Court Leader's Advantage

May 16th, 2023, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

It was not that long ago that the phrase “you’re lucky to have a job” was powerful advice.  Nowadays, employers across multiple business sectors are complaining of unfilled staff positions.  Shortages of teachers and restaurant workers immediately come to mind.  On the other hand, just lately we are once again hearing about massive layoffs.  Google, Meta, Disney, and Amazon have all recently laid off workers.

Has the balance of power between job applicants and employers shifted?    Has it shifted in favor of the applicants? If it has, will it last?

This month we are looking at courts and the hiring crisis.  Do job candidates right now hold the upper hand in the hiring process, and how are courts coping?

 

Today’s Panelists

 

Dana Bartocci is the Human Resources and Development Director for the Minnesota State Judicial Branch. Dana has served in various capacities in law firm and law school professional development, career coaching, training and pro bono. Dana is active in the National Association of Judicial Educators and Minnesota Women Lawyers and serves as a volunteer for YMCA Minnesota Youth in Government.  She received her J.D. and M.S. in educational administration from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and her B.A. in political science and cultural studies from the University of Minnesota.

Beth Urban is the Human Resources Director for the South Dakota State Court System in Pierre, South Dakota. In 2006, Beth joined the Unified Judicial System as a Human Resources Manager and was later promoted to Director of Human Resources in 2010. She holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Sociology, with a concentration in Human Resources and a Minor in Economics and Psychology, which she earned from South Dakota State University in 1993. Additionally, in May 2009, she completed the Court Executive Development Program, earning her fellowship in the Institute of Court Management. Vicky Bartholomew is the Minor Judiciary Administrator for the 15th Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Chester County.  Vicky has served in the field of court administration since 1986.  Prior to her current position, Vicky’s roles in court administration included criminal court administrator and arbitration administrator. She has been a member of the Chester County Criminal Justice Advisory Board since 2016. She is a long-time member of the Mid-Atlantic Association for Court Management (MAACM) and served as their President from 2013-2014. She is also a member of the National Association of Court Management (NACM).

Nick Sudzina is the Court Administrator for the 10th Judicial Circuit Court in Bartow, Florida. Nick served as the Juvenile Court Administrator for the Circuit Court for fourteen years. He is a member of the Trial Court Administrator Education Committee, the Florida Court Personnel Committee and the Workgroup on Performance Management.  He was appointed by the Chief Justice to chair the Florida Supreme Court Facility Accessibility Committee.  Nick, originally from Pittsburgh, PA, moved to Florida, where he has resided since 1971.  He has a B.S. Degree in Criminology from Indiana University of PA.

 

April 18th, 2023, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

We have been talking about various aspects of employee recruitment and selection, often as it intersects with diversity, equity, and inclusion.  This brought up the topic of the power imbalance surrounding employee selection.  Traditionally, job candidates enter the selection process in a powerless and sometimes even in a belittling position.

 

The NACM Model Code of Conduct, Canon 1.4 states “A court professional treats litigants, co-workers, and all others interacting with the court with dignity, respect, and courtesy.”

So, the questions arise:

· Is the power imbalance in the hiring process real?

· Is it disrespectful to job candidates?

· Do we who hire court employees actually have any interest in altering that power imbalance?

Most of us have been on both sides of the interview table.  And most of us can agree that applying for a job can be competitive and it can be nerve-wracking; can it also be demeaning? 

 

Today’s Panelists

 

Karl Thoennes, Court Administrator for the Second Judicial Circuit Court, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Karl began his career in the courts in Alaska in 1988, working as a division supervisor at the state’s largest trial court in Anchorage.  He was appointed as Court Administrator in Todd County, Minnesota in 1998, and then Stearns County, St. Cloud, two years later.  In 2004 he was appointed as Administrator for the Second Judicial Circuit in South Dakota. Karl has guest lectured at St. Cloud State University on court structure and management, spoken on international public ethics in Minneapolis, and completed two graduate seminars in public policy in Sapporo, Japan, first as a student and then guest speaker.   He holds a Masters degree in public administration from the University of Alaska.

Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts. As judicial programs administrator, Rick is responsible for program implementation and education in court administration at the general and limited jurisdiction court levels. Rick served as the President for the Mid-Atlantic Association for Court Management for 2005-2006. Previously he has served on the MAACM advisory board from 1997-2005. A graduate from Washington and Lee University, Rick received his Masters in Public Administration from Shippensburg University in 1995. He has been an active member of the Pennsylvania Association of Court Management, (PACM) since its inception in 1989. He has served as a board member from 1994-2001, culminating in his presidency in 2000-2001.

Liz Rambo, Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene Oregon. As the TCA for one of Oregon’s largest courts, Liz is responsible for all non-judicial court functions including budget, human resources, technology, facilities, and business efficiency.   A 31-year court employee, Liz has a history of advocacy for the mission of the Oregon Judicial Department and the service that the Oregon Judicial Branch provides to the public.  Liz has served on a variety of judicial branch leadership committees including as Chair of the Chief Justice Communications Committee, member of the Chief Justice Strategic Planning Committee, Law and Policy Workgroup, Internal Audit Committee, the Oregon eCourt Steering Committee.  For the last five years, Liz has worked closely with Lane County leadership toward building a new Lane County Courthouse and will continue to bring her years of experience to that ongoing project through design and construction. Liz graduated with high scholarship from Oregon State University with a BA in history and has an MBA from Portland State University.  She is a long-time member of the National Association of Court Management and holds a Court Manager certification from the National Center for State Courts. Liz is the recipient of the 2023 Warren E. Burger award for excellence in court administration.

February 23, 2023, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode

This is the second of a two-part conversation on hiring ethical employees. Part-one, (held January 26th, 2023), is available on the Ethics Subcommittee Webpage, on the NACM website.

 

What actions can courts take to optimize the hiring of ethical staff? What can you do to ensure that the people you hire will adhere to your court’s Code of Conduct?  Relying on Bruce Weinstein’s book, The Good Ones: Ten Crucial Qualities of High Character Employees, the panel discusses the options courts have to identify ethical employees including interview questions about accountability and background checks. The panel considers questions including:

· Describe a situation in which you took responsibility for a mistake you made.  What were the consequences to you for doing so?

· Have you ever taken responsibility for an error that another team member made? Tell me about it.

· Tell me about a typical working day.

 

Other options the panel discuses include calling references, calling past supervisors, conducting criminal history checks, conducting financial history checks, and drug testing.  Finally, Norman Meyer introduced interview questions developed by ChatGPT.  Some of the questions include:

· Can you give an example of a time when you had to make an ethical decision in your previous work experience? How did you handle the situation?

· How do you define ethical behavior, and how do you ensure that you are acting ethically in the workplace?

· Have you ever witnessed unethical behavior in the workplace? If so, how did you handle the situation?

· How do you handle conflicts of interest?

