Court Leader's Advantage

May 17th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

This country’s mental health crisis is by no means limited to adults. We know that young people frequently suffer from traumatic events. This fact has only been made worse by the scourge of COVID. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center revealed that well over a third (37%) of U.S. high school students struggle with stress, anxiety, or depression due to COVID-19. We must address this crisis. We do not want to endure the effects of trauma that has been ignored for too long. This month is the 4th of our five-episode discussion with members of the National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts’ Response to Mental Illness. Some of the questions we explore include:

· What do judges and court administrators see every day in their courts that are clear indicators of this crisis?

· What should we be doing in the courtroom now about children, youth, and families with behavioral health needs?

· How can judges and court administrators support the health and safety of young people even before they enter the courtroom?

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

Today’s Panelists:

The Honorable Kathleen A. Quigley is a Judge with the Pima County Superior Court in Tucson, Arizona.  Judge Quigley graduated from University of Arizona Law School in 1986. Ms. Quigley joined the Pima County Attorney’s Office in 1987, where she worked as a prosecutor and trial attorney. In September of 2003, she was appointed to the Pima County Juvenile Court Bench as a Hearing Officer/Judge Pro Tem. In April of 2009, she was appointed as a Pima County Juvenile Court Commissioner.  In October of 2012, she was appointed by Governor Brewer to the Pima County Superior Court Bench. She served as the Presiding Judge of Pima County Juvenile Court from 2014-2020. She has been the Associate Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court since July 2020 to the present.

The Honorable Theresa Dellick is a Judge with the Mahoning County Juvenile Court in Youngstown, Ohio.  Judge Dellick entered private practice in 1984. She became a partner in a Youngstown law firm and was a civil trial lawyer. In 1999, she became a county court judge, where she implemented the first misdemeanant county drug court. Since 2001, she served as judge of the Mahoning County Juvenile Court overseeing the administration of the Court as well as the Detention Center. Her administration of the Court has been directed to balanced and restorative justice with focused attention to youth accountability and responsibility, public safety and restoration of victims’ rights

Teri Deal M. Ed is a Principal Court Management Consultant with the National Center for State Courts.  Teri joined the National Center for State Courts in 2019 after several years of experience working in juvenile and family court research settings and in direct service to system-impacted youth and families. Her work at NCSC focuses on child, youth, and family justice with a specific emphasis on implementing and evaluating court practices, continuous quality improvement, and systems change efforts.  She is currently pursuing her Ph.D. and is researching school-justice partnerships.

April 19th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

One unintended consequence of the COVID pandemic has been a phenomenon called “The Great Resignation.” Large numbers of American workers have either quit their jobs or (after being laid off) have chosen not to return to their previous employer. CBS News has reported an estimated 20 million people left their jobs in only the second half of 2021. Why is this occurring?

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that of those who left their jobs, almost a two-thirds (63%) cited low pay. Almost two-thirds also cited no opportunity for advancement. Well over half (57%) felt they were disrespected at work. Slightly less than half (48%) cited child-care issues. An interesting side note: only 18% cited their employer’s vaccine mandate as a reason for leaving.

Since we appear to be coming out of the COVID pandemic, is this Great Resignation on the wane? Well, a survey conducted by ResumeBuilder.com estimates that almost a third of workers (32%) plan to leave their current job this year. That number is particularly high in the Information Technology Profession.

This month we are going to explore The Great Resignation and its effect on courts and court employees. In this discussion we are including not only courts that may have lost employees, but courts that are having trouble recruiting and courts that are suffering because their justice system partners have having trouble keeping fully staffed. Some of the questions we will explore include:

· What has been the courts’ workforce experience during this “Great Resignation”?

· Do you see this situation getting better or worse in 2022?

· Are there things courts can do to entice more people to consider court administration as a career?

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

Today’s Cohost and Panelists

Cohost

Alyce Roberts is the semi-Retired Special Projects Manager for the Alaska State Court System.  As a member of the court’s senior staff, Alyce was the AOC’s primary liaison with the clerks of court. In this capacity, she was responsible for developing the annual statewide clerks of court conference program, facilitating the sessions and serving as a presenter.  She has worked for the Alaska Court System since 1989, holding a number of positions including clerk of court in Anchorage (the state’s largest general jurisdiction court). She has served on the National Association for Court Management’s (NACM) Board of Directors, chairs NACM’s Communication Committee, and she is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management (2010).

