effective, and fair.

Referring to Ernest Friesen’s work, Dr. Mahoney framed the purposes of courts as (1) applying the law to facts after a fair and effective presentation; (2) enhancing the public’s confidence that the court is capable of and is, in fact, doing justice; and (3) providing a forum for fair and impartial dispute resolution. All of those purposes are undermined by delay. Discussing the establishment of the American Bar Association Case Processing Time Standards relating to court delay reduction, Dr. Mahoney was able to give the background leading to the development of the standards.

The fundamental competencies required to design and implement an effective caseflow management system were listed and discussed. The connection between effective trial management and effective caseflow management implementation was made and stressed.

Many attendees shared their case management experiences, good and bad, getting feedback not only from Dr. Mahoney, but from other audience members as well. Dr. Mahoney used these anecdotes to illustrate possibilities for improvement or to explain a basic tenet of case management.

This session, although aimed at beginners, was attended by many experienced court managers as well. In addition to providing a basic primer of terms and concepts for those new to court management, this session provided a forum for experienced court managers to get information about the case management experiences of others.

Contact Barry Mahoney at [email protected].

Education, Training t!3 Development Speaker: Jan Bouch

Reporter: Debra C. French

In order to educate the public, we must educate court employees. We cannot achieve excellence in the courts without education, training, and development. Jan Bouch showed how the five curriculum guidelines in the Education,Training and Development Core Competency can assist us in developing our own court’s training and education program. She also revealed how the core competencies are intrinsically related and how knowledge of the Education,Training and Develop- ment Core Competency helps us to achieve all other core competencies.

The five curriculum guidelines are: context and vision, resource development, adult education fundamentals, program management, and evaluation. Bouch demonstrated how we could use each of these guidelines to develop an effective education and training program for our courts.

Context and Vision -We must look at the other core competencies and determine how they impact our ability to offer education, training, and development. How does the Human Resources Core Competency or Budget and Finance Core Competency affect our ability to provide quality education and training programs? The core competencies are used to align the organization’s values with the individual’s values.

Resource Development - During a budget crisis, education and training programs are often the first items cut from a budget. We need to just@ and demonstrate how education impacts the rest of the core competencies and our daily work. Education and training are necessary components to success.

Adult Education Fundamentals -We need to deliver education and training in a variety of ways in order for the organization and its employees to achieve their highest potential. We need to understand how people learn and then offer training programs in various forms.These different forms may include: written, group work,video, role playing, mentoring, lecture, etc.

Program Management -We need to determine what skills our people need to function at their best.

Evaluation - Training programs must be evaluated and changed to accommodate the needs of both the employee and the organization. Evaluation may be done in various ways: personal assessment, look at person’s performance, evaluate the work of employee, how does the person inspire others, how are new skills incorporated into the organization?

By using the five curriculum guidelines and developing them fully, we can offer our court and its employees valuable education and training programs to further the organization’s goals as well as personal goals.

Information TecLnology Management Speaker: Lawrence t? Webster

Reporter: Tracy J. BeMent

Perhaps one of the most daunting of NACM’s Core Com- petencies is InformationTechnology Management. Court managers who are technologically savvy will often admit behind closed doors that they do not know everything about networks, routers, scalability, security authentication, firewalls, and so on. So, can court managers know IT issues and technology trends while still managing a court? Luckily for us, NACM has taken this into consideration when developing its IT Management Core Competency.

The IT Management Core Competency focuses on five principle areas of knowledge: purpose and court processes;


vision and leadership; technology fundamentals; technology management; and projects. Each of these five areas outlines the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to be a proficient IT court manager.

Purpose and courtprocesses focuses on linking court functions to IT issues and how technology can benefit the judicial process. Vision and leadership details the importance of being able to bring IT issues into the context of court operations and being able to “sell” the benefits to court leaders, judges, stakeholders, and staff. Technology fundamentals, the most challenging of the areas, outlines the need for court managers to be familial; not experts, on IT trends, standards, tools, archi- tecture, and infrastructure. Most importantly, it is the ability to assess IT options, limitations, and opportunities. Technology management focuses on the ability to manage both people and projects when it comes to IT issues, including attracting and retaining technology staff, leading and inspiring, and articulating IT issues. Finally,projects stresses the need for court managers to know how to assess, evaluate, communicate, and manage IT projects and the risk associated with them. This includes having some knowledge of funding and procurement strategies as well as general knowledge of project life cycles and plan development.

Overall, the IT Management Core Competency does not suggest that court managers be technologists, but that they have the ability to understand, assess, and communicate the court’s technology needs. The core competency sums the issue up well: “When Information Technology is applied skill- fully, communication and decisions, judicial and managerial, can be improved.”

IarryWebster, a Justice Information Systems Specialist with SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, led the overview of the core competency. A leader in judicial information management and technology, he has been a key author of the IT Management Core Competency Guidelines.

Purposes and Responsibilities

of Courts - Introduction Speaker: Suzanne James

Reporter: David Price

Speaker Suzanne James, court administrator of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, focused on three issues associated with the Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts Core Competency:

Why courts exist and how important the courts are

What are the purposes of courts, and Why knowing the purposes is important.

to society,

Why do courts exist? James began by asking the audience to identlfy what would be lost without the courts.The audience listed several aspects of democratic society, including (1) laws would not be enforced and people would not be accountable for their actions, (2) people/organizations would take the law into their own hands, (3) there would be no forum for dispute resolution, and (4) there would be no due process.

The audience concluded that eliminating the courts could easily lead to anarchy.

What are the purposes of courts? James challenged the audience to think about the purposes of courts. She provided a list of eight reasons courts exist that was developed by Ernie Friesen and asked attendees to add or subtract from it. A few additions worth considering were (1) to ensure society’s laws are applied consistently to the same set of circumstances, (2) to uphold the rule of law, and (3 ) to provide a place where victims can seek a remedy for injustices.

Why is knowing the purposes of courts important? Un- derstanding the courts’ purposes is important for several reasons, including (1) understanding what courts are accountable for doing (and not doing),(2) educating stakeholders about the purposes (and what are not the purposes), (3) building trust and confidence in the courts, and (4) building accountability into the court system by defining expected outcomes and evaluating whether they were realized. The purposes also have relevance for court staffing because they help define the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that staff need.

All court leaders who have administrative responsibility need to know the purposes of courts in order to lead. It is essential in building support within the organization so they can plan strategically for the future of the organization and so they can evaluate their own performance and effect improvements where needed. It is therefore not surprising that the court’s purposes are the foundation for the ten core competencies that NACM has been developing over the past several years.

For further information, visit the NACM Web site at m . n a c m n e t .org.

Resources, Budget, and Finance - Advanced Speaker: John K. Hudzik, Ph. D. Reporter: Shelley M. Stump, J. D.

The session was led by Dr. Hudzik, professor of criminal justice and dean of International Programs, Michigan State Uni- versity, and director emeritus, Judicial Education, Reference, Information andTechnica1 Transfer UERITT) Project.The purpose of the session was to review environmental factors that cause budget shortfalls and ways in which the courts can effectively manage their finances during such challenging times.

During this fast-paced, interactive session, Dr. Hudzik first reviewed several environmental reasons for the current budget shortfalls that the courts are facing and then used the re- mainder of the session for discussion.

Dr. Hudzik pointed out that:

Fiscal decisions made in the 1990s have seriously affected the ability and flexibility of state and local government to obtain needed revenue to address their obligations.

which the courts need to be prepared to consider and address in budget development and court operations.

Macro-level trends create a complex web of factors


Trends include dollars, people and workforce, organizational design trends and paradigm shifts impacting the judicial branch such as global economy and interdependency, cross-border migration, changes in science and technology, shrinking half-life of useful information, use of the Web by large segments of the population, empowerment of women and racial minorities, aging population and shift to service- and knowledge-based economy, and decentralized management and performance planning.

0 Judicial leadership is key to helping the courts effectively advocate for needed resources from funding authorities.

0 New budgeting practices (such as revenue carryover and the use of other incentive systems) are being developed in other sectors that should be considered and adapted for use in the courts to permit the courts to effectively manage their public resources.

During the open discussion portion of the session, areas of interest raised by participants included identification of cost drivers, intergovernmental relations, revenue collection, challenges faced by county-funded courts where the county government is both the appointing and funding authority; responsibility of judges to educate the public and other elected officials about the needs of the courts; the bureaucratic mentality of year-end spending; and the effective use of grant funding in the courts.

Court executive officers and planning, budget, and finance managers would find this session very useful.

Visioning and Strategic Planning - Advanced Speakers: Dr. John A. Martin and Dr. Brenda J. Wagenknecht-lvey

Reporter: Connie J. Villelli

Discussion focused on what has gone wrong in previous planning efforts and how to revitalize strategic plans that may be collecting dust. Strategic plans should be dynamic documents that ebb and flow with your environment. Essential

components are: 1)Where are we today? What is our real purpose? Who are we trying to serve? 2) Where do we want to be as an organization? How do we build consensus on our court’s future? and, 3) How are we going to implement identified strategies?

Problems in strategic planning are not usually associated with the contents of the plan but in the implementation of the strategies. How do courts gain the necessary momentum to implement strategies in their plan? Dr. Martin and Dr. Wagenknecht-Ivey suggest that one way is to analyze past planning efforts and determine what went wrong.

Several tips for successful implementation and follow- through of strategic plans were suggested.

e Create urgency and build support and enthusiasm for

Communicate widely; 0 Formally create an effective implementation structure

Prioritize and focus; Tactfully confront those who are undermining implementation efforts and resisting change;

0 Tie strategic and operational priorities to the budget; Monitor, measure, and report progress and results -

Update the strategic plan as needed, but at least

the plan and priorities;

and involve lots of people;

regularly and often; and

annually.

The session concluded with several considerations to determine how courts should revitalize their planning efforts. Should they “dust off their existing plans, start from scratch, or use a different tool? Considerations include:

History of past strategic planning efforts (past successes/failures, highflow tolerance) - if low tolerance for planning efforts, you may want to “tweak” your existing plan. Needs and opportunities of the organization - What is currently going on that indicates a need to revitalize the plan? Are there issues to address?


Desired outcomes -What outcomes are wanted from revitalizing the strategic plan? If you want internal buy-in or consensus, you may want to start from scratch. Cast of players - Has there been a significant turn over in staff? If so, you may want to start from scratch.

Leadership - Advanced Speaker: Daniel H. Straub Reporter: Steven Weller

The primary theme of this session was“frnding your voice,” or using leadership both to build on your strengths as a leader and to develop the strengths of those who are looking to you for leadership. The session was aimed at “little 1” leadership, which is defined as a process and an influence relationship between leaders and followers.Viewed this way, leadership is not defined by position and within a group might not reside in just one person. Leadership is an episodic affair of a group based on influence. People follow a leader because they per- ceive the leader as worth following based on mutual trust.

The first step in developing leadership skills is self-assessment. Begin with the NACM core leadership competencies and assess which ones are your strengths and which ones are your weaknesses, both in your perception and in the perception of others. Key questions to ask are: What should I do more of? What should I do less of? What should I do differently? What am I rewarding and punishing? Am I doing the right thing, rather than just doing things right? And then ask: In whose eyes?

The next step is to look at the followers. Most leadership is aimed at damage control: plugging weaknesses rather than developing strengths. Leaders should assume that each person’s talents are enduring and unique and each person’s greatest room for growth is in his or her areas of greatest strength. The most effective leaders look for talent in every role, treat every person differently, focus people’s performance on outcomes rather than forcing them into a stylistic mode, and spend most of their time with their best people. Training should be aimed at building on strengths. In addition, leaders should work to build trust among diverse people and develop people’s ability to work collaboratively and in non-coercive settings.

By focusing on leadership as a process rather than the outgrowth of positional authority, this session has relevance

I for all court managers at all 1evels.A~ court managers do not have positional authority over judges, the key leadership tool of all court managers is influence.

Resources, Budget,

and Finance - Introduction Speaker: John Hudzik

Reporter: Deborah Lambert-Dally

Judicial budgets have grown substantially over the last several years; they are now more visible and, therefore, attract greater scrutiny for evidence of cost efficiency and effectiveness. Resource allocation, acquisition, and financial management impact all levels of court operation and determine how well, even whether, a court achieves its goals. This session was led with energy, motivation, and lively interactive exercises giving students practice in thinking through and using frnancial principals.

Among the specific topics covered were:

What are resources and where do I get them? Resources are the dollars and personnel needed to improve services, reduce costs, and better serve the law and public interests. In- creasing public criticism of courts calls into question the quality of their services with associated costs and benefits. Courts can better manage the resources that they already have by:

Thinking strategically when making resource

Setting measurable goals for monitoring

Focusing on sufficiency and sustainability.

allocation decisions.

accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness.

What is budgeting? Budgeting is fundamental policy-making and the core of organizational leadership and management. Budgeting is the acquisition of resources to articulate the court’s vision, goals, objectives, and performance outcomes. Budgeting is resource allocation and what you do with the dollars you have. Local governments are being forced to make tough choices in their distribution of dollamwith 90 percent of jurisdictions practicing “fmed ceiling” budgeting, effectively articulating the budgetary implications on the courts is crucial and can be accomplished by:

Improving court budgeting by incorporating a managerial approach. Linking long-term core mission goals to any budgetary requests. Estimating major revenue sources, tracking personnel costs and doing budget reporting during the year, and doing multiyear budgeting.

Why should courts deal with political and social trend forecasting? Courts are required to deal with mandated legislation, and funding is almost certain to be insufficient. By interacting with funding authorities, problems can be identi-

28 V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 THE COURT MANAGER

fied, issues of inherent powers addressed, and an open and sustained dialogue can happen. Political sawy and coalition building should be a goal of all court managers. Political and social trend forecasting can assist by:

Re-engineering processes, not departments, by implementing fewer dispensation steps, which can save time, money, and improve quality. Examining recent and emerging changes in public sector budgeting. Stabilizing the court’s vision and mission.

Leadership - Introduction Speaker: Daniel H. Straub

Reporter: Deborah Taylor-Godwin

The session described how court management has evolved as a profession over time and examined certain “myths” associated with leadership. Straub emphasized the development of core competencies for court managers as part of this important evolution and stressed fine-tuning of those competencies to have relevance over the years.

Some of the myths identified with leadership were: 1) leadership is a rare skill; 2) leaders are born, not made; 3) leaders are charismatic; 4) leaders exist only at the top; and 5) leaders control, prod, direct, and manipulate. Straub suggested more succinct defrnitions of leadership such as “an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” Ooseph Rust, Leadership for the 21”‘ Century) and “When one or more persons engage with others in such a way that ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ raise one another to higher levels of motivation and mora1ity”Oames MacGregor Burns, Leadership, Position and Place).

Straub stressed that actual leadership is based more upon character, practicing what you preach, doing what you say you will, and finding your own voice within an organization. Lead- ership is actually a combination of “ascribed” and “achieved” status, with the former associated with the position and the latter to the person. Essential challenges of leadership consist of 1) challenging the process; 2) inspiring a shared vision; 3) enabling others to act; 4) modeling the way, and 5) encouraging the heart. Straub offered the challenge that NACM leadership competencies should be credible in action, create focus through vision and purpose, manage interdependencies, work beyond the boundaries, create a high-performance environment, and perform skillful and continual diagnosis.

This session reinforced the notion that being a court manager is more than managing operations - it is a systematic way of shaping employees’ values and character building. A court manager does not have to change his or her basic personality as long as that personality fits with the organization and enhances it in a positive way. A leader is also one who maintains his or her own character without necessarily adopting an organization’s values if its values are immoral or unethical.

Managers interested in more information may contact Straub at [email protected].

Court Community Communications Speaker: Tom Hodson Reporter: Mike Planet

Tom Hodson, an expert in court/community relations who is well known to NACM, led an excellent workshop focusing on the court community communications guidelines. In particular, he zeroed in on the applicability of the NACM Core Competencies and on how to use the guidelines in our jobs as court professionals. He identified three reasons for the development of these particular competencies. First was the perception of a crisis in public trust and confidence in the courts. Second, citing studies by the National Center for State Courts and various surveys, Hodson noted findings that the public thinks courts take too long, cost too much, are biased, and make political decisions. All of this is exacerbated by television news and entertainment. Third, there is the misperception that other branches of government know what courts do. The guidelines were designed to help court managers navigate these waters.

Hodson then walked the attendees through communications fundamentals, understandable courts, community outreach, public information, the media and media relations, and program management.With a mixture of real-life experiences, exercises, and news on state-of-the-art developments in media communications - along with his usual good humor - Hodson made these basic skill needs come to life. Of all the tips and practical advice he provided, here are three hot ones to pass along. Don’t expect to communicate with PBS minds in an MTV world. Use the phrase “community relations” and not “public relations.”And never say “No comment” when you can say “It would not be fair for me to comment at this time!”

Visioning and Strategic

PIanning - Introduction Speaker: John A. Martin and Brenda J. Wagenknecht-lvey

Reporter: Tracy J. BeMent

One of the most common problems that courts suffer from is the lack of clear strategic planning. Unlike most government entities, the courts’ main function, i.e. the adjudication of cases, is not controlled by the courts. Rather, external forces - law enforcement, prosecutors, and civil litigants - all of whom the courts largely do not control, largely d e f i e the work of courts. What the courts do have control over is how their cases are managed as they move through the judicial process.

Strategic planning is a tool for promoting positive change and organizational improvement. But how does a court manager start? The session provided an overview of three key aspects of strategic planning: 1) the NACM core competency, 2) the nine-step model for strategic planning developed by the speakers,and 3) the interrelationships with all other NACM Core Competencies. In addition, the speakers outlined the three basic components of a strategic planning: 1) vision, 2) mission, and 3) goals.

A key concept that the speakers raised was the difference between the various levels of planning: long-term planning (3-10 years), which is true strategic planning; organizational planning (1-2 years); and implementation or action planning


(6 months - 1 year).The speakers encouraged the audience to focus on all three aspects of planning. Unfortunately, given the realities of budget and other resource pressures as well as external pressures such as state-mandated planning requirements, many courts are forced to focus on more short-term realities.

Strategic planning has a lot to offer courts. Not only does it provide a blueprint for the future, but it allows courts to focus on priorities while allowing for collaboration on and agreement on a unified direction. Externally, it allows courts to respond to criticisms and address long-term problems. Most importantly, a solid, clear strategic plan allows courts to better compete for funding, personnel, and resources. Failure to perform strategic planning will result in the court being more reactionary and the court’s leadership going in different directions.

Interested court managers are also encouraged to review Strategic Planning Mentoring Guidelines: Practical Tips for Court Leaders (www.flcourts.org/osca/divisions/stratplan/ guidehtml). The speakers conducted this study in 2000 under a grant from the State Justice Institute.

Casenow Management - Advanced Speaker: Barry Mahoney Reporter: Susan Boynton

The main purpose of this session was to review the principles of advanced caseflow management and leadership in the courts. These concepts, developed by lecture and audience participation, served as reminder and stimulus for experienced practitioners to renew their commitment to excellence in caseflow management.

Dr. Barry Mahoney, president emeritus of the Justice Man- agement Institute, discussed what court leaders need to know or the fundamental competencies in court management, the purpose of courts, the American Bar Association standards relating to case processing times and delay reduction, as well as the basic premises and goals of caseflow and trial management.

The discussion continued with identification of the key elements present in successful courts and the requirements for leadership in organizations, and ended with key questions about caseload and management information reports, the cen- terpiece of the session.

Necessary management information reports include:

Pending caseload report by case category, age

Open case list by age, status, next action date, and

Case scheduling effectiveness Continuance rates/trial date certainty Trend data such as frlings, dispositions, pending

distribution, status, and the number/percent over goal

locator information on lawyers and parties

caseload size, and age of cases, especially the number of cases over goal Age of cases at disposition by case category

Contact Barry Mahoney at the Justice Management Insti- tute, 1900 Grant Street, Suite 630, Denver, CO 80203; (303) 83 1-7564; Fax (303) 83 1-4564; [email protected].

Human Resource Management - Introduction Speaker: Theodore H. Curry II

Reporter: Dixie Scholtes

The workshop provided a great deal of information on how to structure and monitor relationships between the court and its employees so that everyone gets a good deal. It is not only the employer and employee expecting something worth- while from the relationship, but also community agencies and taxpayers in general.

Professor Theodore Curry, director of the Graduate School of Labor and Industrial Relations of Michigan State University, provided unique insight as to what employers and employees consider a “good deal.” He emphasized the need for employers to attract and retain the kinds and numbers of people necessary to accomplish its objectives and perform and behave in ways that reflect the court’s values. Employers also want committed employees who will give a fair days work for a fair price.

Employees consider they have a “good deal” if they are treated fairly and equitably. They also want to know that legitimate, job-related needs are considered and, to the extent possible, met. Curry pointed out that despite funding arrangements, the small size of most courts, and the complexity of human resource issues, the judiciary must be the driving force in the management of challenges facing the human resource department.

The environment is definitely changing for human resources management. Courts must be creative in their ability to deal with decreasing revenues, more financial pressures, and, increased scrutiny from the customer or public. In addition, human resources must be aware of the changes in the labor force itself. The workforce today includes more women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities than ever before.

Human resources must continue to focus on its four competencies: vision and purpose, HR fundamentals, context and fairness, and management and supervision to achieve organizational excellence today and in the future. Curry reiterated the need to structure and monitor the relationship between the court and it’s employees to ensure that all parties get a “good deal.”

Professor Curry’s email address is: [email protected].

Information Technology

Management -Advanced Speaker: Lawrence Webster Reporter: Daniel Edwards

This session was one of eight concurrent core competency workshops that was offered and reviewed the core competency curriculum guidelines for information technology management. The information technology management guidelines were developed seventh in the series of 10 NACM Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines. These guidelines provide the basis for what court leaders must know in order


to effectively use technology within the court system. Court leaders must first have a broad perspective of the court, then the knowledge, skills, and abilities related to technology, and finally a vision of the role that information technology will play.

The session, led by Lawrence Webster, justice information specialist with SEARCH, not only reviewed the curriculum guidelines, but was also used to solicit feedback relative to any suggestions or comments as to the content and the format of the guidelines. Suggestions or comments included such issues as references to assessment skills does not mean intimate knowledge, i.e. the ability to code or build networks, but the ability to understand overall IT issues and to include the ability to select staff and budget for IT projects.

Key points included:

Court leadership needs to have IT knowledge, skill, and abilities in order to adapt technology tools to the justice process in a rapidly changing world.

Court leaders do not need to have intimate knowledge of IT, i.e. programming or network building skills, but they must have broad court and IT knowledge and understanding.

