Court Leader's Advantage

April 15, 2025, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast EpisodeEmployee hiring is at a crossroads. With artificial intelligence (AI) revolutionizing the way resumes and applications are screened, employers—including courts—are rethinking how they identify top talent. At the same time, the push for greater diversity means evaluating candidates from vastly different backgrounds using a common set of standards.Courts are grappling with severe staffing shortages, struggling to find candidates who not only have technical expertise but also the interpersonal skills to navigate high-stakes legal and personal matters with litigants and families. With these challenges converging, one question looms large: How do you hire the right candidate in this volatile environment?This month we will explore the dynamic tension between the quest for increased diversity and keeping evaluations unbiased. We will discuss the quest to find a balance at a time when artificial intelligence is potentially changing the very rules for selecting new talent.Today's PanelCreadell Webb Chief Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer, Philadelphia CourtsT.J. BeMent Court Administrator, 10th Judicial Administrative District, Athens, GeorgiaElizabeth Moss Human Resources Director, Alaska Court System, Anchorage.Sara Kujawski Manager, HR Talent Strategy & Management, State Court System, St. Paul, MinnesotaBecome Part of the Conversation!Leave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org

Question of Ethics Conversation: January 23, 2025Artificial intelligence has the potential to reshape the judicial system. AI-powered tools, from legal research assistants to sentencing algorithms and customer service chatbots, offer efficiency but also introduce risks, particularly bias. Additionally, the confidentiality of court records and legal proceedings becomes a pressing concern, as AI systems require vast sums of data for training—potentially exposing sensitive information to breaches or misuse.While AI chatbots improve accessibility by guiding litigants through procedural questions, the possibility of providing incorrect information and the prohibition against providing legal advice highlights the need for careful human oversight.As courts integrate AI into their operations, how do we ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness? What ethical and legal questions arise?Today's Moderator Creadell Webb, Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District in Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaToday's ModeratorCreadell Webb Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District in Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaToday's PanelCourtney Whiteside Director, Municipal Court St. Louis, MissouriAlison Braaton Clerk of District Court, Grand Forks County, North DakotaAndrea Powers Human Resources Director, Idaho Court System, Boise, IdahoAmy Emig Business Development Manager, Enterprise Technology Services Division, Oregon Judicial Department, Salem, OregonKelly Hutton Court Administrator, North Dakota Court System, Grand Forks, North DakotaPeter Kiefer host of the Court Leader's Advantage Podcast SeriesNickolas Brackley Technology and Solutions Specialist, Enterprise Technology Services Division, Oregon Judicial Department, Salem, OregonNorman Meyer, Retired Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New MexicoRoger Rand IT Manager, Multnomah Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon

Question of Ethics Conversation January 23, 2025 EpisodeArtificial intelligence has the potential to reshape the judicial system. AI-powered tools, from legal research assistants to sentencing algorithms and customer service chatbots, offer efficiency but also introduce risks, particularly bias. Additionally, the confidentiality of court records and legal proceedings becomes a pressing concern, as AI systems require vast sums of data for training—potentially exposing sensitive information to breaches or misuse.While AI chatbots improve accessibility by guiding litigants through procedural questions, the possibility of providing incorrect information and the prohibition against providing legal advice highlights the need for careful human oversight.As courts integrate AI into their operations, how do we ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness? What ethical and legal questions arise?Today's Moderator Creadell Webb Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District in Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaToday's PanelCourtney Whiteside Director of the Municipal Court in St. Louis, MissouriAlison Braaton Clerk of District Court in Grand Forks County, North DakotaAndrea Powers Human Resources Director of the Idaho Court System, BoiseAmy Emig Business Development Manager, Multnomah Circuit Court, Portland, OregonKelly Hutton Court Administrator, North Dakota Court System, Grand ForksPeter Kiefer Host, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast SeriesNickolas Brackley IT Specialist for the Oregon Judicial Department Circuit Court, SalemNorman Meyer Retired Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of New Mexico andRoger Rand IT Manager for the Multnomah Circuit Court, in Portland, Oregon

March 18, 2025, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast EpisodeThe relationship between cities and their municipal courts is often marked by underlying tension. While courts must function independently, their close ties to city governments can create friction over revenue, resources, and oversight.Underfunded municipal courts frequently struggle with case backlogs, understaffing, and limited access to justice. Judicial independence and the autonomy of other elected officials, such as the Clerk of Court, can also be at risk when city governments exert influence over judicial appointments, salaries, or case outcomes. This interference undermines the courts' ability to serve as impartial arbiters of the law.This month we will explore the tension between cities and municipal courts. We will also discuss how municipal courts can navigate these challenges.Today's Panelists• Lizzie Alipaz, Court Clerk and Deputy Town Clerk for the Town of Timnath, Colorado• Lori Tyack, elected Clerk of Court for the Franklin County Municipal Court in Columbus, Ohio and• MiHa Kapaki, Court Administrator for the Grays Harbor County District Court in Montesano, WashingtonLeave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org

February 18, 2025 , Court Leader's Advantage Podcast EpisodeUnderstanding trauma-informed engagement is increasingly essential for court employees and judges. Many—if not most—individuals who interact with the court system have experienced significant trauma. Whether they are litigants, witnesses, or defendants, they often carry the invisible weight of past or ongoing adversity.A trauma-informed approach helps court professionals recognize signs of trauma and respond in ways that foster trust, reduce stress, and minimize the risk of re-traumatization. Additionally, this approach supports the well-being of court employees by equipping them with strategies to navigate difficult interactions while mitigating the impact of secondary traumatic stress on themselves.This month, we are exploring the role of trauma-informed engagement in court interactions. How can courts further integrate this critical practice to enhance fairness, empathy, and effectiveness in the justice system?Today's Panel: Carrie Summer-Namura, Program Coordinator for the Clackamas County Circuit Court, in Oregon City, OregonJill Houck, Trial Court Administration for the Superior Court in Cape May and Atlantic Counties New JerseyTrent Baker, Program Coordinator for Early Childhood Court, Dependency Drug Court & Juvenile Drug Court, 17th Judicial District, Fort Lauderdale, FloridaLeave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org

November 21st, 2024, Question of Ethics Conversation  Copilot describes data literacy as understanding, interpreting, and using data effectively. It involves knowing how to read charts and graphs, understanding statistics, and being able to critically evaluate data sources for their reliability and relevance. Just as how literacy with words helps you comprehend and communicate in language, data literacy empowers you to navigate and make sense of the vast amounts of data we encounter daily. Problem Analysis is an often-overlooked component of decision-making. In this episode we discuss data literacy and how it intersects with ethics in the courts. Episode Moderator: Roger Rand, IT Manager, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon Episode Panel: Courtney Whiteside, Director, Municipal Court, St. Louis, Missouri. Courtney is also the chair of the NACM Ethics Subcommittee. Stacy Worby, State Jury Coordinator, Alaska State Court System, Anchorage. Ellen Haines, Supervisor, IT Training & Data Analysis Department, Multnomah Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon Peter Kiefer, Host, Court Leaders Advantage Podcast Series, Auburn, New York. Jeff Chappell, Court Administrator, Municipal Court, O'Fallon, Missouri. Creadell Webb, Chief Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Officer, 1st Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Leave a question or comment at ethics@nacmnet,org Join the Question of Ethics Conversation held after the Subcommittee meetings every fourth Thursday of the month at 2:00 pm ET.