· Can you give an example of a time when you had to speak up or take a stand on an ethical issue, even if it was difficult or unpopular?

 

Today’s Moderator

Norman Meyer: Retired Clerk for the Federal Bankruptcy Court, District of New Mexico

 

Today’s Panel

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

Stacy Worby: State Jury Coordinator, Alaska State Court System

Peter Kiefer: Retired Court Professional

Joe Tommasino: Staff Attorney, Justice Court, Las Vegas, Nevada

January 26, 2023, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode: A Conversation on Courts and Ethics

What actions can a court take to optimize the hiring of ethical staff? What can you do to ensure that the people you hire will adhere to your court’s Code of Conduct? Relying on the book by Bruce Weinstein, The Good Ones: Ten Crucial Qualities of High Character Employees, the Ethics Subcommittee explores some of the personal qualities that ethical employees possess. These qualities include honesty, accountability, care, courage, fairness, gratitude, humility, loyalty, patience, and presence. What can we do during the selection process to ensure that we hire employees with these qualities?

Today’s Moderator

Norman Meyer: Retired Clerk for the Federal Bankruptcy Court, District of New Mexico

Today’s Panel

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

Stacy Worby: State Jury Coordinator, Alaska State Court System

Peter Kiefer: Retired Court Professional

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

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

Stacy Owsley: Deputy Human Resources Director, Pima County Superior Court, Tucson, Arizona

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tuesday, October 5, 2021, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

A cyberattack is truly a different kind of threat, but that threat is real and growing. It takes a different kind of approach to defend against such an attack. Different questions need to be asked well before an attack occurs. Cybersecurity experts advise that having responses to these questions is essential to effectively preparing for and responding to an attack. In this episode we are talking to several court professionals who have endured a cyberattack on their court. We will be exploring questions on how to prepare your court to defend against an attack:

· What questions do you need to ask your IT professionals?

· How do you convince a funding body to spend the needed resources on cybersecurity?

· Do you have a realistic plan to conduct court business without your case management system or even computers for weeks possibly even months?

· How can you effectively train staff to respond to a cyberattack?

· Does your Continuity of Operations Plan (your COOP) even address the implications of a cyberattack?

Today's Panelists

Kevin Bowling is the Court Administrator for the 20th Circuit Court in Ottawa County, Michigan.  Kevin is also co-chair of the National Center for State Courts’ Joint Technology Committee and has helped develop three resource bulletins to assist court managers with handling cyberattacks.    Kevin received his B.A. in Political Science/Public Administration from Providence College, Providence, Rhode Island; a M.S. in Judicial Administration from the University of Denver College of Law; a J.D. from Thomas M.Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan, and is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management.

Julia Hidy is the Court Administrator for the Probate Court in Fayette County, Ohio.  Julia is a graduate of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Certified Court Management Program in 2014, she has been seasoned by events such as an extensive conversion of the case management system in 2014, Fayette County’s extensive ransomware/malware attack of June, 2019, subsequent case management update in September, 2019, and the COVID-19 global pandemic.

Casey Kennedy is the Director for the Office of Court Information Services at the Office of State Court Administration in Austin, Texas.  . Casey is currently the chair of the Court Information Technology Officer Consortium, a national organization of Court IT professionals. He holds a BA in Computer Science from The University of Texas at Austin.

Jorge Basto is the Director of IT Programs for the Cherokee County Clerk of Courts in Canton, Georgia.  A graduate of Georgia State University, Jorge has remained active in both local and national industry organizations and has been highlighted in the Gov Tech and ComputerWorld publications.

Montrella Jackson is the Court Administrator for the Akron Municipal Court, in Akron, Ohio.  Montrella received a B.A. in Political Science from the University  of Michigan College of Literature, Science and the Arts and  subsequently earned a law degree from the University of Akron School  of Law. She is a Board member of the Ohio State Bar Association  Board of Directors and past president of the Board of Good Samaritan Hunger Center since.

Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Threats from cyberattacks can be easily ignored by courts. There are many rationalizations:

“Our court is too small to worry about cyberattacks”

“We have a great firewall that keeps everything out”

“Our employees change their passwords every three months just like clockwork”

“Everyone has been told not to open suspicious email attachments”

Often the perspective can be “We’re good”

You are good until the morning you fire up your desktop only to find a black screen with the words “pay $50,000 in bitcoin and we will send you the codes to unlock your case management system.” Cyber-experts continue to advise that it isn’t a matter of “if,” it is a matter of “when.”

In this episode we are talking to court professionals, several of whom have suffered through a cyberattack in their court. We’ll be exploring questions including:

· How did the court respond to the cyberattack?

· What could management have done differently?

· What could they have done to have prevented a cyberattack in the first place?

· What advice does our panel of experts have for the rest of us?

Our panel today includes:

Kevin Bowling is the Court Administrator for the 20th Circuit Court in Ottawa County, Michigan Kevin is also co-chair of the National Center for State Courts’ Joint Technology Committee and has helped develop three resource bulletins to assist court managers with handling cyberattacks.  He is a Past President of the National Association for Court Management, Co-Chair of the DOJ Global Advisory Committee.  Kevin received his B.A. in Political Science/Public Administration from Providence College, Providence, Rhode Island; a M.S. in Judicial Administration from the University of Denver College of Law; a J.D. from Thomas M.Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan, and is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management.

Julie Hidy is the Court Administrator for the Probate Court in Fayette County, Ohio  A graduate of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Certified Court Management Program in 2014, Julia has been seasoned by events such as an extensive conversion of the case management system in 2014, Fayette County’s extensive ransomware/malware attack of June, 2019, subsequent case management update in September, 2019, and the COVID-19 global pandemic. As the Fayette County Courthouse never closed during COVID-19, Julia managed a court staff that never worked from home and navigated court-in-session with restrictions and distanced hearings in person.

Casey Kennedy is the Director for the Office of Court Information Services at the Office of State Court Administration in Austin, Texas.  . Casey is currently the chair of the Court Information Technology Officer Consortium, a national organization of Court IT professionals. He holds a BA in Computer Science from The University of Texas at Austin.

Jorge Basto is the Director of IT Programs for the Cherokee County Clerk of Courts in Canton, Georgia.  Prior to joining the Clerk’s Office, Mr. Basto served as Georgia’s Chief Information Officer for 15 years with the Judicial Council’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).  Jorge is a graduate of Georgia State University.

Montrella Jackson is the Court Administrator for the Akron Municipal Court, in Akron, Ohio.  She received a B.A. in Political Science from the University  of Michigan College of Literature, Science and the Arts and subsequently earned a law degree from the University of Akron School  of Law.

IACA’s Global Conversation Podcast Summer 2021

Measuring judicial performance is a burning topic in many countries around the globe. How to balance the need for timely case resolution with the necessity for just results is a question many court experts have often pondered. Today, our panel of international court professionals will discuss the implications of measuring judicial performance. This episode delves into a number of questions surrounding measuring judicial performance:

· How do you use the performance measures?