Court leaders must tie IT issues to the court’s strategic plan.

To view the information technology guideline, visit the NACM Web site at www.nacmnet.org.

Essential Components - Introduction Speaker: Alan Carlson

Reporter: Mark M. Dalton

Alan Carlson, president of the Justice Management Insti- tute, began by noting two session goals. The first was for people to become familiar with the Core Competency Curriculum Guideline (CCCG) Essential Components. As a writer for Es- sential Components (EC), Carlson’s second goal was to obtain feedback from the session attendees as to how the CCCG read, what changes should be made, and what elements were left out that needed to be added.

Carlson explained that EC includes those court programs and services not covered by the other CCCGs. A major theme that runs through EC is that over the last several years, courts have come to depend on court programs and agencies to provide information rather than the litigants. Essential Compo- nents are of several types and serve several functions. Within this CCCG, Carlson has grouped EC in categories according to how and when they contribute to the court and the judicial process in: case preparation, adjudication, enforcement, court infrastructure, and program management.

Case preparation includes the preparation of a case for filing with the court, identifying, gathering, and presenting evidence and information that is relevant to the resolution of cases, the determination of applicable case law, and education of litigants. Adjudication involves dispute resolution. This resolution can come about either via the parties and their

attorneys, via a traditional trial, or through alternative dispute resolution methods, including specialty courts such as drug courts, community courts, mental health courts, and teen courts. Enforcement entails courts taking action to insure compliance with court orders, for example, child support enforcement. Court infrastructure encompasses the court’s facilities, equipment, communications, court security, and the movement of prisoners. Lastly, program management has to do with the management of EC programs and services so that they are supportive of the judiciary.

As Carlson went through each of the five categories and their knowledge, skills, and abilities, there was discussion among the attendees about how they saw them reflected in their court- particularly as the EC relate to the purposes, roles, and responsibilities of the court.

Questions or requests for information about this CCCG should be directed to Alan Carlson at (415) 816-3341; [email protected] or Geoff Gallas at (2 15) 951-2 168; gsgallas@aol. com.

Human Resource Management - Advanced Speaker: Dr. Terry Curry

Reporter: Suzanne H. Stinson

Dr.Terry Curry, director of the Graduate School of Labor and Industrial Relations of Michigan State University, presented his topic with his noted humor and wit. Speaking on human resource management this year on the advanced level and as one of the core competencies, he suggested workshop participants not assume that everybody knows everything about the competencies. According to Curry, “superior leadership and human resources management and development are the keys to high-performing courts and other organizations.”

He states that in the society of human resource management there is on an average one human resource manager for every 100 employees.Therefore, there is usually not a dedicated human resource person in courts, and administrators hold many positions other than just in the area of human resources.


Dr. Curry suggests a good deal for the employer means: Curry poses key questions for high-performing courts:

It is able to attract and retain the kinds and numbers of people it needs to accomplish its objectives. It receives a fair day’s work at a fair price. Its employees perform and behave in ways that reflect court values. It gets some commitment from its employees.

1. aspirations?

2.

Is our management equal to our vision and highest

Are we responsive given our objectives, constitutional mandates and statutory obligations, and our need for independence and accountability?

A good deal for the employee means that shehe feels: 3. Do our vision and practices comprehend now unfore- seen challenges?

fairly, equitably, and reasonably treated, hisher legitimate, job-related needs are considered and, to the extent possible, met, and they are getting a good deal, because perception is everything.

Curry enumerated in his presentation of human resource management the knowledge, skills, and abilities relative to its vision and purpose, HR fundamentals, context and fairness, and management and supervision. Human resource practices should be aligned to accomplish our vision. Modeling and following the laws, as leaders, should be our constraint.


2002 WARDS PRESENTATIONS

Award of Merit The National Association for Court Management Award of

Merit is presented annually to an individual working in the field of court administration who has demonstrated leadership and excellence in the advancement of the ideals and principles of modern judicial management and professional court management as embodied in the purposes of NACM. Those purposes are to:

aid in the improvement of judicial administration in general with particular emphasis on the study, development, and use of scientific and technological methods .

It is NACM’s most prestigious individual award, and this year it was presented to J. Denis Moran, director of Wisconsin

increase the proficiency of judicial administrators;

improve the administration of justice through the application of modern management techniques;

support the independence of the judiciary;

determine, form, and declare fundamental policies, principles, and standards involved in judicial terminology and statistical reporting methods;

promote coordination of court research activities and furnish a forum for the interchange of practical information relating to judicial administration; and

State Courts.Accepting the award on his behalf was Greg Moore.

Moran has been Wisconsin’s director of state courts for the past 24 years. He was appointed to the position soon after the adoption of constitutional amendments that established a unified state judicial system. Moran has led and overseen numerous initiatives and programs to develop and implement a unified court system.

As a member of the Conference of State CourtAdministra- tors, he has held many leadership positions, including president. H e currently serves on the Joint Technology Committee of NACM and COSCA. From 1973 to 1978 he served as deputy court administrator in Philadelphia. Prior to earning his law degree at Temple University in 1975, Moran became a Fellow of the Institute of Court Management in 1972. He served in law enforcement in Southern California before entering court administration.

Greg Moore accepts the NACMAward of Merit from Juanita Hicks on behalfof Denis Moran of the Wisconsin State Courts.


Justice Ache vement Award The Justice Achievement Award was established in 1988

to recognize outstanding achievement and meritorious projects that enhance the administration of justice. The National Asso- ciation for Court Management is pleased to announce that the winner for 2002 is the Wisconsin Court House Security Train- ing Program, submitted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.The award was accepted by Steve Steadman, district court administrator, Wisconsin Supreme Court. For more on the Justice Achievement Award winner, see page 47.

The project was chosen from among 35 nominations.Sum- maries of all projects begin on page’35.

Steve Steadman accepts this year’s Justice Achievement Award

for the Wisconsin Court House Security Training Program.

Distinguished Service Award Ernest Mazorol, trial court administrator for the Oregon Judicial Department, was the

recipient of The National Center for State Courts’ Distinguished Service Award.

Gene Flango, right, of the National Center for State Courts, presents the NCSC Distinguished Service

Award to Ernest Mazorol.

Solicited Paper Contest The winner of this year’s Solicited Paper Contest was

“Culturally Component Responses to LatinoViolence” by John Martin and Dr. Steven Weller. See page 49 for the winning paper.

JMI Award This year’s JMI Award was presented to Barry Mahoney,

president emeritus of the Justice Management Institute.

Barry Mahoney is presented with the JMIAward.


LJ Projects SuLmitted for Consideration

SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURES FOR THE PRO SE LITIGANT

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Contact: Jon W. Sanfilippo 901 N. 9th St., Room #lo4

Milwaukee,WI 53233 Phone: (414) 278-5044

Fax: (414) 223-1260

It wasn’t long ago when the statutes were the only information available to direct anyone on how to use small claims court. There has been a paradigm shift within the court system, however, toward a more customer service-oriented approach. Court personnel must provide a new and more user- friendly way for citizens to access the court system. With this new way of looking at the responsibility of giving help to unrepresented people, a new problem surfaced. How could court personnel provide this level of service with no increase in personnel at a time when small claims use was increasing and the increases were in the area of pro se litigants? It was deter-

. mined that a video presentation could offer the proper visual information litigants were currently lacking. The belief was that a video would be more effective than just the written brochure “Milwaukee County Small Claims Procedure In Brief” or verbal explanation by court staff. It was determined that the primary objective of the video was to show a complete processing of a small claims case by a pro se litigant with a video running time of about 10 minutes. Through use of the visual medium,viewers could see the actual places in the courthouse they would have contact with, as well as some of the staff they would meet. The video is shown in the Legal Re- search Center in the courthouse. Now, when pro se litigants come to use the system, they have ability to view a 10-minute instructional video that provides them with visual instruction as to how the system works and what they can expect.

THE WISCONSIN COURTHOUSE SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM *-a Wisconsin Sumerne Court - .

Contact: Steven R. Steadman 333 Vine St.

200 L

Ni@f

La Crosse County Courthouse, Room 3504 La Crosse,WI 54601

Phone: (608) 785-9546 Fax: (608) 785-5530

The Wisconsin Courthouse Security Training Program was designed to increase awareness of courthouse security issues and improve the level of safety at all courthouses in Wisconsin. This training program brings together the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of county government, as well as the sheriff‘s office and a technical college. By adopt-

ing a collaborative approach, this program has resulted in a new level of cooperation and increased attention to the issue of courthouse security. Our major innovation: improving court security by training law enforcement, judges, court staff, and county government officials togetbel: We are pleased to note that the National Center for State Courts has selected the Wis- consin training program as a national model to be presented at an upcoming conference. We and NCSC hope that other states and jurisdictions will find our program helpful as they work to improve safety for jurors, witnesses,victims, court staff, and the public.

CITY OF ATLANTMFULTON COUNTY AUTOMATED CASE DISPOSITION PROJECT

Superior Court of Fulton County Contact: Judith A. Richardson Fulton County Superior Court 136 Pryor St., SW, Suite C-640

Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 730-4518

Fax: (404) 73-5368

The city ofAtlanta and Fulton County recognized a problem that had existed for several years. Specifically, only 23 percent of cases being disposed of in the various courts in these jurisdictions were actually being reported to the Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC). To remedy this problem, the chief judge of the Fulton County Superior Court, the Hon. Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore - later succeeded by the Hon. Eliza- beth Long - and the Hon. Barbara Harris, chief judge of the Atlanta Municipal Court, initiated discussions with other agencies and departments that were involved. Following attendance at a Search Symposium in Washington, D.C., by 19 representatives of Atlanta and Fulton County, a plan was developed to seek funding assistance through the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program to partially fund an intergovernmental and interdepartmental effort to create an Automated Case Disposition System. Funding was made available for two of the proposed four annual phases of the project. During phase I, a computer server was purchased and connectivity was established to connect the clerks of the municipal and superior courts. During phase 11, the Fulton County district attorney, solicitors general of the state, city, and municipal courts, and the clerks of the city and state courts were added to the system. Additional functionality was also completed which gave all participants browse capability and it automated the Of- fender BasedTracking Form, originating with the State of Geor- gia. The final two phases, if funded, will add other municipali- ties and case disposing agencies in Fulton County to the system. The system was completed and went live in late Febru- ary, 2002. It is estimated that about 80 percent of disposed cases are now reported to GCIC. This new system saves con-

THECOURT MANAGER V O L U M E 1 7 N U M 6 E R 3 35

siderable manpower in manual reporting of dispositions and minimizes human error in the reporting process. The system now in operation is the first such successful intergovernmental project of its type in Georgia.

FAMILY TREATMENT COURT Thurston County (Washington) Superior

Court Family and Juvenile Courts Contact: Carolyn Reed 2000 Lakeridge Dr., SW Olympia, WA 98502

Phone: (360) 709-3207 Fax: (360) 709-3256

Thurston County Family Treatment Court is a program to assist parents in dependency cases to attain sobriety and learn skills in order to protect and parent their children safely and effectively. The program is for families who have come to the court’s attention in dependency court proceedings due to abuse, neglect, or a parent’s unwillingness or inability to parent because of substance abuse. Upon screening and agreement to participate in Family Treatment Court, a parent must immediately begin substance abuse treatment. Initially, weekly court appointments will be scheduled for the parent in order for the Court and Family Treatment Team to monitor compliance with the substance abuse treatment program, case plan requirements, and urinalysis testing. The court has the authority at every hearing to reward treatment and case plan successes and to sanction the parent for non-compliance. As treatment progresses, court appearances decrease in frequency to every two weeks and later to once a month. Cases are reviewed in a supportive and informal court environment. Cases are reviewed every six months in regular dependency court or more often if needed.

ACCELERATED APPELLATE CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Contact: Ed Wells Fourteenth Court of Appeals 1307 San Jacinto, 1 lth Floor

Houston,TX 77002 Phone: (713) 655-2840

Fax: (713) 650-8550

Recognizing the need to further refine the caseflow management process then in place, the Fourteenth Court of Ap- peals sought assistance in the design of a more efficient caseflow process and resolved to implement and support the procedures crucial to timely processing of appeals. The Jus- tice Management Institute,in a two-day workshop led by Doug Somerlot and John Greacen, provided assistance to the court. The focus of the workshop was identification of the following: the existing process, causes of delay, critical data, and methods of controlling or reducing unnecessary delay. The court charted the appellate caseflow process and applied delay reduction techniques used in the trial courts to the appellate process. The persons responsible for decision making, action, and monitoring were identified for each step in the process. Critical data necessary to monitor progress was identified along with methods of obtaining the data from the exist-

ing information system. The process that has evolved from the project is more demanding on the court’s resources, but serves the public with faster disposition of cases. The pending caseload of the court has been reduced to nearly one-half of the previous year’s number, and the average time to disposition has been reduced by three months. The court continues to look for ways to encourage timely filing of records and briefs by trial clerks and attorneys and closely scrutinizes the time from submission of a case to issuance of the opinion. The program has been very successful, and the court will continue to improve upon it.

IMPROVING COURT SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE .

District Court of Maryland Contact: Patricia Platt

Maryland Judicial Center 580 Taylor Ave.

Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: (410) 260-1234

Fax:(410) 260-1219

In Maryland, as in other states, the number of domestic violence cases brought to the court is continually increasing. The judicial system is methodical and thorough, however, courts often lack the speed and responsiveness needed to deal with the emergency nature of cases of domestic violence. The District Court of Maryland, a court of lower jurisdiction handling more than 2 million cases per year, identified “improvement of court services for victims of domestic violence” as a priority objective in 1998. Over the past four years, the district court, in concert with the circuit courts, the Administra- tive Office of the Courts, and the Judicial Information Systems have initiated several ambitious projects, which together help us address the unique needs of this population in a more organized, efficient, and effective manner. The activities that enhanced our ability to deliver responsive, timely, and effective service to victims of domestic violence include: training for court personnel, increased specialized personnel, informational materials, online forms and information, data integration, information exchange, and legislation initiation.

PRE-TRIAL SERVICES DEFENDANT TRACKER PROGRAM

Tenth Judicial Circuit of Florida Contact: Mark Englert

Defendant Tracker PO Box 9000

Bartow, FL 3383 1 Phone: (863) 534-4617

This program was implemented in 1997 with the primary goal of tracking criminal defendants who had failed to appear for a court hearing and for whom an arrest warrant had been issued. When defendants are notified they missed a court hearing and that an arrest warrant has been issued, they are usually eager to schedule a new court hearing. This program has been extremely beneficial in averting numerous arrests and book-ins at the county jail. As a result, a significant amount of cost avoidance has been realized by the courts and the county.


FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION CENTER Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County

Contact: Bob James 201 W. Jefferson, 4‘h Floor

Phoenix,AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 506-6314

Fax: (602) 506-6050

Domestic violence is a term that invokes fear, loss of control, and intimidation in the hearts and minds of the people impacted by it. In October of 2001, the Superior Court ofAri- zona in Maricopa County opened the Family Violence Preven- tion Center (FVPC) to provide assistance to people involved in domestic violence actions in this court. This is achieved by offering the necessary paperwork, information on relevant court processes, listings of related community resources, and even contact with a domestic violence lay advocate, all in one place within the primary trial court complex in the heart of downtown Phoenix.

COURT SELF-SERVICE CENTER REACHES OUT TO HISPANIC COMMUNITY

Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Contact: Bob James

201 W. Jefferson, 41h Floor Phoenix,AZ 85003

Phone: (602) 506-63 14 Fax: (602) 506-6050

In an ongoing effort to provide the community with improved access to the court and its services, the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County is now providing hundreds of self-help legal documents in Spanish through the court’s popular Self-service Center. Maricopa County’s Hispanic population, 25 percent of the valley’s residents, is among the largest in the Southwest. The Self-service Center opened in 1995 in response to a growing need to provide assistance to approximately 75,000 self-represented litigants who come through the court annually, particularly in family law and probate. The availability of more than 900 court forms, documents, and instructions in Spanish helps the court better serve the county’s growing Hispanic community. The documents - both in En- glish and Spanish - are available at the court’s two Self-Ser- vice Center locations, as well as on the court’s Web site www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov. The documents that have been translated provide Self-service Center customers with the means to more effectively represent themselves in a number of superior court matters. Materials that are available include instructions and forms for family law matters, including divorce, child support, and domestic violence; probate matters, including estate settlement, guardianship and conservatorship, civil name changes, juvenile dependency, and small claims appeal of property valuation. Any new Self-service Cen- ter products created in the future will also be made available in Spanish.

CELEBRATE ADOPTION Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County

Contact: Carolyn Edlund and Patrick Smock 201 W. Jefferson, dth Floor

Phoenix,AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 506-3204

Fax: (602) 506-7867

CelebrateAdoption is a collaboration of the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, adoption attorneys, and adoption agencies to provide information about adoption and to assist with the recruitment of prospective adoptive families in November 2000 and 2001, during National Adoption Aware- ness Month. Changes in Arizona statute required an expedited finding of dependency for children that have been abused, neglected, or abandoned. The statutes also require an expedited finding for a permanent plan for these children. Perma- nent plans may be reunification with family, guardianship, or termination of parental rights/adoption. Approximately 300 children are in the care of the state of Arizona awaiting a permanent placement through adoption. The recruitment of prospective adoptive families has not kept pace with the expedited findings of the court, leading to an opportunity such as the Celebrate Adoption program.

E-COURTROOMS IN SUPERIOR COURT Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County

Contact: Ken Crenshaw and Craig Gildersleeve 201 W Jefferson, dth Floor

Phoenix,AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 506-3204

Fax: (602) 506-7867

Opened in May 2001, the e-courtrooms of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County integrate evidence presentation technology with digital video recording, videoconferencing, and real-time court reporting to create a state-of-the-art trial environment. The technologies available in the ecourtrooms enhance the way lawyers present evidence, allowing facts, concepts, and ideas to be more readily under- stood by jurors, litigants, spectators, and the court. It is be- lieved that the e-courtrooms are the first attempt ever to integrate such a variety of technologies in an operational court setting. The e-courtrooms represent a profound and fundamental change in the way court proceedings are conducted.

FAMILY COURT SERVICES ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County

Contact: Phillip Knox 201 W. Jefferson, dth Floor

Phoenix,AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 506-8937

Fax: (602) 506-7867

The Family Court Services Enhancement Program was developed to provide several services to those individuals who have cases in the Family Court Department of the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The program consists of three components: (1) a judicial hearing officer and staff dedicated to provision of domestic violence services and improving the


processing of orders of protection; ( 2 ) a “navigator” system within the family court that provides an expedited response to inquiries, concerns, and complaints expressed by customers regarding family court matters; and (3) an advisory counsel/citizens assistance forum, the purpose of which is to ad- vise the court in ways to continuously improve its services to families and the community. Working in conjunction with other court areas, the Family Court Enhancement Program demystifies court processes, removing some of the fundamental barriers to accessing justice.

JURY MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County

Contact: Sara Shew 201 W. Jefferson, dth Floor

Phoenix,AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 506-3204

Fax: (602) 506-7867

Brought about by a need to improve citizen interaction with the court, the Jury Commission in Maricopa County,Ari- zona, designed a Jury Management Improvement Program in 2001 that gives summoned jurors court access 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Members of the community who receive a summons for jury service at courts located in Maricopa County may choose to respond through either an interactive Web site (www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/jury) or an interactive voice response telephone system (602.372.JURY). Access to the court’s jury office through technology makes it possible for summoned jurors to acknowledge that they are available to serve as summoned, and it makes it possible for them to postpone service to a date of their own choosing. The Web site even goes so far as to give jurors qualification criteria. Jurors who do not meet the qualifications as set out in the law may enter their disqualification rationale directly into the jury database. The Jury Management Improvement Program has brought about an improved experience for jurors, improved results for the court, and expanded community outreach. A combination of technologies, the automation system support- ing the Jury Management Improvement Program, cost approximately $750,000, with savings realized from maintenance on old technology that are significant enough to pay for the program in its first year of operation. Making government accessible to citizens is an achievable goal as it relates to jury service in Maricopa County.

REGIONAL COURT CENTERS FOR FELONY CASE PROCESSING

Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Contact: Peter Kiefer

201 W. Jefferson, Qh Floor Phoenix,AZ 85003

Phone: (602) 506-1447 Fax: (602) 506- 1183

Since February 2001, the criminal justice system agencies in Maricopa County have partnered to dramatically improve case processing. Early case processing once handled in 23 justice courts is now conducted in three Regional Court Cen- ters for Felony Processing (RCC). Front-end case processing

which traditionally took a minimum of 50 - 70 days from the time of arrest has been reduced to 20 - 40 days. The adoption of the RCC concept is a paradigm shift that offers numerous benefits. Some of these benefits are intangible such as improved public trust and confidence, minimizing unnecessary delay, saving attorney, judicial officer and staff time,and meeting time standards for case disposition. Other benefits represent tangible cost savings,such as jail housing and transportation costs. Components of the RCC concept, preliminary hearings, arraignments, and changes of plea, formerly conducted over a three- week period, are now held on a single day. Changes of plea are significantly increased since there is no lapse of time between the preliminary hearing and the arraignment. In most felony matters, sentencings are scheduled within 7 to 10 days rather than automatically scheduled 30 days out. Attorneys are no longer required to travel daily to 19 different justice court locations or make jail visits to review plea agreements. The sheriff‘s department saves significant jail housing costs (over $3.8 million annually) as a result of reduced jail days. Sheriff‘s department transport is now only required to transport felony inmates to three different locations.

TRIAL COURT LEADERSHIP CENTER Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County

Contact: Gordy Griller 201 W. Jefferson, 4Ih Floor

Phoenix,AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 506-3204

Fax: (602) 506-7867

TheTrial Court Leadership Center (TCLC) began as a training site for judges and court professionals in 1996. Operated by the Superior Court in Phoenix, the training center serves as a“1iving 1ab”in the midst of a progressive metropolitan general jurisdiction court. All the modern attributes of an adult learning environment are provided through the center, including a contemporary classroom for 50 participants and numerous breakout discussion rooms. The center, in the heart of downtown Phoenix, is located in the superior court’s law library, a three-floor complex housed within the newly remod- eled East Court Building. The center’s educational programming is structured around two objectives:

To create new innovative seminars and workshops for trial courts and the attorney community that traditional, national-based educational institutes and various judicial or court management associations do not offer.

To establish seminars and workshops presented by leading judicial educators.

Courses are normally limited to 30-50 participants, run three to four days, and address real world, common place needs and problems in trial courts. Tuition costs may vary, but usually run about $300 to $450 per participant. Both TCLC-created programs and those sponsored by national organizations and educators are open to judges, court managers, lawyers, and other court professionals throughout the nation.