January 21, 2025, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Last month we talked about the five biggest issues facing young workers. This month we will look at the five biggest opportunities young workers have in 2025. The five are: The opportunity to Develop Valuable Digital Skills & Technological Expertise Access to Continuous Learning and Development to expand their knowledge & skills The Chance to Build a Global Network of peers and mentors The ability to excel at Collaboration & Connectivity which enhances team dynamics, and The opportunity to find a career where they Feel Valued & Seen Today's Moderator: Erika Schmid, Supervisor, Multnomah Circuit Court, Portland Oregon Today's Panel: Samantha Wallis, Assistant Court Administrator, District Court, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho Daniel Meza Rincón, Deputy Juvenile Court Administrator, Utah Administrative Office of the Courts, Salt Lake City Victoria Murray, Business Intelligence Analyst & Supervisor, Maricopa Superior Court, Phoenix, Arizona. Carrie Summers-Nomura, Program Coordinator, Clackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon City, Oregon Courtney Whiteside, Director, Municipal Court, St. Louis, Missouri Leave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org

December 17, 2024, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode This month and in January we're looking at the 5 biggest issues and the 5 biggest opportunities facing young workers today. This month we will consider the five biggest issues which include: • Work-Life Balance • Job Security • Mental Health and Well-Being • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) • Career Development and Growth Opportunities Moderator Erika Schmid Supervisor, Multnomah Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon Today's Panel Samantha Wallis Assistant Court Administrator, District Court, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho Daniel Meza Rincón Deputy Juvenile Court Administrator, State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Victoria Murray Business Intelligence Analyst & Supervisor, Maricopa Superior Court, Phoenix, Arizona. Carrie Summers-Nomura Program Coordinator, Clackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon City, Oregon Courtney Whiteside Director, Municipal Court, St. Louis, Missouri Leave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org

September 26, 2024, Question of Ethics Conversation Problem Analysis is an often-overlooked component of decision-making. There are several highly effective business problem analysis models, each tailored for different types of challenges. Some of the most popular models: • Root Cause Analysis which includes techniques such as “The Five Whys” and the “Ishikawa Fishbone Diagram” • SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) • Gap Analysis which includes identifying gaps between where an organization is and where it needs to be, then focusing on areas of improvement. There are several ethical concerns when conducting good problem identification and analysis. • What if you cannot obtain the political buy-in needed to properly analyze the problem? • How do you properly identify and analyze a business problem with a strong political undercurrent? • How do you proceed if a solution is already laid out for you? • When we become operationally aligned with a decision-maker do we run the risk of “preemptive avoidance” where we decide not to initiate a topic because we know it will provoke a negative response? Today's Panel • Samantha Wallis - Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho • Rick Pierce - Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts • Stacy Worby - State Jury Coordinator for the Alaska Court System • Creadell Webb - Chief Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Officer, 1st Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Leave a question or comment at ethics@nacmnet,org Join the Question of Ethics Conversation held after the Subcommittee meetings every fourth Thursday of the month at 2:00 pm ET.

October 15, 2024, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Forbes Magazine recently published an article titled “10 Biggest Business Trends Everyone Must Be Ready For Now.”   The list? 1. Generative Artificial Intelligence Will Be Everywhere. 2. Demand for Interpersonal Skills 3. The Move to Sustainable Business 4. Business Resilience 5. Personalization of the Customer Experience at Scale 6. A Customer Experience Revolution 7. The Data Economy 8. The Search for Skills Solutions 9. Employees Demand Remote Work opportunities 10. The Shift to Diversity and Inclusivity  Many court administrators appear to see artificial intelligence as an IT issue. However, it is definitely a consumer-based concept now. A short time ago, the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz announced its top 100 consumer AI apps.  The most popular one by far? ChatGPT, trailed by other tools including Microsoft CoPilot, Google's Gemini and Bing, Character AI, Perplexity, Claude, and even Grammarly. These tools can create compelling text in seconds.  It can significantly shorten the job of developing reports, briefs, presentations, and emails.  There has also been considerable discussion about the problems with these tools.  Hallucinations Lack of Transparency Appropriating Personal & Confidential Information Bias   This month we're looking at the court's position on using consumer AI tools.  Is it occurring? Are courts aware of these tools?  Do we think that staff might be using them with or without the knowledge of upper management? Are courts even concerned about them?  Today's Panel:  Roger Rand Information Technology Manager, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon T,J BeMent District Court Administrator, 10th Judicial Administrative District, Athens, Georgia Lori Tyack Clerk of Court, Franklin County Municipal Court, Columbus, Ohio Dana Bartocci Human Resources & Development Director, Minnesota Judicial Branch  Leave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org

June 27, 2024, A Question of Ethics Conversation Robert Granzow, Director of the Office of Judicial District Security at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, talks about safety, security, and dealing with disabilities in the court environment. Equal access to justice can only be realized in an environment of safety and security.  We must ensure the safety of those with and those without disabilities. Disabilities can include, physical, traumatic, psychological, mental illness, congenital birth defects, personality disorders, addictive disabilities, as well as cultural and language differences. We live in a rapidly changing threat landscape. Courts all stakeholders at the table and need to conduct a comprehensive security assessment, preferably using a gap analysis. Courts must have political buy-in from the highest level. We need to make data-driven decisions. Solutions include training in de-escalation and non-escalation; recognizing the signs of people in crisis; using new classes of employees such as court navigators.  We need to consider new innovative and technological solutions such as expanded use of videoconferencing, innovative security wanding techniques, and using AI to identify litigants who are suspicious. You don't want to miss this insightful discussion. Joining the Conversation: Rick Pierce - Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts Roger Rand - IT Manager for the Multnomah Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon Courtney Whiteside - Director of the St. Louis County Municipal Court Stacy Worby - State Jury Coordinator for the Alaska Court System Erika Schmid - Supervisor, Multnomah Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon Peter Kiefer - Host of the Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Series Creadell Webb - Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer 1st Judicial District of Pennsylvania Leave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org

