Court Leader's Advantage

September 22, 2022, A Question of Ethics Episode: A Conversation on Courts and Ethics

We are not stockbrokers or day traders, but in our role as court employees we learn a lot. We know about patterns of litigation against businesses and against professionals in the community. We know about protection orders filed against real estate agents; we know about leaking basement litigation; we know about roofing contract litigation. Many cases are sealed and confidential, but most are wide open and available to the public if it takes the time to do the research. Due to the nature of our jobs, we learn about inside information more frequently than the public.

· What is the appropriate use of this information?

· Have you ever applied information obtained at work to our personal lives?

· Do you think it is appropriate for front line staff to share inside court information?

· Are there some applications of inside information that are ethically okay?

Today’s Moderator

Karl Thoennes: Court Administrator for the Second Judicial Circuit, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Today’s Panel

Dawn Palermo: Judicial Administrator for the Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court in Harvey, Louisiana

Kent Pankey: Senior Planner for the Supreme Court of Virginia

Peter Kiefer: Retired Court Professional

Eric Silverberg: Court Administrator for the City Court in Tucson, Arizona

December 20th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Courts have committed to the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion particularly in recruiting and selecting court employees. This commitment however has not been without controversy. One criticism has been that personnel recruitment and selection should be entirely objective and merit based. An evaluation format often cited as an example is the NFL Combine.

The Combine measures prospective professional football players by a number of objective skills: How fast and far can one run? How high can one jump? How much weight can one lift? How far and how accurately can one throw a football? How often can one catch a football and then run with it? How effectively can one block another player? In addition, there are physical attributes that can be objectively measured including height, weight, percentage of body fat, lung capacity, and previous injuries.

This month we ask the questions can and should hiring criteria be objective? Are there measures that we can use to hire managers and supervisors that are devoid of personal or institutional bias?

Today’s Cohost

Stacy Worby, State Jury Coordinator for the Alaska Court System

Today’s Panel

· Zenell Brown, Executive Court Administrator for Michigan’s Third Circuit Court in Detroit

· T.J. BeMent, District Court Administrator for the 10th Judicial Administrative District in Athens Georgia

· Elizabeth Rambo, Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene, Oregon and

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

A Question of Ethics Conversation August 15, 2022, Episode

The COVID Pandemic brought the use of technology to the forefront of our conversation worldwide. Technology is expanding at breakneck speed. Is it out stripping courts' ability to manage new technological innovations?

Relevant Ethics Canons

Canon 1 Avoiding Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

1.1 Performing Court Duties

A court professional faithfully carries out all appropriately assigned duties, striving at all times to perform the work diligently, efficiently, equitably, thoroughly, courteously, honestly, openly, and within the scope of the court professional’s authority.

Canon 2  Performing the Duties of Position Impartially and Diligently

2.1  Independent Judgment

A court professional avoids relationships that would impair one’s impartiality and independent judgment. A court professional is vigilant concerning conflicts of interest and ensures that outside interests are never so extensive or of such a nature as to impair one’s ability to perform court duties.

Discussion Questions

· How can courts implement new technological innovations without infringing on Constitutional rights?

· How can court administrators convince judges who are resistant to change that technology is beneficial?

· What strategies can courts use to alleviate the digital divide?

Today’s Host

Courtney Whiteside, Director St. Louis Municipal Court

Today’s Panel

· Stay Worby, State Jury Coordinator, Alaska State Court System

· Kent Pankey, Senior Planner, Virginia Supreme Court

· Karl Thoennes, Court Administrator, 2nd Judicial District, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

· Joe Thommasino, Legal Counsel, Justice Court, Las Vegas, Nevada

· Peter C. Kiefer, Retired Court Professional

November 15th 2022, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

The public’s perception of our courts continues to be a topic of concern and curiosity for court professionals. Last month we discussed finding of the National Center for State Courts 2021 State of the State Courts survey that found that public trust in the courts had declined to 64% from a high in 2018 of 76%. This month we will take a deeper dive into several areas of interest:

· How much influence does “the ability to be heard in court” affect the public’s perception?

· Does the public look at the different levels of the court differently?

· What role do lawyers play in promoting differing views between general jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction courts?

· How does the development of remote hearings play into caseflow efficiency and the public’s perception?

Today’s Cohost

Stacy Worby, State Jury Coordinator for the Alaska Court System. In that capacity she is responsible for the coordination and operation of the centralized processes for the court’s jury management systems. Additionally, she provides jury procedure training and guidance for personnel in 40 court locations statewide.