SUSPENSION INTERVENTION SERVICE City of Lakewood Municipal Court

Contact: Judge Thomas Elliott 445 S.Allison Parkway Lakewood, CO 80226 Phone: (303) 987-7440

Fax: (303) 987-7470

What happens when students are suspended from school for 1-10 days for things like bullying, fighting, drinking, or doing drugs? During this time period, the suspended student is often completely unsupervised, as their parents may be working, and the school has no responsibility for them during this time. The purpose of out-of-school suspension is to remove the student from the school environment so as to maintain safety and order for the rest of the school community. How- ever, suspended students who are at risk of criminal activity, drug and alcohol abuse, and a variety of other inappropriate behaviors, receive no intervention services to identlfy and eliminate these behaviors and prevent future offenses. The City of Lakewood Probation Department started a new and innovative program designed to not only keep suspended teens “off the streets” but also to help them receive free professional counseling for anger management, drug and alcohol issues, as well as art therapy and tutoring. Students are also offered follow-up services after they return to school. They also receive 80 to 90 percent credit for the school assignments completed while attending the program. Jefferson County R-1 Schools, Lakewood Police Department, Lakewood Municipal Court Pro- bation Department, and Passage Way’s Counseling Inc. have collaborated to provide an alternative to the problems that studies show are related to school suspensions. These problems would include higher drop-out risk due to the students falling behind in their studies, higher number of police con- tacts and tickets written to juveniles in the daytime hours due to lack of supervision, and higher rate of recidivism due to lack of counseling and therapy for the behaviors that got them into trouble in the first place.

Visit NACM

on the Web at aTww.nacmnet.org

CREATING EASIER ACCESS TO THE COURTS Skagit County Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

Contact: Dee Denton Sedro-Woolley Municipal Court

220AWoodworth St. Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284

Phone: (360) 855-3660 Fax: (360) 855-1 526

In an effort to increase public awareness and easy access to the courts anywhere in Skagit County, a bimonthly court administrators meeting for Skagit County Courts was established through the efforts of Sedro-Woolley and Burlington MU- nicipal Courts in 1999. As a result, the five Skagit Courts of Limited Jurisdiction have established numerous joint programs such as residential mitigation hearings; warrant amnesty; collection amnesty; cross-court payments; re-licensing programs; judicial services sharing; one location for jail arraignments for all offenders; personnel exchanges during staff shortages; procedures and policy manuals, brochures; and a local talent pool for resources, writing, computer tips, and many other programs. Now, access to the courts is easily available for more than 200,000 residents in Skagit County. Residents can now pay fines and penalties at any court of limited jurisdiction in Skagit County; find a night court session; quash a warrant, pay the warrant fees, set a court date; pick up general information about procedures and policies for small claims; do community service work in any jurisdiction; find a public access terminal; and occasionally have court in their hometown for citations issued by any law enforcement agency in Skagit County.

ACCESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN MISSISSIPPI COURTS Supreme Court of Mississippi

Contact: Chief Justice Edwin Lloyd Pittman PO. Box 117

Jackson, MS 39205 Phone: (601) 359-2128

Fax: (601) 359-2443

The Mississippi Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Edwin Lloyd Pittman, has undertaken a far-reach- ing program of administrative and technical changes, all aimed at improving judicial accountability and public access to the courts. The supreme court, led by Chief Justice Pittman, has used its rule-making authority to create time standards for judges, revise the Code of Judicial Conduct, and adopt rules that improve access to the courts and improve accountability of members of the bar. The court has broadened the membership of its judicial watchdog agency. The court implemented ethics training that addressed unique needs, such as those of appellate court judges. The court has tapped the advice and creative energies of dedicated members of the bench and bar to examine problems such as money and influence in cam- paigning to propose solutions and to implement some of those solutions into law. The supreme court has reached out to the public with efforts to educate citizens about court operations and programs. The court has invited public scrutiny and utilized technology as well as staff. The Mississippi Supreme Court put its oral arguments on the Internet, then followed by plac- ing the oral arguments of the court of appeals on the Internet. The supreme court hired a public information officer to serve

THE COURTMANAGER V 0 L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 39

the entire state judicial system. The supreme court is in the midst of building a new facility to house the appellate courts.

FIND ARBITRATOR MEDIATOR ELECTRONICALLY (FAME)

Superior Court of California Contact: Julie Bronson

Superior Court Of California, Los Angeles Alternative Dispute Resolution 11 1 N. Hill Street, Room 113

Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: (213) 974-0558

Fax: (2 13) 623-5 1 15

The FindArbitrator Mediator Electronically (FAME) project evolved as a solution for providing alternative dispute resolution mediators and arbitrators, also known as “neutrals,” to the public in an efficient, fair, and technologically advanced manner. Through an automated selection process, individuals may randomly select neutrals and review their profiles. The court continues to process official assignment of cases. The previous method for neutral selection presented systemic difficulties for the public, neutrals, and court staff involved. As a result of FAME, it is no longer necessary for court clientele or staff to rely upon paper documentation for the selection of neutrals.

GUARDIAN VOLUNTEER PROJECT (GVP) Superior Court of California

Contact: Ron Cyger Superior Court of California, Los Angeles

Probate Department 11 1 N. Hill St., Room 258 LosAngeles, CA 90012 Phone: (213) 974-5506

Fax: (213) 626-3081

The Guardianship Volunteer Project (GVP) assists proposed pro se guardians in the preparation and filing of forms required to initiate guardianship and conservatorship within the Los Angeles Superior Court. The clinic operates from the court’s central courthouse and provides attorney and paralegal guidance and self-help resources at no cost to the public. In 2001, the GVP provided aid to 1,528 clients utilizing 70 attorneys, 20 law school students, and 20 paralegal volunteers. The program will soon be expanding to assist pro se litigants with conservatorships.

PROBATE VOLUNTEER PANEL (PVP) Superior Court of California ’

Contact: Ron Cyger Superior Court of California, Los Angeles

Probate Department 11 1 N. Hill St., Room 258 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: (213) 974-5506 Fax:(213) 626-3081

The method for appointing attorneys to unrepresented entities was expensive and difficult to monitor prior to the Probate Volunteer Panel (PVP). PVP has developed electronically in order to best address the needs of minors and proposed conservatees involved in probate hearings. Through technological upgrading it is possible for the court to regularly maintain a database of attorney qualifications and availability. The addition of the electronic database allows instant access to volunteer representation on a random and equitable basis.

COURT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM Superior Court of California Contact: Jose Octavio GuillCn

Superior Court of California, County of Riverside 4075 Main St., Suite 310

Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: (909) 955-5536

Fax: (909) 955-5537

In an effort to enhance our staff‘s work skills and performance through continuing professional education and development, the Riverside Superior Court created a Court Certifi- cate Program in August 1999. The program embodies tenet nine of the court’s code of ethics: Improve personal work skills and performance through continuing professional education and development. The program provides an opportunity for full-time, permanent employees to enhance their professional and personal skills and build self-esteem, which enhances the overall quality of their work and maximizes customer service. Eligible employees agree to a minimum two- year commitment to attend internal court training courses (held during work hours), and classes at a community college (on their own personal time). Tuition and books are reimburs- able with a grade of “C” or better. Used books are then used to stock our “library” for future students. Courses in court- specific and other core program topics are approved at four community colleges throughout Riverside County. The curriculum includes classes in ethics, business, technology, communications, law, and customer service. Upon completion of course requirements, a certificate is awarded at a graduation ceremony attended by administration, bench officers, family, and friends. Staff who have completed this program are given special consideration when applying for promotions and advancement. We believe court employees are held to a higher standard and that it important the court supports them. By enhancing their personal communication skills and knowledge of the system in which they work, the administration of justice is enhanced and the public reaps the benefits of this investment in our staff.


THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SARMS)

San Diego Superior Court Contact:Andrea E Murphy San Diego Superior Court

330 W. Broadway, Room 456 San Diego, CA 92101

Since July 1997, the San Diego Superior Court and the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) have formed a unique collaboration between the judicial system, child protection, and alcohol and drug treatment agencies to fundamentally shift local government’s approach to child endangerment. The implementation of the Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS) is a systemic reform to the county’s approach to addressing one of the root causes of child abuse and neglect and parental substance abuse. SARMS is an extensive case management system that makes alcohol and drug treatment immediately available for parents upon entering the dependency system and monitors for compliance. The implementation of SARMS is assisting in achieving the primary goal of the dependency process, which is to achieve a timely and appropriate permanent placement for every child who enters the dependency system.

DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED PROGRAM Seattle Municipal Court

Contact: Betty McNeely Room 114, Public Safety Building

600 Third Ave. Seattle,WA 98104-1852 Phone: (206) 615-0770

Fax: (206) 684-8726

In 1999,The Municipal Court of Seattle adopted a relicensing initiative in response to a rapidly increasing crisis in our state. In 1998, Washington State suspended 290,655 driver’s license in the third degree because individuals failed to meet their financial obligations. The Seattle Municipal Court Driving While License Suspended Program reaches out to those individuals who have a suspended license because they failed to pay outstanding citations and are not financially able to make a lump sum payment to get their license reinstated. The court has established a time payment plan that enables suspended drivers to regain their driving privilege, avoid vehicle impound- ment, and improve their likelihood for employment opportunities. The Driving While License Suspended Program, in cooperation with Seattle Jobs Initiative, developed a program to assist individuals involved in a work training or apprentice- ship program through a variety of agencies, to set up payment arrangements and have the hold on their driver’s license removed. The court removes any department of licensing holds resulting from Seattle Municipal Court citations, and individuals are placed on a payment plan for monies to the court. The Driving While License Suspended Program has expanded to include services throughout our geographic area and is acknowledged as a leader in Washington State in its innovative programming and customer service advocacy.

SHASTA COUNTY INTEGRATED JUSTICE SYSTEM Superior Court of California, County of Shasta

Contact: Kristie Bell Shasta County Superior Court

1500 Court St., Room 205 Redding, CA 96001

Phone: (530) 245-6394 Fax: (530) 225-5055

Shasta County Superior Court and all other law and justice agencies in Shasta County have implemented a fully-integrated justice computer system. In 1991, it was clear that the court and other justice agencies had to make a long-range plan to automate their records. Although slightly more than a dream, the stakeholders never gave up seeking funding and approval for such a project from the local board of supervisors. It has proven to be highly successful in delivering services to the public and allowing exchange of vital information between the justice agencies.

INTERACTIVE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE NETWORK (I-CAN!)

Superior Court of California, County of Orange Contact: Jeanette McShane

Orange County Superior Court PO. Box 1994

Santa Ana, CA 92702 Phone: (714) 834-5316

Fax: (714) 568-5784

In 2000, the Orange County Superior Court, in partnership with the LegalAid Society of Orange County, implemented the Interactive Community Assistance Network (I-CAN!) project. I-CAN! is a network of Web-based, interactive kiosks and computer workstations designed to provide self-represented litigants convenient and effective access to vital legal services. Using a touch screen interface and audiovisual presentations, I-CAN! answers frequently asked questions, provides court tours, and educates users on the law, filing procedures, and steps needed to pursue or defend their matter. Its multi- lingual, interactive, and tutorial modules enable self-represented litigants to create properly formatted pleadings and complete legal forms. Internet phone technology has been integrated into I-CAN! to enable users to obtain immediate technical assistance from help center staff at Legal Aid Society of Orange County. I-CAN! has also helped to demystlfy the court process and procedures. The project has been funded through model project grants from the Legal Services Corporation, the State Bar of California, the Judicial Council of California, the Orange County Superior Court Family Law Facilitator’s Program, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office - Fam- ily Support Division, and from various cities through community development block grants.


ACCESS TO JUSTICE HEARINGS BY MAIL Pierce County District

Contact: Linda J. Bell Pierce County District Court No. One

Civil/Infraction Division 1902 S. 96Ih St.

Tacoma,WA 98444 Phone: (253) 798-6314

Fax: (253) 798-6185

Pierce County District Court No. One has implemented a program to conduct infraction hearings by mail. The program was tested in November 2000 and implemented in January 2001. Rather than require a defendant to personally appear in a courtroom to present testimony for an infraction hearing that typically takes five minutes, the court has provided a process for the defendant to submit a written statement for consideration. This program reflects important aspects of the court’s mission, vision, and values by providing an open, ac-

\cessible, and effective forum for dispute resolution as well as a variety of dispute resolution forums to meet the diverse community needs.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE COURT

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara Contact: Jean Pennypacker

191 N. First St. San Jose, CA 95 113

Phone: (408) 299-2074 Fax: (408) 294-2774

In April 1999, the Superior Court in Santa Clara County began the Domestic Violence/Family Violence Court (DV/FV) in Juvenile Dependency Court. This is the first such court in the nation to reach into the juvenile arena to deal with young abusers who are charged with acts of domestic violence and family violence. Judge Eugene Hyman has spearheaded this program, working with representatives from juvenile probation, the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, law enforcement, local victim advocate agencies, and court personnel to jointly develop a coordinated intensive community response to these problems. The focus of DV/FV Court is to address the behavior of the minor who is abusing and to provide support for the victim. Once identified by juvenile probation, the minor is referred to the DV/FV Court at the beginning of the case and progress is monitored by frequent reviews. To support this court, juvenile probation established a specialized unit to investigate and intensely supervise minors charged with these acts, which include providing specialized classes on domestic and family violence and assessing offenders for mental health issues, which had not been done prior to the implementation of the DV/FV Court. Victims are referred to domestic violence advocacy agencies for services and help in obtaining restraining orders and, if the victim has a child, help in establishing paternity, child support, and visitation/custody.

HOMELESS COURT Superior Court of California, County of Ventura

Contact: Michael D. Planet 800 S.Victoria Ave. Ventura, CA 93009

Phone: (805) 654-2965 Fax: (805) 654-51 10

The Ventura Homeless Court functions as a collaborative court/community program that provides an alternative sentencing mechanism for homeless individuals to resolve outstanding minor offenses through community service in lieu of fines. Most of these violations result from the condition of homelessness, such as sleeping or drinking in public, or various traffic-related infractions. The Ventura Homeless Court program is unique in that it works in collaboration with a large number of social service agencies instead of only one or two agencies that provide advocacy and/or assistance to the homeless. The homeless are made aware of this program by social workers working at the 10 different homeless advocacy agencies that currently refer cases. The social workers screen the cases for eligibility, provide information on community service options, refer the cases to the public defender’s office for scheduling an appearance in homeless court, and supervise the community service work. Special court sessions are scheduled at various homeless advocacy locations geographically distributed throughout the areas of the county most impacted by homelessness. This effectively brings the court to a seg- ment of the population that often fails to appear to resolve minor citations due to their current status and condition. Men- tal health professionals assist the homeless court in providing special housing referrals and access to medication for those with mental health needs.

RECORDERS COURT AND SHERIFF’S OFFICE JOINT BENCH WARRANT PROGRAM

Clerk for Recorder’s Court, Gwinnett County Contact: Elizabeth l? Blackwell

Clerk of Recorder’s Court Gwinnett County

75 Langley Dr. Lawrenceville, GA 30045

Phone: (770) 822-8290 Fax: (770) 822-8392

The purpose of this program was to streamline the internal processes for recalling bench warrants and reduce the number of warrants being forwarded to the sheriff‘s office for service. Since recorder’s court issues the largest volume of bench warrants, it was natural for the sheriff‘s office to contact the court for help. This program represents a collaborative effort between recorder’s court, the sheriff‘s office, the law department, and the ITS department. In the final analysis, the program’s success lies in its role of accountability by decreasing operating costs, increasing efficiency, and providing the defendant more opportunities to become compliant rather than face the alternative of incarceration.


FACE-IT PROGRAM Administrative Office of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit

Contact: Louise Loud Depke Juvenile Justice Center

24647 N. Milwaukee Ave. Vernon Hills, IL 60061 Phone: (847) 377-7800

Fax: (847) 634-3833

The FACE-IT (Family and Community Engaged in Treat- ment) Program is a residential treatment program for juvenile probationers operated by the wth Judicial Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. The program has been in operation since October of 1999. The FACE-IT facility has 12 beds to house and treat juveniles for 9 - 12 months in the Depke Juvenile Justice Complex. FACE-IT accepts delinquent males ages 14 - 16 who are referred by juvenile probation and/or the juvenile judges. The minors are kept safe and secure under 24-hour supervision and an audio/video monitoring system similar to that of the adjacent Lake County Hulse Detention Center. FACE-IT treatment includes family, individual, and group therapy; public service; recreational outings; physical fitness; and formal education. The program is family-focused and community-based, with the primary goal of ending delinquent behavior through the treatment of issues such as substance abuse, social skills, sexuality, and family matters. FACE-IT was designed and implemented under the recognition that the juvenile justice system should provide balanced attention to the protection of the community, the accountability of juveniles for the offenses committed, and the development of competencies that enable juveniles to become responsible and productive members of the community. TO date, FACE-IT has served more than 39 juveniles and their families and has saved the county more than $300,000 in money spent on outside contracts.

JURY SUMMIT, 2001 Unifred Courts of New York

Contact: C. H. Mount Unified Courts of New York

25 Beaver St., 9thFloor New York, NY 10004

Phone: (212) 428-2990

For three days in 2001, more than 400 judges, court administrators, attorneys, academics, and citizens attended the frrst national Jury Summit. Representatives from 45 states,many federal district courts, and several countries heard of the progress made by courts and states in improving their jury systems. Topics discussed included improving communication with jurors in the courtroom, special problems of mass tort, notorious or death penalty juries, programs to follow up on those who do not respond to the summons, and community outreach programs. Speakers such as former jurors Mayor Rudolph Guiliani and Dan Rather brought home the message - everyone should be and can be a juror. What was unique about this national gathering were the funding sources, the source of the idea, and the energy transferred to the participants. It was a model for other states to consider.

SELMA REGIONAL CENTER Superior Court of California, County of Fresno

Contact:Tamara L. Beard 1 100 Van Ness Ave. Fresno, CA 93724

Phone: (559) 488-1825 Fax: (559) 499-3494

The rural poor in Fresno County have traditionally been under-represented in access to resources including the legal system. A partnership has been established between the Fresno Superior Court and other governmental agencies that, through focused assessment, provides one-stop service provision. The Selma Regional Center, located in a predominately lower so- cioeconomic area, has become a model of access for citizens that face barriers for services due to distance, economics, and a lack of process knowledge. The Fresno Superior Court, through funding under the auspices of the Judicial Council of California, provides a facilitator, family law information services, and mediation services to rural residents of Fresno County through the court's help center. In addition, substance abuse services, mental health services, domestic violence counseling, public health nursing, and both child and adult protective services are offered by the department of health. A wide-ranging array of other services including day care, interpreter services, and facility security are offered at no cost to either the client or the agency user.

ACTION (AFTER CRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION ONE-STOP NETWORK) CENTER

Superior Court of California, County of Fresno Contact:Tamara L. Beard

ll00Van NessAve. Fresno, CA 93724

Phone: (559) 488-1825 Fax: (559) 499-3494

The ACTION Center assists defendants in the processing of their court orders, including the establishment and payment of fmes, restitution and fees, and referral to other agencies as needed, and acts as a central referral/information point in the main courthouse. At the time of disposition, defendants are ordered to report to a number of different locations, including the following: probation department, revenue and reimburse- ment division, traffic department, consumer fraud division, insufficient funds unit, and volunteer bureau. These places are located in different county locations and buildings, which causes a great deal of confusion. Prior to the creation of the ACTION Center, defendants got lost in the process. They mostly received limited instructions as to how to get to these areas and take care of business.As a result, these defendants often gave up on the system. Failure to comply charges were then filed and, as a result, the defendants had to come back to obtain additional information. A vicious cycle began. The purpose of the ACTION Center is to stop this negative cycle and create an atmosphere of collaborative assistance and the sharing of information with the end-user.

THECOURTMANAGER V O L U M E 1 7 N U M 6 E R 3 43

JUSTICE WINNER

The Wisconsin Courthouse Security Training Program

A New ApproacL to Deal with a Critical Issue

Overview

The Wisconsin Courthouse SecurityTraining Program was developed and designed to address the long-standing problem of lax and/or ineffective security at the majority of our courthouses. This program has provided the foundation to make needed changes. The discussion that follows will explain the development, delivery, and results of a statewide collaborative approach, begun in January 2000, to improve courthouse security. It is intended to encourage other states and jurisdictions to reconsider their notion of what courthouse security is and to discuss how concepts that have been developed in Wisconsin may be adapted to other courts.

A Long-standing Unresolved Issue

In counties that have taken some initiative, courthouse security has typically focused on the protection of judges and prisoner control. Judges, court administrators, and law enforcement have received separate training on security. County government officials are routinely asked to pay for enhanced security, but have not been educated as to the need for it or the available options. The resulting lack of communication has impeded the implementation of long overdue improvements.

Like many court systems, we had made attempts to address this issue, but those efforts were largely ineffective.As early as 1992, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s long-range planning committee identified court security as an issue of concern for the administration of justice.This issue of concern arose from two factors: 1) the perception of judges that security incidents were increasing in frequency and severity and 2) the inability to convince county officials to address security weaknesses in courthouses. In response to these issues, the long-range planning committee submitted a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court calling for a rule that would mandate minimum facility and security requirements for courthouses.

The supreme court promulgated a rule in 1995 establishing security guidelines. However, this rule contained only one mandate - each county shall establish a security and facilities committee. These committees were charged with coordinating and adopting general court security and facilities policies within each county. This general approach was good - gather representatives from the justice system and county governments and have them collaborate on policy. Five years after the rule was issued, all counties had created a committee, with varying, limited, and inconsistent degrees of effectiveness. These inconsistencies have been caused by 1) the lack of an overall courthouse security concept integrating policies and procedures, personnel, and equipment, 2) the misconcep-


tion that many court security enhancements are costly, 3) the lack of an overall working relationship between courts and other justice system partners, 4 ) an over-reliance on an hierar- chical approach to improving court security (Supreme Court Rule), and 5) the lack of understanding of the committee’s role.

Here’s an example. The Wisconsin Courthouse Security Training Program has been in operation since January 2000. Our training team is always on the lookout for new sources of information that can convey the importance of the issue. One day we were sitting in a conference room reviewing video- tape submitted by a judge that showed various security incidents filmed in his court. We were about to turn the machine off when our attention was caught by another item the judge had videotaped, a 1992 edition ofABC News’s 20/20. The program highlighted various tragedies at courthouses noting that they arose particularly in family-related cases and that security was very lax at the majority of courthouses. Improving courthouse security is not a new issue. It is an issue that is persistent and, in general, unresolved.