September 17th, 2024 Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode The world-renowned technology advisory firm, The Gartner Group, has come out with its Nine Future Work Trends for 2024. These are trends that Gartner has said will reshape the future of work. They are driven by the need to attract and retain top talent, reduce operational costs, and enhance productivity.  The trends are: · Skills Will Become More Important than Degrees and Certificates in Recruitment and Selection · Career Stereotypes Will Collapse in the Face of a Changing Workforce · Employee Conflict Resolution will be the Next “Must Have” Management Skill · The “Cost of Work” Crisis Will Reach a Breaking Point as employees calculate the cost of traveling every day to and from a brick & mortar courthouse · The Four-Day Workweek Becomes Routine · We will stop talking about DEI.  It just becomes the Way We Work  · Generative Artificial Intelligence Experiments Will Likely Yield Hard Lessons & Painful Costs.  These experiments will emphasize the need for good training on how to use Generative AI.  · Artificial Intelligence Will Create Work Opportunities.  Entirely new classes of specialists will be needed to effectively use AI · Climate Change Protection Will Become the New “Must-Have” Employee Benefit.   In this episode we are going to take a look at the job skills of the future and how we are going to find candidates that possess them.  We will look at the shifting focus from degrees and certificates to skills and competencies.   This approach will allow for a more inclusive and diverse workforce by valuing practical skills and experience over formal education and training.  We will look at one specific future skill that will be in high demand, that being workplace mediation.  As workplaces become more diverse and remote work continues to grow, misunderstandings and conflicts will also likely grow. Effective mediation will be essential to keep an organization working smoothly. Today's Panel · Hilarie Gaylin Certified Coach, Trainer, Facilitator, and Organizational Consultant · Tim Rupert, Human Resource Officer, Municipal Court, Toledo, Ohio · Jason James, Court Administrator, Municipal Court, Dalton, Georgia · Dana Bartocci, Human Resources & Development Director Minnesota Judicial Branch Saint Paul, Minnesota · Jamie Velazquez, Organizational Development Analyst, Superior Court, Orange County, California

August 20th 2024 Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode The 2024 NACM annual conference brought together court professionals from across the country to share best practices, address common challenges, and discover innovative solutions.  Titled Leadership Opportunities & Challenges for Our Nation's Courts: Leading Leaders into the New Tomorrow, it convened a dynamic mix of professionals, including many emerging voices in the field, who are passionate about the future of our judicial system.  From discussions on the latest technological advancements like AI to strategies for enhancing access to justice, the conference provided a rich platform for learning and collaboration. This month we are asking young court professionals the question, “What was your biggest takeaway from this year's NACM Conference?”  You will hear directly from young attendees about valuable insights, practical tools, and inspiring connections.  Whether you are a seasoned administrator or just starting on your career, this episode will allow you to understand what were the most impactful takeaways from the NACM 2024 Annual Conference.  Today's Panel       Carrie Summers-Nomura, Program Coordinator, Clackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon City, Oregon Tiffany Totah, Court Administrator, Municipal Court, Victoria, Texas Lizzie Alipaz, Court Administrator, Municipal Court, Timnath, Colorado LaTricia Kinlow, Judicial Branch Administrator, Municipal Court, Tukwila, Washington MiHa Kapaki, Court Administrator, District Court, Grays Harbor County, Washington  Samantha Wallis, Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur D'Alene, Idaho

July 16th, 2024, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode In previous podcasts, we have discussed the unprecedented hiring crunch facing our country.  Intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been characterized by a significant mismatch between the supply of, and demand for young talent.  Despite robust economic recovery efforts, employers in general and courts in particular are struggling to fill empty desks.  All the while, jobseekers are running up against barriers that make traditional careers less attractive.  Throughout this challenge, a question badgers many employers:  What do young job applicants want? Panelists on previous episodes have suggested a lack of flexible scheduling, hybrid work options, and career advancement opportunities as reasons job seekers go elsewhere. Are these the factors now driving job candidates or does it just come down to money?   This month we will take a deeper dive into how courts are scrambling to recruit and retain skilled employees.  Questions we will explore include: What do job candidates want out of a position with the courts? Has criticism of the courts affected recruiting? What can courts do to improve career development for young employees? Do courts promote skills in areas other than administration?  Should we? Today's Panel Richard Abbott, Program Director for Juvenile & Family Services at the Administrative Office of the Courts in Annapolis, Maryland Keenon Simmons, Chief Probation Officer for the Superior Court in Atlantic & Cape May Counties, New Jersey Patricia Norwood-Foden, District Court Administrator for the 15th Judicial District in Chester County, Pennsylvania, Jamie Velazquez, Organizational Development Analyst for the Superior Court in Orange County, California

June 18th Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Civil filings are falling.  They have been for some time.  In fact, most court filings have been on a slow decline.  In 2018, The National Center for State Courts put out a bulletin stating that nationally every major case category had declined from 2008 to 2016. There are indications that in some states (California for example), the decline in civil filings started as far back as 1980.  This gradual decline seems little affected by economics, court organization, the presence or absence of court self-help centers, the state of the local bar, the type of case management system the court uses, or the amount of filing fees charged.  With the possible exception of Texas, this decline appears widespread.  This inevitably leads to the critical yet unanswered question “Why is this happening?” This month we're talking about a new book just out by Alan Carlson and John Greacen called What is Happening to State Trial Court Civil Filings?  We will explore questions including: · Why didn't we court professionals see this coming a long time ago? · Are there changes in our society that are leading to changes in how people view the courts? · Do we have any idea how people are getting their disputes resolved if it is not by going through the courts? · Are courts actually ready to do the work to find out what is happening with filings?   Today's Panel  Alan Carlson: retired court administrator of the Superior Court in Orange County, California; John Greacen: nationally known consultant on courts and court administration; Marcus Reinkensmeyer: Deputy State Court Administrator for the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts.

March 28, 2024, A Question of Ethics Conversation Join Kevin Bowling as we discuss the ethical issues surrounding the burgeoning topic of courts' use of artificial intelligence (AI).  Kevin discusses a definition of AI and specifically generative AI, existing practical uses in the courts, some misuses of IA, the need for policy and data governance, ethics issues, and the need for transparency to promote public trust and confidence.  Kevin also publicly acknowledges the work of Roger Rand and Casey Kennedy, the entire Joint Technology Committee, as well as gives a sneak peek of the, soon-to-be-released, NACM AI Guide.   Moderator  Kevin Bowling, Retired Circuit Court Administrator, Ottowa County, Michigan   Joining in the Conversation     Courtney Whiteside Director, Municipal Court, St. Louis, Missouri Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer; First Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Erika Schmid, Supervisor, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon Stacy Worby: State Jury Coordinator, Alaska Court System, Anchorage

