|
Performance Area 4:
Independence and Accountability
The judiciary
must assert and maintain its distinctiveness as a separate branch of
government. Within the organizational structure of the judicial branch of
government, trial courts must establish their legal and organizational
boundaries, monitor and control their operations, and account publicly for
their performance. Independence and accountability permit government by law,
access to justice, and the timely resolution of disputes with equality,
fairness, and integrity; and they engender public trust and confidence.
Courts must both control their proper functions and demonstrate respect for
their coequal partners in government.
Because
judicial independence protects individuals from the arbitrary use of
government power and ensures the rule of law, it defines court management
and legitimates its claim for respect. A trial court possessing
institutional independence and accountability protects judges from
unwarranted pressures. It operates in accordance with its assigned
responsibilities and jurisdiction within the State judicial system.
Independence is not likely to be achieved if the trial court is unwilling or
unable to manage itself. Accordingly, the trial court must establish and
support effective leadership, operate effectively within the State court
system, develop plans of action, obtain resources necessary to implement
those plans, measure its performance accurately, and account publicly for
its performance.
Overview of
Standards. The five standards in the
performance area of Independence and Accountability combine the principles
of separation of powers and judicial independence with the need for comity
and public accountability. Standard 4.1 requires the trial court to exercise
authority; to manage its overall caseload and other affairs; and to realize
the principles of separation of powers, interdependence of the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches of government, and comity in its
governmental relations. Standard 4.2 requires a trial court to seek adequate
resources and to account for their use. Standard 4.3 extends the concept of
equal treatment of litigants to the court’s own employees by requiring
every trial court to operate in accordance with personnel practices and
decisions that are free of bias on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, color, age, handicap, or political affiliation.
Standard 4.4 requires the trial court to inform the public of its programs
and activities. Finally, Standard 4.5 acknowledges that the court’s
organizational character and activities must allow for adjustments to
emergent events, situations, and social trends.
Overview of
Measures. All of the measures of
independence and accountability presuppose that they will be undertaken only
following the formation of a steering committee composed of judges and court
managers, who plan data collection and discuss the significance of the
results. Field tests of experimental measurement approaches for standards in
this performance area show that performance evaluation is highly
context-driven. Differences in the sizes of courts, the statutory frameworks
governing court funding, and the structural arrangements of essential
justice system services make it very difficult to prescribe a standard set
of measurement approaches. Accordingly, all of the measures for standards in
independence and accountability should be preceded by the formation of a
steering committee that will (1) make a threshold assessment of the utility
of the measures in light of the court’s interests and circumstances, (2)
meet after data is collected to discuss and consider its significance for
court performance, and (3) integrate the findings into an overall review of
court performance. Field testing of the measures suggests that the data and
assessments for some of the standards relate closely to inquiries and
assessments for other standards. For example, results of surveys related to
perceptions of the importance of independent decisionmaking in the court may
have bearing on the court’s performance in public education and vice
versa. These standards, in turn, may be related to Standard 4.5, Response to
Change.
Undertaking
the measures for independence and accountability requires the following
basic resources:
|
|
A steering committee
consisting of a small group of judges and nonjudicial court personnel who
can meet on several occasions for sessions that range from 30 minutes to 2
hours. |
|
|
A skilled facilitator who leads
group meetings and collaborative activities and is skilled in using group
techniques for decisionmaking. |
|
|
Individuals to provide analytic
and clerical staff support during research. |
|
|
A 2- to 6-month commitment from
all participants to complete the process. |
Planning/Preparation
for Steering Committee Meetings.
The first step in the measurement process for all standards in this area is
to assign court management or planning staff to review the specific data
collection techniques described for each measure. A brief summary of all of
the measures should be prepared for presentation to the chief judge and
members of the steering committee at an initial meeting.. The
first step in the measurement process for all standards in this area is to
assign court management or planning staff to review the specific data
collection techniques described for each measure. A brief summary of all of
the measures should be prepared for presentation to the chief judge and
members of the steering committee at an initial meeting.