So there you have it. We had a history of less-than-outstanding performance in the area of improving courthouse security. And we had a laundry list of reasons for our lackluster perforrnance.Then one cold wintry day in January 2000, the phone rang in my office. On the other end of the connection was Washburn County SheriffTerry Dryden.This was the event that set the tone for our efforts. Built on the concepts of collaboration and cooperation, benefiting from the skills and resources of the partners, the process used would be the key to success. Sheriff Dryden invited me to a meeting to explore the idea of developing a courthouse security manual. Now for the rest of the story.

Program Development

This program originated from a simple idea - develop a courthouse security manual for Wisconsin law enforcement and judges. However, as we began working on a security manual, we began to realize that developing only a manual would make the focus of our efforts too narrow and put us in danger of repeating history. We started to look at the big picture of where we were and where we wanted to be.

We’d seen too many three-ring binders go up on shelves never to be looked at again. Learning from the fact that our committee didn’t understand its role, we decided we would develop the manual, but it would be supported in its distribution by a training program. We want to share some tips that could assist your efforts.

Start working inside and outside the court system - Obtain support for your idea within your court, but don’t stop there. Reach out to other interested agencies and branches of government. We soon came to the notion that we needed an intergovernmental solution to this situation. We started by working informally with members of the Wisconsin Sheriff‘s and Deputy Sheriff‘s Association (WSDSA) and the U.S. marshal for the western district of Wisconsin. They asked us to secure the support and commitment of the Committee of Chief Judges, Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office, Wisconsin Clerks of Circuit Court Association, Wisconsin District Attorney’s Association, Wisconsin Family Court Commission- ers Association, the Wisconsin Counties Association, and Bad- ger Sheriff’s Association.We asked them to find some funding.

Share your skills, borrow theirs -There are skills and resources at hand in your court and possessed by your future partners. One of the major benefits of working collaboratively with outside partners is that they bring skills and resources to the table immediately. What we brought to the table was a willingness to work hard and hold up our end of the bargain. A series of meetings took place at FVTC with the project director, the executive assistant to the chief justice, the president of the WSDSA, the U.S. marshal for the western district of Wisconsin, and education staff from FVTC-to-develop a training guide and curriculum based on the Wisconsin Courtbousc Security Manual. During this phase, decisions were made as to how the goals of the grant could be met through training, locating instructors for specific portions of the training, and

- -

---.

Make their friends your friends - Work together to identlfy all the possible partners for your endeavor. We recognized that neither the courts nor local law enforcement would have adequate funding to undertake a statewide training effort of this magnitude. After exploring the availability of grant funding from other sources, our friends from law enforcement suggested that the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance (OJA), which is a state agency that administers federal funds desig- nated primarily for law enforcement activity, might be interested in funding this training program. This view was based on their successful working relationship with OJA. They knew the folks at OJA and the OJA folks knew them. Concurrently, the partners began to think of adding staff from the FoxValley Technical College (FVTC). The new partnership, now comprised of state and federal law enforcement, the court system, and educators, supported a grant application to OJA. On Janu- ary 28, 2001, then Gov.Tommy G.Thompson presented a $167,000 grant award at the WSDSA annual convention. Grant funds have been used to cover participants’ travel and per diem expenses, curriculum development, and grant administrative activities.

Training sessions such as this one held in Madison are well-attended and well-received. This February session is one of I O that were offered in 2002.

for the logistical arrangements that would have to be made to invite and train 40 participants at 10 regional training sites. Using this approach saved the court system time and money and vastly improved the final product.

Program Delivery

Our partners from education advised us that adult learners 1) must be involved in the learning process, 2) have resources and will learn from each other, 3) know what they need to learn, and 4) want application. We believe one of the main reasons our program works is because we listened to their suggestions and delivered a program that is a combination of lecture and group participatory activity.

Beginning on September 19,2001, and concluding on May 3 1,2002,lO regional training programs were delivered to nearly 400 participants.Those who attended included judges, court staff, law enforcement, county agency representatives, and county elected officials. Each program began with an orientation stressing general concepts of security. Procedures and


policies set forth in the Wisconsin Courthouse Security Manual were discussed in a group activity that encourages the participants to recognize the cross section of professionals who need to be involved to effectively address court security issues. A physical courthouse survey practicum instructed the participants to assess the manner in which their respective courthouse design enhances or diminishes safety. The participants developed an action plan for their county and were educated on how to strengthen their security and facilities committee and deliver two in-service trainings. To assist participants to become security leaders in their jurisdiction, the program emphasized adult learning styles and consensus- based decision-making approaches.

Program Results

We believe that we have achieved the following results at each of our 10 training sessions.

1. integrates policies and procedures, personnel, and equipment.

Established an overall courthouse security plan that

2 . Promoted the idea that many court security enhancements can be achieved at little or no cost. Participants are encouraged to pursue these improvements first.

3. county government to view court security issues on a continuum.

Provided impetus for courts, law enforcement, and

4. Increased the overall working relationship between courts and other justice system partners.

Measured our success -This program has been shown to be replicable within a state, having been successfully delivered in 10 regional locations urban, suburban, and rural in composition. We produced the Wisconsin Courthouse Security Manual, the Wisconsin Courthouse Security Trainer’s Guide and a two-and-a-half day training curriculum. Our program’s effectiveness has been quantitatively measured on two levels: 1) the effectiveness of the training and 2) the number of im-

provements in courthouse security. Participants are asked to evaluate each component of the training program for content and delivery. Every participant (100 percent) felt they received sufficient training to apply the information and successfully deliver in-service training. The continual program evaluation caused us to mod@ and improve the agenda.

In our view, the most important result has been courthouse security improvements at courthouses. At the start of our program, we had set a goal to achieve a tangible improvement in at least one courthouse in each of Wisconsin’s 10 judicial districts. Through the hard work and cooperation of our partners and the folks that attended training, we have sur- passed our goal. Improvements include the addition of court security technology, revised firearms policies, daily inspection of court facilities, reinvigoration of security and facility committees, evacuation and hostage situation drills, and revision and upgrades to courthouse security policies and procedures.

Conclusion

Our program has been successful due to a number of factors, including support from key leaders representing the partners, individuals committed to improving court security and willing to work hard, organizations willing to work at developing partnerships, partners willing to commit time and resources to the project, and the ability to obtain funding through a grant program.

This program has developed an effective model for collaborative training between the courts and other branches of government. Courts can’t assume they will be asked to participate in resolving the issues that confront them, nor can we afford to overlook opportunities to maintain the trust and confidence of the public. The fundamental challenge is to make courthouse security improvement efforts focused, coordinated, and improved through the participation and support of a coalition of justice system partners and county government.

Lastly, we have concluded that the approach we used was as critical as the issue it addresses. It has opened the door to concepts of cooperation and collaboration as appropriate problem-solving methodologies for the third branch of government. Our court system intends to use it to address other issues confronting the justice system.


JUSTICE C A V A R D ACMTANCE SPEECH

Steven R. Steadman District Court Administrator for the Wisconsin Courthouse Security Training Program

Thank you Joi, and thanks to the hard working committee members that reviewed all of the applications for this award. Thank you NACM. Good morning everyone. I am honored to accept the Justice Achievement Award on behalf of our Chief Justice, the Wisconsin Court System and our partners the Wisconsin Sheriff‘s and Deputy Sheriff‘s Association, the U.S. Wisconsin Marshal’s Office for the Western District of Wis- consin, the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance and the Fox Valley Technical College. Additionally, a tip of the hat to the judges and court staff in Wisconsin. We never would have gotten off the dime without their support and participation. Also, if you haven’t given up all hope after my remarks this morning, I encourage you to stop by our booth at the Knowl- edge Fair tomorrow. I will be more than happy to go over our efforts in excruciating detail. Speaking of the Knowledge Fair, I want to put in a plug for that part of the conference. Come out to the Knowledge Fair tomorrow and learn about the fine efforts of court managers from across the nation.

Enough of the polite stuff, I have a 30-minute slot and I plan to talk about myself for the entire time. OK, maybe not.

In a nutshell, our initiative resulted in the delivery of a “train the trainers” program. Working in cooperation with the chief judges, court staff, and county sheriffs, we identified

county level leaders and invited them to attend one of 10 regional training programs. Grant funds were used to pay for lodging, meals, and travel for 400 future court security trainers. Each training program was a combination of lecture and group participatory activity. We started each program with an orientation stressing general concepts of security. Procedures and policies set forth in the Wisconsin Courthouse Security Manual were discussed in group activities that encouraged the participants to recognize the cross section of professionals who need to be involved to effectively address court security issues. A physical courthouse survey practicum (sounds fancy, means field trip to a local courthouse) taught the participants to assess the manner in which their respective courthouse design enhanced or diminished safety. The participants were asked to develop action plans for their county and were educated on how to strengthen their security and facilities committee and deliver two in-service trainings. To assist participants to become security leaders in their jurisdiction, the program emphasized adult learning styles and consensus-based decision-making approaches.

In Wisconsin, improving court security was first identified as an issue of concern by the court system’s Policy, Plan- ning and Advisory Committee in 1992. Suffice it to say that

THECOURTMANAGER V 0 L U M E 1 7 N U M 8 E R 3 47

for the next seven years we had a history of less than outstanding performance in the area of improving courthouse security. And we had the usual laundry list of reasons for our lackluster performance including what we call the “Three Terrible T’s,” those being time, turf, and trouble. Starting in January 2000, that all began to change. How does an initiative start? In our case,with one phone call from one sheriff to me.

Starting with that single call our program took about 18 months to develop and has featured a couple of ironic twists. We delivered the first training one week after 9/11 and during the last training session, in Milwaukee, there was a shootout at the Milwaukee County Courthouse in which one deputy sheriff was shot, another injured, and the defendant killed during the return of a jury’s verdict. The coincidence of these events has underscored the need for courts to examine this issue and without question has brought attention and given momentum to our program. Most recently the program has been selected as a regional finalist in the 2002 Innovations Awards Program for the Council of State Governments.

Next, I need to praise our friends from law enforcement, education, and last, but certainly not least, the folks from the agency that gave us funding.

It should probably go without saying that law enforcement needs to be involved in any effort to improve court security. But lets get away from the notion that courts will just order them to do this or that. We need to talk to the folks responsible for actually providing security well before a crisis occurs. Our State Sheriff‘s Association has backed our program with money and political support. We needed funding to run our program and knew that law enforcement had a long-standing working relationship with grant funders from the Office of Justice Assistance (OJA). By making their friends our friends, we were successful in obtaining OJA grant funds for the first time in our court system’s history.

OK,so now we had the dough. Next problem: who would develop the curriculum and deliver the training program? En- ter the Wisconsin Technical College System, specifically Fox ValleyTechnical College. Located inAppleton,Wisconsin, FVTC is a national trainer for law enforcement including the FBI and secret service. Our partners from the education community helped us develop curriculum, deliver training, and evaluate performance, and again I want to thank the Office of Justice Assistance for funding our program.

I am very interested in efforts to improve courthouse security, but to me the real exciting thing about our program is our effort to solve this long-standing issue of concern, not

on our own, but rather in collaboration with the other branches of government in our state.

I want to take a couple of minutes to discuss the future of court initiatives and what we think will separate successful court systems from the also-rans. I’m using that terminology with a purpose. Courts are operating in a competitive fiscal and political environment. We need all the friends we can get. Courts can’t assume they will be asked to participate in resolving the issues that confront them, nor can we afford to overlook opportunities to maintain the trust and confidence of the public. Starting today I want each of you to think of an issue confronting your court that would best be resolved by working with outside partners. Now this morning we’re talking specifically about how we have used our court security training effort to get that done. However, I don’t think it really matters what the effort is. The way we went about building the partnership is transferable. It could be jury reform, it could be budget issues, or any number of the range of administrative and management issues that face the court system. Somebody is going to have to take that first step. And today, my fellow court professionals, I want you to think that it just might be your job to make the first move.

The point of this discussion is that partnering has many more benefits than risk. It can open doors to funding sources. It also serves the broader purpose of educating people about the courts, thus covering a theme that is of interest to us all, maintaining the public’s trust and confidence in the court system.

When you have the trust and confidence of others, partnership allows you to do something that I call borrow a constituency. It’s an old saw for the courts that we have no political constituency. We can’t or shouldn’t make political trades, and we need to maintain our position as neutral fact finders. By building partnerships with other organizations and branches of government, you may be able to, in effect, borrow their political power.

The collateral for that loan is that you must show leadership, commitment, and also provide excellent performance as one of the partners. What I’m trying to say here is we do have something to trade. That is our skill, our knowledge, and our willingness to work hard. Don’t send the second string to work with outside partners.

Like so many things, first impressions make a difference. Do the little things right, return the calls, answer the e-mails, meet all time deadlines.

Work hard. Hold up your end of the bargain.

TLanks for listening and thanks

for Lonoring our program.


t Responses To

LATINO MILY VIOLENCE u

Winner of the solicited paper contest for the 2002 Annual Conference

of the National Association of Court Management

By Steven Weller and John A. Martin

How to deal effectively with violence within families has become one of the more vexing challenges confronting the nation’s courts, justice community, and social, education, and health service providers. The extent of violence within Ameri- can families is enormous. Aggregate statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that annually over 1 million women, or about nine out of every 1,000, will become victims of crimes perpetrated by lone offenders who are known intimately by the victim (spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend). Moreover, the dimensions of family violence are numerous, complicated,and touch on many of the most fundamental and, sometimes, controversial beliefs and values ofAmerican society. For example, the dimensions of family violence touch on important issues regarding: the role of government in participating in what might have once been considered private family matters; the duties, rights, and responsibilities to one another of family members, including family members defined by adjudication or lifestyle as well as by blood or marriage; the dynamics of gender relations; and child-rearing practices.

In addition, significant, well-established, long-term demographic trends are contributing to a need for the courts and their justice agency partners to develop better ways to deal with family violence involving people from diverse cultures. The United States is becoming more and more a nation of people with Latin American and Asian roots and less and less a nation populated by people with Anglo-European roots. Given present population trends, demographers and social scientists anticipate that the increasingly multicultural composition of the United States’ population will be accompanied by rapidly increasing numbers of Americans who carry, at least in part, traditional cultural norms, values, and expectations which may differ from those of the dominant cultural values and norms long reflected in the nation’s courts.The debate about the appropriate role of courts and government in family matters, and the convergence of family violence and demographic trends, all point to the need for the court and justice community to formulate approaches to dealing with family violence that emphasize the importance of understanding cultural differences and determining when and how cultural attributes might be helpful in shaping appropriate responses.

This article discusses the findings from a study of methods for dealing with family violence in Latino families conducted by the Center for Public Policy Studies, Denver, Colo-

rado. These findings are drawn from interviews of judges, court administrative staff, attorneys, law enforcement personnel, family therapists, family mediators, Latino social service agencies, and others in the justice system who deal with issues of family violence in two cities, Reno, Nevada, and Tucson,Arizona. It is important to remember that the findings are based on the perceptions, concerns, and expectations of more recent arrivals to the United States, largely Spanish speakers,as well as the views of service providers offering services to recent arrivals, established groups of Latinos, and families in need of assistance generally.

At the outset, we need to caution that it is important to avoid stereotyping people on the basis of ethnic identity. While we believe that there are aspects of Latino culture that can have a significant effect on both the sources and the treatment of family violence, not all Latino families will fit the pat- terns described below. Cultural awareness does not mean that one can understand the motivation, needs, and expectations of a particular individual simply because one has a general understanding of the individual’s cultural background. Instead, we believe increased cultural awareness provides a tool to help unravel the complexity of individual circumstances. The focus of our approach is thus on helping the people who work for the courts and justice system to increase their general awareness and understanding of Latino culture in order to better assess the individual circumstances of the dynamics of violence within specific families and to help develop appropriate responses to that violence.

Understanding the nuances of a particular culture can provide judges and other justice agency personnel with useful information about both the context of a family violence event and the potential for shaping appropriate responses. Culture shapes people’s views about what is acceptable behavior and what is not, particularly behavior regarding gender roles, child rearing, and healthcare. For example, use of traditional herbal medicines and prayer may be considered treatment in some cultures but symptoms of neglect in others. Similarly, for people of some cultures, attending batterers’ classes conducted by a highly trained, “objective” professional might be an effective technique for addressing some aspects of domestic violence, while being counseled by a “subjective” but respected peer might be more appropriate for people of another culture. Cul- ture does count in shaping both perceptions of family violence and responses to family violence.


This article discusses two major themes about Latino culture and family violence that emerged from interviews conducted during the study and a review of the policy and research literature, and the implications of each cultural theme on the justice system’s processing of cases involving Latino family violence.

THEME ONE

There are aspects of Latino cdture

that may encourage a tolerance

for family violence

Cultural Issues

Four aspects of Latino culture may encourage a tolerance for family violence, especially spousal abuse. It should be noted that all of the following cultural aspects might also provide avenues to promote effective responses to family violence.

First, traditional Latino culture places a high value on the family.

Interviewees reported that this may also extend to the sanctity and privacy of the family against outsiders and a strong sense that what happens within the family is not the business of anyone else. It even may be considered shameful to air a family’s secrets publicly. Consequently, Latino women (Latinas) may view reporting abuse, let alone seeking an order of protection, as a breach of family honor.When assessing the circumstances of an abuse allegation, the fact that a wife has never sought an order of protection does not necessarily mean that there has been no prior family violence. On the other hand, the high value placed on the family by both husband and wife may provide therapists with an avenue for successful treatment.

Second, gender roles in a traditional Latino family may be clearly defined yet also may be challenged by economic

circumstances and the differing expectations of contemporary United States society

Interviewees reported that in Latino families there is a stronger tendency than in other households for the man to be seen as the head of the household, responsible for providing for the family, while the woman is to stay in the home, handle the housework, and take most of the responsibility for raising children. Indeed it was reported that, given the wage structure of the U.S. economy, often a husband may hold two or three jobs to assure that his children are dressed and fed, and it may be a matter of pride to him that his wife does not have to work. In addition, there may be other privileges attached to being male and thus head of the household. It was reported

that Latino husbands sometimes believe that they have the absolute right to do what they want to their wives, including correcting aspects of the behavior of wives and children that they do not like. Husbands may also desire to have complete control over the family’s money.

Economic forces, however, may cause tensions in Latino families when they clash with the expectation on the part of the man that the wife will stay home with the children.When a wife starts to work and becomes more independent, tension can build. A wife may have to work, but a husband may still not do household chores. As a wife brings in money, she may want more of a say in how it is spent. She may also become more independent by making friends with other working women. Further, interviewees reported that, reflecting more traditional norms, a Latino husband may view his wife’s having to work as a failure on his part, and may try to deal with changes by drinking heavily and asserting greater dominance over his wife. All of this can give rise to frustration and tension that may erupt in violence.

Third, the more problematic aspects of being a man or of manhood itself in traditional Latino culture muy both

contribute to family violence and make it more dzfficult for the justice system to address Latino family violence.

Interviewees routinely reported that expectations about what it means to be a man, coupled with changing societal roles and values, may complicate the development of responses to Latino family violence that maintain respect for the Latino culture. As noted previously, a traditional Latino’s role as head of household may be more encompassing than in other cultures and may lead to a belief that a man somehow owns his wife, while changing society may increase feelings that a man is losing authority over his wife. In much of rural LatinAmerica it is even permissible for a husband to correct a wife by slap- ping her (or by doing even worse) to assert authority. It was reported that when arrested, some Latino males, particularly recent arrivals from rural areas, sometimes do not know what they did is wrong according to contemporary legal standards and are shocked to find that they are involved with the justice system at all.

Other aspects of male behavior that interviewees reported as having an impact on Latino family violence include the following.

Typically, the audience for machismo behavior is other males. Machismo behavior may be egged on by taunting from other males.

As in many family abuse cases, verbal abuse by a husband may be common, particularly when a wife comes to the United Stytes after her husband and does not know how to function in United States society. A husband may constantly refer to his wife as “stupid” for not knowing what to do. And a wife may accept that, if the husband hit her, she must have done something wrong.


Incidents of male infidelity and alcohol abuse often accompany family violence.

Going to counseling or therapy may be seen as an indication of weakness.

At the same time, other aspects of what it means to be a man in traditional Latino culture may provide a foundation for addressing family violence. For example, being a man also stresses the importance of being responsible and self-reliant and of being treated and treating others with respect. Family violence counselors reported that they often attempt to build from these more positive values and view the negative behaviors as out of balance, resulting in a need to restore the positive side.

Fourth, the influence of extended family members may be greater in Latino families than in

United States society generally

Throughout Latin America, large, extended families are often a major source of social and economic support for individuals, especially individuals experiencing difficulties. Not too surprisingly, a Latina with a problem, even including an abuse victim, may place a great deal of dependence on her extended family and turn to family networks rather than seek help from social services. For some families, however, the extended family may not be readily accessible. In addition, the types of support and advice a Latina receives from her extended family may clash with the values encouraged by the justice system.

In particular, interviewees reported that isolation can be a big problem for an immigrant wife. A husband may use threats of keeping his wife from her extended family as a way to assert control over her. Moreover, with newer immigrant families, it is not unusual for extended family members to share a home.This can cause problems for a husband and wife; extended family members can overcrowd a home, causing tensions. However, closeness to extended family members may have a positive influence over an abusive husband, e.g. through threats of retaliation, to stop the violence against his wife.

Interviewees also stressed that an extended family may put pressure on a wife to stay with her husband for the good of the family, because in traditional Latino culture such great importance is placed on maintaining the family. Similarly, spousal abuse may be viewed by an extended family as a Latina’s cross to bear in order to preserve the family. It was reported that often Latinas were confronted with the notion that “if your husband works hard and is a good provider, what else do you want?”

Consequences for the Justice System

The following discussion presents potential responses to Latino family violence that take into account the above aspects of Latino culture that can affect family violence.Al1 of the approaches discussed below must be undertaken in the context of a carefil assessment of issues of lethality and safety for the wife and with a focus on the fact that violence is not an appropriate expression of authority.

First, some Latinos may greatly distrust “theram,” particularly if traditional cultural expectations for what it

means to be a man conflict with the demeanor of the counselor and the style of counseling.

As a result, interviewees suggested that many Latino batterers may need smaller counseling groups, perhaps a maxi- mum of four or five people.They also may need additional time to build trust with the counselor because of strong cultural norms about not revealing family problems in public. In addition, it was suggested that the use of senior peers who have graduated from a program as role models in group sessions might help encourage participation, particularly by providing support as an alternative audience for rejecting machismo behavior.

