We
are not last! On January 30, 2003, the Arkansas Supreme
Court took action1 to make Arkansas the 49th of 50 states2
to structure a formal position within the ranks of general
jurisdiction judges to assume responsibility for certain
administrative duties within each judicial circuit.
The initial elections for these positions took place
within each district in March, 2003, and the first class
of administrative judges began to carry out their responsibilities
soon thereafter. These actions mark a fundamental change
in our system of state court administration but have
taken place with little fanfare and, perhaps, without
the knowledge of many members of the bar. The purpose
of this brief article is to highlight the recent changes
and note their importance to the members of the bar
and for our state court system.
Why Trial Court Administration?
Our state has very little
history of structured administration at the trial court
level. The non-unified qualities of our system—with
funding divided between local, county and state sources,
a separation of law and equity and three (circuit, chancery
and probate) general jurisdiction courts, independent
clerks of court who are elected as county officials
rather than appointed by the court, and a history of
independent and autonomous trial courts—have combined
to make a more unified trial court administrative structure
impossible.
Other states have found,
however, and academic research has demonstrated that
an effective trial court administrative structure with
a trained and effective leader can prove tremendously
valuable in improving the efficiency and management
of the courts and the overall administration of justice.
The fact that all but one state has moved to incorporate
such a structure is, in and of itself, significant.
Research has consistently documented the improvements.
In a study of six of the country's most successful state
trial courts, the National Center for State Courts identified
10 elements as crucial to the courts' success. The most
important element was a structure which provided for
and supported strong trial court leadership.3 In the
specific area of caseflow management and delay, another
study found that "it is clear that most successful
courts have the benefit of leadership by a chief judge
with the vision, persistence, personality, and political
skills necessary to develop broad support for court
policies and programs aimed at reducing delay".4
Other studies have documented other important roles
of the administrative judge.5
Other States' Systems
While the general idea
of a trial court administrative structure lead by a
member of the trial bench is now universal, there is
significant variety in the details of that structure
from state to state. The most common title given to
the judge is "chief judge." Other states have
adopted the titles "presiding judge," "administrative
judge," "assignment judge" or "senior
judge."6 The method of selecting the judge also
varies. In 23 states the judges are chosen through election
by their colleagues on the bench within their circuit.
In 22 states the judges are appointed by either the
Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, or the State Court
Administrator. In a few states the selection is by seniority
or even appointment by the Governor.7 The term of office
ranges from six months to life, with the largest number
selected for either one or two years.8 There is also
a variance in the source of authority for the position.
In four states the position is provided for in the constitution.
In most states the authority is given by the rules or
some other order of the supreme court. In several states
the authority is provided in state statute.9 Finally,
the administrative judges are provided a broad range
and variety of authority and responsibility. Duties
include supervising of non-judicial employees in the
circuit, assigning cases to judges, assigning judges
to divisions, selecting quasi-judicial employees, requesting
special judges, supervising the budget and fiscal affairs,
establishing committees, taking responsibility for public
relation matters, maintaining statistics and management
information and evaluating court effectiveness.10
Amendment 80
On November 7, 2000, the
citizens of Arkansas fundamentally changed the form
and structure of our state court system with the passage
and adoption of Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution.11
The changes which have evolved from the amendment have
included some which were both planned and anticipated
and others which were unanticipated and have been undertaken
amidst considerable controversy within the bench and
bar.
One of the major unanswered
questions raised by Amendment 80's adoption was the
nature and structure of the administration of the trial
court. Prior to the amendment there was a wide variation
in the level and nature of administration from circuit
to circuit. With the removal of chancery and probate
courts and an expansion of jurisdictional authority
for all judges, a new system was required. Who or what
should determine the types of cases a particular judge
will hear? In multi-judge circuits, how are decisions
made? Should the system be uniform from circuit to circuit?
The specific language of Amendment 80 did not answer
these and many other questions.
Shortly after the approval
of Amendment 80, this author contacted the National
Center for State Courts for an evaluation of the Amendment
and a recommendation on the issues that would need to
be addressed for successful implementation. This report
identified the establishment of a plan for trial court
administration as the central issue for any successful
implementation:
[T] he major issue will
be creating an administrative structure . . . . The
judicial article brings
about organizational unification and some degree of
administrative unification.
The problem is that the Supreme Court cannot manage
a statewide court system from Little Rock. The best
the high court can do
is set guidelines and policies. There has to be a local
system of judicial administration
or the reform will flounder. There is no unified court
system in the United States
without local administrative judges, and some of these
judges are supported by
court administrators. With two sets of elected clerks,
the circuit courts will
already have problems of administrative cohesion, not
to mention the consolidation
of various courts that were formerly separate from one
another. It is hard to envision how this can be done
through en banc administration
...12
In the months following,
the Supreme Court, working with its Committee on the
Implementation of Amendment 80, the Arkansas Judicial
Council, and the Arkansas Bar Association, began the
process of making the necessary changes. It became clear
to the Committee, as evidenced by its recommendation
to the supreme court, that the role of the supreme court
should not be one of becoming involved in the day-to-day
affairs of the trial court administration; rather, the
supreme court should establish a uniform set of overriding
goals and principles which should form the basis of
each circuit's administrative structure. In this way,
each circuit could take into account significant local
issues or customs. The procedure adopted by the supreme
court to carry out this role was the creation of local
administrative plans. Administrative Order No. 14 required
each multi-judge judicial circuit to submit a plan for
circuit court administration to the supreme court by
June 1, 2001.13 In the plan, the circuit judges were
required to set out the process by which they would
determine case management and administrative procedures.