This
summary should be a somewhat more detailed version of the following list:
|
Standard
4.1, Independence and Comity
|
|
|
Measure
4.1.1, Perceptions of the Court’s Independence and Comity
|
|
Standard
4.2, Accountability for Public Resources
|
|
|
Measure
4.2.1, Adequacy of Statistical Reporting Categories for Resource Allocation
|
|
|
Measure
4.2.2, Evaluation of Personnel Resource Allocation
|
|
|
Measure
4.2.3, Evaluation of the Court’s Financial Auditing Practices
|
|
Standard
4.3, Personnel Practices and Decisions
|
|
|
Measure
4.3.1, Assessment of Fairness in Working Conditions
|
|
|
Measure
4.3.2, Personnel Practices and Employee Morale
|
|
|
Measure
4.3.3, Equal Employment Opportunity
|
|
Standard
4.4, Public Education
|
|
|
Measure
4.4.1, Court and Media Relations
|
|
|
Measure
4.4.2, Assessment of the Court’s Media Policies and Practices
|
|
|
Measure
4.4.3, Community Outreach Efforts
|
|
Standard
4.5, Response to Change
|
|
|
Measure
4.5.1, Responsiveness to Past Issues
|
The
second step is the selection of a facilitator who will lead the work of the
steering committee during its meetings. The chief judge selects the
facilitator, assisted by staff who are providing technical support during
the application of the TCPSM System. Because the facilitator ensures that
group meetings are conducted efficiently, he or she should be well versed in
applying group techniques for analysis and decisionmaking. These skills are
critical to the successful application of the measures in this performance
area.
Highly
structured group techniques are preferred social science research techniques
when the object of study resists simple and generally agreed upon problem
statements or agreement about the meaning of data that might be
collected. Structured group techniques have the following advantages:
|
|
They provide a way for groups to
address complex, ill-defined problems. |
|
|
They provide an effective way to
obtain the views of many actors affected by the problems by using their time
efficiently and productively. |
|
|
They produce a solution superior
to that possible with techniques designed for individuals by allowing those
affected by the problem to work as a group. |
|
|
They create a commitment on the
part of the actors involved to the solution produced, which is especially
valuable when political consequences of action are likely. |
The
third step of the process is to select the members of the steering
committee, which should include both judges and court management personnel.
The chief judge should select five to seven individuals using the following
criteria:
|
|
Experience—Has worked in the
court for a minimum of 2 years as judges or court staff. |
|
|
Credibility—Is
well respected by peers within the court and by officials of other agencies.
|
|
|
Ability to work in
a group setting—Is able to work cooperatively in group settings, including
the ability to work within the constraints imposed by the evaluation
technique and a willingness to encourage others (especially persons of
subordinate status) to express their ideas.
|
|
|
Confidence—Has
the ability to express and explain ideas, even if the ideas diverge from the
thinking of others of superior status.
|
|
|
Commitment—Has a high level of
interest and willingness to spend the required time meeting with others. |
After
the steering committee is established, members are provided with the
performance area’s standards and commentary. The committee is then asked
to meet several times for up to 2 hours to review written materials and
data. (In no case should a meeting extend beyond 2 hours.)
The
fourth step in the process is to conduct an orientation meeting of the
steering committee, lasting no more than 90 minutes. The chief judge should
open the meeting, reaffirm his or her support for the process, and restate
the charge to members of the steering committee. The chief judge should also
introduce the facilitator. The facilitator’s agenda should be to:
|
|
Introduce the subject matter of
the standards and commentary. |
|
|
Explain the rationale behind a
group process (why group methods are favored for research and problem
solving in applied social science) and entertain general questions. |
|
|
Review the data collection
methods available for standards in this area. |
|
|
Lead a group discussion to
determine which standards will be the main focus of concern and which
measures the court wishes to undertake. |
Overview
of Group Techniques.
