Georgia courts journal, Vol. 22, no. 3 (Feb. 1995)

Cjt3w , PI Vol. 22 No. 3 February 1995
G4 22/
. .

i.a. courts

Judicial Council recommends 10 additional superior court judgeships

At its December meetin~ the Judicial Council recommended creation of additional superior court judgeships in 10 judicial circuits.
The list of the recommended circuits has been sent to Gov. Zen MNer and the General Assembly for action during the 1995 legislative session.
The council ranked the judicial circuits in the following orde~ 1) Western (Clarke and Oconee Counties): 3rd judgeship 2) Augusta (Burke, Columbia and Richmond Counties): 7th judgeship 3) Ah20vY (Newton and Walton Counties): 3rd judgeship 4) Ogeechee (Bulloch, Effingham, Jenkins and Screven Counties): 3rd judgeship 5) Conasauga (Murray and Whitfield Counties): 4th judgeship

6) Cobb (Cobb County): 8th judgeship 7) Coweta (Carroll, Coweta, Heard, Meriwether and Troup Counties): 5th
]udge Kathlene F. Gosselin (standing) addresses the]udicial Council. Also pictured:(lefi to right) Judge Philip F. Ethendge, Judge H. Arthur Mclme, Chief]udge N. Kent Larorence, Judge Ronald H. Rentz.

Court of Appeals elects new chief judge

Ceremonies on January 5 installed Court of Appeals Judge Dorothy Toth Beasley as the court's 17th chief judge. She was elected to a two-year
Chief Judge Dorothy T. Beasley and Chief Justice Willis B. HuntJr.

term as chief judge at the bane meeting on November 7. Judge Beasley is the court's first female chief judge; she succeeds Chief Judge Marion T. Pope Jr.
Chief Judge Beasley holds a B.A. degree from St. Lawrence University, LL.B. degree from American University, Washington College of Law, and a Masters of Laws degree from the University of V@inia. She was appointed to the Fulton County State Court in 1977 and was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 1984.

judgeship; and 7) Northern (Elbert, Franklin, Hart, Madison and Oglethorpe Counties): 3rd judgeship (circuits tied) 9) Piedmont (Banks, Barrow and Jackson Counties): 3rd judgeship 10) Macon (Bibb, Crawford and Peach Counties): 5th judgeship.
See Judicial Council, page 14

LE. court decides Brooks suit in favor of state
A three-judge panel in Washington D.C. ruled on February 3 that 62 of Georgia's superior court judgeships, 14 of which are vacant, were added without the purpose or effect of abridging minority rights to vote under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The federal court decision allows the governor to appoint 14 superior
See Brooks suit, page 15

JQC/AG

opinions

3

Chief Justice's address to legislature ..,..4

1996 appropriations request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Costs of a new judgeship 7

Superior courts caseload ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...9-12

Committee for Gender Equality . . . . . . . . . . ...15

Child placement assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...15

CourI

Futures

Forum

16

Council of Municipal Court Judges ...,... 17

Supreme Court records retention . . . . . . ...18

Elect ions

Head of Indigent Defense Council resigns

Superior Courts, Atlantic Judicial Circuit

Eric G. Kocher resigned as director of the Georgia Indigent

Judge Albert "Ronnie" Rahn Ill was elected for the

Defense Council effective Febmary 1. The council named

term January 1,1995, through December 31,1998.

B. Michael Mears, head of the Multi-county Public Defende#s

Superior Courts, Cobb Judicial Ckcuit

Office (a division of the council), as interim director.

Judge James Bodiford was elected for the term January 1,1995, through December 31,1998.
Superior Courts, Enotah Judicial Circuit Albert F. Taylor was elected district attorney for the term January 1,1995, through December 31,1998.
Superior Courts, Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit Fred Bright was elected district attorney for the term January 1,1995, through December 31,1998.
Superior Courts, Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit James R. Osborn was elected district attorney for the term January 1,1995, through December 31,1998.
State Court, Baldwin County Judge T. Dorsey Yawn was elected for the term January 1,1995, through December 31,1998.

Governor Miller sworn in by Justice Hunstein Georgia Supreme Court Justice Carol W. Hunstein administered the oath of office to Gov. Zen Miller for a second term in office at his inauguration ceremony on January 9. She is the first woman jurist selected for this honor.
New address for Office of Dispute Resolution The Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution has relocated. The new address is 800 The Hurt Buildin& 50 Hurt Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303. Telephone: (404) 527-8789.
Probate judges benchbook revised The annual revisions to the Council of Probate Court Judges benchbook are available. Please contact Maria Moore at (404) 656-5171, for copies or information.

