Court Administration Forum - University of South Carolina



Court Administration Forum I

On May 18, 2005, USC’s Institute for Public Service and Policy Research sponsored a Court Administration Forum. Twenty-six city managers/administrators, court administrators and judges attended. The discussion included a wide range of topics which are summarized below.

Structure

Most of the cities represented have a municipal court that functions as a municipal department with a court administrator or administrative judge reporting to the city manager/administrator. Though most of cities have their courts separate from the police department, a majority have both housed in the same building. A few of the cities have a combined police department and municipal court. While the consensus of the group was to have a separation of law enforcement and judicial functions to prevent conflict of interest and due process concerns, the group did agree that smaller jurisdictions may need to have the functions combined due to budgetary concerns.

Employees and Staffing Issues

The group discussed such staffing issues as full time versus part time judges and ministerial recorders. Only a handful of the cities represented employ full times judges though the group noted advantages for this. Depending on the size of the city, many of the court administrators and judges wear various hats. While some court administrators also serve as judges issuing warrants and handling non-criminal cases, other court administrators perform additional functions such as victims advocate and clerk of court duties. In smaller cities, the court administrators have police related duties.

Another issue where practices varied is how the court administrator is appointed. In some cities the city manager/administrator makes the appointment, while in others this person is appointed by council.

All the cities represented adhere to the requirement that judges be appointed every four years. One city makes its judicial appointment every two years and another city limits the number of terms a judge can serve.

Scheduling/Case Flow Management

One of the major factors that affects case flow management is a court’s backlog. Over half of the courts mentioned a backlog of cases ranging from 6 months to two years. One of the ways several cities have addressed this issue is specialized courts or dockets. Listed below are the cities that have specialized courts:

➢ Charleston’s livability courts are held every other Monday with a fulltime judge. Types of cases heard are nuisance and underage drinking.

➢ Lancaster’s Livability Court is held one day a week and hears parking tickets, code enforcement, fraudulent checks and school cases.

➢ Greer’s specialized court is held once a month and handles animal control, codes enforcement, and fire code violations.

➢ North Charleston has a Code Court and Night Court for pleadings and non-financial resolutions.

Another method several cities use to reduce back log is pre-trial conferences and docket meetings.

Fines/Assessments/Collections

Given the increase of state fines and assessments of the last few years, cities are realizing less revenue in the face of increasing costs. There are several reasons for this decrease.

➢ State surcharges have increased significantly and represent 135% of imposed fines and fees; additional $25 state surcharge per ticket

➢ City is collecting the same percentage but the state is taking more

➢ Some judges change the type of citation to lower the fees because they do not believe the fine fits the crime and they know defendants can’t pay exorbitant amounts

The group discussed the frustration with this situation and the fact there is no resolution in the near future. This is not only a problem for the courts but for the citizens as well. Most citizens do not understand why a $100 ticket costs over $200. The City of Lancaster provides citizens with an explanation of how the fines are determined and suggests that citizens contact their state legislators.

Another issue discussed was methods for increasing the collection rate. Several cities indicated they use time payments. Although this method is an administrative burden, the cities believed that it is better to receive a portion of the fine than none at all. The City of Charleston has a Delinquent Collections Court that has increased the city’s collection rate.

The group also discussed the need for checks and balances in collection processes. Smaller jurisdictions are faced with the challenge of not having the resources to have different employees to collect and record money. In cases where the court is housed in the police department, participants raised the issue of police department employees collecting money.

Emergency Management/Security

Court security has become more of an issue in recent years. Oftentimes there is a false sense of security with officers present in the courtroom. However, officers typically are only present for traffic cases and are not present for cases which may require additional security.

One measure that cities are using to enhance court security is screening of courtroom visitors before entering the courtroom. The City of Florence screens people as they enter the city-county complex. Although personnel and equipment for screening are expensive, many cities feel it is necessary to keep courtrooms secure. In the City of Florence, Class III officers perform building security, courtroom security, and transportation of prisoners. The City of North Charleston uses a private firm for court security.

Several cities have recently built or are planning to build new courtroom facilities. Some of the security features designed into the new facilities are bulletproof doors, access cards to administrative areas, and separate doors for judges. The National Center for State Courts recommends that court personnel be involved in the design process of new court facilities.