· Who gets to see the data?

· What effects does automating judicial performance measurement have?

· Do you tie judicial performance to an overall strategic plan?

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

Our panel today Includes:

Angéline Rutazana: Inspector General for the Judiciary of Rwanda

Niceson Karungi: E-Justice Expert with Synergy International Systems

Dr. Aseel Zimmo: Advisor to the Chief Justice and Minister of Justice, Bahrain

Thomas G. Bruton: Clerk of Court, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Tuesday, August 17, 2021, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Local Courts can offer incredible opportunity for both defendants and for the community. They are positioned precisely at a point to curtail dangerous behavior before it grows worse. The array of problem-solving courts nationally, often managed on a shoestring budget, is astounding. This does not make up for the fact that local courts are often neglected. They are frequently disparaged. In some cases, they manifest structural flaws that clearly need to be corrected. All the while, we remember that local courts are the place where most of the public obtain their first-hand experience of courts and justice.

This month we look at some of the challenges local courts face including:

· How should local court judges be selected?

· Should all local court judges be attorneys?

· Should all defendants in matters before local courts be represented by counsel?

· Should local courts be courts of record?

We will also continue our discussion of three recent Harvard Law Review articles about local courts. "Criminal Municipal Courts" by Alexandra Natapoff, "Kangaroo Courts" by Shaun Ossei-Owusu, and "Abolish Municipal Courts" by Brendan Roediger.

The Honorable Edward Spillane is the Presiding Municipal Judge for the City of College Station, Texas and has served in this position since May 2002. Prior to this, he served as an Assistant District Attorney for Brazos County for 8 years and as an associate for the law firm Fulbright & Jaworski for 2 years.  He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, and his law degree from the University of Chicago.

The Honorable Mary Logan has been practicing law for over 27 years as a licensed attorney in California and in Washington. As a Judge, she was elected Presiding Judge of the Spokane Municipal Court from 2009 through 2014. Among her many accomplishments, she is one of the “core engineers” of the City of Spokane’s Community Court and presides over the City’s Veteran’s Therapeutic Court.

Courtney Whiteside is the Director of the St. Louis County Municipal Division where she provides educational opportunities to municipal divisions and clerks through various committees and educational groups in the state while promoting cultural and procedural reforms.  Courtney started in 2012 as a court clerk then went to Jefferson City to work with the Office of State Courts Administrator and on to the Missouri Supreme Court to serve as the state’s municipal division courts monitor.

Bettye King is a Court Administrator for the Municipal Court for the City of Birmingham, Alabama.  She has served in this capacity since 2003. Bettye earned her Master’s Degree in Public Administration and Bachelor’s Degree in Pre-Law Criminal Justice from Auburn University. She was the Patricia Harris Fellowship recipient and awarded Outstanding Achievement in Public Administration.  She earned her Juris Doctorate from the Jones School of Law.

Rashida Davis serves as the Court Administrator and Chief Clerk for the Municipal Court of Atlanta, Georgia. She earned her bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Georgia State University. Rashida graduated from the University of Tennessee College of Law Cum Laude.  She is a licensed attorney with the State of Georgia. Her legal background primarily focused on litigation and criminal defense.

Tuesday, July 20, 2021, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Local Courts are the least analyzed components of the American court system. This is particularly ironic since there are thousands of local courts, far more than there are courts of general jurisdiction. It has been estimated that they process over three and a half million criminal cases and collect at least two billion dollars in fines and fees annually.

When we talk about preserving the public’s trust and confidence in America’s courts, we often miss that most citizens gain their first-hand experience from dealing with a local court.

This month we are looking at three recent Harvard Law Review articles on local courts: Criminal Municipal Courts by Alexandra Natapoff, Kangaroo Courts by Shaun Ossei-Owusu, and Abolish Municipal Courts by Brendan Roediger.

Here to discuss their perspectives on these articles are folks who can honestly reveal the whole story on local courts. They are judges and court administrators all of whom work in municipal courts.

We are looking at questions including:

· Can and should we be collecting more data on local courts nationally?

· Can the problem-solving model, fostered by many local courts, scale-up across the country?

· Can local courts resist the pressure many cities impose to increase revenue?

· What takeaways do these Judges and Court Administrators have for the rest of us?

Today's Panelists

The Honorable Edward Spillane is the Presiding Municipal Judge for the City of College Station, Texas and has served in this position since May 2002. Prior to this, he served as an Assistant District Attorney for Brazos County for 8 years and as an associate for the law firm Fulbright & Jaworski for 2 years.  He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, and his law degree from the University of Chicago.

The Honorable Mary Logan has been practicing law for over 27 years as a licensed attorney in California and in Washington. As a Judge, she was elected Presiding Judge of the Spokane Municipal Court from 2009 through 2014. Among her many accomplishments, she is one of the “core engineers” of the City of Spokane’s Community Court and presides over the City’s Veteran’s Therapeutic Court.

Courtney Whiteside is the Director of the St. Louis County Municipal Division where she provides educational opportunities to municipal divisions and clerks through various committees and educational groups in the state while promoting cultural and procedural reforms.  Courtney started in 2012 as a court clerk then went to Jefferson City to work with the Office of State Courts Administrator and on to the Missouri Supreme Court to serve as the state’s municipal division courts monitor.

Bettye King is a Court Administrator for the Municipal Court for the City of Birmingham, Alabama.  She has served in this capacity since 2003. Bettye earned her Master’s Degree in Public Administration and Bachelor’s Degree in Pre-Law Criminal Justice from Auburn University. She was the Patricia Harris Fellowship recipient and awarded Outstanding Achievement in Public Administration.  She earned her Juris Doctorate from the Jones School of Law.

Rashida Davis serves as the Court Administrator and Chief Clerk for the Municipal Court of Atlanta, Georgia. She earned her bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Georgia State University. Rashida graduated from the University of Tennessee College of Law Cum Laude.  She is a licensed attorney with the State of Georgia. Her legal background primarily focused on litigation and criminal defense.

Tuesday, June 15, 2021, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Long days of travel, strange hotels, and strange food. Yes, international assignments can include all of these. But it can also afford the opportunity to make real change and create real change in yourself. This month we are talking to folks who have engaged in international rule of law assignments in countries around the world.

We’re asking questions about international assignments. Did the folks on assignment make a difference? What were the political and cultural hurdles these people had to overcome? Do you need to know the language to go on assignment? What takeaways do these folks have for the rest of us?

Today’s contributors:

· Michele Oken, is a past president of NACM and has chaired the International Committee for the past seven years. In March of 2020, she retired from the Los Angeles Superior Court where she worked as a manager and court administrator for approximately 19 years.

