|
Suggested
Steering Committee Activities for Standard 4.1
In
addition to the roles recommended for the steering committee in Measure
4.1.1 and for oversight and evaluation of data collected for Performance
Area 4, the steering committee can help evaluate court performance for
Standard 4.1 in other ways. These activities are described below.
The
steering committee facilitator should first review the following activity
descriptions and determine:
-
How
much time and resources will be required to integrate some or all of the
activities into the committee’s work.
-
How
best to explore the committee’s interest in pursuing some or all of the
activities given practical constraints on the committee’s time and
resources. If any of these activities are included in the committee’s
agenda, they should be scheduled for completion before finalizing and
distributing the survey described in Measure 4.1.1.
Part
I: Readings
Review
of the following publications may improve the quality of the steering
committee’s discussions and deliberations. The readings may also be useful
for the facilitator as a way to "warm up" the committee during an
organizational meeting. If any members are interested, the following
publications should be made available to them:
-
Cratsley,
John C. Inherent Powers of the Courts (National Judicial College,
1980).
-
Baar,
Carl. Separate but Subservient, Chapter 7 (Lexington Books, 1975).
-
Wheeler,
Russell. Judicial Administration: Its Relation to Judicial Independence,
pp. 36–45: "Judicial Administration and Judicial Independence"
(National Center for State Courts, 1988).
-
Connors,
John M. "Inherent Power of the Courts: Management Tool or Rhetorical
Weapon?" 1/1 Justice System Journal, pp. 63–72.
Part
II: Values Clarification
"Judicial
independence," a term with many connotations, is invoked variously in
different contexts. The committee may want to explore the implications of
the following factors related to "independence" and the extent to
which the committee believes they may pose a threat to keeping judges’
case-related decisionmaking free of inappropriate influences. Consideration
and discussion of these issues will be conducted more efficiently if each
committee member independently considers the following statements between
meetings and frames two responses for each.
The
first response addresses the accuracy of the statement: Do the steering
committee members believe the statement is very accurate, somewhat accurate,
mostly inaccurate, or very inaccurate?
The
second response concerns whether the members believe that the circumstance
is an important threat to independent case-related decisionmaking. Does it
make decisionmaking more difficult?
1.
State or county revenues have exceeded expenditure budgets in recent years.
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
2.
The trial court prepares its own budget.
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
3.
If the trial court prepares its own budget, it does so based on expenditure
caps dictated by another agency.
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
4.
Within an approved budget, the court is free to make category or line item
adjustments without prior review and approval by another agency.
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
5.
The court has authority to negotiate, select, and contract with vendors for
purchases of supplies, equipment, and services.
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
6.
The personnel classification system used in the court is developed by the
court to meet its own needs.
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
7.
The procedures followed in hiring new personnel are administered by a
noncourt agency.
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
8.
Personnel responsible for the management of official court records are under
the administrative authority of the court.
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
9.
Jury staff and services are under the administrative authority of the court.
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
10.
The court has administrative authority over the following services that
affect caseflow:
a.
Bail screening
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
b.
Adult probation
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
c.
Juvenile probation
|
Accuracy
Very
accurate ___
Somewhat
accurate ___
Mostly
inaccurate ___
Very
inaccurate ___ |
Importance
Very
important ___
Somewhat
important ___
Mostly
unimportant ___
Very
unimportant ___ |
Steering
committee members can complete this exercise before they come to a meeting,
where the facilitator will tally the responses. For issues on which there is
clear agreement, no discussion is needed. The facilitator simply reports
areas of agreement to the steering committee. However, for issues on which
there are outliers (e.g., five answers are on one side of the question and
two are on the other) or general variation (answers lie fairly evenly on
both sides of the question), it is appropriate to ask for discussion.
Variation may be attributed to minor differences in the way the question is
interpreted. Discussion may reveal that these variations signify only a
slight divergence of opinion, or it may reveal that the variations reflect
fundamentally different values. This is what is important for the court to
know: organizational values (the "message" the court conveys to
the community through its actions) reflect the values of the most
influential individuals in the organization.
Part
III: Local Concerns
The
steering committee may also wish to engage in a process of
consensus-building regarding specific conditions they believe are problems
in the jurisdiction. Figure 2 is an
example of a final list of ideas developed using the NGT technique during a
committee meeting in response to the following discussion prompt: What
circumstances, events, or situations most threaten judicial independence in
this court? (When the question is framed, the members should be
encouraged not to spend time on problems that may be inherent in State-level
law practices. Discussion of these problems is distracting and wastes
time.)
There
is no prescriptive model offered as part of this measure for how any of the
activities described above should be analyzed or incorporated into a report.
In one important respect, the process is both the analysis and report: these
are all values clarification exercises that may help the court sharpen both
the questionnaire instrument suggested for Measure 4.1.1 and, when the
survey is completed, interpret the results. When the court appears to share
values with the wider community regarding aspects of independence or comity
but discovers discrepancies in perceived performance, there is a
"problem"—the court’s perceived performance is not consistent
with its values. Moreover, when the court discovers fundamental differences
in values, there may still be a "problem," but one of a different
kind. It may be that more public education is called for to explain why the
institutional role of the court is different from that of other units of
government. Such a finding is relevant to Standard 4.4, Public Education,
and may suggest an area of concern for the committee.
Finally,
the activities suggested in items 2 and 3 of this section may serve to bring
judges and management personnel to greater appreciate what the court’s
priority in this area should be. Where there is consensus that a problem
exists and could reasonably be addressed, an action priority has been
identified.
Go
to Standard 4.1
Go
to Measure 4.1.1
Go
to Standard 4.4
Go
to Figure 2
Go
to Table of Contents |