May 21st Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Although they are not universally accepted, court self-service centers can help prepare self-represented litigants to navigate the exotic terrain of the courtroom.  They can also expedite court proceedings and weed out inappropriate arguments.  Less obvious but equally as important, the information these centers provide helps boost the public's trust and confidence in the courts. We well know that the public's perception of courts has been woefully lagging over these last several years.         A basic tenet of self-service centers, in fact, a tenet of all public-facing court staff is “we cannot give legal advice.”  Yet this prohibition is more nuanced than it first appears.   There are a host of questions that seem more procedural than legal.  Questions many self-represented litigants may not even know enough to ask about.  How much should courts tell litigants? How much information should courts volunteer even if the litigants don't know to ask?  This month we are going to look at what courts can, do, and should tell litigants.  This episode presents several situations in which self-represented litigants often find themselves.  These are situations that do not immediately appear to involve giving legal advice.  Rather they seem, on their face, procedural.  But they are obscure enough that only individuals who have been in the system might know their implications.        Today's Panel  Nathan Devries, Supervising Attorney, Self-Help Services Unit, Superior Court, San Bernardino, California; Robby Southers, Managing Attorney for the Self-Help & Dispute Resolution Center, Franklin County Municipal Court in Columbus, Ohio; Jena Elsnes, Program Manager, Minnesota Judicial Branch's Self-Represented Litigant Program; Danielle Trujillo Court Administrator for the Municipal Court, Littleton, Colorado

January 25, 2024, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode Welcome to the latest episode of A Question of Ethics Conversation.  The topic for this discussion is Organization Fairness.  The October 26th, 2023, Question of Ethics Conversation hosted by Samantha Wallis, brought up many interesting questions.  One set of questions revolved around the concept of fairness. We are all dedicated to fairness and take it seriously, Canon1.3 of NACM's Model Code for Court Professionals speaks to fairness.  It reads that the court professional makes the court accessible and conducts his or her business without bias or prejudice. The Model Code actually mentions Fairness nine different times. Fairness, however, is subjective. Everyone has their own idea of what is fair.  What I consider fair may not be the same as how you see things. What are the perceptions of fairness in an organization, particularly a court organization? Employees often express perceptions of fairness, with which we, as managers, might disagree. Although not all employees hold these perceptions, they are common enough that it might be instructive to ask if we, as managers, can craft responses that can convince employees of a different view of fairness.  Can we come up with something more than just saying “the organization has determined the following policy is fair, the topic is not up for debate.” This Conversation recounts three specific perceptions that some employees have. The panel will discuss if there is some sort of response that could persuade employees of the validity of a different concept.  In essence, is there a response that might change “hearts and minds?”    ·         Perception 1 A manager needs to be able to perform the desk work of every employee he or she manages. If he or she cannot, that manager has no right to conduct performance reviews of the employees. ·         Perception 2 Managing employees is just using common sense.  There is no great skill involved in management.  It is ridiculous that courts pay exorbitant salaries to managers for just using their common sense. ·      Perception 3 The employee's manager is not the employee's friend.  If an employee gets into trouble at work and they need an advocate.  The manager will not save them.   Today's Moderator Peter Kiefer: Host of the Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Series Today's Panel   Samantha Wallis: Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer; First Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Stacy Worby: State Jury Coordinator, Alaska Court System, Anchorage Rick Pierce: Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania  Join the Question of Ethics Conversation held after the Ethics Subcommittee meetings every fourth Thursday of the month at 2:00 ET.   Email us at: ethics@nacmnet.org

April 16th Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode It may have started with the advent of no-fault divorce in the 1970s.  But the numbers of litigants representing themselves in court has regularly increased year after year.  This fact has presented a challenge for the community and for courts.  People pursuing legal matters in court and who have limited legal experience are at a decided disadvantage.  They are at greater risk of ending up with an unfortunate (or maybe even a disastrous) outcome.  Likewise, unschooled self-represented litigants in a courtroom can be time-consuming and lead to uncomfortable situations for litigants, judges, and court staff.   As a result, many courts around the country have created centers to assist self-represented litigants in pursuing their cases and appearing in court.  The presence of court self-service centers is a mixed bag.  Not all courts have them and the centers themselves can range from the very modest to the very extensive.  This month we're going to look at self-service centers.  Some questions we are looking into include: ·  What do the varieties of centers look like? ·  Are the costs of running them worth the benefits? ·  What are the criticisms of the centers and what is the response? · What advice do our panelists have for courts considering starting a center and for courts that already have one? Today's Panel Angela Polk, Supervisor of the Legal Resource Center for the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon Kristi Cox, Chief Deputy County Clerk for the 44th Circuit Court in Howell, Michigan Salvador Reynoso Managing Attorney for the Self-Help Services Unit of the Superior Court in San Bernardino, California Robby Southers Managing Attorney for the Self-Help and Dispute Resolution Center, Franklin County Municipal Court, Columbus, Ohio

March 19th Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode In April of 2022, we hosted a podcast episode on “The Great Resignation.”  At the time large numbers of employees were resigning, or (after being furloughed for some period) were deciding not to return to work.  The assumption back then was that this was a temporary phenomenon. Once COVID receded, people would return to work, and things would get back to normal.  It is now a year and a half later.  COVID is receding, (or at least we think it is). Yet many courts still struggle with staffing shortages.  And this is not just limited to courts.  The World Bank has predicted that over the next decade, the number of people of working age in the U.S. (between 15 and 65) will decline by over 3 percent. This is a prospect that courts will find increasingly challenging.  This month we're going to look at ongoing staff shortages and the battle courts are having to recruit new talent.  Not every court is short-handed; not all positions suffer from chronic vacancies.  On the other hand, I can't think of a court administrator who has not told me their court struggles to find court reporters, interpreters, and IT staff. Today we are going to delve into several questions:     Who is struggling to hire new employees?  Are there types of employees that are more challenging to recruit? Has your court experienced operational challenges due to staff shortages? What are job candidates asking for these days regarding working conditions? Are you exploring new ways to recruit employees?   Today's Panel          Audrey Anger: Assistant Court Administrator for the City of Olathe, Kansas Danielle Trujillo: Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Littleton, Colorado Dana Bartocci: Human Resources & Development Director, Minnesota Judicial Branch, St. Paul, Minnesota MiHa Kapaki: Court Administrator & Probation Director, Grays Harbor District Court, Montesano, Washington Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Officer, 1st Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  Leave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org

