References
- Yankelovich , Skelly and Shulman , White/Clancy . 1992 . Surveying the Future: Californians Attitudes on the Court System , San Francisco, California : Supreme Court of California . GMA Research Corporation. Washington State Judicial Survey: Final Report, Bellevue, Washington, 1998; Citizens Commission To Improve Michigan Courts. Final Report and Recommendations To Improve the Efficiency and Responsiveness of Michigan Courts, Appendix D, Michigan Supreme Court, Lansing, Michigan, 1986; Bennack, Frank A., Jr. The American Public, The Media & The Judicial System, The Hearst Corporation, New York, New York, 1983; Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc. The Public Image of Courts: A National Survey of the General Public, Judges, Lawyers and Community Leaders, Volume 1, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1978
- Ostrom , Brian J. , Hairston , Steven E. , Way , Karen G. and Flango , Carol R. 1994 . State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report, 1992 , Xii Williamsburg, Virginia : National Center for State Courts . The author's edxerience in judicial administration has been predominantly in the state courts. Therefore, this article focuses on state courts, not federal. State courts handle well over 90% of all judicial business in this country
- Saari , David J. 1967 . New Ideas for Trial Court Administration: Applying Social Science to Law . Judicature , October : 82 – 87 . Stott, E. Keith, Jr. “The Judicial Executive: Toward Greater Role Congruence in an Emerging Profession.” Justice System Journal, 7,2 (Summer 1982): 152-179
- United States Constitution, arts. I, 11, & 111. A similar division of government into three equal but distinct branches is found in each states' constitution.
- The chief administrative judge in trial courts has different titles in different states. In most states the title used is chief judge or presiding judge. This article henceforth will refer to the chief judge. The reader should recognize, however, that in many judges' eyes, the title is more an honorarium than a title carrying real authority.
- Lawson , Harry O. and Howard , Dennis E. 1991 . Development of the Profession of Court Management: A History With Commentary . The Justice System Journal , 15 ( 2 ) October : 581
- Elected clerks continue to be responsible for court records and all record-keeping and -creating staff in the general jurisdiction courts of 34 of the 50 states, according to the National Center for State Courts. See Conference of State Court Administrators Court Statistics Committee. State Court Organization, 1993, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., (to be published in early 1995). A court of general jurisdiction is the trial court with jurisdiction over all matters not specifically assigned by law to courts of limited jurisdiction. Courts of limited jurisdiction normally handle traffic cases, misdemeanor criminal cases, smaller civil cases, and sometimes parking violations. Some limited jurisdiction courts handle only probate cases, or juvenile, and/or fanlily matters. Most general jurisdiction courts handle felony criminal cases, larger general civil cases, probate, and family matters.
- Lawsuits involving judges and local officials have involved a wide range of court needs, including desks and chair, control of elevators, the need for new staff, and staff compensation. See generally, Carrigan, Jim R. Inherent Powers of the Courts, National College of the State Judiciary, Reno, Nevada, 1973.
- The author recently spent almost two hours brainstorming with a judge and his administrator about how best from a political standpoint to get an elected clerk to buy a new computer system and to provide basic management information about the court's cases so the judges could install a new delay-reduction program.
- Fortunately from the court's perspective, if the sheriff wants to put something in that the judges oppose, normally it is not added.
- Courts' procedural rules normally are determined by courts themselves, either by local judges agreeing on new rules that will be effective only within that locale or by the state supreme court adopting statewide rules or approving local rules proposed by the local judges. In some states, California and New York being two examples of very large states where this is true, the legislature controls many of the rules of procedure by which the courts operate. In these latter states, judges not only have to negotiate with the local attorneys, but also on occasion with state-level legislators to change procedures.
- Drucker , Peter S. 1973 . Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices , 518 – 602 . New York, New York : Harper & Row Publishers Inc . 618-602; Peters, Tom. Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York, 1987, esp. pp. 355-365
- Conference of State Court Administrators Court. Statistics Committee, supra note 7.
- Some might argue that the Supreme Court of the United States and some states' supreme courts on occasion have changed rules dramatically with significant disruption throughout society, but these rulings are clear exceptions I when viewed in the context of all these courts' work.
- Gallas , Geoff and Hudzik , John K. 1991 . Voices from a Decade Ago . The First National Symposium on Court Management . 1991 , The Justice System Journal, 15, 2. pp. 575 Gallas, Geoff, quoted in
- For example, a court might want to advise Mothers Against Drunk Driving of a change in sentencing policies regarding those convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Or meet with a group representing victims of crimes about how victim-witnesses are to be treated by court representatives or a new waiting facility for them the court is considering establishing. These meetings would be to advise the parties of the changes and not to seek their approval.
- The chief justice or supreme court appoints the chief administrative judge of all or some of the trial courts in 12 states. The state court administrator is the appointing authority in two states. The governor appoints a judge directly to the office of chief judge for some or all trial courts in an additional five states. See conference of State Court Administrators Court Statistics Committee, supra note 7.