· Jeffrey Apperson is Vice President of the National Center for State Courts’ International Division.  Jeff works all over the world to help courts establish and improve judicial administration. He directs dozens of programs in 25 or so nations at any given time. He has had leadership roles in projects in Mongolia, Iraq, Brazil, Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago, to name just a handful. He co-founded the International Association for Court Administration.

Our panel today includes:

· Norman Meyer is a CourtLeader contributor with 38 years of experience as a trial court administrator in the U.S. federal and state courts.  Norman has experience working with many foreign judiciaries, especially in the Russian Federation, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Albania.  He received his M.S. in Judicial Administration from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 1979, and a B.A. in political science and Russian studies from the University of New Mexico, graduating in 1977.

Pam Harris is the first woman State Court Administrator for the Maryland Court System. In 1989, she was appointed as the first woman to hold the Court Administrator position for the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Pamela has been active in various rule-of-law initiatives in Argentina, Brazil, Russia, Sri Lanka, India, China, and the Ukraine.

Pamela Ryder-Lahey is a Court Management Consultant with 41 years’ experience and most recently Chief Executive Officer for the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.   Since 2000, she has been involved in Rule of Law and Court Reform projects in several countries including Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, Albania, Jamaica, and Philippines.

John Cipperly is a Senior Program Manager with the International Division of the National Center for State Courts.  John has more than 15 years of experience in the design and management of justice sector assistance programs for the U.S. Department of State, USAID, and other donors. He has developed or managed programs in Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Asia.  John is a native English speaker and fluent in Spanish.

Janet Cornell court consultant with over 35 years of experiences with both general and limited jurisdiction courts.  Janet is a founding and contributing member to www.courtleader.net. She has a Masters in Public Administration from Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management along with certificates from the Leader Coach Institute, Scottsdale, AZ, and the Leadership Institute for Judicial Education.

Tuesday, May 18, 2021 Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

International work can be challenging. It can also be very rewarding. No matter what, it is an adventure you will remember for the rest of your life. Have you thought about it? Wondered if it was for you? Where would you even go to get answers to your questions?

This month we are talking to folks who have served as consultants on rule of law assignments in countries across the globe. From Russia, to Vietnam, to the Pacific Islands, these panelists have seen it all. Now you will hear their stories first-hand. This episode will give you a taste of international work. We will also tell you about NACM’s own forum for people involved in international work and for those wanting to get involved: The NACM International Committee. In addition, you will learn about the National Center for State Court’s International Division and the outstanding work it is doing around the globe.

Today's Contributors

Michele Oken is a past president of NACM and has chaired the International Committee for the past seven years. In March of 2020, she retired from the Los Angeles Superior Court where she worked as a manager and court administrator for approximately 19 years.

Jeffrey Apperson is Vice President of the National Center for State Courts’ International Division.  Jeff works all over the world to help courts establish and improve judicial administration. He directs dozens of programs in 25 or so nations at any given time. He has had leadership roles in projects in Mongolia, Iraq, Brazil, Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago, to name just a handful. He co-founded the International Association for Court Administration,

Norman Meyer is a CourtLeader contributor with 38 years of experience as a trial court administrator in the U.S. federal and state courts.  Norman has experience working with many foreign judiciaries, especially in the Russian Federation, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Albania.  He received his M.S. in Judicial Administration from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 1979, and a B.A. in political science and Russian studies from the University of New Mexico, graduating in 1977.

Pam Harris is the first woman State Court Administrator for the Maryland Court System. In 1989, she was appointed as the first woman to hold the Court Administrator position for the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Pamela has been active in various rule-of-law initiatives in Argentina, Brazil, Russia, Sri Lanka, India, China, and the Ukraine.

Pamela Ryder-Lahey is a Court Management Consultant with 41 years’ experience and most recently Chief Executive Officer for the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.   Since 2000, she has been involved in Rule of Law and Court Reform projects in several countries including Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, Albania, Jamaica, and Philippines.

John Cipperly is a Senior Program Manager with the International Division of the National Center for State Courts.  John has more than 15 years of experience in the design and management of justice sector assistance programs for the U.S. Department of State, USAID, and other donors. He has developed or managed programs in Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Asia.  John is a native English speaker and fluent in Spanish.

Janet Cornell court consultant with over 35 years of experiences with both general and limited jurisdiction courts.  Janet is a founding and contributing member to www.courtleader.net. She has a Masters in Public Administration from Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management along with certificates from the Leader Coach Institute, Scottsdale, AZ, and the Leadership Institute for Judicial Education.

Tuesday, April 27, 2021 Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

This week we are continuing our April 20th conversation with our panel on what is the key to effective communication, particularly during the pandemic. This week our panel covers topics including rumors and misinformation, the importance of “virtual water cooler” time, and the challenge of delivering unwelcome news.

You will remember that we asked you viewers to send in your thoughts on what was the key to effective communication. We received some great ideas, so we asked several folks to give us their advice on what makes for effective communication during the pandemic.

Today’s Contributors:

These are folks who sent in advice on what is the key to effective communication:

· LaShawn Thompson, Court Administrator for Oklahoma City Municipal Court

· Joshua Larsen, Trial Court Supervisor, Dubuque, Iowa

· Stacy Worby, Jury Coordinator for the Alaska Court System

Today's Co-Host: Alyce Roberts with the Alaska Court System.

Today's Panel:

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

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

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

· Elizabeth “Liz” Rambo, Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene, Oregon.

Tuesday, April 20, 2021 Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

It seems that at some point in every class the facilitator utters those words, “communication is key.” We all know however, that communication must be effective to make a difference. So, what is the key to making communication effective?

In this episode, we are going to explore communication. How to make it count. How to avoid wasting time for you and your employees. Specifically, we will look at:

· How effective has court communication been during the pandemic?

· Are there different approaches to effectively communicating with employees, with other justice stakeholders, and with the general public?

· How can you obtain employee feedback in the age of Zoom meetings?

· What can we learn from our panel of court administrators?

About Our Presenters

Our Co-Host

Alyce Roberts is recently retired as the Special Projects Coordinator for the Alaska 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 served on the National Association for Court Management’s (NACM) Board of Directors, chaired NACM’s Communication Committee, and she is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management (2010).

Our Panelists

Liz Rambo is the Trial Court Administrator (TCA) for Lane County Circuit Court. As the TCA for one of Oregon’s largest courts, Liz is responsible for all non-judicial court functions including budget, human resources, technology, facilities, and business efficiency.  Liz Liz graduated with high scholarship from Oregon State University with a BA in history and has an MBA from Portland State University.

Rick Pierce is the Judicial Programs Administrator of the Judicial District Operations and Programs Department, 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.  He graduated from Washington and Lee University and received his Masters in Public Administration from Shippensburg University in 1995.

