Court Leader's Advantage

Court Leader's Advantage

By Peter C. KieferSociety & Culture
Download on the App Store

Court Leader's Advantage episodes

  • Courts and the Quest for Talent: Are We Doing Enough?

    March 19th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

    In April of 2022, we hosted a podcast episode on “The Great Resignation.”  At the time large numbers of employees were resigning, or (after being furloughed for some period) were deciding not to return to work.  The assumption back then was that this was a temporary phenomenon. Once COVID receded, people would return to work, and things would get back to normal.

     It is now a year and a half later.  COVID is receding, (or at least we think it is). Yet many courts still struggle with staffing shortages.  And this is not just limited to courts.  The World Bank has predicted that over the next decade, the number of people of working age in the U.S. (between 15 and 65) will decline by over 3 percent. This is a prospect that courts will find increasingly challenging.  This month we’re going to look at ongoing staff shortages and the battle courts are having to recruit new talent. 

    Not every court is short-handed; not all positions suffer from chronic vacancies.  On the other hand, I can’t
    think of a court administrator who has not told me their court struggles to find court reporters, interpreters, and IT staff.

    Today we are going to delve into several questions:   

    •  Who is struggling to hire new employees?  Are there types of employees that are more challenging to recruit?
    • Has your court experienced operational challenges due to staff shortages?
    • What are job candidates asking for these days regarding working conditions?
    • Are you exploring new ways to recruit employees?

      •   Today’s Panel

              

      Audrey Anger: Assistant Court Administrator for the City of Olathe, Kansas

      Danielle Trujillo: Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Littleton, Colorado

      Dana Bartocci: Human Resources & Development Director, Minnesota Judicial Branch,

      St. Paul, Minnesota

      MiHa Kapaki: Court Administrator & Probation Director, Grays Harbor District Court, Montesano, Washington

      Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Officer, 1st Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

       Leave a question or comment about the episode at [email protected]

      36 min
    • Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: Promise or Peril?

      February 20, 2024, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

      The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has spawned numerous questions, both practical and ethical.  These are questions that courts are going to have to grapple with in the near future, including:

       

      Given the complexity of AI algorithms and the tens of thousands of data points used for training, can we reasonably expect that a human reviewing AI results would actually uncover bias or uncover anything significant?

        

      Our court system is designed to move in a slow and deliberate fashion to render decisions; AI is evolving at breakneck speed. Can we afford to wait years for courts to answer questions about AI if it is changing by the month? 

           

      AI uses data as training to make better decisions in the future.  Since it does not publicly reveal sensitive or confidential information about individuals, are privacy concerns about AI irrelevant?

       

      Automated chatbots can save time, save money, and provide a sympathetic ear for litigants who want to talk about their case.  But do folks who call into self-service centers really want to talk to an automated electronic voice even if that voice gives good sound answers?

        

      Will AI be a savior to rescue us from the drudgery of boring repetitive work or is it an existential threat to our way of life?

       

      Here to discuss these questions are:

      Kevin Bowling: retired Court Administrator for the Circuit Court in Ottawa County, Michigan

      Roger Rand: Information Technology Manager for the Multnomah County Circuit Court, in Portland, Oregon.  Roger is also on the NACM Board of Directors

      Casey Kennedy: Director of Information Technology, for the State Office of Court Administration, Austin, Texas

      Alan Carlson: retired Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Orange County, California

      Stacey Marz: Administrative Director for the Alaska State Court System in Anchorage, Alaska

      36 min
    • Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: Omen or Opportunity?

      January 16th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

      Artificial Intelligence.  The media is filled with discussions of its potential to dramatically change our lives.  It will increase productivity; it will relieve us from having to make mundane decisions; it will reveal heretofore unseen connections.

      • Conversely, it may eliminate jobs, take away our ability to make complex decisions, fill the airwaves with misinformation, and even threaten our way of life.  In addition, many think that artificial intelligence (AI) is just too obscure.  It is, frankly, not that important to normal people and everyday life.  Some of the questions we will explore include:
        • Are there real day-to-day applications of AI affecting courts now?  
        Is AI applicable just for large metropolitan courts or is it also a tool for suburban and rural courts?
      • Are there aspects of AI that courts need to safeguard against mow?

        • Here to discuss these questions are:

         Kevin Bowling: retired court administrator for the Circuit Court in Ottawa County, Michigan

        Roger Rand: Information Technology Manager for the Multnomah County Circuit Court, in Portland, Oregon.  Roger is also on the NACM Board of Directors

        Casey Kennedy: Director of Information Technology, for the State Office of Court Administration, in Austin, Texas

        Alan Carlson: retired Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Orange County, California, and

        Stacey Marz: Administrative Director for the Alaska State Court System in Anchorage, Alaska

        46 min
      • Suburban and Rural Courts: Their Perspective How Do We Fairly Allocate Court Resources?