For example, the judicial circuit could hold periodic
meetings among the judges or an administrative judge
or an administrative committee could be established.
In other words, the supreme court did not require any
particular decision-making structure, but only that
the structure adopted at the local level be clear and
in writing.
As a result of these orders,
all but three circuits submitted plans. Two of the plans,
those of the 2nd and the 4th Judicial Circuits, called
for the selection of an administrative judge and named
Judges Howard Templeton and Kim Smith, respectively.
In those circuits which were unable to agree on a plan,
the Supreme Court formulated a plan and appointed three
administrative judges: Judge David Bogard in the 6th
Circuit, Judge Leon Jamison in the 11th-west Circuit,
and Judge Don Glover in the 10th Circuit. These five
judges were, therefore, our state's first administrative
judges.
During the first year
of the operation of the plans, the normal process of
identifying problems and gaps in the rules inherent
in any new process took place. Some of these issues
were addressed in amendments to specific plans but a
number of other, more basic issues led to a request
to the Supreme Court from both the bench and the bar
that amendments to Administrative Order 14 be considered.
The Current Requirements
On January 30, 2003, the
Supreme Court published a revised order.14 Included
in the revision was a requirement that the position
of administrative judge be created in each judicial
district with more than one circuit judge.15 The judge
is to be selected by election of the other trial judges
in the circuit. In circuits with fewer than 10 judges,
the selection must be unanimous, otherwise, a vote of
at least 75% of the judges is required. If the judges
in the circuit are unable to reach a selection, an appointment
is made by the Supreme Court.16 The term of office for
the position is two years and judges may be re-elected.17
The order also sets out five major responsibilities
of the administrative judge.
(1) Administrative
Plan. The administrative judge shall insure that
the administrative plan and its implementation are consistent
with the requirements of the orders of the Supreme Court.
(2) Case Assignment.
Cases shall be assigned under the supervision of the
administrative judge in accordance with the circuit's
administrative plan. The administrative judge shall
assure that the business of the court is apportioned
among the circuit judges as equally as possible, and
cases may be reassigned as necessity requires. A circuit
judge to whom a case is assigned shall accept the case
unless he or she is disqualified or the interests of
justice require that the case not be heard by that judge.
(3) Judicial Assignments.
The administrative judge may, when specified in the
circuit's administrative plan, provide for the assignment
or reassignment of judges to any subject matter division
of the circuit court to hear matters within that division.
(4) Information Compilation.
The administrative judge shall have responsibility for
the computation, development, and coordination of case
statistics and other management data respecting the
judicial circuit.
(5) Improvements in
the Functioning of the Court. The administrative
judge shall periodically evaluate the effectiveness
of the court in administering justice and recommend
changes to the Supreme Court.18
Meet
Your Administrative Judges
In response to the requirements
of revised Administrative Order 14, administrative
judges have been elected or appointed for each multi-judge
circuit in the state. These judges are listed below.
They do not wear special stripes on their robes nor
do they earn additional compensation for their efforts.
They are, however, filling a vital role for the state
judiciary as we navigate the best course for providing
a fair and efficient system of justice for our state's
citizens in a new, unified, post-Amendment 80 environment.
Their role will likely be an evolving one as we work
together to strike a proper balance between effective
management of a system and allowing independently
elected judges to structure their own courts and court
processes in appropriate yet different ways. The process
will not be without controversy, yet it holds the
promise of bringing significant improvements and benefits
to our system of trial court administration. For this
reason, these judges and the new roles they have been
asked to play deserve our interest, our input and
our support.
ENDNOTES
1. In re Administrative Order Number
14 - Administration of Circuit Courts
(January 30, 2003)(per curiam).
2. Wyoming remains the only state with no system
for the appointment of adminstrative
judges. See State Court Organization 1998.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
(NCJ 178932)(Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing
Office, June 2000),
Table 7.
3. William Hewitt, Geoff Gallas and Barry Mahoney,
Courts That Succeed (Williamsburg,
VA: National Center for State Courts, 1990).
4. David Steelman, Caseflow Management
(Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State
Courts, 2000).
5. See Barry Mahoney et al, Changing
Times in Trial Courts: Caseflow Management
and Delay Reduction in Urban Trial Courts (Williamsburg,
VA: National Center
for State Courts, 1998) and Paul Wice, "Court
Reform and Judicial
Leadership," Justice System Journal 170,
no. 3 (1995).
6. See State Court Organization, note
2, Table 30.
7. Id at Table 7.
8. Id
9. Id
10. Id at Table 30.
11. Amendment 80 appeared on the 2000 general election
ballot as "Referred Amendment
3." It was approved by a vote of 431,137 (57%)
for and 323,547 (43%)
against. Publishers Notes, Ark Const. amend
80.
12. Letter from Bob Tobin, National Center for State
Courts to J.D. Gingerich (Dec. 15, 2000)(on file with
author).
13. See Administrative Order No. 14, paras
2, 4(b), 344 Ark. app. at 748-50.
14. See note 1, infra.
15. Id at Section 2.
16. Id at Section 2a.
17. Id at Section 2b.
18. Id at Section 2c.
|