Tracy "T.J." BeMent is the District Court Administrator for the 10th Judicial Administrative District of Georgia. The 10th JAD covers the general jurisdiction superior courts in six circuits in 21 counties.  He was previously the Court Administrator for the Athens-Clarke County Courts in Athens, Georgia, where he worked with all six levels of trial courts in the county.  J.T. received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the George Washington University in Washington, DC, and completed his ICM Fellowship in spring 2015.

As a Court Administrator, Zenell Brown has garnered respect for her ethical leadership and innovation. She has built her approach on three pillars: communication, leadership responsibility and accountability, and diversity and inclusion.  Zenell received her Juris Doctor from Wayne State University Law School; she received her Public Service Administration Graduate Certificate from Central Michigan University, her Court Administration Certificate from Michigan State University, and her Certified Diversity Professional from the National Diversity Council-DiversityFirst.

Tuesday, March 16, 2021, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

The Coronavirus has created a crisis in America’s jails and prisons. Many of these facilities have become COVID hotspots. Although sometimes overlooked, the pandemic also poses an enormous risk for juveniles who are detained. It is surprising to learn that, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, there were actually more young people in detention in December of last year than in April when the pandemic was new. And a greater proportion of those young people were Black and Latino.

To investigate this alarming situation, Drexel University and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have come together in a new project to 1) research juvenile risk assessment, risk reduction, and judicial decision-making during the pandemic; 2) develop a research-based plan to safely lower the numbers of young people confined in juvenile facilities; and 3) use that plan to motivate decision-makers to safely reduce the number of confinements, and therefore help manage the virus.

· How can we benefit from the research these experts are conducting on judicial detention and placement decisions in the time of COVID?

· How will this project change juvenile justice both during and after COVID?

· What lessons have we learned and what advice do we have to share?

About Our Panelists:

The Honorable Gayl Branum Carr is a Judge on the Fairfax Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court in Fairfax County, Virginia. She was appointed to the bench in 1994.  She received her Juris Doctor from the University of Richmond School of Law in 1987 and her Bachelor of Social Work from Virginia Commonwealth University in 1984.  She is a Board Member of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.  Prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Carr served as Fairfax County Assistant County Attorney where she was responsible for prosecuting civil cases involving child dependency matters.  She previously served as President of the Virginia Council of Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Judges and Secretary, National Association of Women Judges District 4 among other leadership positions she holds in the community.

Dr. Naomi Goldstein is a Professor of Psychology and Co-Director of the Law and Psychology Program at Drexel University in Philadelphia.  Dr. Goldstein collaborates with community stakeholders to use social science research to improve juvenile justice policy and practice. Her work centers on the role of adolescent development in legal settings, and the development, implementation, and evaluation of best practices in juvenile justice contexts.  She currently focuses on cross-systems work to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline, reform juvenile probation systems, and reduce racial and ethnic disparities within the justice system.

Bob Bermingham is Director of the Court Services Unit at the Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.  He began his career in juvenile justice in 1986 as child care specialist in the Fairfax County Juvenile Detention Center. During the past 30 plus years Bob has served in many different capacities within the juvenile justice system in Fairfax County.  During his tenure Bob has held management positions with probation services, served as the County’s first Gang Prevention Coordinator, and since 2009 has served as the Court Service Unit Director of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s largest Court Service Unit.

Thursday, February 18, 2021, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Back in October of 2019, for most courts, working remotely from home was a privilege granted to a small number of court employees. It seemed to be granted mostly to Court Technology workers and Executive Office staff who were working on some major project. Who would have thought that just six months later, courts across the country would be engaged in promoting telework to many if not most of their employees? This has been a profound cultural shift that is almost unheard of in court administration.

We now have close to a year’s experience with allowing telework on a widespread basis.

· What has been the experience of court administrators and clerks of court with telework?

· What productivity improvements have we seen?

· What are the obstacles that we have encountered and how have we steered around them?

· What lessons have we learned and what advice do we have to share?

We are talking with court administrators from around the country about the effect teleworking has had on the courts including the technological, cultural, and operational aspects of this dramatic shift in how court work gets done.

About Our Co-Host Panelists 

Co-Host Alyce Roberts is the Special Projects Coordinator for the Alaska Court System.  Alyce is a 2010 Fellow of the Institute for Court Management.

Sam Hamrick is the Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court in Riverside, California.  Sam received his Bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina, his Master's in Public Administration from the Western Carolina University, his Juris Doctor from Campbell University School of Law. 

Terri March is the Court Administrator for the Justice Court in North Las Vegas, Nevada.  Terri received a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree in Business Administration from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.  She is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management (ICM) and is a certified ICM faculty; she received a Master of Arts in Security Studies from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.  

Courtney Whiteside is the Director of the Municipal Court in St. Louis, Missouri.  Previously, Courtney was a court clerk in St. Charles, Missouri, and then as the state’s municipal division courts monitor with the Office of State Courts Administrator and Missouri Supreme Court.

 Debbie Spradley is the Trial Court Administrator with the Clackamas County Circuit Court in Oregon City, Oregon.  Debbie received her Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the California State University, San Marcos.

Thursday, January 28, 2021, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Bonus Episode

Welcome to a bonus episode on how local courts are facing and solving their many complex issues. As mentioned in last week’s episode, these local suburban and rural jurisdictions are very often the representative of the judicial branch in much of America. We are continuing our conversation with clerks of court and court administrators from one and two judge courts around the country. We are chatting about the current issues facing local courts including automated case management systems, teleconferencing, telework, and training in smaller jurisdictions. How are these courts managing those issues, and what advice they have for the rest of us?

About Our Speaker Panelists

Angie Van Schoick is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado.  It is a position she has held since 2013.  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.

Saundra Berry is the Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.  Saundra earned a master’s degree in business administration from Atlanta University and a bachelor of science degree in mathematics from Central State University.

Kelly S. Elliott is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Lee’s Summit, Missouri.  Kelly has more than 39 years of experience in the court and legal field.  Kelly completed her Certified Court Administrator certificate in 2015 and received her Advanced Certified Court Administrator in 2019 through the Missouri Association for Court Administration.

Lindsey Forshee is the Superior Court Administrator for the Tifton Judicial Circuit in Georgia.  Lindsey graduated from the University of Mississippi with a Bachelor of Science degree in Hospitality Management in May 2018.

Danielle Trujillo is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Littleton, Colorado.  Danielle is an innovative public safety professional with an exceptional ability to research and analyze complex issues and provide actionable conclusions.  Through problem solving and critical thinking she utilizes a multidisciplinary approach to bridge gaps in information and processes.   DanielIe started her career in restorative justice and love the ability to directly serve my community through local government.

Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast: January 2021 Episode

When we talk about the challenges confronting America’s judicial branch, we often focus on the concerns and accomplishments of large metropolitan courts. After all, they are often the ones that have more money and more resources to throw at a problem.  However, a survey conducted several years ago, revealed that almost 65% of all courts in the United States had benches of fewer than four judges.