Second, inabillcy to pay for the treatment may be an issue.

Courts sometimes refer men to programs that they can not afford to pay for, so they do not go in order to avoid further embarrassment. It was reported that sometimes recent immigrants with limited means might move somewhere else or even go back to Mexico or elsewhere in LatinAmerica.

Third, a Latino’s devotion to family may be a very positive force in counseling.

Sometimes a man feels guilt for what he has done and wants to have his family back. He may not understand counseling, but he comes to counseling because he views this as punishment for what he did. It was reported that some Latinos may be more cooperative than are many typical Anglo males in batterer counseling in doing what they are told to do. Fur- ther, deference to authority make some men more cooperative in attending counseling when ordered to do so. One counselor reported that the most compliant people that he dealt with, both in terms of attendance and payment, were undocumented aliens. There may be a danger, however, in assuming that compliance with treatment also means responding to treatment, thus pressuring the wife to return home under false expectations of reconciliation.


Table 1 summarizes the potential interactions among Latino culture

and shaping responses to family violence.

TABLE 1 Latino Culture and Shaping Responses to Family Violence

MANIFESTATIONS POTENTIAL LEGAL EFFECTS

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR SHAPING APPROPRIATE

RESPONSES

Strong sense of privacy in family matters.

High value placed on the family by both husband and wife.

Husband is sole breadwinner.

Husband holds multiple jobs.

Wife expected to stay home and not work.

Husband feels that wife must obey him.

Wife dependent on extended family for support and advice.

Wife fears isolation from her family.

Tensions in the home caused by extended family members.

Extended family has influence over the husband and wife.

Husband believes it is permissible to slap his wife if she doesn't obey him. Husband has a problem with substance abuse.

Husband uses verbal abuse.

Husband has a sense of honor and responsibility to the family.

Domestic violence may remain hidden, so that lack of prior action by the wife does not mean that no violence existed.

Wife may accept domestic violence as a way of life.

Domestic violence may be of long duration and high frequency.

Wife may accept domestic violence as a way of life.

Domestic violence may be of long duration and high frequency.

Husband may believe that some domestic violence is acceptable.

Alcohol abuse may be an important issue.

Need to investigate for prior acts of violence.

Value placed on family by the husband may provide opportunity for treatment.

Need to develop approaches to counseling that change the way power is expressed in the family.

Need to educate the men as to the expectations of American society.

Need to help the family learn how to live in American society.

Need to go to the home and see who is there.

Need to assess from whom the parties seek advice.

May need to involve members of the extended family in the counseling.

Counseling teaches skills for asserting power without violence.

Use of small groups in male batterer counseling.

Use of peer role models.

Use of substance abuse treatment.

Need to understand and assess the components of lethality and forms of abuse other than physical.

Use of an exit summary to allow judges to assess the likelihood that the treatment will change the batterer's behavior.


i

c .

of violence in the family. One model identified by interviewees would have the wife attend parallel counseling while the hus- , band is in batterer’s counseling and then move the husband and wife into couples counseling. Finally, one of the most difficult problems reported by counselors was the need to avoid giving the message that the abuse is the fault of the wife.

Fourth, as with most, hatterers, one of the most controversial yet critical decisions in dealing with a

Latino batterer is whether other family members should be involved in the treatment of the batterer

Knowing the familv structure mav be a kev to understand- - Seventh, a wife may need to learn how to recognize and defuse a potentially violent situation.

ing the family’s problems and determining what might be done to help the family. Families often include extended family members.They may all participate in family decisions (e.g. the grand- mother may play a big role).There may be a need to focus more on family and extended family as well as on individuals. In treatment for Latino families, outreach may be important. The family counselor may need to go to the family and “be there a 1ot”to see what is going on.When designing responses, therapists may need to ask “To whom do you go when you have a problem?”“To whom can you talk?” In addition, counseling may need to be interactive and include behavior role reversal and social skills training. Peer participation may be particularly important for changing behavior in some more traditional Latino men. Care, however, must be taken to assure that pressure is not placed on other family members to take sides, particularly in agreeing with the husband that his getting help means that he is cured.

Fafib, the role of the counselor might need to be modified.

For example, one counselor who does batterer counseling reports that the men she counsels call her “profesora” (teacher) rather than counselor. She does as much educating as counseling, as she believes that the husbands (and the wives) need to learn how to live in contemporary U.S. society, especially what is considered appropriate behavior, if they are going to reduce the stress that often accompanies family vio- 1ence.While she does the typical counseling in anger management that deals with handling emotions, she also has hand- outs on U.S. laws and advises her clients on how to get school- ing, how to deal with bills, how to find jobs, and how to deal with authority. Her approach to counseling thus includes a substantial amount of socialization into a larger society.

Sixth, under carefully selected circumstances, couples counseling might be used for some Latino

families with a history of violence.

With regard to the timing of couples counseling, there appears to be general agreement that it is to be avoided as an initial form of counseling. Some form of a batterer’s treatment program and a substance abuse program, if substance abuse is present, were routinely identified as appropriate first steps. However, neither the batterer’s program nor the substance abuse program will deal with all the problems in the marriage. If it is clear that the wife is going to return home, couples counseling after the initial batterer’s treatment program may provide the best hope for any successful long-term avoidance

One family counselor recommended: (1) for first offenders, a same-sex group counseling program to help the men learn anger control; ( 2 ) for repeat offenders, the initial same- sex anger management session plus a second session with couples, perhaps using groups of couples; and (3) if necessary, a family systems counseling program. The purpose of including the wife is not to blame her for the abuse but to teach her how to avoid potentially violent situations. Similarly, another counselor indicated that he does not try to change the family’s culture. Rather, he tries to give both husband and wife skills to meet the expectations of contemporary U.S. society. One skill is negotiation. By learning how to negotiate with his wife, a husband might learn how to accommodate his wife’s needs in a way that avoids issues of power. If a wife wants the freedom to go out and work, the husband might negotiate something for himself in return. (This example may not apply in situations where the wife needs to work.) In this way, the power structure in the family is not challenged directly, but the ways in which power is expressed might be changed. The husband is given tools to share family decision-making with his wife without perceiving that he is losing the respect of his family for doing so.

Eighth, judges may need to be clearer on the expectations from treatment and, rather than accept a certificate of treatment, demand an exit summary from treatment

that will give the judge a basis to determine the likelihood that the behavior will recur

This should include an assessment of lethality. At the end of a treatment program, it may be helpful to hold a completion ceremony open to family members to punctuate and pub- licize the commitment of the husband.

Finally, judges may need to increase their understanding of the specific contents of dzfSerent treatment programs

and the reasons for the content.

Moreover, because many communities will not have the organizational infrastructure to provide a treatment package designed for Latinos, judges may have to play a role in developing treatment programs for Latinos. For example, there is no separate Latino shelter in Reno, and there are very few Span- ish-speaking counselors. Also, not all programs are good at everything, so judges need to be able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the programs available in the community.

THE COURTMANAGER V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 53

THEME TWO

Pressures on a Latina, and especia

on the recent immigrant Latina

or Latina of questionable

1Y

immigration status, may make her

unwilling to report or unable to leave an abusive situation

Cultural Aspects

Consistently, our interviews indicated that Latinas are more likely to remain with an abusing husband longer than would anAnglo orAfrican-American woman faced with the same level of abuse. Latino family violence is less likely to be reported. Typically a family violence call will come from a neighbor, and when the police arrive the family is very reluctant to cooper- ate. Police may then have a difficult time figuring out what happened, particularly when the husband and wife do not speak English and the officer does not speak Spanish. Some- times a child is placed in the difficult position of having to interpret. It was also reported that Latina women have a low rate of requesting orders of protection, and domestic violence studies have shown that Latino women tend not to go to the hospital for battering injuries.

Moreover, Latino women are more likely than are Anglo women to accept an abusing husband back if he has been removed from the home. Court records reveal that in cases where a Latino woman has requested an order of protection against her husband, she is far more likely than is an Anglo woman to withdraw the request at a later time. Further, when a Latino husband is arrested for spousal abuse, it is common for the wife to testify in favor of her husband to have the charges dismissed, and it is not unusual for a Latina to come to court to get her husband out of jail. Interviewees indicated that for a variety of reasons, the attitude of an abused wife can easily become “What is the system doing for me? My husband is going to lose his job, and I will lose my home.”

Interviewees and the research and policy literature identlfy at least six important reasons for the reluctance of Latinas to report family violence.

First, immigration pressures may be a significant source of a Latina’s reluctance to report abuse.

A wife may fear immigration problems, as the INS often screens domestic violence arrests at detention facilities. As a result, the immigrant family may hesitate to call the police for incidences of domestic violence. A wife may fear that the husband will be deported. Also, it is not uncommon for a husband to have come to the United States first and be a legal resident while his wife is not. Responding to a domestic vio-

lence call, police may arrest both parties, and the wife may end up being deported.

Moreover, if a husband is a legal resident and a wife has only a conditional residency, the wife may be dependent on her husband for her ability to remain in the United States. In addition, as is likely often the case, a wife may not be aware of her legal rights or status. Interviewees reported that sometimes a husband may tell his wife that he has filed papers on her behalf when in fact he has not. While the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) allows an illegal immigrant who is a battered wife to apply for permanent residency without her husband’s signature, she may not be aware of this, and it was reported that the INS does not tend to inform battered immigrant women about the VAWA.

In short, a husband may use his wife’s lack of legal resident status as blackmail, threatening to have her deported and separated from her children if she reports his abuse. Where the husband is a legal resident and the wife is undocumented, the children will be legal residents. It was also reported that a husband may threaten to remove children from the United States, perhaps to Mexico or another Latin American nation, with very different attitudes toward domestic violence.

Second, it is more likely that a Latino family will be totally dependent on a husband’s income for economic survival than it is for most other

cultural groups in the United States.

Latinos have a low rate of receiving welfare compared to Anglos and other groups. If the husband is in jail, he will lose income and maybe even his job. Further, an immigrant wife may not be financially able to leave the home. She may have no work history or skills and may be afraid of applying for AFDC, as this can hurt her chances for citizenship.

For Latino women who cannot afford to have their husbands leave the home, orders of protection may not be a vi- able avenue for help. In those cases, if separation is critical, the woman must leave, and a shelter may be the only place that she can financially afford to go. Orders of protection work best for those women who can financially stay in the home and have the husband leave. It was reported that a wife may need to contact a husband for rent money even if there is an order of protection prohibiting the husband from contacting the wife. Police sometimes will not enforce an order of protection if the contact results in violence in situations where the wife initiated the contact with the husband.

Third, a Latina’s isolation may deter her from reporting domestic abuse.

Moreover, it was reported that a husband may try to prevent a wife from learning English as a means of keeping her isolated and dependent on him. Further, a wife’s family may be inaccessible, depriving her of her traditional primary source of help.


Fourth, distrust of the justice system, and the police in particulal; may deter Latinas from reporting abuse.

There is a widely held belief in many Latino communities that the police will sometimes arrest Latinos in circumstances where an Anglo would not have been arrested. It was also reported that immigrants from Mexico often are likely to bring with them unpleasant experiences with Mexican police and the legal system. In addition, immigrant Latinas often are told that under the Law of Abandonment in Mexico you may lose your family if you leave the home, and may not understand that laws are different in the United States. Finally, historically, in Mexico and much of LatinAmerica, women have not gotten protection from domestic violence to the degree that they are protected under United States law.

Fayth, a Latina may view the needs of the family as more important than her own individual needs.

As discussed earlier, Latinos are likely to be more family- oriented than other groups, and both men and women may have a high sense of loyalty and duty to the family.This high sense of loyalty can put pressure on a wife to remain home to keep the family together, as she may view breaking up the family as worse than putting up with the violence. In addition, interviewees suggested that there may be a greater level of resignation and acceptance of violence as normal by Latinas. Consequently, abuse may go on for many years without the wife’s applying for an order of protection.

There may also be religious reasons for a Latina’s reluctance to leave the family or take action that might result in breaking up the family.The church may be an influence in pushing traditional values, including the wife’s duty to stay at home.

Sixth, Latinas may be vulnerable to retaliation from an abusive spouse.

One problem for criminal domestic violence cases in general is that witnesses are not protected by the system. A wife may be fearful that her husband will follow her and assault her after the hearing. This may be critical if the wife is in a shelter. A mother or child may need a safe place to report family violence or seek help without alerting the husband. One possibility may be family resource centers in the schools. The wife can say she is “going to the school” without raising her husband’s suspicions.

It was also reported that in divorce cases, the husband may continue the pattern of abuse after the divorce as a means to get post-divorce modifications of custody and visitation decisions. Often this post-divorce abuse involves emotional abuse rather than physical abuse, but this is no less an exer- cise of power over the woman. The power exercised by the husband over his former wife may be an extension of abuse that occurred during the marriage. Also, the wife’s symptoms, such as depression, may be the result of prior abuse. In fami-

lies where the husband played a dominant role during the marriage, the wife may feel that she is not capable of self-sufficiency and be particularly vulnerable to continuing emotional abuse from her former husband. In some of those cases, there may have been no allegations of abuse in the initial divorce proceeding, particularly when the divorce was a settlement.

Consequences for the Justice System

For justice system practitioners, a good understanding of the potential cultural underpinnings of Latino family violence is critical for shaping appropriate responses, both for the batterer and for the victim.The following discussion presents potential responses to Latino family violence that take into account the possible pressures on a Latina that may make it very difficult for her to leave home or have her husband removed from the home.

First, ifpressures exist to make a Latina unable or unwilling to leave an abusive situation, the justice system needs

to investigate how long the abuse has been going on.

As stressed earlier, a Latina may endure an abusive situation for a longer time without reporting it to an authority than will anAnglo or women from many other cultures.The chance that there has been a more lengthy history of abuse makes it likely that the severity of the abuse might also be greater. Know- ing the severity of the abuse will be important in determining the approaches to treatment or even the likelihood of success of any treatment. One source of information on the history of abuse may be filings for orders of protection, particularly where the court sees the wife repeatedly fding and then subsequently withdrawing requests.

Second, judges need better tools to assess lethalit3

Domestic violence is a process, with a history and multiple events rather than just a single event. Assessing lethality may be especially difficult in a traditional Latino family where a husband might play a dominate role. A victim may still feel strongly that she needs the abuser, and this may affect her ability to leave the home and function on her own.

Third, if the outcome of a family violence case is likely to involve removal of a husband from the home, the justice system must consider how a Latina

is going to be able to go out on her own.

If she must be separated from her husband because of the level of violence, she may need not only the support previously received from a husband but also the support she might have received from an extended family. This might include help with isolation, learning English, finding childcare, obtaining education, and finding employment. Low self-esteem and

THE COURTMANAGER v o L u M E 1 7 N u M B E R 3 55

TaLle 2 summarizes the pressures that may lead Latinas to remain in an

aLusive situation and the consequences for the justice system.

TABLE 2 Pressures Potentially Keeping a Latina in a n Abusive Situation

CULTURAL VALUES, NORMS, AND

EXPECTATIONS

Immigration pressures

Economic pressures

Isolation of the wife

Distrust of the legal system

Cultural expectations I1

tion from the husband

56 V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E

MANIFESTATIONS POTENTIAL LEGAL EFFECTS

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR SHAPING APPROPRIATE

RESPONSES

Husband has threatened to send wife back to the home country.

Husband has threatened to return with children to the home country.

Husband is the sole source of income for the family.

Husband holds multiple jobs.

Wife does not work outside the home.

Wife has no work experience or history.

Wife is not learning English.

Wife has no extended family nearby.

Wife believes she has no rights against her abusing husband.

Wife fears the police.

Wife believes it is her duty to stay with her husband and place her family’s needs over her

Wife’s church or family is pressuring her to stay with her husband.

Wife is resigned to the abuse.

own.

Wife is fearful of retaliation.

Continuing emotional abuse by husband after divorce

Wife may be vulnerable to deportation.

Wife may be unable to support a household on her own.

Wife may not be able to function in American society on her own.

Wife may be unwilling or unable to learn or assert her rights.

Wife may be unwilling to assert her rights.

The abuse may be more severe than it appears.

Wife may appear incompetent to raise the children.

Husband may request transfer of custody.

The wife needs to be aware of her rights under the Federal Violence Against Women Act.

The wife needs to be aware of her legal status.

The court needs to consider the economic impacts of its decisions.

The court must take into account the economic realities of the wife’s situation if the husband is removed from the home.

The wife may need help in finding a job and developing financial independence.

The wife may need support to overcome her isolation.

The wife needs to be educated as to her rights.

The court must investigate the length of the abuse. Counseling involving extended family members may be necessary.

The court must recognize the symptoms of abuse.

The court must investigate the existence of prior abuse.

R 3 THECOURTMANAGER

other emotional problems might also be present.AU these problems can make it difficult for her to survive on her own.

Fourth, i f the economic survival of a wife is an issue, the justice system needs to consider the economic pressures

each approach will place on the wife in fashioning a response to the abusive situation.

If the husband is removed from the home, the wife may need continued contact with him to obtain money for rent, clothing, food, and other needs. A restraining order prohibiting all contact between husband and wife may not be work- able for the wife. On the other hand, sending the wife and children to a shelter to avoid having the family pay rent on two residences may punish the wife and children for the sins of the husband.

Fafib, if immigration status is an issue, a Latina should be connected to legal assistance so that she

can determine her legal status.

In addition, she should be made aware of her potential rights under the Violence Against Women Act.

Sixth, the justice system needs to recognize and deal with the possibility that a Latina ohen will return to the home

even if she believes that the abuse will continue.

Judges and prosecutors need to understand the dynamics of the victimization process that prevent a woman from following through with a case. If the pressures cannot be removed, the justice system may need to pay particular attention to contingencies for the wife’s continued safety in the event that she returns to the husband. This may mean that the wife needs help to empower her to break free from the pattern of abuse, recognizing the danger that empowerment may result in more abuse.

Seventh, in post divorce proceedings where the ex-husband is attempting to obtain custody of the children, the

judge must be alert to continuing emotional abuse by the husband that may be affecting the ability

of the wife to deal with her new situation.

In cases where no abuse was alleged as part of the initial divorce proceeding, the judge must be able to recognize the symptoms of abuse and, if those symptoms are present, the judge should investigate whether there was abuse during the marriage.While the issue of prior spousal abuse cannot be relitigated under rules of res judicata, the prior abuse may be admissible as evidence to assess the existence or severity of the continuing emotional abuse.The judge may then decide to take action to prevent the abuse rather than change the custody of the children.

CONCLUSION

Latino culture can affect the causes and manifestations of family violence in the Latino family, the ability and willingness of the Latino family violence victim to invoke protection of the justice system, and the ability of the justice system to assess, deter, treat, and prevent family violence in the Latino family.To deal effectively with Latino family violence, the justice system must be responsive to the unique needs and demands of the Latino culture.

Overall, there is a need for counseling groups, support groups, parenting classes, and other services in Spanish with therapists who understand Latino culture. Counseling, to be truly effective for Latinos, must be culturally competent and not merely culturally sensitive. This includes both language competency and, preferably, having come from or been a part of the culture. In some circumstances, a non-Latino counselor may not be accepted. It was reported that monolingual Span- ish domestic violence groups work well both because of the language and because the groups involve a single culture. Fi- nally, the therapists may need to serve as helpers to guide the Spanish-speaking litigants through the process, including dealing with the court and the probation department as they go through the treatment program.

ALout the authors

Steven Weller, J.D., Ph.D. is a senior consultant at Policy Studies Inc. Send e-mail to [email protected]

John A. Martin, Ph.D., is director of the Law and Justice Program at the Center For Public Policy Studies in Denver, Colorado, and an independent consultant. Send e-mail to [email protected]


NACM W f N O W L B D G E FAIR 2002

Held each year in the conference exhibit hall, the Knowl- edge Fair provides conference participants with an opportunity to explore court projects, court assistance organizations, and court research initiatives. The 2002 Knowledge Fair featured 23 entries, including several that were nominated for

Family Court Services Enhancement Program Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County The program was developed to demystify court processes, removing some of the fundamental barriers to accessing justice and providing special services to those individuals who

the Justice Achievement Award and the JAA winner. have cases in the Family Court Department of the Su- perior Court in Maricopa County.

Wisconsin Courthouse Security Training Program Representatives of the courts, law enforcement, and county government come together for a participatory training program to learn about courthouse security issues and innovations, and develop strategies to enhance courthouse safety.

Interactive Community Assistance Network (I-CAN!) Orange County Superior Court, California Available in kiosk and Web formats, I-CAN! has a user-friendly interface that enables self-represented litigants to properly prepare official legal forms.

Find Arbitrator Mediator Electronically (FAME) Los Angeles County Superior Court, California The FAME project provides an automated selection process so individuals may randomly select mediators and arbitrators (neutrals) and review potential neutrals’ profiles.

Guardianship Volunteer Project (GVP) Los Angeles County Superior Court, California The GVP program assists proposed pro se guardians in the preparation and filing of forms required to initiate a guardianship within the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Celebrate Adoption Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County Celebrate Adoption is an event designed to promote public awareness about adoption and help recruit prospective adoptive families in Maricopa County, Arizona.


Jury Management Improvement Program Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County The program gives summoned jurors court access 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Summoned jurors can respond through an interactive Web site or an interactive voice response telephone system.

Trial Court Leadership Center Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County The center began as a training site for judges and court professionals and now serves as an adult learning environment with classrooms for educational programming for others as well.

Paso a Paso Spanish Arraignments Eugene, Oregon Municipal Court The court developed a specific arraignment docket for Spanish-speaking defendants with pre-scheduled

interpreters. A video explains in Spanish the court process and advice of rights. Spanish-speaking trained community volunteers provide information, explain court process and options, and assist the defendant in filling out forms.

Underage Alcohol Diversion A Court/University Partnership Beginning Underage Successes Through Educational Diversion (BUSTED) BUSTED offers educational curriculum designed to provide 18 - 20 year-old drinkers with information and resources to make responsible, low-risk choices about alcohol and alcohol- related behaviors. Program participants are eligible for diversion on first offense for minor alcohol-related offenses and college credit is earned.

Court Certificate Program Superior Court of California, Riverside County The program provides an opportunity for employees to enhance their professional and personal skills.Two-year commitment earns a graduation certificate.

Homeless Court Superior Court of California, Ventura County Homeless Court is a combined effort between the court and the community to help homeless people pay their fines for minor violations through community service. Social service agencies provide advocacy or assistance to the homeless.