- See, for example, several articles in The Justice System Journal 15,2 (1991), a special edition devoted to the Second National Conference on Court Management, held in September 1990.
- Burke , Kevin . 1994 . Chief Judge of the Circuit Court . During the annual conference of the National Association of Court Management . July 12 1994 , Miami, Florida. Minnesota E.g. Remarks of Judge Kevin Burke
- See, e.g.: Government Accounting Office. "Quality Management: Survey of Federal Organizations." as reported in Public Administration Times (December 1, 1992):lO; The Federal Quality Institute. A Time for Deckion: Total Quality Management, Federal Quality Institute, Washington, D.C., 1989, p. 3.
- In the nation's largest courts, the chief judges normally are selected by vote of their peers based on expressed interest and, hopefully, because of administrative skill. In many smaller courts and in some urban courts, however, the chief judge is the most-senior judge who has not yet served as chief judge. In these latter courts, the administrative skill and/or interest of the chief judge rarely is considered. (In rare cases someone thought to be entirely inappropriate for the job by the other judges or someone who has a positive aversion to the position will be skipped, but the facts supporting deviation from strict seniority often have to be clear and compelling. Especially in these seniority-based courts, however, the line of succession for several years is clear and the next several chief judges can be included in the initial decision to adopt TQM.
- Commission of Trial Court Performance Standards, Trial Court Performance Standards, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, 1990.
- See, e.g., American Bar Association. Standards Relating to Court Organization, 1990 Edition, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1990; American Bar Association. Standards Relating to Court Organization, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1979; The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Task Force Report: The Courts, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1967.
- Supra note 22, at p. 1.
- Ibid. 9
- Ibid. 11
- Ibid. 20
- Trial Court Performance Standards Project. Measurement of Trial Court Pe$ormance, 1993 Supplement to the Trial Court Pegormance Standards with Commentary, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1993 (draft edition).
- Fleischman, Adam L., and Aikman, Alexander B. "Total Quality Management: Where the Courts Are Now," State Court Journal 17,314 (SummerFall 1993): 17-22; Aikman, Alexander B. Total Quality Management in the Courts: A Handbook for Judicial Policy Makers and Administrators, National Center for State Courts, Courts Services Division, Denver, Colorado, 1994, pp. 23-24.
- Aikman, Alexander B., supra note 29, pp. 23-25.
- Ibid.
- In one trial court of general jurisdiction, staff complained to the judge about the many problems they were having handling forms completed by citizens representing themselves because of the mistakes being made, The judge suggested, in turn, that the problem was poorly designed forms that ordinary citizens could not follow and understand, rather than citizens who were not bright or a nuisance. This judge understood both the concept of customer and the concept of quality service.
- Swiss , James E. 1992 . ADapting Total Quality Management (TQM) to Government . Public Administration Review , 17 ( 3/4 ) August : 358 – 359 . for an excellent discussion of the problems and tensions involved in defining government's customers, July
- Baig , Edward . 1994 . Do You Really Need That Lawyer? . Business Week , 17 ( 3/4 ) August : 76 – 77 . A large and growing number of divorce matters are being handled by one or both parties without attorneys (72% of all cases in one recent study). Goerdt, John A. Divorce Courts: A Summary of the Findings from a Study of the Pace of Litigation in Sixteen Urban Courts. State Court Journal 16,4 (Fall 1990): at p. 15. And the number of general civil cases such as contract disputes and injury cases being handled without attorneys also is rising. 22, These case types being handled at night would be in addition to traffic matters and small-claim civil cases, for which a number of courts already offer night court
- Keilitz, Susan (ed.). National Symposium on Court-Connected Dispute Resolution Research: A Report on Current Research Findings -- Implications for Courts and Future Research Nee& National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1994, pp. 91-1 12, 190- 191; Commission on the Future of the California Courts. Justice in the Balance: 2020, Judicial Council of California, San Francisco, California, 1993, pp. 39-50; Commission to Study the Future of Maine's Courts. New Dimensions for Justice: Report of the Commission to S W the Future of Maine's Courts, Commission to Study the Future of Maine's Courts, Portland, Maine, 1993, pp. 16-18, 40-55; Commission on the Courts. The Future of Arizona's Courts: Report of the Commission on the Courts, Commission on the Courts, Phoenix, Arizona, 1989, pp. 32-45, esp. p. 34; Commission on the Future of Virginia's Judicial System. Courts in Transition: The Report of the Commission on the Future of Wrginia 's Judicial System, Virginia Supreme Court, Richmond, Virginia, 1989, pp. 30-34; Lowe, Robert. Multi-Door Courthouse Evaluation Project Final Report, National Center for State Courts' North East Regional Office, Andover, Massachusetts, 1992; Ray, Larry, and Kestner, Prue. Multidoor Experience: Dispute Resolution and the Courthouse of the Future, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1988.
- See note 29, supra.