In a large portion of our country, these local suburban and often rural jurisdictions, these local courts are the representative of the judicial branch.  How are these local courts solving their problems? How are they coping with the issues of the day with less staff, less money, often shared facilities, and frequently government entities that are somewhat less respectful of the court as being a separate branch of government?

This month we have invited clerks of court and court administrators of one and two judge courts around the country to chat about their current issues, about how they are managing those issues, and what advice they have for the rest of us.

About Our Speaker Panelists

Angie Van Schoick is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado.  It is a position she has held since 2013.  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.

Saundra Berry is the Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.  Saundra earned a master’s degree in business administration from Atlanta University and a bachelor of science degree in mathematics from Central State University.

Kelly S. Elliott is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Lee’s Summit, Missouri.  Kelly has more than 39 years of experience in the court and legal field.  Kelly completed her Certified Court Administrator certificate in 2015 and received her Advanced Certified Court Administrator in 2019 through the Missouri Association for Court Administration.

Lindsey Forshee is the Superior Court Administrator for the Tifton Judicial Circuit in Georgia.  Lindsey graduated from the University of Mississippi with a Bachelor of Science degree in Hospitality Management in May 2018.

Danielle Trujillo is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Littleton, Colorado.  Danielle is an innovative public safety professional with an exceptional ability to research and analyze complex issues and provide actionable conclusions.  Through problem solving and critical thinking she utilizes a multidisciplinary approach to bridge gaps in information and processes.   DanielIe started her career in restorative justice and love the ability to directly serve my community through local government.

IACA’s Global Conversation Podcast, Thursday, December 31, 2020

Brought to You By the: International Association for Court Administration

The Coronavirus pandemic has been a scourge across the globe. It has also been one of the longest lasting and most widespread crises in recent times. It has affected every component of government in every nation that has had to deal with COVID-19. How have court systems in different countries coped with the pandemic?  This podcast asks court leaders from around the world about issues important to the administration of justice. This episode will explore how courts around the globe have responded to the Coronavirus.

About the Co-Hosts:

Janet Cornell has over 35 years in court leadership including service in general and limited jurisdiction courts. She is a founding and contributing member to www.courtleader.net. She has a Masters in Public Administration from Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and is a Fellow of the National Center for State Courts, Institute for Court Management in Williamsburg, VA, along with certificates from the Leader Coach Institute, Scottsdale, AZ, and the Leadership Institute for Judicial Education, Memphis, TN.

Peter C. Kiefer has served for over 40 years working with trial courts in Oregon, Arizona, and California.  He has consulted with the judicial systems in Liberia, Moldova, and Beirut, Lebanon, as well as being a member of a NACM delegation to visit the People’s Republic of China.  Peter graduated from Santa Clara University with his bachelor’s degree in Political Science, received his Master’s of Public Administration with a specialty in Court Administration from the University of Southern California, and is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management. 

About the Panelists:

Judge Belen G. Salespara-Carasig is the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 296, Paranaque City. She is an alumna of the University of Santo Tomas Facultad de Derecho Civil. Upon her graduation in 2004, she took the Bar Examinations where she garnered a general weighted average of 80.55%.  Upon her assumption into office, her Court was designated as a Special Election Court for Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Election Cases in addition to her regular case load as a MeTC Court. On top of that, her Court was also among the pilot courts for the Speedy and Continuous Trial under AM 15-06-10 SC. 

Judge Sidney H. Stein has been a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York by appointment of the President of the United States since 1995. He received an A.B. degree from Princeton University and a J.D. degree from Yale Law School. Following his graduation, he was a clerk to the Chief Judge of the State of New York and Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. Judge Stein was a partner in a litigation firm he founded from 1981 until his induction as a United States District Judge in 1995.

Noora Aarnio is the Senior Specialist, International Affairs, Department of Development for the National Courts Administration, in Vantaa, Finland.

Ali Shamis Al Madhani is Judge of the Dubai International Financial Center Courts (DIFC), and in April 2008 he was sworn in as a Judge of the DIFC Courts Court of Appeal. He was later appointed as a member of the Joint Committee of the Dubai Courts. H.E. Judge Ali is currently a Senior Judge of Court of Appeal and Head of International Relations of Judicial Affairs.  Judge Al Madhani began his judicial career in 1994 until 1998 as a Public Prosecutor for Dubai Public Prosecution. In 1998, he was appointed by the Ruler of Dubai to serve as a Judge in the Dubai Courts.

 

Thursday, December 17, 2020, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode

Part two of a conversation with our panel of court administrators whose courts have endured multiple concurrent crises. They had to deal with questions of allowing protestors into the courthouse because it is a public building while worrying about vandalism. They struggled to maintain a semblance of an operation with courthouses that were closed for months at a time. They had to keep air circulation open to eliminate the Coronavirus yet close the vents to prevent breathing in wildfire smoke. We have so much to learn from their solutions they crafted.

What did they and their courts have to go through?

How are they modifying their future contingency plans?

What can we learn from what they have had to endure?

About My Co-Host:

Alyce Roberts is recently retired as Special Projects Coordinator for the Alaska Court System.  Alyce is a 2010 Fellow of the Institute for Court Management.

About Our Speaker Panelists:

Our panel includes administrators whose courts have been at the heart of ongoing and devastating crises: months-long protests, wildfires, and the Coronavirus:

Barbara Marcille is the Trial Court Administrator in the Circuit Court for the 4th Judicial District in Portland, Oregon.  She has served in a variety of roles for the courts in Oregon, New Mexico, and North Carolina, and holds a degree in Business from Florida State University.

Michael Roddy is the Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court in San Diego County, California.  Mike served as the California Administrative Office of the Courts’ Regional Administrative, Director for the Northern/Central Region, Executive Officer of the Sacramento Superior Court, and Assistant Executive Officer of the Superior Court of San Diego County,

Elizabeth Baldwin is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Seattle, Washington.  Before moving to Seattle, Beth worked as the Court Administrator of the Fifth Judicial District of Iowa. Beth holds her law degree from the University of Minnesota, her MPA from the Ohio State University and her undergraduate degree from Northwestern University.

Bob Fleshman is the Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court in Napa County, California.  Bob has thirty years of public administration experience, which includes two decades in judicial administration in the California trial court system and Judicial Council of California. In addition to nearly two decades with the California judiciary, Bob spent a decade in public service at the national level in disaster recovery as well as uniformed military service.

Elizabeth Rambo is the Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene, Oregon.  Liz graduated with high scholarship from Oregon State University with a BA in history and has an MBA from Portland State University.  She is a long-time member of the National Association of Court Management and holds a Court Manager certification from the National Center for State Courts· Barbara Marcille is the Trial Court Administrator in the Circuit Court for the 4th Judicial District in Portland, Oregon

Thursday, November 19, 2020, Podcast Episode

Unbelievably, the expression “we are living in unprecedented times” has become a cliché. Since early 2020, so much has happened to us, so quickly, and with so little warning that the only response anyone seems to have is “Well, now what?” Still, because so many extraordinary events have occurred this year, 2020 has much to teach us.