CEDP Research Projects Institute for Court Management, NCSC May 2002 graduates of the Court Executive Development Pro- gram highlighted their Phase 111 research on topics ranging from Administration of Juvenile Justice to Workload Measure- ments.

Court Management Program Institute for Court Management, NCSC The Court Management Program is a two-phased certification program available to court professionals.

The Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice The project was established to assist state and local justice system officials and treatment professionals in addressing issues relating to planning, implementing, managing, and evaluating drug court programs in their jurisdictions.

Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project Bureau of Justice Assistance American University administers a national-scope technical assistance project, funded by the Department of Justice, Bu- reau of Justice Assistance, to serve criminal courts and related judicial system agencies.The project offers a range of free and cost-share services, including consultations and workshops.

SEARCH SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to improving the criminal justice system through the effective application of information and identification technology.

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Federal Bureau of Investigation NICS was implemented in 1998 to facilitate the Brady Hand- gunviolence Prevention Act (Brady Act), which requires background inquiries on prospective gun buyers before gun dealers can transfer a firearm. NICS background checks are initiated by gun dealers who contact the FBI call centers or a des- ignated state point of contact.

Oregon Judicial Department The Oregon Judicial Department provided information on several initiatives and projects, including the Oregon Citizen Re- view Board, Statewide Interpreter Program, Integrated Fam- ily/Drug Courts, and the Family Law Web Site.

Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team Miami-Dade County, Florida The DomesticViolence Fatality Review Team reviews all closed domestic violence-related deaths from 1997 to the present in the jurisdictions of the two largest local police departments in Miami-Dade County to extract data for analysis and depic- tion of trends.

The Justice Management Institute JMI is dedicated to working with courts and other justice system agencies in helping them to improve the overall administration of justice through technical assistance, education and training, research, and information dissemination.

A Multicultural Self-Help Center Hennepin County District Court The project’s Spanish and Somali liaisons, located in the court’s Self-Help Center, provide non-courtroom interpretation, help litigants complete forms, and guide litigants through processes like obtaining fee waivers and taking papers to the sheriff for service.

Court Information Database National Center for State Courts The Court Info button located on the NCSC Web site at www.ncsconline.org provides a single entry point for court-related information. Filed in more than 100 convenient and timely topic fold- ers, court staff can find relevant information quickly.


n

VENDOR WXHIBITION The National Association for Court Management wishes to sincerely thank the vendors who exhibited their

products and services.Their contributions helped make the 2002 annual meeting a success.

Access Capital Services, Inc. ACS ALlianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. AlphaCorp Appriss, Inc. Court Specialists, Inc. Court Vision Communications, Inc. Courtroom 21 CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc. Credit Management Control, Inc. DOAR E-Filing . com Exhibitone Corporation Facility Group Frank Solutions, Inc. FTR, Ltd. GC Services, LP Government Micro Resources, Inc. Guardsmark Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc. HLM Design INCODE Infax, Inc. InfoCom Systems Services, Inc.

ISD Corporation Jacobs Facilities, Inc. Jan0 Justice Systems Jefferson Audio Video Systems, Inc. Jeter Systems Corp. Jury Systems, Inc. Justice Planning Associates Justice Served/Coyote Moon Justice Systems, Inc. KMDArchitects Language Line Services Leonard Parker Associates LexisNexis MAXIMUS-Justice Solutions Division Municipal Services Bureau (MSB) National Center for State Courts NomadTechnologies, Inc. OnlineTraffic School, Inc. OS1 Collection Services, Inc. Phillips Swager Associates Professional Computer

Software Services RealLegal Spacesaver Corporation

Spillis Candela DMJM SBC Tiburon, Inc. Trans-Lux Corporation Tybera Development Group VoiceMetrix Corporation WebPutty, Inc. West Group


NDOR XHIBITION

2002 NACM Conference


2002-2003 BOARD C R S OF SWORN IN

The new National Association for Court Management Board of Directors for 2002-2003 was sworn in by past president Frank Broccolina during the annual conference. In addition

to the many returning officers, three new officers joined the board this year.

I Your 2002-2003 1

board of directors:

muck row) Eric Siluerberg, Limited

Jurisdiction Director; Paul Burke, Appointed Director;

Roy S. Wynn Jr, General J~irisdiction Director; Marcus

Reinkensmeyer; At-large Director; John WSleeter; Large Court Direct05 Frank Maiocco

Jr, Smul l Court Director; Howard “Skip” Cheshire,

Urban Director

(center) Sarah Brown-Clark, Elected

Director; Candia Friesen, Rural Director

(front) Juanita Hicks, hnnzediate

Past President; Collins E. Ijoma, Vice President; Joi V

Sorensen, President; Lawrence G. Myers, President Elect; Richelle (Chelle) Uecker;

Secretary/Treasurer

Closing Session Speaker: Joi Sorensen

Reporter: Margaret Guider0

In her closing remarks, Joi Sorensen said she is looking forward to her tenure as president of NACM. She also com- mented that the Portland NACM conference was one of the best in recent memory, not only because of the number and diversity of participants, but also because of the quality of the presentations. The emphasis on technology should motivate courts to adopt NACM goals and to develop Web sites and links among all state court associations. Sorensen graciously thanked all participants and presenters and acknowledged the contributions of sponsors and vendors. Without the financial assistance from sponsors who share similar interests with NACM members and presenters, NACM could not stage the quality of conferences that result in new members and encourage participation throughout the year.

Sorensen identified the site for the 2003 mid-year conference asTucson, Arizona.

Incoming president Joi Sorensen accepts the gauel from outgoing president Juanita Hicks.

62 V O L U M E 1 7 N U M E3 E R 3 THECOURT MANAGER

COMMITTEE Z T S

NACM MemLership Services Committee

Committee Chairs: Louis J. Hentzen, Vice President Collins E. Ijoma, Large Court Director

Committee Co-chairs: Dottie McDonald, Co-chair; Award of Merit Diana Jones, Co-chair; Justice Achievement Award

Membership Recruitment. New members recruited from Julyl, 2001 to June 30, 2002 total 285. In October last year, when the total membership count was 2,511, the committee had established a modest goal of increasing membership in 2002 by 2.5 percent (63 members). Unfortunately, despite all of our efforts, the number has dropped to 2,429, as of June 30. Perhaps it is still possible to at least regain the lost membership by the end of the year. Some of the reasons for the decrease in membership are as follows:

The number of new members by country/state:

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Maine Michigan Minnesota Mississippi

3 1 15 1 35 10 1 3 7 13 6 1 0 0 3 1 0 7 0 7 3 0 1 8 4 5

1.

2.

general downturn in the nation’s economy, essentially ushered in by the 9/11 incident, budget austerity measures in many states ruled out payment of membership dues and out-of-state travel for conferences and conventions, and

3. retirements of many members.

The membership committee has been steadfast in its efforts to recruit new members as well as encourage former members to renew. In October, the committee was present at the Mid-Atlantic Association for Court Management conference in Ocean City, Maryland, and signed up a number of new members. Pat Gildea did the same at PACM during its conference in November. Louis Hentzen and others worked hard to recruit new members inVirginia during the NACM midyear conference earlier in the year. Finally, a number of new members were signed up from Nigeria by Collins Ijoma during his consultancy visits to the country this year.

Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

9 0 3 6 20 5 3 1 2 13 0 18 9 3 1 0 1 2 13 4 4 1 11 0 4 1

Canada Nigeria

4 9

Hong Kong 1 Portugal 1


First Time Attendee Welcome. NACM volunteer members will provide a personal welcome from NACM to first time attendees at the annual conference. A reception in honor of the first timer will be held on Sunday, July 2 1,2002.

Award of Merit. The 2002 NACMAward of Merit will be presented to J. Dennis Moran, Wisconsin Director of State Courts.

Justice Achievement Award. The winner of the 2002 Justice Achievement Award is “Wisconsin Court House Secu- rity Program,” submitted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

ICM Scholarship. The Institute for Court Management submitted applications for the 2002 NACM Scholarship. Tom Ulbricht was selected to receive this year’s $1,000 scholarship.

Memorabilia. Memorabilia will be available for sale in the registration office throughout the week during annual conference.

NACM NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE

Committee Chair: Frank Broccolina, Immediate Past President

Interview Applicants for Board of Directors. A total of 12 candidates applied for this year’s board of directors positions. Candidacy forms were received from eight men and four women. The following positions were open for the 2002- 2003 board:

President Elect Vice President Secretaryflreasurer Appointed Director General Jurisdiction Director At-Large Director

The nominations committee will conduct interviews of potential candidates on Sunday, July 2 1, starting at 1 :00 pm. A slate of candidates will be presented at the first business meeting on Monday, July 22. Elections for the 2002-2003 NACM Board will be held at the business meeting on Thursday, July 2 5.

NACM PLANNING COMMITTEE

Committee Co-chairs Chelle Uecker, General Jurisdiction Director Frank Maiocco, Small Court Director

Review NACM Strategic Plan. The entire committee reviewed all sections of the NACM Strategic Plan and made suggestions to the board of directors for additions, deletions, and amendments. Among its recommendations, the committee suggested consolidating the nine plan goals to six goals without

removing the intent of the original strategic plan. The committee also established task lists for distribution to various NACM committees and workgroups to ensure the plan actively guides NACM activity. Finally, the committee undertook several new tasks as a means of institutionalizing a method for future strategic planning updates. The plan, which is updated every two years, shapes and guides who NACM is, what it does, and why it does it.

Review NACM Responsibilities, Operations, and Pro- cedures Manual. The NACM Responsibilities, Operations, and Procedures Manual is the primary reference document used by directors and other NACM leaders. While updating the strategic plan, the entire committee and the board of directors discussed several topics that will require potential re- visions to the procedures manual during next year’s formal update.

NACM PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Committee Chair: Joi Sorensen, President Elect

Committee Co-chairs: Skip Chesshire, Urban Director Candia Friesen, Rural Director Eric Silverberg, Limited Jurisdiction Director

2002 Midyear Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia. The 2002 Midyear Conference was held in Williamsburg, Virginia, March 3-5, with more than 85 participants and 21 vendors. The conference theme was “Best Practices in Over- coming Unequal Treatment in the Justice System.” Attendees came from all over the United States.

The 2002 Midyear Conference was a follow-up to the 2001 Annual Conference with the same theme. Plenary sessions included inspirational speakers and sessions focused on best practices through the use of innovations such as technology, court community collaboration and problem solving courts.

2002 Annual Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACM’s 2002 Annual Conference will be held at the Hilton Portland, Portland, Oregon, on July 21-25. The conference theme is“Justice For All: Serving Diverse Communities.” NACM thanks Shirley Nixon, Richard Vandiver, and Candia Friesen as well as other local planners for their invaluable assistance in helping to coordinate the social and conference activities.

The 15th Annual Leadership Seminar coordinated by immediate past president Frank Broccolina, will be held for state association presidents Saturday, July 20.

Dottie MacDonald is coordinating the vendor exhibition. Tim Dibble is coordinating the 2002 Knowledge Fair. Both are thanked for their hard work on these programs.

Athletic events will include the annual fun run/walk coordinated by Candia Friesen and the golf tournament coordinated by John Sleeter.

64 V O L U M E 1 7 N U M 6 E R 3 THECOURT MANAGER

There will be a variety of meetings held in conjunction with conference activities: The Fact Group; the NACM/COSCA Joint Technology Committee; and a gathering of information technology specialists.

Coordination with Professional Development Advi- sory Committee. All educational program selections have been coordinated with the NACM Professional Development Advisory Committee (PDAC), chaired by Frank Broccolina. PDAC met during the NACM Midyear Conference to continue work on the 10 core competencies. Most of the work has been completed.

NACM SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE

Committee Chair: Louis J. Hentzen, Vice President

2003 Midyear Conference. Louis Hentzen, Lawrence G. Myers, and Linda Perkins conducted a site visit to Tucson, Arizona, and selected the Doubletree Hotel as the site for the NACM 2003 Midyear Conference. The conference will be held March 2-4,2003.

2003 Annual Conference. Last year’s committee conducted a site visit to Washington, D.C., and selected the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., as the site for the NACM 2003 Annual Conference. The conference will take place July 13-18,2003.

2004 Midyear Conference. The committee conducted a site visit to Savannah, Georgia, and selected the Hyatt Hotel in Savannah, Georgia, as the site for the NACM 2004 Midyear Conference. The conference will take place February 1-3,2004.

2004 Annual Conference. The committee conducted a site visit to Grapevine,Texas, and selected it as the site for the NACM Annual 2004 Conference. The Gaylord Opryland Hotel Texas was selected as the site for the conference, which will take place July 11 - 15,2004

2005 Midyear Conference. The committee explored sites in Madison and Milwaukee,Wisconsin, and support from the Wisconsin association members.

2005 Annual Conference. The committee explored support and possible sites in Salt Lake City, Utah; Reno, Nevada; San Diego, California; San Francisco, California; and Phoenix, Arizona.

NACM PUBLICATIONS/ COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE

2001-2002 Report of Projects and Results

Committee Chair: Lawrence G. Myers, Secretary/Teasurer

The Court Manager. A smooth transition in the change of editors for The Court Manager took place during the year. Under Marcus Reinkensmeyer’s leadership, four issues of The

Court Manager have been published. The quality and timeli- ness of the publication remains high with an emphasis on designing the magazine to appeal to all types of adult learners. Brighter covers, more pictures, the use of graphics, and a more varied selection of articles have been utilized.

The committee wishes to acknowledge and thank all of the contributors to the magazine and encourages all members to consider submitting articles for future issues of the publication.

Court Communiqud As with The Court Manage? Court Communique‘ experienced a smooth transition of editors when Shaun Zallaps, after four years as editor, turned over the reins to Richelle Uecker. Court Communique‘ continues to be published on schedule. Short articles and news articles are appreciated and should be submitted to the editor. We encourage all members to consider submitting articles and news items for publication.

Mini-Guide. Rather than issue a new mini-guide, the committee asked Robert Wessels to update The CourtAdministra- tor --A ManuaLWritten in 1992, this popular publication is being updated to include the Core Competencies developed by NACM.This task will be completed before the end of Sep- tember 2002.

NACM Homepage. Lawrence Myers and Kip Rodda have overseen the continuing development of the NACM home page over the past year. If you have not visited the Web site, please take a minute and go to: www.nacmnet.org. The section on Core Competencies is very detailed and contains the latest information. We have added to the Web site a section on vendors who were at the last annual and midyear conferences. This is both an incentive to the vendors and an on-going reference to the membership. We continue to add links to other associations. We have also added future midyear and annual conference dates and items for sale to the Web page.

We will continue to look at having the site “Bobby Ap- proved.” “Bobby Approved” means that any significant barriers to access by individuals with disabilities have been identified and repaired.

Eric Silverberg had an item in the June 2002 issue of Court Communique‘ asking for ideas as to what information or features members would like to see on the Web site. We hope all members will submit ideas to him at (661) 942-8633 or Eric.Silverberg@usdoj .gov.

As with all of NACM’s work, it cannot be done without the support and efforts of the membership and especially those on the committee. We thank you. It also cannot be done without the support and efforts of the staff of the National Center for State Courts and those in Association Services. This committee is indebted to tireless efforts of Linda Perkins, Patricia A. Chauvin, Holly Smith, and Lorie Gomez. We would be lost without you. Many, many thanks.

THECOURTMANAGER V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 6 5

WASHINGTON IN REVIEW

State Justice Institute The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Com-

merce, Justice, State Appropriations bill (S. 2778) on July 18. The bill awarded SJI only $3.1 million for FY 2003. This amount is far below the SJI request of $13.5 million that CCJ, COSCA, NACM,and other groups strongly endorsed. As of this writing, the House, however, has not acted on their version of the Com- merce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. Efforts continue to urge the members of the House of Representatives to fund SJI at the level of $13.5 million. A higher SJI funding amount approved by the House will provide a stronger bargaining position heading into a conference committee with the Senate when both bills are reconciled.

Privacy of Public Records - Redaction of Social Security Numbers

Legislative proposals have been introduced in recent years in an effort to protect individual privacy and to protect against identity theft. The bill with the most activity has been S. 848, which identifies 11 documents in which the social security number must be redacted. The 11 documents are: death certificates, professional and occupational licenses, property settlement documents, birth certificates, land ownership records, marriage licenses, bankruptcy documents, court judgments, child support documents, divorce petitions and decrees, and tax liens. There is a three-year window for compliance with the requirements in S. 848. Changes of paper records to electronic records are treated as a new record, thus subject to the above redaction requirements.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) held a hearing February 14, and the Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 848 on May 16. S. 848 was also referred to the Senate Finance Committee,

which makes L--e prospects for passage in L..is year very slim. The House has not had any activity on this matter since the middle of last year. Even if not addressed by this Congress, it will remain an issue to closely monitor in the next Congress.

Adult Interstate Compact The Interstate Compact onAdult Offender Supervision has

been adopted by 37 states, surpassing by two the number required for activation of the new agreement. The next step is to create an interstate commission with broad rulemaking and enforcement power. The compact has major implications for courts. It contains specific requirements on when and how judges may send felons on probation to other states. Vio- lations of these requirements by executive agencies or the courts can result in severe financial penalties, regardless of which branch of government is responsible for the violations. A major impetus for rewriting the compact was an expressed concern over the practices of some in the judiciary that were in direct contradiction to the current compact. The significance for the courts is recognized in the compact by a requirement that the judiciary be represented on state coun- cils that are to be created, and a provision that CCJ will have a non-voting position on the commission. http:// www.statesnews.org/clip/policy/isc. htm.

Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project

The Council of State Governments developed the Crimi- nal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project in response to requests from state government officials for recommendations to improve the criminal justice system’s response to people with mental illness. The current approach to responding to


people with mental illness has placed an enormous strain on state budgets. A copy of the report can be found at http:// www.consensusproject.org/.

Chapter 111, Pretrial Issues, Adjudication, and Sentenc- ing, of the report contains recommendations specifically per- tinent to the courts. Ten policy statements and more detailed recommendations for implementation are included in the chapter.

Policy Statement 7:Appointment of Counsel Policy Statement 8: Consultation with Victim Policy Statement 9: Prosecutorial Review of Charges Policy Statement 10: Modification of Pretrial

Policy Statement 1 1: Pretrial Release/Detention Hearing Policy Statement 12: Modification of Pretrial

Policy Statement 13: Intake at County/Municipal

Policy Statement 14:Adjudication Policy Statement 15: Sentencing Policy Statement 16: Modification of Conditions of

Diversion Conditions

Release Conditions

Detention Facility

Probation/Supervised Release

Reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

H.R. 4737 passed the House on May 16 by a vote of 229- 197. The House version of H.R. 4737,TANF reauthorization legislation, includes the following child support enforcement provisions:

Establishes a Healthy Marriage Promotion program that among other things would fund divorce reduction programs to teach relationship skills

Establishes a fatherhood program that among other things would fund divorce education, mediation, and programs designed to reduce domestic violence Reinstates mandatory three-year reviews of TANF- related support orders for possible modification Mandates an annual mandatory $25 fee for IV-D child support collection services for families who have never received TANF

child support

child support on behalf of children who are no longer minors

enforce child support

enforce child support

Lowers the threshold for passport denial for past-due

Permits tax intercept to be used to collect past-due

Permits the garnishment of veterans benefits to

Permits the offset of social security benefits to

Working off of the chairman's mark, the Senate Finance Committee amended H.R. 4737 and reported its bill favorably. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has jurisdiction over a portion of theTANF childcare programs. It is unclear when TANF reauthorization will be debated on the Senate floor. If passed in the Senate, it is also unclear if a conference committee will be able to come to agreement on a full reauthorization bill before the Congress adjourns. There are significant differences between the House and Senate ver- sions of the bill related to work requirements and childcare. One strategy under consideration is a one-year straight reauthorization for FY 2003 and deferring the larger reauthorization discussion until next year.


The Top Ten “Interesting” Jury Web Sites This past July, I spoke on“JuryTechno1ogy Improves Equal

Treatment” at the National Association for Court Management Annual Conference in Portland,Oregon. The theme of the meeting was “Justice for All: Serving Diverse Communities”which I found fairly easy to address given that the jury system is mandated to provide diverse panels of prospective jurors. As the digital divide narrows, the benefits of using the more advanced technologies increases. During my presentation, I demonstrated a number ofWeb sites that illustrate the use of technology in furthering this diversity mandate.

At the same meeting, Chris Crawford of Justice Served gave me a card that listed this year’s winners of the “Justice Served’sTop Court Web Sites.” As with all of these top 10 lists, I always feel badly for number 11. Then I wonder if these lists don’t really make one really good friend for the author and nine lukewarm friends who really question his judgment.

Later, in a more reflective moment, I asked myself what would be the top 10 jury Web sites? Would they necessarily have to be the best lo? As a fan of walking tours, I thought, why not look at the most interesting Web sites, or what the Web surfiig jury fan should see as good or interesting examples. I was looking for Web sites that go beyond the usual basic information on jury service, frequently asked questions, maps and reporting assistance - no matter how well those elements are done. In fact, this basic level of information should be a standard for all states and courts.

The interesting next step is to consider the Web site not only as a pre-reporting site for summoned jurors but also as a public education site that includes applicable statutes and rules as well as links and references to other online resources. The California Web site, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/ index.htm, is a good example of this broader approach. It has a section for employers - separate from the section that pro-

spective jurors can access to get information to tell their employers - that includes information about why employer support for the jury system is important to the business community. The California Web site also features a “System Improve- ments”section, where citizens interested in jury improvement efforts, or perhaps frustrated jurors, can find task force reports with recommendations and progress reports.

One thing I find frustrating is how hidden the juror information can be on some sites. Is it located under the clerk of court, or under the court itself? And which level of court? If I can’t locate it after a quick look on the court’s homepage, I go directly to the search function. If jurors are a major portion of those seeking information from a courts’web site, why make it so difficult? Web site activity reports, which I am told lurk in all good Web software packages, can provide data to help convince your Web master to locate juror information just a click away from the homepage.

And so I propose 10 or so interesting Web sites for your consideration.

1. One must start at Maricopa County Superior Court, Phoenix, Arizona, at http://www.superiorcourt .maricopa.gov. Before you look at the juror information option, check out the high profile list found under the public information heading. Notorious cases, which are defrned as those cases generating media interest, are listed as to the latest action on the case and the next event scheduled in the case.Think of all the calls from reporters that this information would eliminate.