Panelists

Dawn Palermo is the Judicial Administrator for the Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court in Harvey, Louisiana. She has held this position since 2004. In this capacity, she oversees all court programs, employees and finances, negotiates and monitors all contracts and drafts all funding proposals. Ms. Palermo is also currently serving as a board member for the Louisiana Court Administrators Association (LCAA).

Eric Silverberg is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Tucson, Arizona.  He has worked in the Arizona Courts since 2005.  Eric has been an involved member of NACM since 1995. His academic credentials include graduate degrees in Business Administration and Computer Resources and Information Technology. He became an ICM Fellow in 1997.       

Be Sure to Take Our Survey

Access the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3GVFMSX

The results will be posted and periodically updated on the NACM Ethics Webpage

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

A Question of Ethics Conversation: Summer 2022 Edition of the Court Manager

NACM has made a commitment to the values of providing equal justice regardless of race, gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, disability, or social economic status. What is the court’s ethical obligation, particularly when it comes to implementing court operations? This episode was a recorded conversation held immediately after the Ethics Subcommittees’ Conference Call held on March 24, 2022.

The questions the group explored include:

· Do courts have an ethical obligation to implement policies and procedures that ensure the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are applied to court processes?

· Can a court apply diversity, equity, and inclusion to assessing fines, costs, and fees? if so, how does one go about doing that?

The ethical Canons from the NACM Model Code for Court Professionals referenced during the conversation include:

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.

Today’s Moderator:

Courtney Whiteside, Director of the St. Louis Municipal Court, St. Louis, Missouri

March 15th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

In our last two episodes on mental health and the courts we talked about the fact that traditional criminal case management is not meeting the needs of the people we serve. We must develop a new comprehensive and collaborative model. We need to create a fair and effective caseflow management system that meets the challenges of those with behavioral health needs.

There are estimates that up to 70% of the individuals seen in our criminal courts today have behavioral health issues. Currently, state courts do not generally have systems in place to help those with these challenges. This need is made even more urgent with the pandemic and the resulting case backlogs. We must find a new model to strengthen the collaborative court and community response to individuals with behavioral health needs.

This month is the third 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 is this new collaborative model for addressing caseflow management?

· What are the four pillars that make up the new caseflow management model?

· How can court administrators integrate this new model into a court’s existing practices and

· What resources are available for us to use now?

Our panel today includes:

The Honorable Paula Carey is recently retired Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Trial Courts She was appointed Chief Justice of the Trial Court in July 2013 by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Prior to that time, she had served as the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court beginning in October 2007. She was appointed an Associate Justice of the Norfolk Probate and Family Court in 2001.

Chief Justice Carey partnered with the Court Administrator in the oversight of the Massachusetts Trial Court, which is comprised of seven court departments with 385 judges, 6,400 court staff, including Probation and Security, and 99 court facilities. They jointly direct the implementation of Strategic Plan 3.0, which targets priorities such as user experience, judicial excellence, operational excellence and diversity, equity and inclusion.  She served on the Council of State Governments Working Group and on Governor Baker’s Opioid Task Force and has worked on National Initiatives in the areas of Substance Use disorders and Behavioral Health.

Prior to her appointment to the bench in January 2001, Chief Justice Carey was a partner in the firm of Carey & Mooney, PC, where she specialized in domestic relations matters.  She has lectured and authored material for numerous publications and educational programs in the area of domestic relations, diversity equity and inclusion as well as substance use disorder and behavioral health both as a practitioner and as a judge.  She is a graduate of New England Law/Boston.

Donald E. Jacobson is a Senior Special Projects Consultant with the Arizona Supreme Court.  He began his court career working as a bailiff, law librarian and assistant administrator in the Superior Court in Coconino County. Having served as a court administrator, consultant and trainer in both general jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction courts throughout Arizona over the past 28 years he is sought out as a Subject Matter Expert in court financial management, change management, performance measures, improving court performance and system structure.

Don received a B.S. in Engineering, with an emphasis in Electrical Engineering, from Northern Arizona University (NAU) in 1979, and received his M.A., with Honors, from Denver Seminary in 1984. He is a 1999 Fellow of the Institute for Court Management. 

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

We’ve been talking about work-life balance for decades. It is a perennial challenge. What has changed in these last two years is, of course, COVID. For the first time in the history of America’s court system, large numbers of employees are teleworking, many are frightened of catching the Coronavirus in the office, others are concerned over losing their personal freedom, and we all seem to be working and living with incomplete and often rapidly changing information.