We are talking with court administrators whose courts have endured nightly violent demonstrations that have lasted for months, wildfires that have turned day to night and made the air unbreathable and, of course, the Coronavirus. This is part one of two episodes where our panel shares the lessons they have  experienced first-hand.

What can we learn from the experiences of these courageous court administrators, their staffs, and their courts? How will they update their Continuity of Operations Plans? What advice do they have for the rest of us?

About My Co-Host:

Alyce Roberts is recently retired as Special Projects Coordinator for the Alaska Court System.  Alyce is a 2010 Fellow of the Institute for Court Management.

About the Speaker Panel:

Barbara Marcille is the Trial Court Administrator in the Circuit Court for the 4th Judicial District in Portland, Oregon.  She has served in a variety of roles for the courts in Oregon, New Mexico, and North Carolina, and holds a degree in Business from Florida State University.

Michael Roddy is the Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court in San Diego County, California.  Mike served as the California Administrative Office of the Courts’ Regional Administrative, Director for the Northern/Central Region, Executive Officer of the Sacramento Superior Court, and Assistant Executive Officer of the Superior Court of San Diego County,

Elizabeth Baldwin is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Seattle, Washington.  Before moving to Seattle, Beth worked as the Court Administrator of the Fifth Judicial District of Iowa. Beth holds her law degree from the University of Minnesota, her MPA from the Ohio State University and her undergraduate degree from Northwestern University.

Bob Fleshman is the Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court in Napa County, California.  Bob has thirty years of public administration experience, which includes two decades in judicial administration in the California trial court system and Judicial Council of California. In addition to nearly two decades with the California judiciary, Bob spent a decade in public service at the national level in disaster recovery as well as uniformed military service.

Elizabeth Rambo is the Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene, Oregon.  Liz graduated with high scholarship from Oregon State University with a BA in history and has an MBA from Portland State University.  She is a long-time member of the National Association of Court Management and holds a Court Manager certification from the National Center for State Courts

COOPs and the Coronavirus: The Lessons May Surprise You

Courts are now in the midst of reopening, yet the Coronavirus is still very much with us. Right now, the United States has had over 2.3 million confirmed cases with over 26,000 new cases reported just yesterday. We have experienced 121,000 deaths from the virus and new projections predict that we will top 200,000 by the fall. In over a third of the country, the infection rate is actually increasing. This alone makes this crisis different from any courts have ever faced before. If it were a hurricane, a tornado, or an earthquake, within a few hours to a few days, it would be over; efforts would turn to clean up and repair. We still cannot do that yet, even though the country is working hard to return to normal. Nevertheless, this seems like a good time to look back and take stock of what we have learned so far from the crisis, and what we would change in our Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP).

This week the panel discusses the need for long-term COOP recovery plans; necessary pandemic based legal changes in family court law, protection orders, child custody, domestic violence, and speedy trial requirements; the reality of having no physical location in which to hold court for months; improving emergency communications systems; improving teleworking protocols; identifying court functions that can be permanently performed at home; the radically different design of future courthouses; and changing sick leave requirements from “if sick – stay home,” to “if might be sick – stay home to protect others.”

This Week's Panelists

Zenell Brown has garnered respect both as Executive Court Administrator for the Third Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan, and for her ethical leadership and innovation.  Zenell has a Juris Doctor from Wayne State University Law School, a Public Service Administration Graduate Certificate from Central Michigan University, and  a Court Administration Certificate from Michigan State University.

Dorothy Howell is the Division Manager with Probation for the Superior Court in East Orange, New Jersey, which is part of Newark. Dorothy has a bachelor's degree from Rutgers University and is a Certified Court Executive from the National Center for State Courts.

Richard J. "Rick" Pierce is the Judicial Programs Administrator of the Judicial District Operations and Programs Department, at the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts.  He graduated from Washington and Lee University, and received his Masters in Public Administration from Shippensburg University.

Angela S. "Angie" VanSchoick is the Court Administrator with the Town of Breckenridge Municipal Court.   She received her MSW from the University of Michigan in 2007.   She also assist the Court and with the Colorado Association for Municipal Court Administration.

Elizabeth "Liz" Rambo is the Trial Court Administrator for Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene, Oregon.  She graduated with high scholarship from Oregon State University with a BA in history and has an MBA from Portland State University.

Michael Roddy is the Executive Officer of the Superior Court of San Diego County.  Prior to his current position he served as the California Administrative Office of the Courts’Regional Administrative Director for the Northern/Central Region, and was Executive Officer of the Sacramento Superior Court.

Mark A. Weinberg is the Court Administrator for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Daytona Beach, Florida.  He holds a bachelor's degree in public administration from James Madison University and a master's degree in judicial administration from the University of Denver.

Your Court Restarting Trials? Here’s What Works

As courts are reopening, many have already held their first trials. Others are planning to start trials in the next month or two. Whether they are conducted in-courtroom, or via video conference-calls, trials are going to look different for some time into the future. What will change for those coming to the courthouse? What will a trial on a video conference-call look like? To help manage this process, The Federal Judiciary just released a report on June 4 titled, “Conducting Jury Trials and Convening Grand Juries During the Pandemic.”

The panel discusses the experience of courts that have already held some trials; others courts that are starting up pilot programs in their states; the dramatic increase in the space needs for jury trials (it is currently taking three courtrooms to hold a single trial); supplemental jury questionnaires specifically addressing jurors and the Coronavirus; masks, goggles, and gloves, disinfecting routines; videos describing what courts are doing to keep jurors safe, and even the possibility of video conferencing the voir dire.

This Week's Panelists

Zenell Brown has garnered respect both as Executive Court Administrator for the Third Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan, and for her ethical leadership and innovation.  Zenell has a Juris Doctor from Wayne State University Law School, a Public Service Administration Graduate Certificate from Central Michigan University, and  a Court Administration Certificate from Michigan State University.

Richard J. "Rick" Pierce is the Judicial Programs Administrator of the Judicial District Operations and Programs Department, at the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts.  Prior to his current position, he was the district court administrator for Cumberland County.  He graduated from Washington and Lee University, and received his Masters in Public Administration from Shippensburg University.

Angela S. "Angie" VanSchoick is the Court Administrator with the Town of Breckenridge Municipal Court.   She received her MSW from the University of Michigan in 2007.   She also assist the Court and with the Colorado Association for Municipal Court Administration.

Elizabeth "Liz" Rambo is the Trial Court Administrator for Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene, Oregon.  She graduated with high scholarship from Oregon State University with a BA in history and has an MBA from Portland State University.

