|
|
|
 |  |
 |
 |
WSBA Info | |
|
For Lawyers | |
|
For the Public |  |
 |
For the Media |  |
|
CLE |  |
| | Bench Bar Guidelines | News Releases | Publications | |
|
|
August 2000The "New" Board for Judicial Administration: Recreating the Voice of the Judicial Branchby Jan Michels and M. Wayne Blair In mid-June 2000, The Olympian Editorial Board described Chief Justice Guy as "calming yet enlightened," commenting that after years of tension and drama on the high court, he had restored civility and respect. Yet, according to The Olympian, his greatest accomplishment will not be only in uniting the nine justices, but in uniting the state's entire judiciary. "He reached out to the lower courts and encouraged judges at all levels to see that they are all in the same business of delivering justice." What the "Chief" (a familiarity he welcomes) did was recreate the Board for Judicial Administration (BJA) and turn it into a governing body for the judiciary — like a board of directors — and in doing so, he also reestablished the ability of the judicial branch to "speak with one voice." The Old BJA The BJA was created in 1986 under the leadership of Chief Justice Vernon Pearson. From the beginning, the Board consisted of two judges from each of the four levels of court (supreme, court of appeals, superior, and courts of limited jurisdiction) and two non-voting representatives from the Washington State Bar Association. Its initial purpose was for the judiciary to take uniform positions before the legislature on matters of interest to the judiciary. Over time, the BJA's initial effectiveness eroded, partly because it was largely controlled by the serving chief justice (several of whom wanted little to do with it), and partly because the BJA's decisions required unanimity among all voting members. As a result, important but divisive issues to the judiciary were never even discussed by the BJA, let alone voted upon. In 1993, based upon recommendations from a commission entitled "Washington Courts 2000," but also known as "Gates II," the focus of the BJA was broadened to include policy to enhance the administration of justice. At the same time, its membership was expanded to include three representatives from the three lower court levels. While these changes had the effect of broadening the BJA's focus, and thus seemingly generating more interest within the judiciary, its effectiveness was still problematic. The New BJA The new BJA, resulting from recommendations of the Justice, Efficiency and Accountability Commission and authorized by amendments to the court rules (BJAR) approved by the Supreme Court on January 6, 2000, effectively creates a judicial branch republic. The Board now consists of five members from the appellate courts (two from the Supreme Court, one of whom shall be the chief justice, and one from each division of the Court of Appeals), five members from the superior courts (one of whom shall be the president of the Superior Court Judges' Association), and five judges from courts of limited jurisdiction (one of whom shall be the president of the District and Municipal Court Judges' Association). The WSBA still has two nonvoting representatives.[1] Another nonvoting position was added: the Office of the Administrator for the Courts (OAC). Members are selected based upon a process established by their respective judicial association or court level, and must have a "demonstrated interest in and commitment to judicial administration and court improvement." BJAR 2(a). Both the Superior Court Judges' Association and the District and Municipal Court Judges' Association established procedures in which their representatives would be selected by their memberships, although the procedures for each association are different. Under its new governance, the BJA is co-chaired by the chief justice and a BJA member elected by its Board. Its decisions are made by majority vote, provided there is one affirmative vote from each level of court. Dedicated staff at OAC has been assigned to the BJA, and has been given independent responsibility. New Plans for the BJA In June 2000, the BJA, with its newly elected co-chair[2] and representatives,[3] held a two-day organizing and long-range planning retreat. After hearing status reports from all the judicial branch boards, commissions and affliliates,[4] the new BJA members began sorting out their internal organization and future roles. They decided that their purpose is "to adopt the policies and provide the strategic leadership for the courts at large, enabling the judiciary to speak with one voice." This role is a threshold to the BJA's audacious goals (as high-level goals should be) of securing adequate funding, maintaining the independence of the judicial branch, preserving and improving the core business functions of the third branch, and assuring access to justice. The BJA has initially decided to organize into six committees: executive, long-range planning, core mission/best practices, legislation, Project 2001, and public trust and confidence — membership in most committees will reach beyond BJA members. The WSBA is represented on each of these committees. Project 2001 Project 2001 is the response to the somewhat uncoordinated and sometimes fractious court improvement suggestions made in 1999 and 2000. The new BJA has adopted the development of a 2001 court improvement initiative as one of its most important and immediate goals, aiming to have a bill ready for the 2001 legislative session. Under the leadership of Chief Justice Guy and Co-chairs Paul Steer (the architect of the BJA's new governance) and Judge Thomas Swayze (ret.), the Project 2001 steering committee and five workgroups are working diligently to develop the components of the court-improvement initiative: trial court administration (chaired by Judge James Cayce), case management (chaired by Judge Michael Donohue), warrant resolution (chaired by Judge Vance Peterson), domestic relations (chaired by Judge Faye Kennedy), and jurisdiction and portability (chaired by Wayne Blair).[5] More than 100 judges, lawyers, clerks, administrators, other elected officials and citizens are involved in Project 2001 and its workgroups. Components of this court-improvement initiative will be reported in Bar News and on the WSBA website (www.wsba.org) as they develop. The Judicial Branch Voice In his book Creating the Judicial Branch: The Unfinished Reform, Robert Tobin[6] traces the struggles of the third branch of government to emerge in state government as administratively and organizationally coherent. He argues that when state trial courts are inextricably intertwined with local government, the separation of powers and judicial independence are only concepts. The new BJA creates an administrative and organizational infrastructure for the third branch and begins to establish the voice of the judicial branch at the state level, where separation of powers and judicial independence can be asserted. That voice will make its first strong statement in its court-improvement suggestions for the 2001 legislative session. Thank You, Chief Chief Justice Richard Guy describes himself as an activist chief. He is! In today's vernacular, "he's got the judges together." On the theory that you cannot reform that which does not exist, the Chief has now put in place, with pivotal support from the rest of the Supreme Court and other state and local judges, the infrastructure necessary for the judicial branch to achieve the needed court improvements in funding, access, best practices, and the public's trust and confidence, and stand strongly as the third branch.
NOTES1. The WSBA's representatives currently are Wayne Blair and Richard Eymann, with Jan Eric Peterson as alternate. 2. Judge James Murphy of the Spokane Superior Court and president of Superior Court Judges' Association is the elected co-chair. 3. BJA representatives are Chief Justice Richard P. Guy, co-chair; Judge James M. Murphy, co-chair; Justice Charles Z. Smith; Judge William W. Baker; Judge Christine Cary; Judge F. James Gavin; Judge Vicki L. Hogan; Judge Stephen J. Holman; Judge Ronald Kessler; Judge Frank L. Kurtz; Judge Robert McSeveney; Judge James M. Riehl; Judge Michael P. Roewe; Judge Jay B. Roof; Judge Karen G. Seinfeld; M. Wayne Blair; Richard Eymann; Mary McQueen and Jan Eric Peterson. 4. Boards, Commissions, Affiliates and Committees: Access to Justice Board for Court Education Public Legal Education Commissions Affiliates Committees 5. President-elect Jan Eric Peterson sits on the Project 2001 Committee, and the WSBA has members on all workgroups. 6. Robert Tobin, Creating the Judicial Branch: The Unfinished Reform, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, 1999.
|