February 20, 2024, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has spawned numerous questions, both practical and ethical.  These are questions that courts are going to have to grapple with in the near future, including:   Given the complexity of AI algorithms and the tens of thousands of data points used for training, can we reasonably expect that a human reviewing AI results would actually uncover bias or uncover anything significant?    Our court system is designed to move in a slow and deliberate fashion to render decisions; AI is evolving at breakneck speed. Can we afford to wait years for courts to answer questions about AI if it is changing by the month?        AI uses data as training to make better decisions in the future.  Since it does not publicly reveal sensitive or confidential information about individuals, are privacy concerns about AI irrelevant?   Automated chatbots can save time, save money, and provide a sympathetic ear for litigants who want to talk about their case.  But do folks who call into self-service centers really want to talk to an automated electronic voice even if that voice gives good sound answers?    Will AI be a savior to rescue us from the drudgery of boring repetitive work or is it an existential threat to our way of life?   Here to discuss these questions are: Kevin Bowling: retired Court Administrator for the Circuit Court in Ottawa County, Michigan Roger Rand: Information Technology Manager for the Multnomah County Circuit Court, in Portland, Oregon.  Roger is also on the NACM Board of Directors Casey Kennedy: Director of Information Technology, for the State Office of Court Administration, Austin, Texas Alan Carlson: retired Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Orange County, California Stacey Marz: Administrative Director for the Alaska State Court System in Anchorage, Alaska

January 16th Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Artificial Intelligence.  The media is filled with discussions of its potential to dramatically change our lives.  It will increase productivity; it will relieve us from having to make mundane decisions; it will reveal heretofore unseen connections. Conversely, it may eliminate jobs, take away our ability to make complex decisions, fill the airwaves with misinformation, and even threaten our way of life.  In addition, many think that artificial intelligence (AI) is just too obscure.  It is, frankly, not that important to normal people and everyday life.  Some of the questions we will explore include: Are there real day-to-day applications of AI affecting courts now?   Is AI applicable just for large metropolitan courts or is it also a tool for suburban and rural courts? Are there aspects of AI that courts need to safeguard against mow? Here to discuss these questions are:  Kevin Bowling: retired court administrator for the Circuit Court in Ottawa County, Michigan Roger Rand: Information Technology Manager for the Multnomah County Circuit Court, in Portland, Oregon.  Roger is also on the NACM Board of Directors Casey Kennedy: Director of Information Technology, for the State Office of Court Administration, in Austin, Texas Alan Carlson: retired Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Orange County, California, and Stacey Marz: Administrative Director for the Alaska State Court System in Anchorage, Alaska

December 19th, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode The struggle to equitably and effectively allocate court resources is a challenge that faces every state.  Everywhere the question is the same: how do you allocate funds fairly to courts of different sizes and may even perform different operations such as having a Treatment Court? How do you not disadvantage suburban and rural courts when taking into account the size of each court, its caseload, the demand for service, the degree of innovation, the staffing needs of justice partners like the prosecutor, the public defender, probation, and law enforcement, allocation history, and special circumstances?  Additionally, many court budget staffing discussions are not held on a statewide level, they are local discussions where a court might find itself competing with the police, sanitation, or parks and recreation.  What do these courts use to convince funding bodies to provide new resources?  Add to the mix the specter that some funding bodies (often cities) place their own agenda on courts to be revenue generators.  Is the answer a preset formula that with each new judicial position comes a designated number of additional staff?  Is there another, possibly a better methodology?   This month we're going to explore the struggle that suburban and rural courts endure in the competition for new budget resources.    Here to discuss this issue are Angie VanSchoick:  Town Clerk and Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the town of Silverthorne, Colorado Stacey Fields: Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Crestwood, Missouri Danielle Trujillo:  Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the City of Littleton, Colorado, and Frank Maiocco: Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Kitsap County, Washington

October 26, 2023, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode   Today's Question of Ethics Conversation looks at several ethical challenges regarding employee performance. It discusses four questions many supervisors face in their oversight role. Can you, as a supervisor, remain friends with colleagues once you have become their boss?  This is an especially critical question when it comes time to promote someone, and you promote your ‘friend'. -Are performance reviews good or bad? Are they useful tools for supervisors and managers? -Is it ethical to use a personal relationship to get promoted in the workplace?      Is it ethical to treat each worker differently instead of having the same rules for everyone? (i.e., working from home)?   This Question of Ethics Conversation looks at how technology plays a role in workplace culture for court users, for one's co-workers, and on a court's institutional knowledge.   Today's Moderator Samantha Wallis: Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho Today's Panelists Lizzie Alipaz:  Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the town of Tinmath, Colorado Peter Kiefer: Retired Court Professional Norman Meyer:  Retried Clerk for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico Erika Schmid: Supervisor for the Multnomah County Circuit Court, 4th Judicial District, Portland, Oregon Karl Thoennes: Court Administrator, 2nd Judicial Circuit, Sioux Falls, South Dakota Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer; First Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

November 21st, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Suburban and rural courts often face distinctive issues.  These issues are different from those of truly small courts, but also different from the issues faced by massive metropolitan court organizations. It is tempting to always talk about big problems in big courts. It is easy to forget that two-thirds of the courts in our country are benches made up of fewer than 10 judges.   Today's episode is going to revisit a relatively recent phenomenon: remote hearings. But it is going to look at it from the perspective of courts that are sometimes overlooked: suburban and rural courts.   As recently as 2019, remote hearings were an oddity.  Few courts offered them; few parties asked for them. Then came COVID and remote hearings became a regular part of many court calendars.  The long-term future of remote hearings is still a question mark. Most litigants, attorneys, and the general public seem to enjoy the convenience of appearing remotely. Judges seem less enthusiastic.   Appearance rates are up; more cases are being cleared.  But, technology glitches, scheduling problems, and the casual nature with which some litigants treat remote hearings dampens that support.  How do suburban and rural courts address the challenges that come with remote hearings. Here to discuss this issue are Angie VanSchoick:  Town Clerk and Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the town of Silverthorne, Colorado; Stacey Fields: Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Crestwood, Missouri; Danielle Trujillo:  Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the City of Littleton, Colorado; Frank Maiocco: Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Kitsap County, Washington

August 24, 2023, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode Today's Question of Ethics Conversation looks at workplace culture and technology. It focuses on the ethical challenges to workplace culture and technology as it pertains to Canon 1.1 of the NACM Model Code of Conduct which states that a court professional faithfully carries out all appropriately assigned duties, striving at all times to perform the work:           Diligently - characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic effort.         Efficiently - capable of producing desired results with little or no waste (as of time or materials)          Equitably - dealing fairly and equally with all concerned          Thoroughly -  in a complete or thorough manner          Courteously - marked by respect for and consideration of others          Honestly – without cheating, genuine, without frills          Openly -exposed to general view or knowledge          Within the Scope of the court professional's authority.   According to the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), an organization's culture defines the proper way to behave within the organization. This culture consists of shared beliefs and values established by leaders and then communicated and reinforced through various methods, ultimately shaping employee perceptions, behaviors and understanding. Organizational culture sets the context for everything an enterprise does. Because industries and situations vary significantly, there is not a one-size-fits-all culture template that meets the needs of all organizations.   Workplace culture has a profound effect on any organization as these statistics bear out. 53% of working Americans who have left a job due to workplace culture report leaving because of their relationship with their manager. 94% of people managers agree a positive workplace culture creates a resilient team of employees. 97% of executives agree their actions have a direct impact on workplace culture.   Technology is a tool, but it can have a dramatic effect on workplace culture. "Technology can be used to enhance information and operations, improve public access to court information and services, and reduce administrative costs while increasing efficiency in case processing.” This Question of Ethics Conversation looks at how technology plays a role in workplace culture for court users, for one's co-workers, and on a court's institutional knowledge.   Today's Moderator Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer; First Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania   Today's Panelists Courtney Whiteside: Director, Municipal Court, St. Louis, Missouri Karl Thoennes: Court Administrator, 2nd Judicial Circuit, Sioux Falls, South Dakota Peter Kiefer: Retired Court Professional Samantha Wallis: Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho Ceclia Garner: Court of Court, General District Court, Richmond, Virginia

