Court Leader's Advantage

September 22, 2022, A Question of Ethics Episode: A Conversation on Courts and Ethics We are not stockbrokers or day traders, but in our role as court employees we learn a lot. We know about patterns of litigation against businesses and against professionals in the community. We know about protection orders filed against real estate agents; we know about leaking basement litigation; we know about roofing contract litigation. Many cases are sealed and confidential, but most are wide open and available to the public if it takes the time to do the research. Due to the nature of our jobs, we learn about inside information more frequently than the public. · What is the appropriate use of this information? · Have you ever applied information obtained at work to our personal lives? · Do you think it is appropriate for front line staff to share inside court information? · Are there some applications of inside information that are ethically okay? Today’s Moderator Karl Thoennes: Court Administrator for the Second Judi

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

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

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 co

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

September 20th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode Obtaining customer feedback, obtaining usable feedback, obtaining enough of it to be able to rationally modify court programs, all of these are major hurdles. And yet getting good customer feedback is so important. It is important to complete the loop: to plan, to act, to check results, and then to refine. And this effort has been made even more complicated by COVID. LaGratta Consulting, with the backing of the State Justice Institute, has developed the Court Voices Project piloting 12 courts from around the country. These courts are collecting real-time, feedback from staff and court users about their pandemic experiences and their ideas. Some of the questions the Court Voices Project is trying to answer include, what percentage of court users prefer virtual hearings and why; have court users found new communication channels like phone banks and online chat features to be more convenient and more accessible; and what ideas do line-staff have for improvi

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 · Th

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 r

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 Por

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 al

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 safe

April 19th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode One unintended consequence of the COVID pandemic has been a phenomenon called “The Great Resignation.” Large numbers of American workers have either quit their jobs or (after being laid off) have chosen not to return to their previous employer. CBS News has reported an estimated 20 million people left their jobs in only the second half of 2021. Why is this occurring? A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that of those who left their jobs, almost a two-thirds (63%) cited low pay. Almost two-thirds also cited no opportunity for advancement. Well over half (57%) felt they were disrespected at work. Slightly less than half (48%) cited child-care issues. An interesting side note: only 18% cited their employer’s vaccine mandate as a reason for leaving. Since we appear to be coming out of the COVID pandemic, is this Great Resignation on the wane? Well, a survey conducted by ResumeBuilder.com estimates that almost a third of workers (32%) plan to leave

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 o

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 to

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 q

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 tod

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 fron

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

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?

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