Mark A. Weinberg is the Court Administrator for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Daytona Beach, Florida.  Prior to his current position, he was an administrator with the court in Maricopa County, Arizona.  He holds a bachelor's degree in public administration from James Madison University and a master's degree in judicial administration from the University of Denver.

Leave a comment at CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org

Budget Strategies: What Have We Learned from the Lockdown?

About three weeks ago, May 14, 2020, the financial crisis was looming, but the details were still vague. Since then several courts have been forced to begin budget cuts that have included layoffs and furloughs. Yet even now all we can say about the national situation is, it remains fluid. Dread over the upcoming economic statistics turned to excitement on Friday, June 5th as the unemployment numbers were better than expected. Still, unemployment remains well above the highest numbers seen during the 2008 recession. What do we know now after several weeks have gone by? Have courts adapted their plans to the changing economic situation?

This week panelists are asked a question by listener Jeff Barlow on the difference between the “thin the soup” and the “ration the soup” strategies for court budget reductions. The panel also talks about how to manage through layoffs and employee furloughs; charging for establishing time payment schedules; extending those schedules out to help defendants through the recession; coping with an expected increase in default judgments, landlord-tenant disputes, and home foreclosures; finally panelists predict what the next 12 months will hold for the courts.

This Week's Panelists:

Zenell Brown has garnered respect both as Executive Court Administrator for the Third Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan, and for her ethical leadership and innovation.  Zenell has a Juris Doctor from Wayne State University Law School, a Public Service Administration Graduate Certificate from Central Michigan University, and  a Court Administration Certificate from Michigan State University.

Richard J. "Rick" Pierce is the Judicial Programs Administrator of the Judicial District Operations and Programs Department, at the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts.  Prior to his current position, he was the district court administrator for Cumberland County.  He graduated from Washington and Lee University, and received his Masters in Public Administration from Shippensburg University.

Angela S. "Angie" VanSchoick is the Court Administrator with the Town of Breckenridge Municipal Court.   She received her MSW from the University of Michigan in 2007.   She also assist the Court and with the Colorado Association for Municipal Court Administration.

Elizabeth "Liz" Rambo is the Trial Court Administrator for Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene, Oregon.  She graduated with high scholarship from Oregon State University with a BA in history and has an MBA from Portland State University.

Chris Gaddis has been the Court Administrator for the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County for 4 years. Prior to working for the court, he served in law enforcement. He is a member of the Washington State Jury Diversity Task Force and the Washington State Supreme Court Minority and Justice Commission Public Trust and Confidence Committee.

Michael Roddy is the Executive Officer of the Superior Court of San Diego County.  Prior to his current position he served as the California Administrative Office of the Courts’Regional Administrative Director for the Northern/Central Region, and was Executive Officer of the Sacramento Superior Court.

Mark A. Weinberg is the Court Administrator for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Daytona Beach, Florida.  Prior to his current position, he was an administrator with the court in Maricopa County, Arizona.  He holds a bachelor's degree in public administration from James Madison University and a master's degree in judicial administration from the University of Denver.

Leave a comment at CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org

The scourge of the Coronavirus is a national emergency unlike anything we have seen in modern times. It is affecting all aspects of our lives and work. The virus is having a profound impact on how American courts are coping. Throughout the crisis, we will have weekly podcast episodes with a “rotating panel” of guests that will answer the question, “How are courts and court administrators dealing with the coronavirus on a daily basis?”

This week's panelists:

Zenell Brown  is the Executive Court Administrator in Detroit, Michigan.  Zenell has a Juris Doctor from Wayne State University Law School, a Public Service Administration Graduate Certificate from Central Michigan University, a Court Administration Certificate from Michigan State University, and is a Certified Diversity Professional from the National Diversity Council-Diversity First.

Mark A. Weinberg  is the Court Administrator for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Daytona Beach, Florida.  Mark holds a bachelor's degree in public administration from James Madison University and a master's degree in judicial administration from the University of Denver.

Angie VanSchoick is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the Town of Breckenridge Colorado. She currently serves as President of the Colorado Association for Municipal Court Administration (CAMCA).  Angie is a licensed macro level social worker in the State of Colorado and Michigan, receiving her MSW from the University of Michigan. 

Liz Rambo is the Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Trial Courts in Eugene, Oregon.  Liz graduated with high scholarship from Oregon State University with a BA in history, has an MBA from Portland State University, and holds a Court Manager certification from the National Center for State Courts.

Tracy "T.J." BeMent is the District Court Administrator for the Tenth Judicial Administrative District (which covers superior courts in six circuits and 221 counties). His main office is in Athens, Georgia. T.J. received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the George Washington University in Washington, DC, and completed his ICM Fellowship in spring 2015.

Rick Pierce is the Judicial Programs Administrator for the Judicial District Operations and Programs Department with the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts.  Rick is a graduate from Washington and Lee University, and received his Masters in Public Administration from Shippensburg University.

Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) has already brought us general business tools that courts can use to assist in automating work, analyzing documents, and conducting legal analysis. As a start, courts will need to put their information into an electronic format that can be used by A.I. tools. They will also need to re-engineer their business practices. Small courts will have to be assertive in making their needs known. But, exactly how will A.I. tools help courts and what will we, as citizens, give up in privacy in order to maximize A.I.’s potential? Alan Carlson along with co-host Rick Pierce discuss how A.I. will be used in the courts and how soon it will be here. 

About the Presenter

Alan Carlson retired at the end of 2016 after working 40 years in state trial courts. He was the CEO (court administrator, clerk of court, and jury commissioner) of the Orange County (CA) Superior Court, the CEO in San Francisco Superior Court, the Executive Officer of the Monterey Superior Court, and the Assistant Executive officer of the Alameda County Superior Court. Mr. Carlson also was president of JMI, Director of Court Services at the CA AOC, and a Staff Attorney at NCSC. Mr. Carlson received a Distinguished Service Award from the California Judicial Council in 2016, the NACM Award of Merit in 2012, and the ABA Robert B. Yegge Award in 2010. He was inducted as a member of the NCSC’s Warren Burger Society in 2012. He received a law degree from Hastings College of Law and a BS in engineering from University of California at Berkeley.

About the Co-Host

Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator, has served in the field of court administration for the past thirty years. Prior to his appointment at the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Pierce was the district court administrator for the 9th Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Cumberland County. As judicial programs administrator, he is responsible for implementation of programs and education in court administration at the general and limited jurisdiction court levels. Pierce was elected to the National Association for Court Management Board of Directors in July of 2017 and currently serves as a director and vice chair of the Governance Committee of NACM. Pierce served as the President of the Mid-Atlantic Association for Court Management from 2005-2006.He also served as President of the Pennsylvania Association of Court Management in 2000-2001. A graduate of Washington and Lee University, Pierce received his Master’s in Public Administration from Shippensburg University in 1995.