The Maricopa Web site has something for all jurors. First and foremost is that, after receiving their summonses in the mail, jurors can take care of all further communications with the court via this Web site. Can we eliminate this first mailing and summon jurors via e-mail? Recall the Internet hoax reported here a few issues back. Maybe not yet. In Maricopa


County, the jury summons includes the juror’s identification number. To sign on to the Web site, prospective jurors use this juror identification number and their date of birth, which for security reasons is not included on the summons. After signing in, the juror can complete the qualification questionnaire, request to be excused, claim a disqualification, or ask for a new reporting date. The Sacramento site discussed below has an interesting variation on the sign-in procedure.

The main jurorweb page includes a number of useful functions such as court locations, frequently asked questions, and even a juror newsletter - an idea that the court borrowed from New York (see number 2, below). The juror can also download and print a letter from the court to the juror’s employer that provides information the employer should have concerning jury duty.

2 . New Yorks jury system is centralized and theirweb site provides general information as well as links to the individual county sites and information for jurors reporting in the various counties. The New York Juror Orientation videos for grand and petit jurors can be found on theirweb site at http:/ /www.nyjuror.com/. The petit jury orientation video, “Your Turn,” is probably the best orientation video I have ever seen. Diane Sawyer and Ed Bradley are the narrators. The opening sequence - a brief history of the jury system - is quite com- pelling. Following that is an interesting discussion of what jury duty is really about, complete with film clips of classic jury television shows as well as some very direct and honest comments from citizens about jury service both before and after serving. Chief Judge Judith Kaye also uses the video as an opportunity to tell jurors how the NewYork courts have improved the jury system and why jurors’ ideas and participation are so important. The grand jury video is one of the few available. For those of you with broadband Internet access, give both videos a viewing.

On the New York Web site, jurors can even find out how to volunteer for jury service in NewYork State. No, it does not violate the concepts of randomness, for it only has real application to people not on the five source lists used in NewYork. It merely adds the names to the master list and does not give anyone a priority in selection. The rules and laws pertaining to juries are also found on this site, a feature many states are now including. The back issues of NewYork’s Jury Pool News can be accessed via this Web site.

3. Orange County, Florida, or more correctly the Ninth Judicial District of Florida, always seems to be on the best

Web site lists, and in the jury area they are present again. And who can forget their address: http://www.ninja9.org? From the streaming video orientation to the banner announcements of which jurors should report, this site contains a great deal of information. Note the description of the new in-court childcare facility, known as A Place for Children, which is available for jurors’ children as well as all others having business in the court.

4. In addition to many very useful Web pages for jurors, Missouri’s Web site provides a page on which the individual counties can post specific instructions for jurors reporting to their local courthouse. From the Missouri Judiciary homepage at http://www.osca.state.mo.us/index.nsf, click on the link for circuit courts, then juror guide, then local jury offices. I suggest you check out Cedar County. Maybe then you won’t think you have facilities problems.

-

5. Cobb County, Georgia, deserves a nod for what was the first online video orientation and juror qualification questionnaire. The video can be viewed at http://www. cobbcounty.org/video/sup-jury.ram. Now you can see what a jury summons would see, if a summons could see, when the mailbox door is opened and the would-be juror looks in. This is a new perspective to be sure. Cobb County had the first online qualification questionnaire. Rather than mail the questionnaire in, the juror can complete the same form online. It may not be the most sophisticated implementation, but it beat everybody else by years, and it works.

6. Sacramento Superior Court at http://www. saccourts.com/index/jury.asp provides, among many things, the call-in information is a tabular format. The panels on call are grouped and, depending on the day you check this page out, you may see just about every variation of a call-in message possible. Some panels report, some call again tomorrow after noon, others call again in the morning, and still others in a few days. This shows the court’s continuing effort to bring in panels only when needed. Jurors requesting to be excused, de- ferred, or postponed are first given the rules or statutory basis for each action. Then they complete the request form and submit it to the court. This approach seems more open,which I like. Rather than signing in and discovering the limits of options available, jurors focus on the details of the specific action concerned. The general information page also has a request form for assistance such as hearing assistance devices and interpreters. This positive approach is the preferred


method under ADA. Rather than what it takes to be excused, what does it take to make it possible for you to serve?

7. Several issues ago I wrote about the jury system in Great Britain and the recent work of Lord Auld and his suggested reforms. Notable for us this time is the variety of information provided on their Web site at http://www.criminal- courts-review.org.uk/. You can access not only the report, but also an executive summary, press releases, progress reports, and research papers prepared in support of Lord Auld’s findings and public responses to the report.

8 I thought I should have at least one non-court sponsored Web site that promotes education about the jury system - not that there are a lot to choose from. Try the Constitu- tional Rights Foundation of Chicago at http://www.crfc.org/ americanjury/about. html, which provides teaching materials, links to other sites, and references for further work. I have not considered any Web sites that are issue related - that is, promoting a particular change in the jury system or statutes. It should not surprise anyone that there are far more issue-related jury sites than there are general educational sites.

9. Speaking of jury education sites, check out the Coun- cil for Court Excellence at http://www.courtexceIlence.org. Under the heading of jury reform you can view and download the reports of the District of Columbia’s Jury Project. The jury video and teaching materials that the council developed are offered for sale via this Web site. The video contains an abbre- viated trial based on an actual case. It is condensed into 30 minutes, including the jury instructions. Students form several

juries and then deliberate and bring in their verdicts. The result of the usually varied verdicts provides a wonderful course on the jury process. The council’s Web site also has some excellent information on “Steps to Consider When Planning a Jury Public Awareness Campaign.” Recall that it was the council that originated the idea of a Juror Appreciation Week.

10. I have reserved this last spot for the site - and I am sure there are many - that I do not know about yet. I ask for your suggestions as to otherweb sites that should be included in this list. In the spirit of equal access, a forthcoming issue will include all those sites suggested, subject to my standards, of course.

I have not included the National Center for State Court’s Center for Jury Studies Web page at www.ncscoline.org (and another click under Center for Jury Studies), and I ask for your ideas as we continue to improve it. We have added a sort of “What’s New in Jury Systems” there and invite your contributions to me at [email protected]. In fact, if you don’t want to re-key all the Web sites I have mentioned in this article, I will post the list there. Previous Jury News columns are on the NCSC Web site as well.

I would also like to call your attention to anotherweb site not necessarily jury-related, at least not yet. Those of us named Tom are particularly sensitive to the seeming voyeurism of viewing public records which the Web provides. Now available are the handwritten pleadings of accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. They can be found under notable cases/docket at www.vaed.uscourts.gov. On that somber note, I wish you “interesting surfing.”

7 0 V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 THE COURT M A N A G E R

A QUESTION

A Surprising National Response Peter Kiefer and I take turns on this column and so this

one follows up on the issue-before-last,Vol. 17,No. 1. That was the story about beleaguered court administrator Clark Kent, who was ultimately fired - or “separated” to use the latest euphemism - after unsuccessfully navigating a minefield of difficult issues at his court. To my surprise, that column gener- ated more response from across the country than any I’ve written before. For this edition, I’ve chosen to highlight the comments from court managers and staff in eight different states.

Reminder: The Scenario To quickly recap, I thrust Clark into six different minefields,

one after another. Clark was hired, and (some would say) had an ethical duty to address some unhealthy areas at his court in the state of New Columbia. Clark was confronted with courthouse phone habits that allowed rampant ex parte communication; completely uncontrolled Internet surfing by court staff; hiring practices loaded with favoritism and patronage; pressure to involve court staff in judicial elections; loose grant funding controls; and a judge whose alcohol problems were becoming all too obvious in the courtroom. Although trying to step carefully through each issue, even Clark couldn’t survive the successive alienation of one constituency after another, and was ultimately fired.

As you might remember, when Clark ran into significant opposition, he usually shifted his focus to other issues, using a “pick your battles” rationale. Many of our colleagues who responded to me in person, especially at the recent NACM conference in Portland, often faulted Clark for being such a wimp, caving in whenever he hit resistance. Others had a different view.

Georgia Nolan Martin is the 8th District administrator in Lyons,

Georgia. Contrary to seeing Clark as a wimp, Nolan saw him as combative and insensitive to his organization:

“I have faced many of the ethical scenarios faced by Clark ... and survived. My observation from your section, Clark’s Minefield, is that Clark failed to understand the organizational culture and the alternatives and options available to him. This confrontational and what appears to be even combative style doesn’t win respect or points and can lower morale quickly. Just some food for thought.”

Minnesota On the other hand, some seemed to imply that Clark should

maybe be given some credit for at least trying to step into sensitive areas that we often otherwise avoid. Mary McCormack is the court administrator for Lyon County in Marshall, Minnesota. On the issue of Clark’s attempt to reduce ex parte communication Mary writes:

“This is a topic that bears more discussion among court administrators, but we avoid it like the plague. Ex parte communication with judges is like the el- ephant in the room that no one talks about.”

Missouri Most of the reaction, however, faulted Clark pretty sharply,

often for badly misreading his organizational landscape. Michael Devereaux is a far better golfer than I’ll ever be, and the jury supervisor in the 22nd Judicial Circuit in St. Louis, Missouri. Mike’s response was in the same ballpark as Nolan’s, that is, that Clark didn’t do himself any favors with his methods and his approach. Michael wrote:

THECOURTMANAGER V O L U M E 1 7 N U M 6 E R 3 7 1

“Was it coincidence that your article appeared in the same issue as the articles on turnaround management?’ Clark needed to read those 10 tips listed on page 15, particularly ‘Under- stand your role’ and ‘Go in with the backing of top leadership.’ It seemed to me that Clark’s ethical dilemmas were of his own making .”

South Dakota In the previous column, I made reference to the unusually

public controversy in the federal courts last year over Internet monitoring, an idea that was ultimately withdrawn in the face of resistance from some judges, especially from the 9th Cir- cuit on the West Coast.2 Those of us in the state courts don’t often hear from our federal colleagues, and so I was pleased to get a response on Clark’s general predicaments from Joe Haas, clerk of the U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota. Like Michael Devereaux, Joe touches on some of the solid advice on turnaround management and establishing clear expectations at the beginning. Joe’s perceptive and well-written reaction was:

“While I can empathize with Clark, I think I must be miss- ing something. Clark was hired to ‘clean up’ a ‘badly running court.’ The column describes what Clark did when he saw a variety of problems but doesn’t mention any attempt on his part to get any advance agreement from his judges that these were the kinds of problems that he had been hired to fix. Because the judges have the power to fire him, I assume that he was hired by these very same judges rather than by some outside authority. If that is the case, he doesn’t seem to have used his relationship with the group of judges who hired him very effectively.

“I would suggest that anyone who is being hired to fuc. a broken court get the hiring judges to outline what they think is broken and what role they will play in the fur. A discussion of the problems and the judges’ role in fixing them would have given Clark some idea as to whether he wants the job at all and, if he takes the job, where the judges expect him to start in fixing problems. By working on the issues the judges had already identified, he can hopefully build some momentum that will allow him to then raise issues he sees that the court hasn’t yet identified as being areas that are broken.

“Granted, I work in the federal system, where court governance issues may differ, but I can’t imagine making a decision to change the way the bar communicates with chambers [for example]. . .without discussing the implications with the chief judge of my court and to work with him to get the overall

support of a majority of the judges. That isn’t to say that if there are ethical issues that the court doesn’t want to tackle that it ends there. I have always worked under the theory that it is my job to support the people for whom I work. If I dis- agree with them on significant issues, particularly issues with ethical implications, it is my job to try to change their minds through the use of logic and persuasion. If I am unable to convince them and can’t support their policies, it is my obligation to move on to another organization to which I can give my wholehearted support. For Clark to battle over these issues without the support of the court is ineffective at best and self-destructive at worst. Clark only owed his court his best efforts: sacrificing his career and his family’s well being is above and beyond the call of duty. After failing to get the court’s support on his first three or four efforts, Clark needed an effective exit strategy.”

Tennessee Larry Stephenson is trial court administrator for the 20th

Judicial District in Nashville. Larry not only concentrates on appreciating the organizational context like some of the other writers, but like Joe Haas, also concentrates on the need for clarity in Clark’s role and the hiring expectations in the first place.

“After reading the scenario several times, it seems to me that neither Clark nor New Columbia were appropriately dili- gent in the search and interview process. Before accepting the position in New Columbia, Clark should have known, to some degree, what New Columbia’s expectations were in the area of ethics and should have factored those expectations into his decision prior to accepting the position. Similarly, New Columbia should have had a better grasp of Clark’s perspective on the job and factored that into their decision-making on the offer.

Clark obviously had no sense of what ethical culture he was moving into and the judges of New Columbia were der- elict in determining how Clark’s high ethical standards would fit into their culture. If Clark went into this position with his eyes wide open and determined to be an ethical change agent regardless, he was doomed from the beginning. At a minimum, he was rolling for very high stakes.

“In my judgment, if the marriage was to take place at all, Clark should have taken the time to establish himself, win al- lies, and begun his changes more subtly than he apparently did. It would have taken longer, but he very likely would have shown some success as opposed to none.”


Arizona My fellow columnist, Peter Kiefer, is currently the crimi-

nal court administrator at Maricopa Superior Court in Phoe- nix. Peter’s well-organized response not only raises some interesting issues - I find Peter’s item #2 especially provoca- tive - but he also brings us back to the recurring issue about how far we can or should expect to pursue our ethics in our working environments. Many of the respondents concentrated on Clark’s tactics, his approach, his actions - in other words, the means to his ends, rather than justrfying his ends in the first place. Peter’s response not only addresses Clark’s actions, but the justifications for his ethical objectives as well. Peter writes,

“After reading the article a couple of times, I see the need to answer three questions in order to clarlfy my own understanding of Clark’s dilemma, and also humbly offer a little advice.

1. Is Clark imposing his personal ethics on the court as a whole?

“No. The ethical obligations to which Clark is committed are not of his own making; they are universal obligations. As public servants working within a democratic government, we are obliged to be faithful to these duties: e.g., promoting fairness and the appearance of fairness in government decisions, promoting public accountability and proper use of public resources, as well as rewarding employees based upon merit. The fact that only Clark sees these obligations within his court does not preclude those obligations from being universal.

2 . Are the judges custodians of the court system’s ethical standards as an institution of our government?

“No. It is true that organizationally we, as court administrators, serve at the pleasure of the bench. But again, as public servants we are duty bound to uphold fundamental ethical standards of the courts as an institution of our government. As the court is beyond simply the bench, these standards are beyond the approval of the judges. We are obligated to adhere to these standards regardless of the view a few judges have of them.

3. In the scenario, is Clark facing legitimate dzfferences in ethical interpretation?

“No. There is no comparison between a clerk agonizing over whether or not to process abortion clinic trespass documents and government officials maintaining an illegal and immoral patronage system. The clerk faces a legitimate moral dilemma, interpreting the conflict between serving a democratic institution and allowing that same institution to occasionally err. (If one sees prosecuting abortion protests as an error.) As an aside, I would contend that the question of how committed the clerk might be to upholding principle is the true dilemma here. For example, is the clerk committed enough to resign from the court rather than process an abortion trespass case? There is no conflict of moral principle in support- ing an immoral patronage system; the alternative is just ratio- nalization of self reward.

“Although I do not doubt Clark’s moral stance, I do question his political acumen. At no time in the article does Clark consider asking anyone for assistance. Perhaps Clark could have shielded himself more effectively in a couple of his ad- ventures if he had sought the advice of county counsel, the state’s administrative office of the courts, or the attorney general’s office prior to reviewing direct telephone numbers to judges and barring staff assistance in judicial campaigns. He might have sought assistance from the county auditor or the secretary of state’s office (often this office has an audit unit) prior to strengthening the court’s Internet policy and accounting procedures. Clark might have called upon the county human relations department prior to tightening recruitment and selection procedures. He might have consulted the presiding judge as well as the state’s commission on judicial performance prior to intervening with an alcohol-abusing judge.

“We represent an independent branch of government. That does not require us to undertake such daunting tasks in isolation.”

Oregon Finally, James Giordano is a court analyst for the Oregon

Judicial Department. James wrote a very thoughtful and wide- ranging response on the issue of how, when, and how far we can expect to pursue our morals and ethics in our public lives and at work. I may ask to use other portions of his writing in future columns, but for now, I’ll excerpt some of his commen-

THE COURT MANAGER V O L U M E 1 7 N U M B E R 3 73

tary on the recurring issue of when and how far we ought to express our ethics and morals in our public roles. James writes,

“As there are fewer and fewer ‘principles’ or ‘morals’ that are agreed upon by society, we have less and less common ground or foundation on which society can stand. We are lit- erally undermining our own moral foundations in the name of freedom.

“It is tough (no matter what a person’s ideological, philo- sophical, or religious framework) to remain totally neutral and fair when it comes to questions such as the one you posed in your column.

“Suppose there is another court clerk in the same courthouse as the one with strong convictions against abortion. Suppose this other clerk is of the conviction that only homo- sexual couples ought to be able to adopt on the grounds that society excludes homosexuals from being able to formally get married and they naturally are unable to conceive children as a couple. So this clerk refuses to process any adoption paperwork for heterosexual couples. Or maybe this clerk hates Christians and feels they teach children to hate homosexuals. Therefore she will not process adoption papers if she knows the potential adoptive parents are Christian. Should we accommodate both clerks (the anti-abortion and the anti-heterosexual clerks) on account of their religious or moral convictions?

“The ironic thing here is that government cannot be ‘neutral’ here. It must decide which (neither, one, or both) convictions to accommodate. In so doing, it implicitly makes a substantive proclamation about which convictions are deserving of accommodation and which are not.

“If it chooses to accommodate no religious convictions, in effect government is saying that religious convictions are not valuable enough to accommodate or protect when there is a conflict between one’s work and one’s religious convictions.

“If it chooses to accommodate one and not the other, then government has made a value judgment, and this raises establishment questions.

“If it accommodates both, it says religious convictions are important and should be respected to the point of providing accommodations when one’s convictions conflict with one’s work duties. But since there is such great diversity in society now, do we run the risk of paralyzing government by saying we will accommodate any and every conviction?”

clear line, the rational, logical distinction that Peter Kiefer seems to have found so firmly - that is, the ultimate difference between the ethical convictions we’re encouraged to pursue on all levels (perhaps even over the objections,of the judges we serve), and those that are private and not to be accommodated in our public roles. Why can we pursue some ethics and morals at the office - don’t embezzle, don’t surf porn on work computers - while other ethics and morals must be confined to our private lives, particularly when those “private” morals are often far more vital but less universally held? (Don’t steal office paper clips, but if you oppose the death penalty, just be quiet and do your job.)

Surely the distinction must come down to more than just whether or not various ethical standards enjoy broad consensus. Ethics by popular vote? However, if that is the answer - and if James Giordano and Randy Cohen are right when they contend that consensus is gradually shrinking - what does that say about public ethics 100 years from now?

A few issues ago I had to apologize to Norman Meyer, whose well-known name I misspelled in a previous column. This time I have to apologize to Kevin Bowling, a fellow pre- senter and judicial educator, whose name I also misspelled in a prior column. As carefully as I proofread these columns, you can see why I’d never do well as social secretary at the White House.

As you can see, this column is at its best when some of you are able to respond so actively. I welcome your comments, however brief or informal, on this discussion. Please send your comments to:

Karl Thoennes, Administrator Stearns County District Court 725 Courthouse Square St. Cloud, MN 56303 (320) 6563620, Fax: (320) 6563626 [email protected]

1 . Mike is talking about The Court Munuger,Vol. 17, No. 1 ,“The Art ofTurnaround Management,’ by Janet Cornell and Sarah Shew.

2. “Plan for Web Monitoring in the Courts Dropped:’New York Times, September 8,2001.

Thanks so much to all those who responded. However, after all this time and debate, I still haven’t pinned down the


Courtroom Conference Recorder with Built-In Mixer

HERE'S ALL YOU NEED TO GET YOUR NEXT MEETING DOWN ON TAPE.

PROVIDES 4 HOURS RECORDING TIME WITHOUT TURNING THE TAPE OVER

o Automatic level control (ALC) provides "worry-free" recording by ensuring that an accurate signal is always recorded onto the tape.

0 Microphone inputs and built-in stereo mixer 0 By using two 120 minute tapes, you'll get 4 hours of

continuous recording.

BOTH SYSTEMS INCLUDE 4 AKG Dynamic Microphones ..--- (D2200S) with 4 Adjustable

PMD511 Package only: $698." (List: $970.'') Save $272.''

24-Hrs. Recording Time 2-Channel Courtroom Recorder

CALL FOR SPECIAL PRICE

w w w . m a r t e l d i r e c t . c o m

Digital System 4 AKG microphones wi red to Marantz Professional PMD690 Compact Flash Recorder. Includes 4 mic stands, clamps and cables, plus a 350 MB card for up to 15 hours of recording

Highest quality digital recording onto compact flash, PC Cards, or IBM Microdrives Record more than 24 hours nonstop (based on compression rates and media size) Easy-to-use yet loaded with recording features Time/date stamp files for easy retrieval on an audio file computer database Transfer entire day's recording into a computer in minutes, for uploading recordings to a website, or burning an archival CD-R disc

E -Ma i I ma rte Isa I es@wo rl d net .att . net


* NACM NEW MEMBERS *

ABDU ABOKI

High Court of Justice, Kano PM.B. 3019

m0, Nigeria

HARRY LEE ANSTEAD Chief Justice

Supreme Court of Florida 500 S. Duval St.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925

(850) 488-6130

BRElT ARQUElTE ChiefTechnology Director 9th Judicial Circuit Court

of Florida 425 N. Orange Ave.

B1dg.A-20 1 Orlando, FL 32801

(407) 836-6010 (407) 836-0415

[email protected]

ANGELJNE ASOBO Court Services Supervisor I1 State of New Jersey Judiciary

580 Springdale Ave. East Orange, NJ 07017

(973) 674-4133 (973) 693-6540

[email protected]

Judge

(850) 488-2281

H. BRllT BEASLEY Court Administrator

4th Judicial Circuit of Florida 300 E. Bay St., Rm. 220 Jacksonville, FL 32202

(904) 630-2564 (904) 630-1 146

bbeasley@coj .net

CYNTHIA L. BOSTWICK Probate Register

St. Clair County Probate Court 201 McMorran Blvd., Rm. 2700

Port Huron, MI 48060 (810) 985-2065 (810) 985-2179

[email protected]

DIANNE BOURG Supervisor

Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court PO.Box 10

Gretna, LA 70054 (504) 364-2900 (504) 364-2956

[email protected]

DOLLY BRElTHAUER Court Manager

Los Angeles Superior Court North Valley District-San Fernando

900Third St. San Fernando, CA 91 340

(818) 8982734 (818) 898-2532

dbretthauerOlasuperiorcourt.org

JOHN W. BUTLER Court Cashier Supervisor Seattle Municipal Court

Public Safety Bldg., Rm. 100 600 3rdAve.