October 17th Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode In the middle of last month's episode, the question was asked, should recidivism be a trial court performance measure? All the panelists responded negatively, but the reasons they gave are worth hearing. We have all heard the criticism that the criminal justice has turned into a “revolving door.”  Defendants are arrested and tried, most are convicted and sentenced.  Some are incarcerated, others are placed on probation. The recidivism rate for incarcerated defendants is nearly 50%; almost one out of every two incarcerated defendants is rearrested.  The recidivism rate for defendants on probation is not much better.  43% of probationers are rearrested within 3 years.   Traditionally, there are four main purposes of criminal justice sentencing. 1) Incapacitation, 2) punishment, 3) deterrence, and 4) rehabilitation.  Rehabilitation as a goal is not easily measured and yet it seems as if it is one of the standards by which the public gauges the success of the criminal justice system. In the simplest terms, the purpose of rehabilitation is to ensure defendants stop committing new crimes and become productive citizens.  Recidivism is therefore an accepted measure for success in rehabilitation.   One of the reasons why recidivism is difficult to measure lies in the system itself.  The criminal justice system is made up of multiple components: police, courts, defense and prosecution, the sheriff and state prisons for the incarcerated, probation departments for other defendants.  What is the degree of responsibility each of these components bears in rehabilitating defendants?  Is rehabilitating defendants even really a goal anymore?  We're only going to scratch the surface in today's discussion.  This month we're looking at one of the basic purposes of criminal justice and if we should use recidivism to measure that purpose.           Today's Panelists Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts Cheryl Stone, Court Administrator for the Superior Court, Clark County, Washington Greg Lambard, Trial Court Administrator for the Superior Court, Middlesex Vicinage, New Brunswick, New Jersey Kent Pankey, Senior Planner, Judicial Services Department, Supreme Court of Virginia Liz Rambo – Trial Court Administrator for the Circuit Court in Lane County, Oregon

September 19th, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode As court leaders, we are inundated with statistics and research.  We have all been taught to have a healthy skepticism of statistics.  We are given advice that includes: ask questions, go to the source of the research, and expose the assumptions behind the analysis.  We have seen what happens when research is not properly evaluated.  As a consequence, we are compelled to ensure that statistical analysis is objective and unbiased, valid and reliable, able to be replicated, and relevant to the work of your court.   Having a healthy skepticism is all the more important in this day and age of polarizing misinformation.  Most of us have heard that old joke “73.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.” We don't want to be the one who is naïvely hooked by questionable statistical research.  This advice is all so easy to give, but just how do we hone our critical thinking skills?   Imagine this common scenario, you are in a session with 500 attendees at a national conference.  The presenter describes an exciting but controversial concept.  At some point, that presenter voices that time-worn introduction “as studies have clearly shown . . .”  How do you, as a critical thinker, react?  How do you overcome some of the very real logistical issues this scenario presents?  For example: · In the Q&A at the end of the session, do you stand and challenge the presenter to describe the referenced statistical research?  Many find this kind of challenge awkward or possibly even rude. ·Do you simply assume someone else in the audience will assess those studies and get back to you? ·Do you spend the time to locate the studies and try to understand them?  What if you are curious about the topic? Do you start to think that it is a drain on your work time? ·  What if you actually locate the studies and spend the time analyzing them.  You end up with some legitimate questions.  The sample size seems small or the consultants doing the evaluation were paid by the very program they were evaluating.  Do you tell your judges; do you tell your fellow professionals in other courts?  How do you do that? · Or do you just regress into becoming generally negative about all information and default to Mark Twain's popular adage, there are “lies, damn lies, and statistics”?      This month we're looking at how we can remain savvy critical thinkers about statistics without ending up cynical and jaded.      Today's Panelists Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts Cheryl Stone, Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Clark County, Washington Greg Lambard, Trial Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Middlesex Vicinage, New Brunswick, New Jersey Kent Pankey, Senior Planner, Judicial Services Department for the Supreme Court of Virginia; and Liz Rambo – Trial Court Administrator for the Circuit Court in Lane County, Oregon.

August 15th, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Leaders deal with multiple circles of individuals.  Two that you as a court administrator or Clerk of Court deal with are 1) those who report to you and 2) those you either report to or deal with as fellow stakeholders.  Those reporting to you include your team, and the larger office or court staff.   The next circle centers on your Presiding Judge, and your bench; it includes your funding body such as your City Council, County Board, the state administrative office, or the state legislature.  It extends to your fellow justice partners such as the Sheriff, the Prosecutor, the bar, and community organizations.   The leadership skills needed to deal with both circles include team building, mentoring, strategic thinking, organization, persuasive speaking, and concise effective writing.  But you deal with your fellow stakeholders (principally your judges), differently than with your court staff.  Your judges are leaders in their own right; usually, they have their own vision which or may not align with yours; they are well-educated and may not be particularly interested in your counsel.  In addition, many judges may have developed their own concepts of managing people, they are used to handing down orders from the bench and having them obeyed, many are elected so they have their own specific constituency, and court staff often have a direct informal pipeline to individual judges.  Rick Pierce described the role of the administrator dealing with this circle as being an “influencer.” This month we're looking at leaders as influencers of others in power. What is this environment really like? Are there different skills necessary or just different ways of applying the skills you have?  What is your mindset when working with your bench?   Today's Panelists Rick Pierce: Judicial Programs Administrator, Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts   Melinda Brooks: Grants and Special Projects Manager, Municipal Court, Franklin County, Ohio   Ellen Procida-Fisher: Operations Manager, Superior Court, Cape May, New Jersey,   JoShonda Guerrier: Interim Chief Administrative Officer, Juvenile Court, Fulton County, Georgia, and   Lori Tyack: Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court, Franklin County, Ohio