Today’s Panel

· The Honorable Yvette Alexander, Judge with the City Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  Judge Alexander earned a B.A. in Political Science from Grambling State University and earned a J.D. from the LSU Law Center in 1979. After law school, she worked as counsel for the Louisiana State Legislature, Louisiana State Senate, East Baton Rouge Parish Public Defender’s Office and was an Assistant Attorney General for the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office.

· The Honorable Ed Spillane, Judge with the Municipal Court in College Station, Texas.  He has served in this position since May 2002. Prior to this, he served as an Assistant District Attorney for Brazos County for eight years and as an associate for the law firm Fulbright & Jaworski for two years.  Judge Spillane received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, and his law degree from the University of Chicago.

· Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.  Rick has served in the field of court administration for the past twenty-nine years. Prior to his appointment at the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Rick was the district court administrator for Cumberland County. Prior to his 4 ½ year tenure as court administrator.

· Kent Pankey, Senior Planner for the Supreme Court of Virginia.  Kent received a B.A. in Political Science from Hampden-Sydney College and a J.D. from the College of William and Mary. He is an ICM Fellow (Class of 1999) and a certified ICM instructor for the courses Accountability and Court Performance, Executive Decision Making, Leadership, Modern Court Governance, and Visioning and Strategic Planning.

· Sarah Brown-Clark, elected Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court in Youngstown, Ohio.  Sarah is a 1971 cum laude graduate of Ohio University with a B.S. degree in English; she also earned her M.A. degree in English from Ohio University in 1972 and earned hours towards a Ph.D. in English from Kent State University.

October 18, 2022 Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

What do we know about how the public views our courts? We know that the public’s trust and confidence in courts has been slipping over the years. The 2021 National Center for State Courts State of the State Courts survey found that public trust in the courts along other institutions has been declining for some time. In that survey 64% of respondents said they had either a great deal of confidence or some confidence in their state courts. But that is down from a 2018 high of 76%.

That same survey asked, "How much do you agree with the phrase that the state courts provide equal justice to all?"  For the first time, state courts were slightly 'under water.'   46% said the phrase described the state courts well or very well, while 47% disagreed. In addition, this year, public confidence in The U.S. Supreme Court (symbolically the paragon of our court system), sank to 25%, down 31 points from its 1988 high. That year 56% had confidence in the Supreme Court.

We’ve asked five individuals, both judges and court administrators, how do their friends and neighbors view the courts and why. We asked them about people they know; people who do not work in the courts.

What are we looking to find out?

· Has trust and confidence in the courts truly been decreasing?

· Do people still rely on the fundamental fairness and impartiality of the courts?

· If trust and confidence is decreasing what are the reasons?

Today’s Cohost

Stacy Worby, State Jury Coordinator for the Alaska Court System

Today’s Panel

The Honorable Yvette Mansfield Alexander is the Judge with the City Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  Judge Alexander earned her B.A. in Political Science from Grambling State University and earned a J.D. from the LSU Law Center in 1979. After law school, she worked as counsel for the Louisiana State Legislature, Louisiana State Senate, East Baton Rouge Parish Public Defender’s Office and was an Assistant Attorney General for the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office.

The Honorable Ed Spillane is the Judge with the Municipal Court in College Station, Texas.  Judge Spillane has served in this position since May 2002.  He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, and his law degree from the University of Chicago.

Rick Pierce is the Judicial Programs Administrator for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.  A graduate from Washington and Lee University, Pierce received his Master's Degree in Public Administration from Shippensburg University in 1995.

Kent Pankey is the Senior Planner for the Supreme Court of Virginia where he has worked since 2005.  Kent received a B.A. in Political Science from Hampden-Sydney College and a J.D. from the College of William and Mary. He is an ICM Fellow (Class of 1999) and a certified ICM instructor for the courses Accountability and Court Performance, Executive Decision Making, Leadership, Modern Court Governance, and Visioning and Strategic Planning

Sarah Brown-Clark is the elected Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court in Youngstown, Ohio.  Sarah was first elected to the position November 1999.  Sarah is a 1971 cum laude graduate of Ohio University with a B.S. degree in English; she also earned her M.A. degree in English from Ohio University in 1972 and earned hours towards a Ph.D. in English from Kent State University.

September 20th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Obtaining customer feedback, obtaining usable feedback, obtaining enough of it to be able to rationally modify court programs, all of these are major hurdles. And yet getting good customer feedback is so important. It is important to complete the loop: to plan, to act, to check results, and then to refine. And this effort has been made even more complicated by COVID.

LaGratta Consulting, with the backing of the State Justice Institute, has developed the Court Voices Project piloting 12 courts from around the country. These courts are collecting real-time, feedback from staff and court users about their pandemic experiences and their ideas. Some of the questions the Court Voices Project is trying to answer include, what percentage of court users prefer virtual hearings and why; have court users found new communication channels like phone banks and online chat features to be more convenient and more accessible; and what ideas do line-staff have for improving court practices?