        December 19th, 2023, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

        The struggle to equitably and effectively allocate court

        resources is a challenge that faces every state.  Everywhere the question is the same: how do you allocate funds fairly to courts of different sizes and may even perform different operations such as having a Treatment Court? How do you not disadvantage suburban and rural courts when taking into account the size of each court, its caseload, the demand for service, the degree of innovation, the staffing needs of justice partners like the prosecutor, the public defender, probation, and law enforcement, allocation history, and special circumstances? 

        Additionally, many court budget staffing discussions are

        not held on a statewide level, they are local discussions where a court might find itself competing with the police, sanitation, or parks and recreation.  What do these courts use to
        convince funding bodies to provide new resources?  Add to the mix the specter that some funding bodies (often cities) place their own agenda on courts to be revenue generators.  Is the answer a preset formula that with each new judicial position comes a designated number of additional staff?  Is there another, possibly a better methodology?   This month we’re
        going to explore the struggle that suburban and rural courts endure in the competition for new budget resources.   

        Here to discuss this issue are

        Angie VanSchoick:  Town Clerk and

        Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the town of Silverthorne, Colorado

        Stacey Fields: Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Crestwood, Missouri

        Danielle Trujillo:  Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the City of Littleton, Colorado, and

        Frank Maiocco: Court Administrator for the

        Superior Court in Kitsap County, Washington

        33 min
      • Employee Performance in the Workplace: Ethical Conundrums

        October 26, 2023, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode

         

        Today’s Question of Ethics Conversation looks at several ethical challenges regarding employee performance. It discusses four questions many supervisors face in their oversight role.

        Can you, as a supervisor, remain friends with colleagues once you have become their boss?  This is an especially critical
        question when it comes time to promote someone, and you promote your ‘friend’.

        -Are performance reviews good or bad? Are they useful tools for supervisors and managers?

        -Is it ethical to use a personal relationship to get promoted in the workplace?

            

        Is it ethical to treat each worker differently instead of having the same rules for everyone? (i.e., working from home)?

         

        This Question of Ethics Conversation looks at how technology plays a role in workplace culture for court users, for one’s co-workers, and on a court’s institutional knowledge.

         

        Today’s Moderator

        Samantha Wallis: Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

        Today’s Panelists

        Lizzie Alipaz:  Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the town of Tinmath, Colorado

        Peter Kiefer: Retired Court Professional

        Norman Meyer:  Retried Clerk for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court

        for the District of New Mexico

        Erika Schmid: Supervisor for the Multnomah County Circuit

        Court, 4th Judicial District, Portland, Oregon

        Karl Thoennes: Court Administrator, 2nd Judicial Circuit, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

        Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, and

        Inclusion Officer; First Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

        33 min
      • Suburban and Rural Courts: Their Perspective Do Remote Hearings Pose Special Challenges?

        November 21st, 2023, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

        Suburban and rural courts often face distinctive issues.  These issues are different from those of truly small courts, but also different from the issues faced by massive metropolitan court organizations. It is tempting to always talk about big problems in big courts. It is easy to forget that two-thirds of the courts in our country are benches made up of fewer than 10 judges.

         

        Today’s episode is going to revisit a relatively recent phenomenon: remote hearings. But it is going to look at it from the perspective of courts that are sometimes overlooked: suburban and rural courts.

         

        As recently as 2019, remote hearings were an oddity.  Few courts offered them; few parties asked for them. Then came COVID and remote hearings became a regular part of many court calendars.  The long-term future of remote hearings is still a question mark. Most litigants, attorneys, and the general public seem to enjoy the convenience of appearing remotely. Judges seem less enthusiastic.  

        Appearance rates are up; more cases are being cleared.  But, technology glitches, scheduling problems, and the casual nature with which some litigants treat remote hearings dampens that support.  How do suburban and rural courts address the challenges that come with remote hearings.

        Here to discuss this issue are

        Angie VanSchoick:  Town Clerk and Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the town of Silverthorne, Colorado;

        Stacey Fields: Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Crestwood, Missouri;

        Danielle Trujillo:  Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the City of Littleton, Colorado;

        Frank Maiocco: Court

        Administrator for the Superior Court in Kitsap County, Washington

        39 min
      • Courts, Workplace Culture, and Technology

        August 24, 2023, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode

        Today’s Question of Ethics Conversation looks at workplace culture and technology. It focuses on the ethical challenges to workplace culture and technology as it pertains to Canon 1.1 of the NACM Model Code of Conduct which states that a court professional faithfully carries out all appropriately assigned duties, striving at all times to perform the work:

                 

        Diligently - characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic effort.