State Court, Jeff Davis County

Court reporters: fees increase, handbook updated

Judge Ken W. Smith was elected for the term Janu-

A 4% rate increase for official court reporters took effect

ary 1, 1995, through December 31, 1998.

January 1. Fees areas follows: per diem rate, $130 per day;

State Court, Tattnall County Judge Bruce Dubberly was elected for the term January 1,1995, through December 31,1998.

page rate, $2.60 per page; copy rate, $1.04 per page; daily copy rate, $5.20 per page; and expedited copy rate, $3.90 per page.

Wensley Hobby was elected solicitor for the term

A revision updating section A (Rules of the Board) and

January 1,1995, through December 31,1998.

section B (Fee Schedule) of the Certified Court Reporters

Appointments
Superior Courts, Augusta Judicial Circuit Judge Carl C. BrownJr. was appointed for the term December 5,1994, through December 31,1996.
Superior Courts, Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit Judge William Ralph Hill Jr. was appointed for the term February 1, 1995, through December 31, 1996.
State Court, Fulton County Judge Cynthia D. Wright was appointed for the term January 4, 1995, through December 31,1996.
Senior judges appointed
Judges James E. Findley, Lowrey S. Stone and Watson L. White were appointed senior judges of the superior courts effective January 1, 1995. Judge James W. Head was appointed senior judge of the superior court effective February 1,1995.
Clerks' Cooperative Authority names director
Carol Clark has been named executive director of the Georgia Superior Court Clerks' Cooperative Authority. Ms. Clark has worked in banking for 21 years and most

Handbook has been sent to court reporters. A second update package for the remainder of the book will be available soon. For more information, please contact Leslie Johnson at (404) 656-5171.
Georgia Records Association seeks members
The Georgia Records Association extends an invitation of membership to anyone in a state, local or regional organization involved with records management. The association holds meetings, publishes a quarterly newsletter and sponsors training opportunities, including the annual State Records Conference. To join, send the annual membership fee of $10 along with name, address and telephone number to Georgia Records Association, P.O. Box 38128, Capitol Hill Station, Atlanta, GA 30334. E-mail maybe sent to djohnson@dekalb. dc.peachnet.edu.
"Guide to Georgia Courts" available
The "Guide to Georgia Courts," a brochure explaining the state court system, is available in both English and Spanish at no cost from the Administrative Office of the Courts. To request copies, contact Nancy Kahnt at (404) 656-5171.

recently was president and chief executive officer of Brasel-

"Just ice 2000"

ton Banking Company in Braselton, GA. As executive direc-

"Justice 2000," the report of the 1985 Governor's Judicial

tor of the cooperative authority, she will oversee implemen-

Process Review Commission is available from the Administ-

-.,

tation and operation of a central indexing system for

rative Office of the Courts. To request copies, call the AOC

Uniform Commercial Code financing statements.

at (404) 656-5171.

--

Georgia Courts Journal

2

February 1995

----

--

New judges take office

`. . . Summaries of Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) opinions appear in the Geo@a Co@s ]ournal whenever they are issued. Copies of complete opinions can be obtained from the JQC at (404) 587-5208.
Opinion 199
Under the arcumstances described in the request, it is not inappropriate for the wife of the senior partner of a part-time juvenile court judge to serve as director of a local CourtAppointed Special Advocates program (CASA), but great care must be exercised to assure full compliance with Canon 2.
Attorney General's opinion for December
During December 1994, Attorney General Mike Bowers issued the court-related opinion summarized below. A complete copy of the opinion may be obtained from the Administrative Office of the Courts at (404) 656-5171.
Unofficial opinion
Bail bondsmen.
A professional bondsman may require as a condition of his suretyship that, in addition to the fee allowed by OCGA $17-6-30, he receive an indemnification from a third party in an amount equal to the principal amount of the bond without violating OCGA ~17-6-30. Furthermore, a court may order the payment of restitution to a bail bondsman for a loss sustained as a consequence of an accused criminal jumping bail in violation of OCGA $16-10-51.
(12/22/94 No. U94-17)

Augusta native Carl C, Brown Jr. (left) was sworn in by Gov. Zen Miller as a judge of the superior courts, Augusta Judicial Circuit, on December 5. Judge Brown, formerly a municipal court judge, succeeds Judge John H. Rufin Jr.
William Ralph Hill Jr. (le~) took the oath of oj-ice ji-om GOV. Zen Miller on Februay 1, becoming a superior court judge of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit. Judge Hill seined as an assistant district attorney in that circuitfiom 1971 to 1973 and then entered private practice. He succeea3 Judge Joseph E. LOggins.
Cynthia D. Wright ofAtlanta receives congratulations from Gov. Zen Miller after being sworn in as a judge of the Fulton County State Court on ]anuay 4. Judge Wright (left) was accompanied by her niece Caitlin Springer (center). Judge Wright served as executive counsel to the governor before being appointed to the bench. She suceea!s Judge Alice D. Bonner.

