|
News & Events
Themes and programs for 2010 educational sessions focus on funding, re-engineering, and delay reduction. The NCMC Executive Committee, meeting on October 14, 2009, authorized that all future conferences beginning with the 2010 Annual Meeting in Los Angeles, scheduled to take place October 20-23, 2010, be sited at educational facilities managed and operated by the urban court host rather than locating the event at a hotel. Under this plan, the Conference avoids the usual and customary contractual entanglements and expenses (i.e. guaranteed blocks of rooms, meal costs, etc.) that are part of destination hotel events. Afterhours dinners, receptions, and meetings may then be scheduled in a variety of locations in the Conference city convenient to those attending the Annual Meeting. Also, participants are free to select their own accommodations whether that means staying at hotels near the educational sessions or with friends or family in the area. “This new way of operating will not only cut NCMC’s exposure and costs for annual meetings and education sessions, but permit attendees to have a broader choice in seeking their own lodging,” commented Rufus King, Washington D.C. Superior Court Senior Judge and NCMC Board Chairperson. “Many urban courts have training and education facilities that rival those offered by hotels. What’s more, these venues are in the midst of active metro courts where conferees can witness first-hand some of the excellent and special programs offered by a host metro court. Courts learn from each other; it’s one of the most effective ways the National Conference can facilitate change and improvement.” The National Center for State Courts, a public benefit corporation dedicated to court improvement which acts as the secretariat and association services agent for the Conference, has started to move in this direction with their educational arm, the Institute for Court Management. “It is necessary to develop more cost-effective ways to operate in the continuing tough economic climate government and courts face where travel and training funds are often the first to be axed by budget cutters,” Gordon Griller, NCMC’s Executive Director and Director of Trial Court Leadership for the National Center explained. “In this business model, a full day of programming is possible since breakfasts and lunches are normally catered at the educational site and often coupled with a panel or working sessions rather than having to waste time moving back and forth from hotel dining rooms to seminar spaces,” noted Judge Charles (Tim) McCoy, Chief Judge, Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, the host court for NCMC’s 2010 annual gathering. Judge McCoy will become President of NCMC in January 2010. Annual Meetings to be conducted at host court sites, not hotels, to save costs and enhance choices for participants Chief Judge Charles (Tim) McCoy, Executive Court Administrator Jack Clarke, Deputy Court Administrator Joi Sorensen and the judges and staff of the Superior Court in Los Angeles County have begun already to stretch out the educational program for the 2010 Annual Meeting to be sited at the court’s main courthouse in the heart of Los Angeles. Among the timely topics under consideration are:
More information about the 2010 Annual Meeting and Education Seminars will be posted on this website. The targeted audiences for the Conference are presiding and leadership judges, as well as court administrators, in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas having populations of 500,000 or more, and the biggest urban areas, regardless of population size, in smaller populated states where a metropolitan court catchment region may not reach a half-million residents. 11/18/2008 November 2008 Workshop on Reducing Trial Court Delay in Metropolitan Courts a success; more workshops planned for 2009 Over 36 participants attended a special 1½ day, hands-on seminar in Phoenix over Veterans Day (November 10-11) to learn practical techniques from caseflow experts to decrease delay in the flow of cases. Court leaders from Pittsburgh (Common Pleas Court in Allegheny County), Anchorage (Superior Court in Anchorage) and Chicago (Circuit Court in Cook County) brought teams that included not only judges but prosecutors and defense lawyers as well. Other courts represented were from Cleveland, Omaha, Dayton and urban areas of Arizona. The National Conference of Metropolitan Courts (NCMC) has a long history of fighting trial court delay in metro courts. The seminar was a renewal of that commitment. Other sponsors included the National Center for State Courts, Institute for Court Management, The National Judicial College, Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Arizona Courts, Trial Courts of the Maricopa County Arizona and the National Association for Court Management. Also in attendance were representatives from the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System IAALS) at the University of Denver. Faculty included Professor Ernie Friesen, Hon. William Dressel, President of The National Judicial College, David Steelman, Principal Management Consultant at the National Center, John Greacen, Greacen Associates, LLC., Hon. Louraine Arkfled, member of the ABA Board of Governors, Hon. Robert D. Myers (ret), former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Hon. Joseph Farina, Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Florida