               

        Efficiently - capable of producing desired results with
        little or no waste (as of time or materials)

                

        Equitably - dealing fairly and equally with all concerned

                

        Thoroughly -  in a complete or thorough manner

                

        Courteously - marked by respect for and consideration of
        others

                

        Honestly – without cheating, genuine, without frills

                

        Openly -exposed to general view or knowledge

                

        Within the Scope of the court professional’s authority.

         

        According to the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), an organization's culture defines the proper way to behave within the organization. This culture consists of shared beliefs and values established by leaders and then

        communicated and reinforced through various methods, ultimately shaping employee perceptions, behaviors and understanding.

        Organizational culture sets the context for everything an enterprise does. Because industries and situations vary significantly, there is not a one-size-fits-all culture template that meets the needs of all organizations.

         

        Workplace culture has a profound effect on any organization

        as these statistics bear out.
        53% of working Americans who have left a job due to workplace culture report leaving because of their relationship with their manager.

        94% of people managers agree a positive workplace culture creates a resilient team of employees.

        97% of executives agree their actions have a direct impact on workplace culture.

         

        Technology is a tool, but it can have a dramatic effect on

        workplace culture. "Technology can be used to enhance information and operations, improve public access to court information and services, and reduce administrative costs while increasing efficiency in case processing.”

        This Question of Ethics Conversation looks at how technology

        plays a role in workplace culture for court users, for one’s co-workers, and on a court’s institutional knowledge.

         

        Today’s Moderator

        Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer; First Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

         

        Today’s

        Panelists

        Courtney Whiteside: Director, Municipal Court, St. Louis, Missouri

        Karl Thoennes: Court Administrator, 2nd Judicial Circuit, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

        Peter Kiefer: Retired Court Professional

        Samantha Wallis: Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

        Ceclia Garner: Court of Court, General District Court, Richmond, Virginia

        42 min
      • Should Recidivism Be a Trial Court Performance Measure?

        October 17th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

        In the middle of last month’s episode, the question was asked, should recidivism be a trial court performance measure? All the panelists responded negatively, but the reasons they gave are

        worth hearing.

        We have all heard the criticism that the criminal justice has turned into a “revolving door.”  Defendants are arrested and tried, most are convicted and sentenced.  Some are incarcerated, others are placed on probation.

        The recidivism rate for incarcerated defendants is nearly 50%; almost one out of every two incarcerated defendants is rearrested.  The recidivism rate for defendants on probation is not much better.  43% of probationers are rearrested within 3

        years.

         

        Traditionally, there are four

        main purposes of criminal justice sentencing. 1) Incapacitation, 2) punishment,
        3) deterrence, and 4) rehabilitation.  Rehabilitation
        as a goal is not easily measured and yet it seems as if it is one of the
        standards by which the public gauges the success of the criminal justice system.
        In the simplest terms, the purpose of rehabilitation is to ensure defendants
        stop committing new crimes and become productive citizens.  Recidivism is therefore an accepted measure
        for success in rehabilitation.

         

        One of the reasons why recidivism

        is difficult to measure lies in the system itself.  The criminal justice system is made up of
        multiple components: police, courts, defense and prosecution, the sheriff and
        state prisons for the incarcerated, probation departments for other
        defendants.  What is the degree of
        responsibility each of these components bears in rehabilitating defendants?  Is rehabilitating defendants even really a
        goal anymore?  We’re only going to
        scratch the surface in today’s discussion. 
        This month we’re looking at one of the
        basic purposes of criminal justice and if we should use recidivism to measure
        that purpose. 

                

        Today’s Panelists

        Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts

        Cheryl Stone, Court Administrator for the Superior Court, Clark County, Washington

        Greg Lambard, Trial Court Administrator for the Superior Court, Middlesex Vicinage, New Brunswick, New Jersey

        Kent Pankey, Senior Planner, Judicial Services Department, Supreme Court of Virginia

        Liz Rambo – Trial Court Administrator for the Circuit Court in Lane County, Oregon

        22 min
      • Leading in Tough Times: Can We Stay Savvy About Statistics?