This month we’re looking at court customers and how we collect feedback from them. Some topics we will explore include:

· How do we obtain more and better customer feedback?

· Why should court leaders focus on better ways to obtain feedback?

· What have courts been able to do with more enhanced feedback? and

· What advice do these panelists have for the rest of us?

Today’s Panel

The Honorable Clemens Landau, Judge with the Justice Court in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Judge Landau was appointed to the Salt Lake City Justice Court in 2017. He received his law degree from the University of Utah in 2008.

The Honorable Timothy Kuhlman, Judge with the Municipal Court in Toledo, Ohio.  In February 2005 he joined the Toledo Municipal Court and served as Presiding and Administrative Judge from 2007 through 2010, and again in 2019-2021.  Judge Kuhlman graduated from Hillsdale College in Michigan in 1988 and graduated from the University of Toledo Law School and joined the Ohio Bar in 1991.

James Cho, Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Boulder, Colorado. James was first named Court Administrator in June 2015.  Before that he served as Deputy Administrator since 2006. 

De'Von Kissick-Kelly, Deputy Court Administrator for the Municipal Court, in Boulder.  De'Von has devoted her career to empowering women through activism, advocacy and education. She holds a B.S in Criminal Justice and Criminology and a M.A. in Adult and Community Education from Ball State University

Emily LaGratta is with La Gratta Consulting.  Emily is a national subject matter expert on the topics of procedural justice and user voice. In leading LaGratta Consulting, she works with local and national organizations to design and implement innovative programming, engage end-users and utilize their feedback, and develop practitioner resources and training tools that help enhance public trust and confidence in legal institutions.

August 16, 2022, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

In this episode, we ask the question, “What should our courts be doing now?” This month we bring our discussion on behavioral health and the courts home.

In previous episodes we talked about the extent of the problem nationally and how it affects each community; we discussed the need for community collaboration; we explored the challenge of criminal competency to stand trial, and we learned how mental health manifests itself as trauma in our young people. This month is the last of our five-episode discussion with members of the National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts’ Response to Mental Illness. Some of the topics we will explore include:

· What should judges and court administrators be doing right now to address this crisis?

· How do we educate the public about the realities of mental health?

· What kind of role will court staff play in this new model for courts?

· What advice do these panelists have for the rest of us?

Today’s Panel

· The Honorable Christopher Goff is a Justice on the Indiana Supreme Court.  Justice Goff was appointed as Indiana’s 110th justice in 2017 by Governor Eric J. Holcomb. Prior to his appointment, Justice Goff was judge of the Wabash Superior Court for twelve years during which time he established the Wabash County Drug Court, Wabash County Family Recovery Court, and the Wabash County Reentry Court. He has served as President of the Huntington County Police Merit Board and was named Huntington County’s Pro Bono Attorney of the Year in 2001 and 2002. He is currently the Chair of the Indiana Justice Reinvestment Advisory Council (JRAC) as well as serving as a member of the National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts’ Response to Mental Illness.

· Scott Block is the Statewide Behavioral Health Administrator for the Illinois Administrative Office of the Courts.  Scott holds a master’s degree in counseling, is a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor, a Certified Alcohol and Other Drug Counselor, a Certified Criminal Justice Addictions Professional, and a National Center for State Court’s Certified Court Manager.

· Walter Thompson is a Peer Recovery Support Specialist and retired non-commissioned officer in the United States Army after serving more than 20 years. He is an Ordained Deacon at his local church, an advocate for mental health and was recently elected Commissioner and Vice Mayor of Florida City, FL. He attended Central Texas College and Miami Dade College. He is a certified Peer Specialist and Group Instructor. He is also an Intention Peer Specialist (IPS), Wellness Recovery Action Plan Facilitator (WRAP), Interactive Journaling (IJ) Facilitator, and Small Group Instructor (SGI). He is committed to Mentoring underprivileged youth and being a leader in his community.

· Patti Tobias is a Principal Court Management Consultant for the National Center for State Courts.  Patti has been with the NCSC’s Court Consulting Services division August 2014. She has experience working in a wide variety of national, statewide, and local projects including those involving leadership and governance, caseflow management, strategic planning, child welfare, criminal justice reform and improving the justice system response to mental illness. She works with national court organizations and often presents at state and national conferences. As part of a NCSC team, she currently supports the work of the National Judicial Task Force to Examine the State Courts’ Response to Mental Illness.