Technology

There are a growing number of technological trends related to courts. These include electronic citations, on-line payment of fines and bonds, WiFi enabled courtrooms, and paperless court records. None of these practices are evident in South Carolina.

The discussion focused mainly on the implementation status of the Judicial Enforcement Management Software (JEMS). Some of the cities previously purchased the program from the JEMS vendor. Other cities are participating in the pilot phase of the state-purchased system. The participants discussed technical support issues and differences in the vendor-purchased version and the state-purchased version.

Other Issues

Listed below are issues the participants mentioned that could be discussed in more depth at future forums:

➢ The need for standardization (e.g., how motions and orders are prepared, fines, etc.)

➢ Expense involved in training judges and court administrators

➢ Municipal courts need standardized educational/training opportunities

➢ Participants believed that municipal courts are generally viewed as the “red-headed step child” by city councils, Office of Court Administration, and other courts.

➢ Courts feel they are under-funded and it is essential for court administrators to educate city councils, mayors and city managers/administrators about the important function the court has and the challenges it faces.

➢ Municipal judges need a limited degree of jurisdiction in civil cases

Court Administration Forum II

On October 5, 2005, USC’s Institute for Public Service and Policy Research sponsored a second Court Administration Forum. Twenty-five city managers/administrators, court administrators and judges attended. The discussion included a wide range of topics which are summarized below.

Office of Court Administration

Participants expressed their concerns with the lack of responsiveness and the inconsistent direction they receive from Court Administration. They feel that municipal courts are not considered a key stakeholder by Court Administration. Participants believe the relationship between Court Administration and municipal courts affects many of the issues listed below.

Training Issues/Opportunities

One of the issues mentioned at the forum in May was training of judges, court administrators, and other court personnel. Several participants mentioned this during introductions as one of the top issues their courts are facing. Specifically, the two major concerns are the need for standardization in courts rules and procedures to allow more consistent training and lack of training opportunities for court personnel. Several ideas were suggested on how to address these issues. A task force has been formed to consider these and other ideas to develop a plan of action. Listed below are the task force members:

• Diane Anderson, Clerk of Court, City of Rock Hill

• Ponja Beck, Administrative Judge, City of Greer

• Liz Lewis, Clerk of Court, City of Goose Creek

• Alma Miller, Court Administrator, City of Spartanburg

• Jane Modla, Municipal Judge, City of Rock Hill

• Sally Phipps, Court Administrator, Town of Mt. Pleasant

• Sylvia Skeeter, Court Administrator, City of Charleston

• Lee Tindal, Magistrate/Municipal Judge, Sumter

• Steve Willis, City Administrator, City of Lancaster

Standardization of Fines & Assessments

State assessments were the most common issue mentioned by participants. The City of Lancaster proposed a method for simplifying the current court assessment process. The City’s recommendation is that a flat percentage assessment replaces all regular assessments, special assessments, add-ons, and exemptions. The City also suggested exempting parking tickets from the assessment process. The group concurred with this recommendation. An additional suggestion was made to have the assessment based on the date the ticket is written as opposed to the date the ticket is adjudicated. The Municipal Association has agreed to place this on its 2006 legislative agenda. USC will contact the Association of Counties to enlist its support.

Statewide Court Computer System

The discussion focused mainly on the implementation status of the Judicial Enforcement Management Software (JEMS). The participants discussed technical support issues and differences in the vendor-purchased version and the state-purchased version. Several cities have purchased other systems (e.g., SmithData, EnCode, etc.) and have found them to be useful.

Court Security

Participants discussed the need for written procedures for security plans. The cities of Charleston and Rock Hill have written security plans and agreed to share them with the group.

Other Issues

Listed below are issues the participants mentioned that could be discussed in more depth at future forums:

➢ Transportation of mental health patients

➢ Range of fines charged for parking citations

➢ Types of cases sent to 30-day court

➢ Need for municipal courts to have advocates, such as city manager/administrator, chief magistrate, etc.

➢ Increased caseload of courts (staff, space, funding, etc.)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download