        September 19th, 2023, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast

        Episode


        As court leaders, we are inundated with statistics and research.  We have all been taught to have a healthy skepticism of statistics.  We are given advice that includes: ask questions, go to the source of the research, and expose the assumptions behind the analysis.  We have seen what happens when research is not properly evaluated.  As a consequence, we are compelled to ensure that statistical analysis is objective and unbiased, valid and reliable, able to be replicated, and relevant to the work of your court.

         

        Having a healthy skepticism is all the more important in this day and age of polarizing misinformation.  Most of us have heard that old joke “73.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.” We don’t want to be the one who is naïvely hooked by questionable statistical research.  This advice is all so easy to give, but just how do we hone our critical thinking skills?

         

        Imagine this common scenario, you are in a session with 500 attendees at a national conference.  The presenter describes an exciting but controversial concept.  At some point, that presenter voices that time-worn introduction “as studies have clearly shown . .

        .”  How do you, as a critical thinker, react?  How do you overcome some of the very real logistical issues this scenario presents?  For example:

        · In the Q&A at the end of the session, do you stand and

        challenge the presenter to describe the referenced statistical research?  Many find this kind of challenge awkward or
        possibly even rude.

        ·Do you simply assume someone else in the audience will assess those studies and get back to you?

        ·Do you spend the time to locate the studies and try to understand

        them?  What if you are curious about the
        topic? Do you start to think that it is a drain on your work time?

        ·  What if you actually locate the studies and spend the time

        analyzing them.  You end up with some legitimate questions.  The sample size seems small or the consultants doing the evaluation were paid by the very program they were evaluating.  Do you tell your judges; do you tell your fellow professionals in other courts?  How do you do that?

        · Or do you just regress into becoming generally negative about all

        information and default to Mark Twain’s popular adage, there are “lies, damn lies, and statistics”?   

         

        This month we’re looking at how we can remain savvy critical thinkers about statistics without ending up cynical and jaded. 

           

        Today’s Panelists

        Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts

        Cheryl Stone, Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Clark County, Washington

        Greg Lambard, Trial Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Middlesex Vicinage, New Brunswick, New Jersey

        Kent Pankey, Senior Planner, Judicial Services Department for the Supreme Court of Virginia; and

        Liz Rambo – Trial Court Administrator for the Circuit Court in Lane County, Oregon.

        32 min
      • Leading in Tough Times: Leaders as “Influencers”

        August 15th, 2023, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

        Leaders deal with multiple circles of individuals.  Two that you as a court administrator or Clerk of Court deal with are 1) those who report to you and 2) those you either report to or deal with as fellow stakeholders.  Those reporting to you include your team, and the larger office or court staff.

         

        The next circle centers on your Presiding Judge, and your bench; it includes your funding body such as your City Council, County Board, the state administrative office, or the state legislature.  It extends to your fellow justice partners such as the Sheriff, the Prosecutor, the bar, and community organizations.  

        The leadership skills needed to deal with both circles include team building, mentoring, strategic thinking, organization, persuasive speaking, and concise effective writing.  But you deal with your fellow stakeholders (principally your judges), differently than

        with your court staff.  Your judges are leaders in their own right; usually, they have their own vision which or may not align with yours; they are well-educated and may not be particularly interested in your counsel.  In addition, many judges may have developed their own concepts of managing people, they are used to handing down orders from the bench and having them obeyed, many are elected so they have their own specific constituency, and court staff often have a direct informal pipeline to individual judges.  Rick Pierce described the role of the administrator dealing with this circle as being an “influencer.”

        This month we’re looking at leaders as influencers of others in power.

        What is this environment really like? Are there different skills
        necessary or just different ways of applying the skills you have?  What is your mindset when working with your bench?

         

        Today’s Panelists

        Rick Pierce: Judicial Programs Administrator, Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts

         

        Melinda Brooks: Grants and Special Projects Manager, Municipal Court, Franklin County, Ohio

         

        Ellen Procida-Fisher: Operations Manager, Superior Court, Cape May, New Jersey,

         

        JoShonda Guerrier: Interim Chief Administrative Officer, Juvenile Court, Fulton County, Georgia, and

         

        Lori Tyack: Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court, Franklin County, Ohio

        34 min

      About Court Leader's Advantage

      From the publisher's feed

      Coming innovations, thought-provoking trends, questions that matter to the court community, these and more themes are covered by the Court Leader’s Advantage podcast series, a forum by court…

      More shows like Court Leader's Advantage

      The Daily by The New York Times

      The Daily

      111,800 Listeners

      Dateline NBC by NBC News

      Dateline NBC

      46,856 Listeners