July 18th, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode As one progresses higher in an organization the challenges of leadership can become a regular test.  Increasingly responsible positions can draw leaders away from the very people they first came to rely on.  The demands of those you report to can outweigh the needs of the people who support you.   How do you keep grounded with the people who depend on you for Leadership?  And what happens when things do not go well?  Not every plan succeeds.  How do you lead when the court must close a project or endeavor because it is not achieving the expected results?  Finally, great leaders are intuitive.  They possess the emotional intelligence necessary to provide staff with the motivation they need to continue working toward an organization's mission.  What part does emotional intelligence play in Leadership?   This month we're looking at leadership in the courts.  Keeping in touch with staff, leading when a plan is not successful, and the role of emotional intelligence.    Today's Panelists    Stacey Fields, Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Crestwood, Missouri   Katie Hempill, Office Administrator for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C.   Lizzie Alipaz, Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court in Timnath, Colorado Janet Cornell, Consultant and Retired Court Administrator and Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts

June 20th, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Is there another concept in court administration that has been discussed, studied, and analyzed more often than Leadership?  For many the image of a leader that immediately comes to mind is the person who confidently says, “follow me, I know the way.”  It implies that the leader can always be relied upon to “have the answers.”   That image, however, doesn't always work.  Sometimes the outcome is being negotiated and cannot be revealed, sometimes the solution is dictated by someone else.  Examples that come to mind include how to manage flex time and remote work, how to absorb a 10% budget cut, or how to oversee diversity, equity, and inclusion in your court.  This month we're looking at leadership in the courts and how we handle day to day challenges. Today we are going to ask folks who deal with questions of leadership on a daily basis.   Today's Panelists    Stacey Fields, Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Crestwood, Missouri. Stacey has worked in the judiciary for 12 years. She has been a member of NACM for 5 years and serves on the Conference Development Committee.   Katie Hempill, Office Administrator for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. Katie .  Katie received her bachelor's degree in International Relations from Marshall University and graduated this May with her master's degree in Government studies from the Harvard Extension School.   Lizzie Alipaz, Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court in Timnath, Colorado. Lizzie speaks Spanish, English, German, and Portuguese. She received her Juris Doctor Degree from Universidad Católica Boliviana and Universidad Privada de Bolivia.   Janet Cornell, Consultant and Retired Court Administrator. Janet has over 35 years in court leadership including service in general and limited jurisdiction courts. She is a founding and contributing member to http://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.   Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts. Rick has served in the field of court administration for the past 29 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, he was the assistant administrator for the 9th judicial district from 1988-1997. A graduate from Washington and Lee University, Pierce received his Masters in Public Administration from Shippensburg University in 1995.

April 27, 2023, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode “Quiet Quitting.”  It is a topic that many of us have heard about.  In an era where it is a challenge to hire employees, is “Quiet Quitting” an emerging change in the contract between the court and employees or is it just a new term for some staff not doing their jobs?   In the past it has been given many names: “retiring in place”, “phoning it in,” or “checking out.”  What makes this iteration unusual is that it seems to be a mantra heard from younger workers.  Millennials and Gen Z workers have often uttered this expression.   -What is Quite Quitting?          -What are the ethical challenges the court faces to ensure professionalism diligence of staff?          -How can we ensure that we have a common understanding with staff?          -Is this a new term for an old problem?          -What Should we do about It? Today's Moderator Eric Silverberg: Court Administrator, Municipal Court, Tucson, Arizona   Today's Panel Courtney Whiteside: Director, Municipal Court, St. Louis, Missouri Kent Pankey: Senior Planner, State Supreme Court, Richmond, Virginia Norman Meyer: Retired Clerk of Court, United States Bankruptcy Court, Albuquerque, New Mexico Peter Kiefer: Retired Court Professional Tina Mattison: Deputy Court Administrator, Consolidated Justice Court, Tucson, Arizona Karl Thoennes: Court Administrator, Second Judicial Circuit Court, Sioux Falls, South Dakota Samantha Borden: Staff Assistant, Customer Solutions Division, Water Department, Tucson, Arizona

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

Numerous organizations, including courts, are embracing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.  With that increasing acceptance, we are also seeing increasing resistance, and it is important to address that resistance directly.  On the December episode we discussed the question “can hiring criteria, particularly for managers and supervisors, be objective?”  This month we are going to explore the growing question “Is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion a Zero-Sum Proposition for White employees?” Michael Norton from Harvard University, and Samuel Summers from Tufts University, surveyed 417 citizens on their conception of racism in America.[1]  Several of their conclusions are worth noting:   · Overall anti-Black bias has been declining over the years. · White responses perceived that anti-Black bias has been declining at a rate even faster than that shown in responses from the group overall. · Black respondents perceived anti-White bias is almost non-existent. · White respondents perceive that anti-White bias has been growing since the year 2000. · Whites now see anti-White racism is a bigger problem than anti-Black bias, and · Anti-White racism is seen as a zero-sum condition.   This is encapsulated in a quote by ex-U.S. Senator and ex-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions who said: “Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.”   Today's Panelists   Stacy Fields who is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Crestwood, Missouri. Stacey has worked in the judiciary for 12 years. She has been a member of NACM for 5 years and serves on the Conference Development Committee. She also serves as Vice President of the Metropolitan St. Louis Association for Court Administration (MSLACA) and on the board of the Missouri Association for Court Administration as Professional Development Director. Zenell Brown who is Executive Court Administrator for the 3rd Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan. As a Court Administrator, Zenell 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. She has shared her “Justice for All” leadership and organizational wisdom at local, state, and national level conferences for court managers and teams. Zenell continues to add to her current credentials of Juris Doctor (Wayne State University Law School), Public Service Administration Graduate Certificate (Central Michigan University), Court Administration Certificate (Michigan State University), and Certified Diversity Professional (National Diversity Council-Diversity First).      Kristie Collier -Tucker who is Court Administrator and Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court in Union City, Georgia. Kristie is responsible for all court operations, including the implementation of policies and procedures of the Court Services department. Union City Municipal Court is a high-volume court, holding more than 20 sessions per month including specialty dockets such as a Under 21 Court, a docket that focuses on defendants who are under 21 at the time of the violation. This docket is an effort to reduce recidivism and improve driver awareness. The court utilizes alternative sentencing principles in all court activities by establishing partnerships with other programs. Kristie received a Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Education from South Carolina State University, an ABA approved Paralegal Certificate and Bachelor of Science in Administrative Management from Clayton State University and a MBA with a Human Resources Concentration from Ashford University. [1] Michael I. Norton & Samuel R. Sommers, “White See Race as a Zero-Sum Game that They are Now Losing,” Association of Psychological Science, 2011.

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.

