|
What
Are the Best Practices?
The following
three practices, drafted in 2004, are offered as
a framework for courts to review their efforts
to enhance public trust and confidence with
regard to the Legislative Branch. An overview of
each practice is presented, followed by examples
of how the practice could be or has been
implemented and resources for additional
information.
1.
Demonstrate accountability to the public.
The Judicial
Branch fosters public trust and confidence, in
part, by demonstrating the provision of quality
services and the prudent expenditure of public
resources. Although courts are not accountable
to the legislature, they are accountable to the
public. Ignoring their responsibility to the
public strains court relationships with the
legislature charged with the reasonable
appropriation of public resources. Courts
strengthen judicial and legislative branch
relationships and fulfill their responsibility
to be accountable to the public by identifying
their core functions, determining what they want
to accomplish within each of those functions,
measuring their performance, implementing
strategies to improve performance, communicating
their efforts to the public on a periodic basis,
and involving the public in court commissions,
task forces, and "futures"
conferences.
Examples
and Resources
- Bureau of
Justice Assistance. (1997). Trial
court performance standards and measurement
system. Washington, DC:
Author. (NCJ No. 161570). The measurement
system includes a description of 22
performance standards and 68 performance
measures for courts. A core set of 9
measures for court performance is under
development by the National Center for State
Courts.
- Each year,
Louisiana prepares a report summarizing the
performance of all Louisiana courts on key
objectives and improvement efforts underway.
See, Supreme Court of Louisiana (2002). Justice
at work: The state of judicial performance
in Louisiana 2001-2002. New
Orleans: Author.
- The Fourth
Judicial District Court in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, uses the Baldrige approach to
assess its performance and initiate
improvement efforts. See, Hennepin County
District Court. (2002, May). Baldrige report
[Special issue]. Full
Court Press. Minneapolis:
Author. Also see "How
do we measure up?"on
the State of Minnesota Fourth Judicial
District Court website.
- The Superior
Court of San Diego County instituted the
F.O.C.U.S. Program to measure performance.
The program uses a Balanced Scorecard
approach, collecting data related to the
court's finances, operations, customers, and
use of staff. The information is reviewed on
a quarterly basis to identify progress,
accomplishments, and areas for concern.
2.
Encourage interbranch communications.
Courts should
take a leadership role in fostering positive
institutional relationships with the
legislature. Often, courts do not understand the
legislative process and thus are ineffective
when trying to communicate with legislators.
Similarly, legislators often are ignorant or
misinformed regarding court processes and the
parameters of judicial conduct and ethics.
Courts should reach out to legislators to both
learn about the legislative process and inform
legislators about court goals, policies, and
critical needs. These outreach efforts can take
a variety of forms such as convening meetings
between the Supreme Court and members of the
legislature, extending invitations to
legislators to observe courts first-hand, and
creating inter-branch forums to study and
discuss issues of mutual concern. Through such
outreach activities, judges and legislators will
have opportunities to build stronger
relationships and achieve greater understanding
of the goals and priorities as well as the
constraints and critical issues of each branch.
Examples
and Resources
- Court Public
Information Officers can assist the
judiciary in identifying key lawmakers and
relevant interest groups and in coordinating
media campaigns for targeted legislation.
See Court
Public Information Officers Core
Competencies.
- Kelso, J. C.
(2002). A
Manual for Judges and Court Managers about
Judicial Involvement in Legislative
Processes. Sacramento, CA:
Capital Center for Government Law and
Policy, University of the Pacific McGeorge
School of Law. Professor Kelso suggests that
striking a balance of separate but
interdependent powers may be accomplished by
educating judges and staff on which
legislative topics are appropriate for
judicial involvement, which require limited
participation, and which should be avoided
entirely. Clarifying boundaries and
appropriate procedural techniques for
interacting with the legislature will help
improve interbranch relationships and
maintain judicial impartiality in efforts to
inform the legislature of judicial needs.
- Legislative
Alert booklets are published by the
Community Relations Department and Trial
Court Services Department of Louisiana to
enhance legislative-judicial relationships.
The booklets, customized to provide each
judge with information on legislators
representing his or her judicial district,
are disseminated to every judge prior to the
commencement of the regular legislative
session.
- Minnesota's
Intrabranch Forum convenes twice a year.
This successful medium provides members of
the state legislature and judiciary with a
neutral and nonpolitical opportunity to
enhance communication and intrabranch
relationships, as well as educate all
attendees on important issues facing each
branch.
- The Montana
State Bar, in conjunction with the
University of Montana Law School and the
Legislative Council, presents a one-day
"law school" for new legislators.