Anecdotal comments are both positive and negative. Office productivity has improved; but the lines between work-life and homelife have blurred, particularly for caregivers; management has adapted to the new flexible office; but burnout and mental health concerns have skyrocketed, and this is a contributing factor to what has come to be known as “the great resignation.”

This month we are going to explore work-life balance and how COVID has affected courts and court employees. Some of the questions we will explore include:

· What has been folk’s experience with work-life balance over the years?

· Has the advent of COVID changed that experience? Is that change for the better or worse?

· Is there anything NACM can do to address this issue?

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

Today’s Co-Host:

Alyce Roberts, Semi-Retired Special Projects Manager for the Alaska State Court System. As a member of the court’s senior staff, she was the AOC’s primary liaison with the clerks of court. In this capacity, she was responsible for developing the annual statewide clerks of court conference program, facilitating the sessions and serving as a presenter. Alyce regularly worked with court colleagues and justice partners to propose revisions to court rules and develop statewide clerical procedures.

Today’s Panelists:

Angie VanSchoick, Court Clerk and Town Clerk for the Town of Silverthorne, Colorado.  Previously she was Court Administrator with the Town of Breckenridge Municipal Court, a position she held since 2013. In this role, she was responsible for all court operations, including the implementation of policies and procedures, general administration, and jury management.  Angie is a licensed macro level social worker in the State of Colorado and Michigan, receiving her MSW from the University of Michigan in 2007.

Kelly Hutton, Assistant Court Administrator for the North Dakota Court System. She has served on local committees and assisted in the implementation of many projects in North Dakota. In 2015, Kelly completed the Court Management Program and in 2017 completed her ICM Fellowship through the National Center for State Courts (NCSC).  Kelly holds a B.A. in Legal Studies from Hamline University, where she also had minors in Economics and Political Science. She is currently working on her Master’s in Public Administration at the University of North Dakota.

Alexis Allen, Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Tempe, Arizona.  Ms. Allen is a 2014 graduate of the Institute for Court Management (ICM) Fellows Program. She received her Master’s degree in Administration, emphasis on Leadership, from Northern Arizona University and her Bachelor’s degree in Interdisciplinary Studies, emphasis on Organizational Studies, from Arizona State University.

Tuesday, January 18, 2022, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

In November we started our discussion on how mental illness is impacting our nation and particularly our courts. In this episode, we are taking a deeper dive into the criminal justice realm, specifically the challenge of competency to stand trial. The task of determining if a defendant is competent to stand trial, to assist in one’s own defense can be daunting. The road to restoring a defendant to competency can be arduous and leave some people in an incarcerated limbo for weeks or even months.

This month is the second of our five-episode discussion with members of the National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts’ Response to Mental Illness. Some of the questions we will explore include:

· What are some of the specific challenges surrounding competency to stand trial?

· What is being done to overcome those challenges on both the national and the community level? and

· What recommendations does the Task Force have for us?

Our panel today includes:

· The Honorable Nan Waller, Judge of the 4thJudicial District in Portland, Oregon and

· Richard Schwermer, with the National Center for State Courts and Retired State Court Administrator for the state of Utah.

These last two turbulent years have brought into sharp relief the dynamic tension between a court’s duty to keep both employees and the public safe, and the duty to respect the privacy and the personal choices of those very same employees and the public. This conversation is taking place at a time when many of us thought (or at least hoped), that these kinds of discussions were behind us. We could move on. Yet, as of December of 2021 the recent appearance of yet another COVID variant has raised a new round of concerns.

Three examples suggest points where work life has become increasingly intrusive, yet employees and the public are still at risk.

1) As court offices reopen, some returning employees have refused to disclose their vaccine status. This can put those very same employees as well as others at a higher risk of contracting COVID.

2) As more courthouses open again for staff and the public, some members of the public refuse to disclose their vaccine status and refuse to wear a mask. Security at the front door has occasionally refused them entry; they are therefore being denied access to justice.

3) Courthouses, as public buildings, need to be accessible to the public. However, there have been instances of employees being attacked by individuals.

Three canons of NACM’s Model Code of Conduct for Court Professionals come into play when discussing this dynamic tension:

· NACM Canon 1.1 states that a court professional faithfully carries out all appropriately assigned duties.

Is not the safety of court employees and the public a fundamental duty? What could be more basic than ensuring the health and well-being of the staff and public that comes to the courthouse every day?

· NACM Canon 1.3 states that a court professional must make the court accessible.