February 21st, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode We see this growing crisis everywhere. We pass the cardboard sign at the intersection asking for donations and wishing us: “God Bless.” We see the blue tarp and shopping cart half hidden in that small grove of trees next to the freeway. We see him sleeping on the sidewalk over the grate. Although we know the crisis is growing, we don't even have a good idea of how big it is. The statistics are so vague they are better described as guesstimates. By one guestimate, there are over half a million homeless nationwide. Los Angeles for example is believed to have over 40,000 homeless. Experts think that about a third of the homeless suffer from mental illness; a third have drug or alcohol issues. There is a crossover so a sizeable percentage suffers from both. In addition, other root causes of homelessness include being priced out of housing, being a victim of domestic violence, being unemployed, having a disability, having had a financial disaster such as a catastrophic illness, or just being poor and old. This month we look at how courts respond to homelessness and how they should be addressing this growing crisis. Next to the police, the courts are one of the first points of contact with the homeless. A court may operate a homeless court. If not, the homeless are on landlord-tenant, criminal, mental health, and even family court dockets. Our polarized society struggles with dramatically different perspectives on how to respond to homelessness. One perspective is that courts are in the best position to refer the homeless to get help including housing assistance, employment counseling, food and clothing banks, public health clinics, mental health, and drug counseling, as well as access to justice. A countervailing perspective is that courts are not social service agencies. If a homeless person is before the court, he or she is there because of a legal action: a crime, an eviction, or a probate mental health issue. Courts should "stay in their lane" and just deal with the litigant's legal matters. Today's Panelists · The Honorable Mary Logan, Judge with the Municipal Court in Spokane, Washington · The Honorable Alicia Skupin, Chief Magistrate with the Municipal Court in Chandler, Arizona, and · Barbara Marcille, Trial Court Administrator for the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon Leave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org

January 17th, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Every state in our nation has a Judicial Code of Conduct. Every judge in each state is obligated to follow that state's Code. Since 1973, most Federal judges have been subject to The Code of Conduct for United States Judges. There is only group exempt from the duty to follow these codes. That group consists of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court. To be fair over the years, accusations of scandal have been rare within the Court. Until recently one had to go back to Abe Fortas who in 1969 was accused of accepting a retainer from a private foundation. Lately however claims of bias have been on the rise. Justices are known to receive monetary advances for book deals. There have been accusations of inappropriate public comments; premature information on upcoming decisions disclosed; even draft opinions leaked. As a result, public approval of the Court has sharply declined. A recent Gallup Poll showed 40% of the public approving of the Supreme Court while 59% disapproved.[1] This month we are asking should the United States Supreme Court adopt a Code of Conduct? Adopting such a Code might help to rehabilitate the Court's image. On the other hand, a Code could damage if not destroy the court's independence. Questions to Explore · What are implications of adopting a code; what are the implications of doing nothing? · Are existing safeguards enough? Justices must submit financial disclosure forms and that they are prohibited from accepting gifts that could influence their judicial decision-making. Are these safeguards adequate? · Voluntary recusal from a case is the chief remedy for judicial conflict of interest. Is that sufficient? Today's Panel · The Honorable Ed Spillane, Judge of the Municipal Court in College Station, Texas. Judge Spillane is the Presiding 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. · The Honorable Sherry Stephens, retired Judge with the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona. Judge Stephens retired from the Maricopa County Superior Court bench where she served from 2001 through 2021. She served on the Criminal Department, the Civil Department, the Juvenile Department, Family Department, and as a special assignment judge. Prior to that she was with the Arizona Attorney General's Office, serving under five attorneys general. She worked as the Chief Counsel for the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section for twelve years. She also served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney on several cases. · Karl Thoennes, Court Administrator with the 2nd Judicial Circuit Court in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Karl began his career in the courts in Alaska in 1988, ultimately 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, the state's largest circuit by population. [1]Dallas Sun, 12/4/2022

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.

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 improving court practices? This month we're looking at court customers and how we collect feedback from them. Some topics we will explore include: · How do we obtain more and better customer feedback? · Why should court leaders focus on better ways to obtain feedback? · What have courts been able to do with more enhanced feedback? and · What advice do these panelists have for the rest of us? Today's Panel The Honorable Clemens Landau, Judge with the Justice Court in Salt Lake City, Utah. Judge Landau was appointed to the Salt Lake City Justice Court in 2017. He received his law degree from the University of Utah in 2008. The Honorable Timothy Kuhlman, Judge with the Municipal Court in Toledo, Ohio. In February 2005 he joined the Toledo Municipal Court and served as Presiding and Administrative Judge from 2007 through 2010, and again in 2019-2021. Judge Kuhlman graduated from Hillsdale College in Michigan in 1988 and graduated from the University of Toledo Law School and joined the Ohio Bar in 1991. James Cho, Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Boulder, Colorado. James was first named Court Administrator in June 2015. Before that he served as Deputy Administrator since 2006. De'Von Kissick-Kelly, Deputy Court Administrator for the Municipal Court, in Boulder. De'Von has devoted her career to empowering women through activism, advocacy and education. She holds a B.S in Criminal Justice and Criminology and a M.A. in Adult and Community Education from Ball State University Emily LaGratta is with La Gratta Consulting. Emily is a national subject matter expert on the topics of procedural justice and user voice. In leading LaGratta Consulting, she works with local and national organizations to design and implement innovative programming, engage end-users and utilize their feedback, and develop practitioner resources and training tools that help enhance public trust and confidence in legal institutions.

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.

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 their current job this year. That number is particularly high in the Information Technology Profession. This month we are going to explore The Great Resignation and its effect on courts and court employees. In this discussion we are including not only courts that may have lost employees, but courts that are having trouble recruiting and courts that are suffering because their justice system partners have having trouble keeping fully staffed. Some of the questions we will explore include: · What has been the courts' workforce experience during this “Great Resignation”? · Do you see this situation getting better or worse in 2022? · Are there things courts can do to entice more people to consider court administration as a career? · What advice do these panelists have for the rest of us? Today's Cohost and Panelists Cohost Alyce Roberts is the semi-Retired Special Projects Manager for the Alaska State Court System. As a member of the court's senior staff, Alyce 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. She has worked for the Alaska Court System since 1989, holding a number of positions including clerk of court in Anchorage (the state's largest general jurisdiction court). She has served on the National Association for Court Management's (NACM) Board of Directors, chairs NACM's Communication Committee, and she is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management (2010). Panelists Dawn Palermo is the Judicial Administrator for the Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court in Harvey, Louisiana. She has held this position since 2004. In this capacity, she oversees all court programs, employees and finances, negotiates and monitors all contracts and drafts all funding proposals. Ms. Palermo is also currently serving as a board member for the Louisiana Court Administrators Association (LCAA). Eric Silverberg is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Tucson, Arizona. He has worked in the Arizona Courts since 2005. Eric has been an involved member of NACM since 1995. His academic credentials include graduate degrees in Business Administration and Computer Resources and Information Technology. He became an ICM Fellow in 1997. Be Sure to Take Our Survey Access the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3GVFMSX The results will be posted and periodically updated on the NACM Ethics Webpage Leave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org