The school, held every two years, a month
before the Montana Legislature convenes,
provides information on the bill-passage
process, the Montana legal system, and the
Constitution. Presenters include Montana
Supreme Court justices, judges, attorneys,
state officials, and law professors. It is
held at the State Capitol in Helena.
- Nebraska's
Legislative Court Visit Program gives
legislators a better understanding of the
court system and the complexity, volume, and
variety of work in the county and district
courts. The annual court visits afford new
state senators the chance to observe court
proceedings and to talk with local judges
and court employees. They also provide an
opportunity to see passed laws in action.
Participating senators and judges are
surveyed at the conclusion of the program,
and both groups overwhelmingly vouch for the
benefits afforded by the experience.
- Pennsylvania's
Commonwealth Partners Program was created in
1999 by the judges of the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania. The judges invite members of
the state legislature for dinner and discuss
issues of common concern, particularly
judicial independence.
- Ridge, Linda
K. Legislative-Judicial Relations: Seeking a
New Partnership. Williamsburg, VA: National
Center for State Courts, 1992. This
guidebook presents state legislative and
judicial branch officials with information
on interbranch communication and
problem-solving mechanisms.
- Utah has had
several joint legislative and court
committees working together on issues. See,
for example, The Supreme Court Study
Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services.
(2002, September). Report
to the Utah Supreme Court of the Supreme
Court Study Committee on the Delivery of
Legal Services. Salt Lake
City, UT: Utah Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court established the Committee to respond
to issues raised by the Legislature. After
studying the issues, the Committee provided
specific suggestions for further study
and/or action by both the Supreme Court and
the Legislature.
- Wisconsin's
Judicial Ride Along program began as a
medium for improving the
legislative-judicial relationship, affording
legislators a half-day visit on the bench.
Since it's conception, the project has
expanded to include participation from
county board supervisors. Similar programs
are offered in Louisiana and Minnesota.
- The Wyoming
Supreme Court holds an open house breakfast
for legislators every year. All judges from
the state are invited to the Legislature's
opening day.
3. Assume
an active role in the legislative process on
matters affecting court operations and
governance, including submission of appropriate
legislative proposals.
This practice
instructs courts both to (1) keep abreast of
legislative actions that have not been initiated
by the court system but could impact court
operations and (2) take a leadership role in
proposing legislation to reform court practice.
Several states have legislative review teams or
committees to monitor pending legislation to
anticipate and prepare for changes in court
policies and practices. Some of these committees
also serve as liaisons to the legislative
branch, providing information about court
operations and statistics and the impact of
proposed legislation on the judicial system. In
this capacity, the judicial system serves to
inform the legislative process. Finally, on
issues of judicial branch governance and policy,
courts should take the lead, in collaboration
with other relevant stakeholders, to initiate
reform efforts and propose needed legislation
rather than being subjected to legislation
developed by those outside of the courts. By
assuming the leadership role in court reform
efforts, the courts demonstrate their commitment
to continuous improvement and evoke confidence
in a strong judiciary.
Examples
and Resources
- Georgia's
Legislation and Government Affairs
department in the Administrative Office of
the Courts and the Legislative Committee of
the Supreme Court of Illinois are examples
of statewide mechanisms in place to screen
legislation affecting the court system.
- Georgia,
Idaho, Michigan, and New Jersey are examples
of states that post online summaries of
legislation affecting the courts. See
websites for more information:
- Louisiana's
1998 House Concurrent Resolution No. 9
requests the Office of the Judicial
Administrator and the Judicial Council of
the Supreme Court to work, communicate with,
and advise the Legislature on pending bills
that affect the court system.
- Each year, the
New York State Unified Court System presents
the State Legislature with proposals to
change state laws. The proposals are
developed in conjunction with several
standing committees that survey court
practice and identify needed reforms. The
committees also keep abreast of which
proposals are enacted. See, New York State
Unified Court System's "Judiciary's
Legislative Program" web page.
See, also, Kaye, J., & Lippman, J.
(2004). The
judiciary's legislative agenda.New
York: New York State Unified Court System.
This document describes court-initiated
legislation to advance court reform.
- The efforts of
Oregon's Access to Justice Committee provide
another example of court-initiated
legislative reform. The Committee helps the
state court system improve access to justice
for all by drafting and advocating for
legislation to improve access to justice,
monitoring legislation that may have an
effect on access to justice, and educating
legislators about access to justice issues.
Since 1997, the Access Committee has
sponsored nine legislative proposals: to
provide qualified and certified court
interpreters (6); to improve jury service
(2); and to translate state forms (1). Six
of those proposals have become law. See,
Oregon's Access to Justice for All
Committee, Oregon Office of the State Court
Administrator, description of Legislative
Advocacy function.
|