Sedttk,WA 98104 (206) 6845694 (206) 684-5644

[email protected]

TAMARA G. CANADY Complementary Dispute Resolution Coordinator

Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex Vicinage

50 W. Market St., Rm. 514 Newark, NJ 07102

(973) 693-5717 (973) 693-5721

RANDY CANTU Project Leader

Augusta-Richmond County I.T. Richmond County

530 Greene St., Rm.A-101 Augusta, GA 3091 1

(706) 821-2526 (706) 821-2530

[email protected]

JAMES P. CARMANY Court Administrator

City of LasVegas Municipal Court 400 Stewart Ave.

LasVegas, NV 89101 (702) 229-4673 (702) 385-5510

[email protected]

KEENON M. CROWHURST Court Monitor

5th Judicial District Court PO. Box 1776

Roswell, NM 88201 (505) 622-0536

[email protected]

CAMEO CRUZ Administrator,

Community Relations Los Angeles Superior Court

1 1 1 N.HilSt.,#226B Los Angeles, CA 900 12

(213) 9745178 (213) 625-0558

[email protected]

.

JACQUELINE DAVENPORT Assistant Court Executive Officer

El Dorado Superior Court 2850 Fairlane Ct.

Placerville, CA 95667 (530) 621-7453 (530) 295-2536

[email protected]

LORI E. DE PAULIS Assistant Legal Counsel

Oregon Judicial Department Supreme Court Building

1163 State St. Salem, OR 97301-2563

(503) 986-5500 (503) 9865722

Lori.DePaulisOstate.or.us

JAMES C. DEAL Associate Clerk

Cook County Clerk of the Circuit Court

County Bureau 50 W Washington St. Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 603-0287 (312) 603-5024

MICHAEL C. DELLING Court Administrator/Deputy

Magistrate 71A Lapeer District Court

255 Clay St. Lapeer, MI 484463706

(810) 245-4780 (810) 667-0424

dellingmc7 1 @hotmail.com

JEREMY JAMES DONATI University of Denver

2122 St.Augustine Circle Petaluma, CA 94954

[email protected] (720) 273-7734

CAROLYN EDLUND Juvenile Court Administrator

Superior Court ofArizona, Maricopa Co.

1810 S. Lewis St. Mesa,AZ 852106236

(602) 506-2027 [email protected]

BERNADEITE FREEMAN Chief Deputy Clerk

Cook County Circuit Court County Division

50 W.Washington St. Daley Center, Rm. 1202

Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 603-5594 (312) 603-3335

[email protected]

KATHY FREY Supervisor

Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court PO.Box 10

Gretna, LA 70054 (504) 364-2918 (504) 364-2956

I

[email protected]. jeffersonhus

* G @ SUZANNE GHERARDINI

Marketing Account Manager GC Services

4481 Mattis Ct. Oakland, CA 94619

(510) 336-0970 (510) 336-0975

[email protected]

ERIK K. GILLESPIE Probation Officer Supervisor

Denver County Court 303 W. Colfax, Suite 600

Denver, CO 80204 (720) 913-8332 (720) 913-8315

[email protected]

GABRIELE A. GLENN Court Operations Supervisor

Eugene Municipal Court 777 Pearl St., Room 104

Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 682-5405 (541) 682-5417

[email protected]

BEVERLY N. GLODE Attorney

Eighth Judicial District Court 200 S.Third St.

LasVegas, NV 89101 (702) 455-1854

[email protected]

KAREN N. GRAY Court Administrator Beatty Justice Court

PO. Box 805 Beatty, NV 89003

(702) 382-9054

(775) 553-2951 (775) 553-2136

[email protected]

DEBORAH GREEN Court Administrator 33rd District Court 19000Van Horn Rd.

Woodhaven, MI 48183 (734) 671-0201

[email protected]

DARCY GRIFFIN Criminal Supervisor

Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court PO. Box 10

Gretna, LA 70056 (504) 364-2900 (504) 364-2956

d~~cledcofcoufi.co.jefferson.la.us

(734) 671-0307


NACM NEW MEMBERS * CATHY GRINDLE

System Manager King County District Court

585 112thAve.,SE Bellevue,WA 98004

(206) 2960589 cathy.grindle@metrokc .gov

DIANE GRISWOLD Asst. Division Office Chief Los Angeles Superior Court

Hall of Records 320 W.Temple St., Rm. 1510

Los Angeles, CA 90012

(206) 205-5515

(213) 974-4203 (213) 613-4793

dgriswolQlasuperiorcourt .org

+ H = =

JAMES A. HALL Chief Judge

First Judicial District Court PO. Box 2268

Santa Fe, NM 87504-2268 (50 5) 827-5044 (505) 827-5055

[email protected]

PAMELA L. HALL Chancery Court Administrator First Chancery Court District

PO. Box 7395 Tupelo, MS 38802

[email protected]

KRISTIE A. HAMMIlT Court Operations Supervisor

Eugene Municipal Court 777 Pearl St., Room 104

Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 682-5405 (541) 682-5417

[email protected]

NICOLAS C. HANS Consultant

49, avenue du chlteau Vincennes,

France

KIM HICKS Judicial Program Coordinator Cobb County Superior Court

30 Waddell St. Marietta, GA 30064

(770) 528-181 1 (770) 528-1817

SUSAN HILL Trial Court Administrator

Columbia County Circuit Court 230 Strand St.

St. Helens, OR 8705 1 (503) 397-2327 (503) 397-3226

[email protected]

WILLIAM U. HILL Chief Justice

Supreme Court of Wyoming PO. Box 906

Cheyenne,WY 82003 (307) 777-7571 (307) 777-8668

FREDERICK P. HORN

Superior Court, County of Orange 700 Civic Center Dr.,W., B-120

Santa Ana, CA 92702

Judge

(714) 834-5258 (714) 834-5594

[email protected]

LINDA HOWARD Crawford County Circuit Clerk

Circuit Court 300 Main St., Room 22 Van Buren,AR 72956

(479) 471-0622 (479) 474-1821

SOLOMON HUNPOMU-WASU 58 Bourdillon Rd., Ikoyi PO. Box 80046, Lafiaji

Nigeria Lagos,

ESTHER Y. INUWA Justice

High Court of Justice, Kaduna 2 Ivory Coast St.

PO. Box 9837 Kaduna, Nigeria

JANICE E. IORIO Manager Criminal Courts

Clerk of the Circuit Court/ Comptroller

PO. Box 3079, Rm. 305 Sarasota, FL 34241

(941) 861-7741 (941) 861-7634

[email protected]

PATRICIA M. IVERY Court Administrator/Special

Projects Coordinator East Cleveland Municipal Court

14340 Euclid Ave. E. Cleveland, OH 441 12

(216) 681-2349 (216) 681-2829

-J* TRACY L. JEFFRIES Court Administrator

Kirkland Municipal Court PO. Box 678

Kirkland,WA 980834678 (425) 803-1920 (425) 803-1929

JULIE JOHNSON Court Administrator

Pierce City Municipal Court 112 E. Commercial

Pierce City, MD 65723 (417) 4762323 (417) 476-5580

- K *

DEBRA KEMPI Administrative Manager

Hennepin County District Court C-1251 Government Center

300 S. Sixth St. Minneapolis, MN 55487-0423

(612) 348-3219 (612) 348-2131

[email protected]

DARIUS HYET KHOBO Chief Registrar

High Court of Justice, Kaduna 2 Queen Amina Rd.

P.M.B. 2064 Kaduna, Nigeria

LAURIE KUSEK Administrative Manager

Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Gov't. Center

Minneapolis, MN 55487 (612) 348-5017 (612) 348-2131

[email protected]

C-1263

MICHELLE LAPREAD Administrative Specialist 3

Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex Vicinage

50 W. Market St., Rm. 514 Newark, NJ 07102

(973) 693-5716

IBRAHIM M. LOLO Chief Registrar

Customary Court ofAppeal, Kaduna

H20 Barnawa G.R.A. PO. Box 2448

Kaduna, Nigeria

MARISA LOPEZ Assistant Director, Human Resources

Los Angeles Superior Court 11 1 N. Hill Street, Rm. 203

Los Angeles, CA 90012

(2 13) 346902 1 (213) 893-0250

COLIN L0VEl-r Director of Business Development

Carter Goble Associates 1619 Sumter St.

Columbia, SC 29201

[email protected]

TERESA LUNA Assistant Division Chief

Los Angeles Superior Court 201 Centre Plaza Dr.

Monterey Park, CA 91754 (323) 526-6607

[email protected]

DAVID LURIA Attorney Advisor

District of Columbia Courts 500 Indiana Ave. Nw, Rm. 5400

Washington, DC 20001

(803) 765-2833

(323) 881-4500

(202) 879-1694 (202) 393-5853

CHARLENE A. MAUCH Court Operations Supervisor

Eugene Municipal Court 777 Pearl %.,Room 104

Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 682-5405 (541) 382-5417

MICHAEL F. MCHUGH Clerk of Court

United States Bankruptcy Court PO. Box 8347

Savannah, GA 31410 (912) 650-4106

[email protected]

BETI"Y A. MCLENNAN Applications Support Technician

Eugene Municipal Court 777 Pearl St.,Room 104

Eugene, OR 97401

(912) 650-4135

(541) 682-5405 (541) 682-5417

[email protected]

JEANNETI'E MCSKANE Director

Court Management Services Orange County Superior Court

PO. Box 1994 Santa Ana, CA 92702

(714) 5685784 [email protected]

PATRICIA MEZA Court Supervisor

Phoenix Municipal Court 300 W.Washington

Phoenix, AZ 85003-20 13

(602) 495-0145

(714) 834-5316

(602) 534-1243


e NACM NEW MEMBERS TIM MILLER

Director of Operations Northeastern Judicial Circuit

of Georgia PO. Box 143 5

Gainesville, GA 30501


(770) 532-1895

ANDREA E. NAUGLE Lehigh County Clerk of Courts

Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas

455 W. Hamilton St. Allentown, PA 18109

(610) 782-3417 (610) 770-6797

ANDREA NELSON Deputy Court Executive Officer

Butte County Superior Court One Court St.

Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-2080 (530) 538-6827

[email protected]

OLADAPO A. OBISESAN Assistant to the Chief Judge

High Court of Lagos, Ikeja, Lagos Box 53285 Falomo, Ikoyi

Lagos, Nigeria

CLAUDIA OLNEY Deputy ChiefAdmin. Officer King County Superior Court

516 3rdAve. C930 King County Courthouse

Seattle,WA 98104 (206) 29693 15

[email protected]

ABDULKADIR A. OTHMAN

High Court of Justice Bida Road Kaduna

Kaduna, Nigeria

Judge

ALLAN PARACHINI Public Information Officer Los Angeles Superior Court

11 1 N . Hill St., Rm. 107A LosAngeles,CA 90012


(213) 974-5227

JOHN PEREZ ESQ. General Counsel

Consolidated Legal Support Services, Inc.

248 Mantoloking Rd Brick, NJ 08723 (732) 920-9880 (732) 920-1085

LOUIS J. PERRET Clerk

Lafayette Parish Clerk of Court 800 S . Buchanan St. Ldfayette, LA 70501

(337) 291-6306 (337) 291-6392

clerkofcourt@lafayetteparishdekcom

ROBERT NEWTON PETERS Director

Lafayette Parish Clerk of Court 800 S. Buchanan St. Lafayette, LA 70501

(337) 291-6382 (337) 291-6392

[email protected]

ELAINE RADABAUGH Acting Trial Court Administrator

Baker Circuit Court 1995 - 3rd St., Ste. 220 Baker City,OR 97814

(541) 5236303

[email protected] .or.us

DIANNA RANDOLPH Court Operations Supervisor

Washington County Circuit Court Oregon Judicial Deparment 145 NE 2ndAve., Ste. 200C

Hillsboro,OR 97124 (503) 8466056 (503) 8466087

[email protected]

KAY RENFRO Court Administrator

Beaverton Municipal Court PO. Box 475 5

Beaverton, OR 970764755 (503) 5262291 (503) 350-4031

[email protected]

NANCY RODEN Legal Specialist

Lynnwood Municipal Court PO. Box 5008

Lynnwood, WA 980465008 (425) 6706696 (425) 7747039

[email protected]

(541) 523-9738

JIM ROGGERO CIO

Office of State Courts Administrator

2 1 12 Industrial Dr. Jefferson City,MO 65109

(573) 751-4377 (573) 526-5430

[email protected] .mo.us

MOIRA O'LEARY ROWLEY General Manager, Justice Solutions

ACS Government Systems 1744 Harrodsburg Rd. Lexington, KY 40504

(859) 277-1500

[email protected]

PAUL J. RUNYON Administrator, Litigation Support

Superior Court of California 11 1 N. Hill St., Rm. 220-A LosAngeles, CA 90012

(859) 277-2300

(213) 974-5540 (213) 680-1441

prunyon@lasuperiorcourt .org

MELISSA RYBOLT Chief Clerk

Pahrump Justice Court 250 N. Highway 160 Pahrump, NV 89060

(775) 751-7050 (775) 751-7059

HITOSHI SHIMADA Supreme Court of Japan

1-43-2 1-203 Kamioooka-higashi Kounan-ku

Yokohama-shi, Japan

TINA SHOTWELL Managing Research Attorney Los Angeles Superior Court

1 1 1 N . Hill St., Rm. 209 LosAngeles, CA 90012

(213) 625-1437

MARLENE H. SMITH Senior Court Services Analyst Judicial Council of California

455 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 865-7617

[email protected]

I. A. SOTUMINU Chief Judge

Lagos State High Court 4 Thompson Ave., Ikoyi

PO. Box 53285, Falomo, Ikoyi Lagos State,

Nigeria

(213) 974-7734

(415) 865-4330

ANTHONY J. STEVENS Managing Consultant

SBC PO. Box N425, Grosvenor Place

Sydney, NSW, Australia

(612) 92238324 (612) 92238325

[email protected]

JAN SUTHERCAND Sr.Administrative Assistant WA County Justice Court

3700 SW Murray Blvd., Rm. 150 Beaverton, OR 97005

(503) 846-6606 (503) 846-6604

[email protected]

JANICE V. SU'ITON Court Administrator

1st Judicial Circuit Court PO. Drawer 1100

Tupelo, MS 38802 (662) 680-6075 (662) 680-6078

MICHAEL TAFOYA Senior Court Manager

Los Angeles Superior Court West Los Angeles Courthouse

1633 Purdue Ave., Rm. 102 Los Angeles, CA 90025

(310) 312-9855 (310) 312-6505

[email protected]

SUSAN TOBIN Court Administrator

20025 MackAve. Grosse Pointe Woods, MI 48236

(313) 343-2456 (313) 886-6284

MICHAEL TOMPKINS Section Supervisor

Ada County District Court 200 W. Front St., Rm. 1155

Boise, ID 83702 (208) 287-6945 (208) 287-6919

[email protected]

-V* RAYMOND L. VIGIL

BDM PeopleSoft

01 CaminoAbril Algondones, NM 87001

(877) 4 14-92 12 (505) 771-0384

[email protected]


JIM WEHRI IT Manager

Hennepin District Court 300 S. 6th St.

Minneapolis, M N 55487 (612) 348-6060 (612) 6776211

jim.wehri@co. hennepin.mn.us

DAVID C. WELLS Clerk of Court

Roanoke City Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court

PO. Box 986 Roanoke,VA 24005

(540) 853-2389 (540) 853-1 195

dwells~courts.state.va.us

ALLEN WHITE President

Court Specialists, Inc. 906Anna La.

Friendswood,TX 77546 (281) 482-8898 (281) 482-3398

[email protected]

SPONSOR LIST The National Association for Court Management would like to acknowledge and thank the following sponsors for their support and contributions to this conference.

ACS Sponsor of Monday night Hospitality Suite

ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC. Sponsor of Wednesday night Hospitality Suite

COLUMBIA u L m T E / R E v E N u E PLUS Partial sponsor of Coffee Break Thursday morning

COURT SERVICES INSTITUTE Partial sponsor of Coffee Break Monday morning

FTR, LTD. Sponsor of the conference notebooks

GC SERVICES, LP Sponsor of the Fun Runwalk

HELLMUTH, OBATA & KASSABAUM, INC. Sponsor ofTuesday night Hospitality Suite

LEXISNEXIS Sponsor of conference tote bags

SYNOVATION INCORPORATED Partial sponsor of Coffee Break Tuesday morning

UNISYS Partial sponsor of Closing Dinner/Dance Band Thursday

evening and Sunday night Hospitality Suite

VERILAW TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Partial sponsor of Coffee Break Tuesday morning

WEST GROUP Sponsor of Closing Dinner/Dance Thursday

evening and Badge Lanyards

SUSTAINING MEMBERS

Access Capital Services, Inc.

ACS Government Systems

Alpha Consulting Group, Inc.

Applied Legal Technologies, Inc.

Appriss, Inc.

Architects Design Group, Inc.

Bull Services

CBIZ

Court Specialists, Inc.

Court Vision Communications

D & B

DPK Consulting

FTR, Ltd.

lnfocom Systems Services Inc. Judiciary

Justice Systems, Inc.

KPMG Consulting, Inc.

LexisNexis CourtLink

Martel Electronics

Mastercard International

Maximus

Municipal Services Bureau

Professional Computer Software Services

Revenue Plus Sonant Corporation

Tyler Technologies

West Group

NCSC National Center for State Courts

helping courts anticipate change and better

serve the public


National Association for Court Management

The National Association for Court Man- agement is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of judicial administration at all levels of courts nationwide. In carrying out its purpose, the association strives to provide its members with professional education and to encourage the exchange of useful information among them; encourages the application of modern management techniques to courts; and, through

* the work of its committees, supports research and development in the field of court management, the independence of the judicial branch, and the impartial administration of the courts.

Membership The National Association for Court Man-

agement needs your help to reach our 3,000- membership goal this year. Help us reach out to the next generation of court leaders and staying true to our goal of “Excellence in Court Administration.” Let’s sponsor new members!

Several categories of membership are offered in the National Association for Court Management: Regular, any person serving as clerk of court, court administrator, or in any court management, court education, court research, or court consulting capacity ($75); Retired ($45); Associate, any person interested in the improvement of the administration of justice ($75); Student, any person enrolled full time in a degree program related to the field of court administration ($45); Sustaining, any person, group of persons, firm, or corporation interested in furthering the goals of the organization ($300).

For more information about the organization or about joining the organization, please write to the president or the National Center for State Courts, P.O. Box 8798, Williamsburg, Va. 23187-8798, or call (757) 259-1841.

N AT1 0 N A L AS SOC I AT1 0 N FOR C O U R T M A N A G E M E N T 2002-03 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

President Joi V. Sorensen Assistant to the Executive Officer 1.0s Angeles Superior Court 1 1 1 N. Hill Street, Room 105E LosAngeles,CA 90012 (213) 974-0849 Fax (213) 621-7952 [email protected]

President Elect Lawrence G. Myers Court Administrator Municipal Court City of Joplin 303 East Third Street Joplin, MO 64801 (417) 624-0820 Fax (417) 625-4734 [email protected]

Vice President Collins E. Ijoma Trial Court Administrator Superior Court of New Jersey 50 W. Market Street, Room 514 Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 693-5704 Fax (973) 693-5721 [email protected] .us

Secretaryflreasurer Richelle (Chelle) G. Uecker Deputy Judicial District Administrator C1255 Government Center 300 S. 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 5 5487

[email protected] (612) 348-4877 Fax (612) 348-2131

lmmediate Past President Juanita Hicks Clerk of the Superior Court Fulton County Courthouse 136 Pryor Street, Room C155 Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 730- 53 12 Fax (404) 730-7993 [email protected]

Large Court Director John W. Sleeter Judicial Administrative Officer Thurston County Superior Court 2000 Lakeridge Drive, S.W. Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 7865559 Fax (360) 754-4060 [email protected]

Appointed Director Paul J. Burke Clerk Magistrate Northeast Housing Court Fenton Judicial Center 2 Appleton Street Lawrence, MA 01840

[email protected] (978) 689-7833 Fax (978) 689-7838

Elected Director Sarah Brown-Clark Clerk ofyoungstown Municipal Court Youngstown Municipal Court 26 S. Phelps Street, PO. Box 6047 Youngstown, OH 445016047 (330) 742-8861 Fax (330) 742-8786 [email protected]

Urban Director Howard “Skip” Chesshire Court Administrator Cobb Superior Court 30 Waddell Street Marietta, GA 30090-9642 (770) 528-1803 Fax (770) 528-8112 [email protected]

Small Court Director Frank A. Maiocco Jr. Deputy Court Administrator Coconino County Courthouse 200 N. San Francisco AVK Flagstaff,AZ 86001 (928) 779-6582 Fax (928) 779-6655 [email protected]

Rural Director Candia Friesen Trial Court Administrator Polk County Circuit Court Polk County Courthouse, Room 301 850 Main Street Dallas, Oregon 97338-3178 (503) 623-3154 Fax (503) 623 6614 [email protected]

General Jurisdiction Director Roy S . Wynn, Jr. Director, Special Operations Division D.C. Superior Court H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Room 3 120 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 879-4837 Fax (202) 737-0913 w)[email protected]

Limited Jurisdiction Director Eric Silverberg Court Administrator Lancaster Immigration Court Mira Loma Facility 45100 N. GOch Street West

(661) 942-8633 Fax (661) 945-9720 eric.silverbergQusdoj .gov

At Large (1) Director Marcus W. Reinkensmeyer Court Administrator General Jurisdiction Courts Superior Court ofArizona in iMaricopa County 201 W.JKffKrSOn Phoenix,AZ 85003

LaIlCdStKr, CA 93 536

(602) 5063190 Fax (602) 5067867 [email protected]


n

cu p c I- € PI 0

W >

% E .- 3 0 x a W I: C m V

3

$ Li- W

>

a

2 B W V > Li

W v)

4 W

.3

s 0 h C m

8 s E &

W V

.+ 4

X

a c m lA

W

% m V

v) Y 4

n

3

8 2 E s

W

$

E

3 0 h

C 4 9 aJ

% .3

- .I % 4 . d ;I

e .3

s -d

%

(d 0 - (d V

M r: 3

s 2

Ei U (d

e, M

z a e m

0 2

2 .+ Y

W a 0

3 Y 4

8

- X a, I

ui 4- a Y 0 0 = a C

C 0 0

rn rn a 0 0 Q W > v)

.- - 4-

.3

E I:

a 2 E 8 8 E

s

Y

W

Documents

Untitled - National Center for State Courts