in Miami/Dade County, and Pamela Gagel, Assistant Director of IAALS. Myers and Farina are NCMC Board members. Reviews by attendees were very positive, including such comments as… ”The assignment of and direct interaction with a faculty member to discuss and address issues was a real plus.” “Myers and Friesen as a team were excellent. The other faculty were great, too, and interacted with each other in very enlightening ways for the audience.” “Folksy and hands-on; court specific. By all means, continue the small group sessions.” “The multiple experts were all outstanding! Their breath of experience and frankness about what works and what doesn’t was extremely insightful. I would recommend this program to other urban court leaders in a New York minute.” “An emphasis on early judicial intervention and ways to do it was very helpful.” “This was a unique and very beneficial gathering of experts on a scale I have never seen.” “I am energized about sustained caseflow management and motivated to make things happen.” “The practical concepts of reducing touches, meaningful events and early intervention are invaluable and provide the foundation on which we will build a more streamlined caseflow.” “It was very important for our team to hear about other jurisdictions, common problems faced by them and us, as well as suggested, practical solutions. Group discussions were highlights.” 3/27/2008 Today, National Public Radio (NPR) aired an interview by Ari Shapiro with Mary McQueen, President of the National Center for State Courts, and various other state court leaders and justice system experts about growing state and local court budget problems. The overriding theme: During tough economic times court workloads often increase, in spite of demands by state and local governments for lower budgets and increased fees, causing many courts to question their ability to provide access to constitutionally or statutorily mandated justice services. Click on the NPR Internet link below to hear the short five-minute interview. A growing number of courts, now nearing 50% of those surveyed by the National Center according to McQueen, say current budget demands are affecting core functions. This is the direct link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89140782 3/20/2008 The slowing economy is impacting state, county and local governments. Lower sales tax revenues, property tax reductions resulting from home devaluations, and other faltering revenue sources are making it necessary for legislative bodies to request courts cut current expenditures and reduce future budgets. Many urban trial courts are facing hiring freezes, reductions in force, frozen capital programs, and across-the-board decreases. Budget cutback strategies and lessons learned from similar economic problems occurring after the 9/11 tragedy from 2002-2004 are being dusted off and re-worked by chief judges and executive officers. Alan Carlson, President of the Justice Management Institute, a non-profit court consulting, research and education group headquartered in Denver, and a NCMC Board member, presented a quick review of the current situation at the NCMC Annual Meeting in Las Vegas (February 20-22, 2008). His workshop, entitled The Mounting 2008 Budget Crisis: Effectively Addressing Reduced Revenues, Hiring Freezes and Budgetary Mandates, provides insight for judicial leaders on the common problems and possible responses for urban courts. Carlson outlined a useful thought process urban court policymakers may wish to use in reviewing possible revenue increases over short and long term time spans, and “intelligent” ways to explore possible decreases ranging from “nick and cut” one-time responses to more structural changes targeting business reorganization and “rational deconstruction” of programs by abandoning non-mandated services and performing required functions in new, more cost-effective ways. Although data from urban courts about budget problems is spotty1 , there is little doubt that a nationwide funding dilemma among trial courts is growing and likely will continue for at least a few years into the future. Increase Revenues Short Term / One Time Strategies Redirect resources by moving a funding stream from one source to another to offset expenses in the General Fund. Miami/Dade Superior Court channels user fees to its self-help and DWLS programs to avoid drawing money from operating dollars. Redirect expenses by moving costs to another fund or revenue source. Orange County CA has shifted some expenditures from state to local funding. Fulton County GA has moved some capital project costs from the General Fund to DHS grants. Other courts report heavier use of reserve funds and borrowing or leasing to finance capital projects or equipment purchases. Long Term / Multi-Purpose Strategies Enhance Revenue Collections by increasing the rate of collection. Counties in CA have grown fine revenues by converting defaults to a civil judgment and adding a civil assessment fee. AZ, MN and MO courts have increased collection rates on unpaid fines, fees and costs by outsourcing early in the “debtflow process” to technology integrators who are breaking into the traditional collections market. The National Center for State Courts conservatively estimates there is $5B in uncollected court debt nationwide. The most productive collection programs target limited jurisdiction traffic and parking fines. Develop