THE WASHINGTON STATE DISTRICT AND MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES' ASSOCIATION
|
THE WASHINGTON STATE DISTRICT AND MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES' ASSOCIATION |
|
|
Judge Stephen R. Shelton President's Report 2007-2008 As I review the past year as your
President and provide this report to you, I would first like to thank you for
the opportunity you have given me to serve our Association. Secondly, as you
review the past year and prepare for next year, I would like to thank each of
you for your commitment to serving the public and the judiciary. Your hard
work is often unnoticed and underappreciated but you should know that your
efforts are and will continue to be vital to maintaining the integrity of
district and municipal courts and of the Washington State judiciary. And,
finally, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to my fellow Board
members and the chairs and members of the various committees for their diligence
and dedication. As I review the past year, I hope a simple summary of your Board’s accomplishments and what I think the Association and Board may need to consider in the coming year will be sufficient. Although the Board has continually addressed normal business as necessary, I have limited my review to the major issues addressed by the Board.
DMCJA LONG RANGE PLAN
PAST ACTION: Although the
Board acknowledged the need and benefit for long range plans for the BJA and
SCJA, and saw merit in developing a basic DMCJA long range planning document to
provide direction to the Board as it addressed various issues, the Board did not
make this plan a high priority. Therefore, no further discussion resulted. FUTURE ACTION: Although
the need for a basic planning document still exists, the Board could reasonably
continue to table that discussion until the future is more certain regarding
courts of limited jurisdiction. The legislative work group established by Rep.
Goodman will be re-convened and legislation may be proposed that would change
the current system. Also, the BJA is creating an ad hoc committee to review and
consider the benefits of a regional court system for district and municipal
courts. JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION PAST ACTION: The Board
established an ad hoc committee to review concerns noted by various courts of
limitation judges that the original intent of the Judicial Conduct Commission to
address complaints registered toward judicial officers had been replaced by a
more aggressive monitoring and investigation of courts by the JCC. After
convening the committee and developing a conversation with the JCC Executive
Director, it is my understanding that some of the concerns have been alleviated. FUTURE ACTION: As the
committee members are currently enthusiastic about working with the JCC, there
is very good reason to maintain the Committee during the upcoming year. BOARD MEMBERSHIP PAST ACTION: The Board
has been reviewing proposed by-law amendments due to concerns that the previous
requirements of membership were either unnecessary or impossible to fulfill i.e.
the differentiation of district and municipal courts; the distinction between
full and part-time judges; the requirement of a board position to be filled by a
commissioner; and the necessity for the board to essentially guarantee diversity
of gender, racial and cultural membership. During Board discussions, the Board
has declined to recommend any by-law revisions at this time. FUTURE ACTION: The Board
has agreed that the Board membership by-law needs further consideration. The
Board also has re-affirmed that Board membership should reflect our diversity of
membership. In addition, the Board has recognized that the Board and the
Diversity Committee must be more pro-active in promoting greater diversity of
judicial officers on all levels of courts to better and more accurately reflect
our society and the parties appearing before our courts. MEETINGS PAST ACTION: The Board
has approved the “Rules of Conduct of Meetings” to be utilized rather than the
more complicated and lengthy “Robert’s Rules of Order” and placed a by-law
amendment before the membership to authorize such approval FUTURE ACTION: If the
by-law amendment is approved, the Board may be well served to assign a board
member or officer to provide interpretation and advice regarding the rules. ACCOUNTING FIRM PAST ACTION: After
several years of discussion, the Board agreed to engage a new accounting firm. FUTURE ACTION: The
Treasurer should continue to familiarize the new accountant with the DMCJA
budget and the need to fulfill the Board’s fiduciary duty to the DMCJA
membership. FINANCES PAST ACTION: Due to
budget shortfalls in years passed, the member assessments were increased and
Board expenditures were reduced. Consequently, the Board currently is so
financially secure that the question was asked as to whether the dues should be
reduced. The Board established an Ad Hoc Reserve Committee to review options
regarding the dues payments. The Committee has recommended against dues
reduction and recommended that the reserves be used to benefit the CLJ courts
and judges. To this end, the Reserves Committee was made a permanent standing
committee. FUTURE ACTION: The Board
and the Committee should be developing a plan and goals to best use the reserves
to better serve members of the DMCJA. The Board has noted that reserves could
be used for education of judicial officers and court staff; pro tem
reimbursement for judges/commissioners who participate in DMCJA leadership such
as the Board and Committees or who attend education sessions; to encourage
diversity of the judiciary; to provide pro tem training; to fund long range
planning projects. CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAST ACTION: The Board
has been supportive of the AOC plan to develop a case management system
applicable to all levels of court. For all intents and purposes, the CMS
project is currently being reviewed. FUTURE ACTION: To
protect the interests of CLJ courts, the Board should continue to be actively
involved in any discussion regarding a new system. EDUCATION PAST ACTION:
FUTURE ACTION:
JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
COMMITTEE PAST ACTION: The Board
provided a substantial budget in 2007 to provide for training of “peer
counselors” for judges to assist other judicial officers who may be experiencing
difficulties in their personal and professional lives. In providing the funding,
the Board has not only shown a strong compassion for individual judicial
officers, the Board has also exhibited a dedication to maintaining and enhancing
the judicial system. FUTURE ACTION: The Board will have the opportunity to continue its support for the Committee and its work with individual CLJ judges. Also, the Board could seize this opportunity to engage the other levels of court to either encourage them to create their own Committee or to develop a joint or combined Committee to assist all judicial officers. RULES CrRLJ 3.2 AND IRLJ 6.2: In 2006, the Board was apprised
of concerns that the use of ‘bail forfeitures” in DWLS 3 charges was resulting
in “convictions” on driving records and that “bail forfeitures” in certain
Wildlife Offenses were also considered “convictions” and were affecting
individuals’ rights to hunt, fish and/or have gun permits. The Board requested
the Long Range Planning Committee to review the expressed concern that the use
of bail forfeitures as final dispositions in criminal cases was not authorized
by law and was not affording defendants their proper due process protections.
