Download pptx - CLE Workshop: Building Effective Intergovernmental Relations

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Gatlinburg, Tennessee

CLE Workshop:Building Effective

Intergovernmental Relations

Tennessee Judges Conference, Gatlinburg, TN

Dr. Roger E. HartleyProfessor of Political Science and Public Affairs

Director, Masters of Public Affairs Program in Asheville, NC


Remarks today are based on research by Dr. Roger Hartley and his recently published articles in a New England Law Review symposium on “Crisis in the Judiciary” and a recent Symposium of the Arizona Law Review on Judicial Ethics

Roger E. Hartley. “Moving Past Crisis…Promoting Parity: How Effective Intergovernmental Relations can Build a More Co-Equal Judicial Branch.” 47 New Eng. L. Rev. 541 (2013). Can be download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2266524

Roger E. Hartley. “It’s Called Lunch: Judicial Ethics and the Political and Legal Space for the Judiciary to Lobby.” 56 Arizona Law Review (2014). Can be downloaded at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2435257

Dr. Hartley’s other works on court budget politics and judicial administration can be accessed at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=372528

Intergovernmental Relations and the Courts: What do we know?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2266524

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2435257

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=372528


For the court system to exist as a preserver of legal norms and as a separate branch of government, it must maintain its institutional integrity while observing mutual

civility and respect in its government relations.

Principles for Judicial Administration, NCSC, July 2012


Conflicts impacting Courts are born of external relationships with stakeholders that may not fully understand the needs of courts, the role of courts, and the unintended impacts of policies that might impact court

Courts face unique intergovernmental relations constraints

Constraints necessitate attention to and improving intergovernmental relations

We need more research and best practices

Crises in the Courts; More Effective Political Effort


Every phase of the budget process is political…

Strategic Planning of the BudgetRequests from Departments to Create the BudgetSubmissionLobby for Passage and ApprovalAllocation of FundsManagement of Funds

• Requests for court reforms and approval are political• Battling Court Curbing Legislation is political

Why Must Courts Enter the Political Process?


Past Efforts by American Bar Association2009 Summit on “Justice is the Business of

Government” in CharlotteOthers

All highlighted Effective Intergov. Relations, Improved Budget politics, and Increased Awareness of the Role of the Judiciary

Efforts differ from state to state Little Research, More to Know, Need for “Best Practices”

We’ve Talked About this Before


The Unique and Not so Unique Constraints Courts face when Lobbying

Ethical Considerations?How do Courts Plan, Adopt, and Implement

Intergovernmental Efforts?What Resources are devoted to these Efforts and what

Strategies are used?What do Agencies and other Governments do that

Courts do not?PAST RESEARCH? AND OUR DISCUSSION THIS WEEK

What Do We Need to Know?


Judges are expected to be isolated and impartialThere are worries about appearing “Too Political”Concerns about inviting attacks by other branchesTHUS…Courts may “Play it Safe”BUTThe budget process and efforts to create political

change are, by definition, politicalWithout effective and competitive political effort,

courts may lose out

Constraints: An Intergovernmental Conundrum


The Conundrum Courts Too Conservative in the Process?State and Federal Rules Limiting Political ActionOther More Political Constraints:

Are Court Needs Politically Salient to Lawmakers?Lack of Political Capital to Offer LawmakersTenure of Court Leaders?Who are our Best Court Leaders?

Other Constraints Courts Face in Lobbying Efforts


Limited Research on Court Lobbying and Court Budget Politics

On Federal Efforts (Winkle and others)On Shifts from Local to State FundingLobby Strategy and TacticsOn Diversity of Funding Institutions Courts FaceJudicial Strategies: What Might Work? Not Work?

What Do We Know?


Some preliminary findings from Interviews with Officials in New York and Washington Provide Clues and Reason for New Research

A Story of New York: Building Stable Institutions and Process

A Story of Washington: Surrogate Lobbying

Preliminary Findings: Washington and New York


Constitutional Reform: Direct Submission of Budget to Legislature

Reduce or End Restrictive Line ItemsSubmission of Well Justified Funding Requests With

DataNegotiation: Don’t Undersell NeedsR.E.S.P.E.C.T Is Earned; Created by Effective Political

Work and Long Term Building of Trust

What Does All this Suggest?


Appealing to Judicial Independence NOT EffectiveLawyer Legislators HelpsPersonal Contacts with LegislatorsInformal Lobbying of LegislatorsUse of the Chief Justice: Longer Tenure of Exec. JudgesDirect Lobbying by State Court AdministratorLobbying of Local Legislators by Local JuristsMobilizing Political Allies: Issue by IssueBuilding Strong; Stable Institutions within Courts for

Intergovernmental Relations Work

Building Political Salience is Doing Politics Better


Not Much Systematic Research on this SubjectWe Need to Know What Courts Do and Don’t DoWe Need to Know What is Effective from the

Standpoint of Who is LobbiedWe Need to Know More About Resources, Tactics, and

Process Used by Court OfficialsWe Need to Re-Consider How Isolation Can Harm

Court Salience, but Be Aware of Costs of Political Action

Challenge: We’ve Planned Before…Have We Implemented?

More Discussion; More Research; Best Practices


TOPIC #1

The role of judicial leaders and state court administrators as the

“face of the judiciary” to the legislative and executive

branches.


• Is there a best practice for how courts should build an internal staff, dedicate resources, and establish procedures for effective interactions with the other branches?

• Have courts done a good job as serving as the face of the judiciary? How can court leaders improve? Do chief justices do a good job of staying in touch and communicating with the leadership of the other branches?


• Can leaders of the judiciary learn anything from the way in which state agencies interact with government leadership?

• What are the ethical constraints that may limit the effectiveness of court leaders in their policy-related communications and lobbying with the other branches?


TOPIC #2

Recruitment of external entities, such as the business community

or non-profits, to speak and advocate on behalf of the courts

to the other branches.


How can court leaders know when they should recruit external support?

What are the important differences between recruiting outside help for budgetary versus non-budgetary issues?

What are examples of successful recruiting of external support and what are possible adverse consequences?


Can or should court leaders manage the lobbying efforts of court-related organizations, such as judicial conferences or associations, service providers and others?

Should court leaders contact the media to “tell the story” about what the courts do as a way to influence actions by the executive or legislative branches?


Where do we go from here?

Branch Relations