New Revenue Sources through fees or assessments. Maricopa County AZ has developed new fees for post-dissolution proceedings and probation surcharges. Miami/Dade FL imposed service fees for providing interpreters in civil cases and drug court. King County WA has incorporated new fine revenue from photo radar (traffic safety cameras). Several states have added a myriad of assessments to fines over the years. Leverage Resources through coordination and partnerships among trial courts or between courts and other agencies or institutions. Such approaches include sharing administrative support services, the use of volunteers and channeling work to other agencies such as promoting self-help literature and assistance through public and neighborhood libraries. Reduce Expenditures Short Term / One Time Strategies These approaches are designed to have minimal impact on programs, services and service levels. The expectation is that there will be a return to normalcy before the impact on services and performance is destructive or irreversible. “Nick and Cut” tactics include across the board percentage cuts. Both state and locally funded courts in CA, AZ, MD and NJ are responding to executive and legislative branch requests to submit decreased budget requests for FY 2009 from two to twenty percent. Travel and training cuts have been imposed by many judicial authorities. Budget freezes at prior year levels are commonplace as well as developing early retirement incentives to reduce staff levels in large-scale ways. Stop or postpone supply and/or equipment purchases, upgrades and improvements. Montgomery County MD has frozen a 300K square foot addition to the courthouse. The CA Legislature has postponed the creation of new judgeships scheduled for 2008. Long Term / Multi-Purpose Strategies “Rearranging the Deck Chairs” focuses on changing the way courts do business. By strategically performing services more effectively, programs are allowed to continue to meet their objectives but at a lower cost. The ultimate goal is to promote permanent savings by using resources more wisely. An example is the work being done in Maricopa County AZ to promote faster front-end felony case processing to reduce jail overcrowding and the cost of housing inmates for the entire justice system. San Jose CA promoted new, more cost-efficient ways to use information technology by introducing new electronic traffic citation devices to reducing error rates from 10% to 2% which cut staff costs to fix errors by 2 FTE positions, eliminated duplicate data entry, and reduced citation filing time. The new program was paid for from federal grant money. Changing business practices, however, can be a long and cumbersome process. “Rational Deconstruction” asks the questions: What could the court stop doing, or dramatically do differently? The expectation is to introduce a permanent, fundamental reduction in costs. Making these decisions requires court policymakers to identify key roles and core functions for the judicial branch, determine what the court is mandated to do by law, explore whether the court must perform its obligations in a required manner, research the possibility of another agency performing court services, and clarify the level of service required. Maricopa County AZ trial courts identified mandated functions, prioritized non-mandated programs, and assigned costs during an economic downturn in 2003. They are re-visiting those issues. King County WA has re-opened a zero-base budgeting process examining the need for numerous court programs. On the upside, rational, permanent reduction does afford court leaders an opportunity to eliminate a program or service that has little support or minimal value. Ways to Minimize Proposed Court Reductions Exempt Mandated Costs from Percentage Cuts by identifying “irreducible” costs and arguing that percentage reductions not apply to these costs. An example is judges’ salaries and benefits. Garner Support with the Funding Body. This should be a ubiquitous approach court leaders follow in both good and bad times. Budgeting is a political process in large measure. The court’s story needs to be told in real and moving ways. Stakeholders, especially non-lawyers, who benefit from court programs can be very effective in lobbing on behalf of the judicial branch. Establish Credibility of Court Spending by routinely demonstrating cost effectiveness and accountability in programs and practices. The use of the National Center for State Courts’ CourTools performance measures has helped many urban trial courts in working with their funding bodies. Documenting the Impact of Cuts on public safety and judicial services has proven to be an effective approach for many urban courts in dissuading budget officials from draconian reductions. Caution in painting realistic scenarios is important, however. Lump-Sum and Carry-Forward Budgeting are useful ways to let the court decide where to make cuts or channel money from savings and cost reductions. CA courts, as an example, have the discretion under their new state funding statute to lump sum budget. ________________________________________ 1 Examples of state revenue shortfalls sampled in February 2008 range from $3.8 B in California for FY 08 (estimated to be $15B in FY 09) to $500M in New York in FY 08. The majority of states are facing budget difficulties according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. |