The LRP Committee addressed three concerns:
After review of the
Committees findings, the Board determined that the Supreme Court should not set
penalty provisions for criminal or civil infractions which are within the
province of the legislative branch of government and that bail forfeitures as
final dispositions in criminal cases are not authorized by law. To implement
these findings, the Board is considering a request to the Supreme Court for
certain rule revisions summarized below and has requested the DMCJA Rules
Committee to review the issue of bail forfeiture. CrRLJ 3.2 (m) provides forfeiture
of bail as final disposition of a criminal case if “authorized by the court”.
However, no authority exists for forfeiture to be considered a conviction unless
the defendant is apprised of and waives his rights. The Board would propose that
the following language be added to (m): “Such disposition can only be
authorized after a finding of guilt by the court”. CrRLJ 3.2 (o) and (r) - (u)
provides for two bail schedules with two distinctively different purposes.
CrRLJ 3.2 (o) lists standardized bail amounts that an offender can post to be
released from custody for 25 different offenses. CrRLJ 3.2 (r) – (u) provides a
schedule of amounts that a defendant may “forfeit” as final disposition in a
case. Due to inflation and to provide a simple bail schedule, the Board would
propose that section (o) (1) be amended to be “$500 for a misdemeanor and $1000
for a gross misdemeanor”, that section (o) (2) which provides for the adoption
of a local bail schedule be maintained, and that section (o) (3) be deleted in
its entirety. The Board is also recommending that CrRLJ 3.2 (r) – (u) be
deleted: IRLJ 6.2 provides for a monetary
penalty schedule for infractions. The authority for the Supreme Court to set
the penalties was provided in RCW 46.63.110. Upon review, the Board has
concluded that the setting of infraction penalties is a legislative function
properly imposed by the appropriate administrative agency and is considering a
recommendation for deletion of IRLJ 6.2. CrRLJ 4.1 and CrRLJ 4.2
In the fall of 2006, the WSBA
forwarded to the Board for review and comment certain proposed revisions to the
arraignment rules. The proposed changes were the result of a Judicial Conduct
Commission Written Finding that certain arraignment procedures initiated by a
district court judge under investigation were preferable to the prior practice
of that court. Upon review, the Board recognized that the proposed revisions
could significantly impact courts of limited jurisdiction. Subsequently, the
Board published the proposed changes on our listserve for comment. Upon
receiving comments, the Board requested our Rules Committee to review the WSBA
proposal and the comments from CLJ judges and report back to the Board. Upon
review, the Board approved a revision of the WSBA proposal and forwarded same to
the Supreme Court as comment. The Supreme Court then accepted the Board
recommendations as a proposed rule change. After reviewing the Board’s
proposal, the WSBA submitted their comments which have been accepted as a
proposed rule change by the Supreme Court. Therefore, there are “dueling” rules
before the Supreme Court which have now been published for comment in the
January 2, 2008 Supreme Court Advance Sheet (161 Wn.2d 275-283). Now that the Supreme Court will
be reviewing the “dueling” rules proposed by the Board and the WSBA, we will
need to await the Court’s decision. However, the Board and our membership
should be aware that certain associations representing cities, counties and
prosecutors are criticizing the DMCJA for submitting the proposals, when, in
fact, the initial proposals were brought forward by the WSBA. I would hope that
DMCJA members will review the “dueling” rules and recognize that the Board has
attempted to address our members’ concerns regarding the proposed changes. In
this process, the Board was also attempting to propose a rule that would: (1) be
consistent with the Superior Court arraignment rules; (2) better protect the due
process rights of defendants appearing in our courts; and (3) be of practical
use by district and municipal courts. ABA MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL
CONDUCT PAST ACTION: After
receiving a request from Chief Justice Alexander, the Board requested the Rules
Committee to review the 2007 ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct. Upon such
review, the Committee recommended the Supreme Court establish a state-wide
committee to review the Model Code and advise the Court of its findings. The
Board then adopted the Committee’s recommendation and forwarded same to the
Chief Justice. FUTURE ACTION: The
Supreme Court has recently established a Task Force consisting of members of all
levels of court, the WSBA and other interested parties. Judges Bob McSeveney
and David Edwards will be representing the DMCJA on the Task Force AOC PRESIDING JUDGE RESOURCE PAST ACTION: The Board
discussed the awkward situation that judges of courts of limited jurisdiction
sometimes experienced when they needed legal or administrative advice but were
too uncomfortable, for whatever reason, to request advice from the city or
county government. After bringing this concern to the BJA, the BJA members and
the State Court Administrator agreed that a resource in AOC for judges would be
helpful. FUTURE ACTION: As AOC
develops this resource person or persons to assist judges, the Board and
Association members may need to provide information to AOC as to what types of
expertise would be most beneficial to judges of courts of limitation. In closing, I hope this brief
summary has been helpful for the membership of the DMCJA to better understand
the issues addressed by your Board during the past year. Thank you again for
your work on behalf of the judiciary. Sincerely, Stephen R. Shelton DMCJA President
|
|
Last modified: 10/09/08 |