Presumably, the courthouse must be accessible to the public and its employees. Can court security limit public access by demanding to know if an individual has legitimate business in the courthouse?

· NACM Canon 2.7 states that a court professional respects the personal lives of litigants, the public, and employees.

How intrusive can security personnel get in demanding to know about the medical background and business of the public and employees?

Today’s Panel includes:

Courtney Whiteside, Court Administrator for the Municipal Court, in St. Louis, Missouri.

Barbara Marcelle, Trial Court Administrator for the 4th Judicial District in Portland, Oregon.

Karl Thoennes, Trial Court Administrator for the 2nd Judicial Circuit Court in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

December 21st Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

The preliminary results from NACM’s Voice of the Profession survey have revealed folks' number one issue this year: Public Confidence in the Courts. Over 95% of those responding reported that they either agreed or strongly agreed that NACM needs to advocate on behalf of the courts regarding the public’s confidence in our court system. This result is no surprise. The 2021 National Center for State Courts “State of the Courts” survey conducted this past October reported that public trust and confidence in the courts has sunk to a new low: 64%.

A common response to this issue is “we need more public outreach.” If we could just explain what we do and why we did it, the community would immediately embrace the court’s central role in society. This has been disparagingly referred to as the “to know us is to love us” approach. The community may actually know more about the courts than we think and yet remain less than satisfied. Here are three examples of why the public might have a negative impression of courts:

1. Many folks, including our fellow court professionals, think that courts are too complicated, particularly for self-represented litigants

2. Excessive fines, surcharges, and user fees that courts pile on can hobble defendants guilty of relatively minor crimes

3. Courts can exhibit subtle yet systemic bias against people of color, the mentally ill, and the poor.

Some of the questions we will explore this month include:

· Why do we think the public’s confidence in the courts is declining?

· What can and should courts do about this lack of confidence?

· What is NACM’s role in addressing this challenge?

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

Today’s Panel includes:

· Samantha Wallis, Assistant Court Administrator for the District Court, in Coeur d’Alene Idaho

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

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

November 16th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

The challenge of mental illness is impacting America nationwide. It impacts our states, our communities, our courts, and our entire justice system. The courts are at the center of the clash between competing funding choices, community concerns, and those struggling with behavioral health issues.

Local jails and detention centers are the largest providers of mental health services in the country. That’s for both adults and children.  In 44 states a jail or prison holds more mentally ill individuals than the state’s largest psychiatric hospital. On the other hand, nearly 30 percent of all family homicides involve a mentally ill individual.

This month is the first of five episodes. They will be spread out over the coming winter and spring discussing the National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts’ Response to Mental Illness. Some of the questions we will explore include:

· What do we know now about mental health, incarceration, and the courts?

· What sort of change can courts make to deal with the mental health challenge?

· What options do judges have in helping the mentally ill, what sort of options should judges have? And finally

· What advice do our guests have for the rest of us regarding mental health and the courts?

Today's Panelists

· The Honorable Steve Leifman, Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami, Florida and

· Patti Tobias, Principal Court Management Consultant with the National Center for State Courts in Denver, Colorado

Tuesday, October 19, 2021, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

The national movement to reduce or eliminate cash bail continues to spark heated discussion. Several states, including New Jersey and Alaska, have instituted bail reform. Other states such as California have repeatedly seen attempts at reform fail, either in the legislature or at the ballot box. Proponents argue that bail criminalize poverty. Bail doesn’t keep the most dangerous in jail, it keeps the poorest. Opponents point to reported instances where bail reform was followed by an uptick in crime.

This month we are looking at the ongoing debate over bail reform and the pivotal role that courts play in this discussion. Some of the questions we will explore include:

· What are courts doing now about bail reform?

· What role does generating revenue have in the debate over bail?

· How do risk assessment algorithms play into this discussion?

· What advice do our panelists have for the rest of us regarding courts and bail reform?

Our panel today includes:

· The Honorable Paul Farr, Judge with the Herriman, Sandy, and Alta Municipal Courts in Salt Lake County, Utah;

· Elizabeth Rambo, Trial Court Administrator for the Lane Country Trial Courts in Eugene, Oregon;

· The Honorable Ed Spillane, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court in College Station, Texas; and

· Courtney Whiteside, Court Administrator of the Municipal Court in St. Louis, Missouri;

· Alexzandria Poole, Interim Senior Trial Attorney with Neighborhood Defender Service of Detroit.