July 19th 2022 Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Bail Reform has been praised as an effective way to correct a societal wrong. The movement's byword has been “bail does not keep the most dangerous in jail: it keeps the poorest.” Despite this argument, Bail Reform is receiving increasing pushback.

Bail Reform aims to curb or eliminate cash bail for people who are in jail awaiting trial and charged with either misdemeanors or nonviolent offenses. Bail Reform releases many of these vulnerable low-income defendants from pretrial incarceration. It allows them to return to their homes, to go back to their to families, and to keep their jobs. It also saves taxes by managing jail populations. Jail is by far the most expensive way to deal with defendants. A national average puts keeping a defendant in jail at $391 a day; in contrast probation on average costs $121 a day.

Here are just a few recent examples of the pushback:

· Progressive San Francisco prosecutor Chesa Boudin, who supported Bail Reform has been recalled

· Progressive Los Angeles prosecutor George Gascon is facing a recall.

· Judges in Chicago have been blamed for releasing defendants on electronic ankle monitors who then go out and commit violent crimes,

· New York City Mayor Eric Adams blames rising crime in his city partially on judges who are not keeping dangerous criminals in jail.

Some pundits believe that voters are tired of being afraid: afraid of rising crime, afraid of the homeless, and afraid that courts, under Bail Reform, let dangerous criminals out to threaten their communities.

Some of the topics we will explore today include:

· What is the current situation on Bail Reform?

· What should be the courts’ position regarding Bail Reform?

· What should courts be doing right now?

Today’s Panel

· The Honorable Edward Spillane is the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court in College Station, Texas.  He has served in this position since May 2002. Prior to this, he served as an Assistant District Attorney for Brazos County for eight years and as an associate for the law firm Fulbright & Jaworski for two years.  Judge Spillane received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, and his law degree from the University of Chicago.

· The Honorable Paul C. Farr is the Judge with the Herriman and Alta Municipal Courts in Salt Lake County, Utah.  Judge Farr graduated from the J. Reuben Clark Law School at BYU in 1999 and has been a member of the Utah State Bar for 21 years. He has been a municipal court judge for the past 11 years. He is also a member of the Utah Judicial Council and has been serving in that capacity for the past 5 years.

June 21st Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Online Dispute Resolution has been us in various forms since the 1990s, although it really became widely accepted a little over five years ago. By contrast, widespread acceptance of virtual mediation seems to have been an outgrowth of the COVID pandemic. Today many courts around the country use one form or the other (or possibly both) to quickly and efficiently settle disputes. What has been the courts’ experience using these two different platforms? This month we’re looking at online dispute resolution and virtual mediation.

Some of the Topics We Will Explore:

· What has been the courts’ experience with these two formats?

· Why did a court choose to go with one format over the other?

· What has been the response from the folks using that format?

· What has been the biggest benefit and the one thing that needs to be changed?

Today’s Panelists:

· Kathy Scott: the Small Claims and Civil Pro Se Mediation Program Coordinator for the Multnomah Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon

· Joe Haas: a Domestic Relations Mediator for the St. Joseph Circuit Court, in Centreville, Michigan

· Kelly Steele, Court Programs Manager for the 9th Judicial Circuit Court in Orlando, Florida

A Question of Ethics Conversation May 2022

This episode of A Question of Ethics will continue to explore diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and NACM’s commitment to helping provide equal justice. This session was recorded after the Ethics Subcommittee Conference Call on April 28th, 2022. The questions the group explored include:

· Does focusing on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies, and programs conflict with the court’s purpose to be a separate, independent, and impartial forum for resolving disputes?

· How do courts keep political agendas out of its efforts to make court personnel and court process equitable for all?

· How does implementing DEI policies and programs compare to Affirmation Action requirements?

· How can courts today be more inclusive and accessible to those having business before it?

Relevant Canons from the NACM Code of Conduct for Court Professionals:

Canon 1.1: Performing Court Duties

A court professional faithfully carries out all appropriately assigned duties, striving at all times to perform the work diligently, efficiently, equitably, thoroughly, courteously, honestly, openly, and within the scope of the court professional’s authority.

Canon 1.3: Fairness

The court professional makes the court accessible and conducts his or her work without bias or prejudice.

Canon 1.4 Respect for Others

A court professional treats litigants, co-workers, and all others interacting with the court with dignity, respect, and courtesy.

Canon 4.1 Inappropriate Political Activity (Paraphrased)

A court professional:

· retains his or her right to vote

· engages in political activity strictly as a private citizen, in accordance with Federal and state law, with local court rule, and with the policy of the appropriate local governing authority.

· participates in political activity only during non–court hours,

· uses only non–court resources.

· Never uses his or her position to politically influence others.