Group techniques for decisionmaking are described in detail in Group
Techniques for Idea Building by Carl M. Moore.1 Two of the
techniques are briefly summarized below. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is
most useful for generating ideas. It is also an efficient method for making
decisions and establishing priority among alternative action plans.
Ideawriting also is useful for generating ideas but is most effective for
developing ideas that already have been generated. It requires that
participants be comfortable expressing themselves in writing; limited group
discussion is required. Group techniques
for decisionmaking are described in detail in Group Techniques for
Idea Building by Carl M. Moore.1 Two of the techniques are
briefly summarized below. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is most useful for
generating ideas. It is also an efficient method for making decisions and
establishing priority among alternative action plans. Ideawriting also is
useful for generating ideas but is most effective for developing ideas that
already have been generated. It requires that participants be comfortable
expressing themselves in writing; limited group discussion is required.
Nominal
Group Technique: This technique requires completion of four activities
during meetings that should last no more than 90 minutes. The description
provided in Moore (pp. 22–36) should be followed closely. NGT involves
four steps:
1.
Individual, written generation of ideas in response to a discussion prompt
that is formulated as a question. The following questions, for example,
might be appropriate for the first steering committee meeting:
Which
standards of independence and accountability are you most interested in
working on during this study?
Given
the resources available to us (staff expertise, time, money), will we be
able to collect the data suggested in the measurement procedures?
2.
Round-robin recording of ideas or opinions (e.g., rankings of preferences
for study). Flip charts are used to record the ideas or opinions (discussion
is not permitted at this stage).
3.
Serial discussion of ideas to clarify the meaning of each idea, not to argue
its merits or value.
4.
Voting to select the most important ideas. Each member is asked to select
the most important ideas on the list and then rank them.
Ideawriting:
When relationships of "leader and follower" develop in a group or
when differences in status need to be neutralized, Ideawriting may be a more
useful technique. Taken from Moore (p. 49), the following steps summarize
the Ideawriting process:
1.
Brief orientation to the technique and presentation of the stimulus
question.
2.
Initial response by group members using the following instructions:
Write
down a few ideas on a pad of paper in response to a stimulus item and then
place the pad in the center of the table.
Work
quickly, silently, and independently.
Do
not tear the sheet off the pad; additional sheets will need to be used by
others.
3.
Written interaction:
After
the pads have been placed in the center of the table, select another
member’s pad, read it, and briefly respond with written comments.
Repeat
this process until each member has responded to every other person’s
ideas.
4.
Analysis and reporting:
Analysis
of the sheets can be left to the facilitator to work on after the meeting.
The facilitator will report the results back to the group at a later meeting
or in a memo. This is an advantage of Ideawriting—it saves committee
meeting time.
OR
If
immediate analysis is desired, the group discusses its products and
summarizes its efforts on a single sheet of paper.
The
use of the steering committee in conjunction with research efforts
undertaken by court staff or consultants constitutes a process that combines
fact gathering, value clarification, decisionmaking, and action. Courts that
have undertaken the process during the testing of measures in this area have
had to adapt the details of the process to their own circumstances. By
following the procedures as closely as possible, however, courts that
undertake the process will better understand the complex problems associated
with the standard and will become engage in the process of self-improvement.
Regardless of the amount of time and resources that courts participating in
the demonstration devoted to the measurement process and to steering
committee work, the courts agreed that the process of
self-examination yielded insights into the court’s practices and problems
and a range of ways to improve performance.
Following
each standard’s set of measures are activities the steering committee may
want to undertake to enhance or focus its work. Whether or not these
activities are useful is a decision that each committee should make in light
of local circumstances.
_____________________________________
1 C. Moore, Group
Techniques for Idea Building, Applied Social Research Methods Series,
vol. 9 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1987).
Go
to Performance Areas
Go to
top of page |