February 1995

3

Georgia Courts Journal

Chief Justice Hunt outlines judicial reforms in speech to General Assembly

ChiefJusticz Willis B. Hunt Jr. gave the annual State of the Judiciary Address before the Georgia General Assembly on January 11, 1995. Highlights of the address follow.
I know my presence here is less an opportunity to disseminate useful information than it is a symbol that the third branch of government indeed exists and that you recognize our role, and we appreciate that. You understand that our engines are fed primarily by your work product. Almost everything you do finds its way to us. Whether your statuto~ enactments govern the substance and procedure of our tort cases, our divorce cases, or our criminal cases, or whether the laws you pass are simply presented to us for interpretation (because some people, believe it or not, don't know what you mean), the produce of your work is our life blood.
Courts do not make law, but they interpret it everyday, whether in the literal sense of the appellate function or in the practical application of the trial courts--approving or disapproving by their enforcement or rejection of your work product. And, it is that everyday, necessary, even intense, relationship between us, that I will reflect on in response to your kind invitation to be here.
Should I do as my predecessors have done for the last eight years, and that is, should I shower you with statistics that demonstrate the ongoing overload on your state courts and the fact that the courts' share of the state budget has never exceeded one percent--never reached one percent? You may recall Harold Clarke's eloquent plea two years ago reflecting on the sonq "Buddy, Can You Spare A Dime?" and then asking
Georgii Courts Journal

you, "Buddy, Can You Spare a Penny?" But a penny could not be spared then, and apparently cannot now. We get right at eight-tenths of one percent of the state budget.
I have decided not to dwell on that because everyone knows there is an unmet demand for court time; everyone knows the courts are overloaded, a situation that will not be alleviated by stiffer sentencing laws or the upcoming Olympics. You don't have to be a lawyer or a judge to know that. And everyone knows that there are far more demands for your money than can be met. There are hard choices for you to make. We understand that. Education, for example. You cannot be too generous as to educational needs. And, in fact, the more you address education, the more you fund it, the less will be needed for courts and corrections-- at least down the road. Pouring money into education is not a waste; it is an opportunity to attack the source of crime problems rather than the consequences, as has always been done in the past.
No matter what percent of the budget we have gotten, I think you have done as well by us as present circumstances permit. In fact, as far as the Supreme Court goes, you have been generous. Your generosity has permitted us to create and nurture programs we believe essential to the goal of equal justice and effective justice. Those programs include the Committee for Gender Equality, the Commission on Racial and Ethnic Bias, the Office of Dispute Resolution (ADR), Courts Automation, and the new Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts. Over the past three years you have doubled funding for indigent defense. These are important programs with important
4

goals and we, the judiciary and the legislature, are jointly fulfilling our responsibility to pursue them.
Superior courts You have fulfilled your responsibil-
ity to the superior courts--the principal trial courts of the state. You have agreed to add judges, but your hands are tied by federal votingrights litigation. We pray for a speedy resolution, and a fair resolution as well.
To meet the current demand, our superior courts have absorbed all available senior judges and many, many magistrates, juvenile court judges, and probate court judges. Much of the family law workload in the superior courts has been shifted to magistrates. These are emergency times and this is an emergency mea- sure--but it is troubling.
It is at the heart of dissatisfaction and disenchantment of family court litigants and lawyers. Family law problems go beyond the lack of judge power. We all know that and we, and the members of the State Bar, and a number of you, are working with the State Bar Family Court Commission to address the overall problems and the wisdom, the feasibility of a family court. The citizens have authorized pilot programs in this field and you will consider those. This is not the time under all the attendant circumstances, to alter the discretionary appeals process. Let's not attack the problem piecemeal with a short-term solution, but address the whole problem through the study of the commission, the pilot programs, and the eventual addition of superior court judges. The trial courts desperately need help. What " is most needed is more judges, but you cannot address that now.
February 1995

Appellate courts

scrutiny. The underlying challenges

court. Regionally, perhaps by con-

I have not overlooked our Court of of the voting-rights case must even-

gressional district (as judicial districts

Appeals, I have saved them for last

tually be addressed, regardless of the are now divided), there would be a

because they need your help, and

outcome. And, the wisdom of state-

panel of three judges who would

you can help them. For every one

wide judicial elections remains in

\

opinion that I and my colleagues on

question. In twenty years appellate

hear direct appeals from all civil cases, family law included, and most

the Supreme Court write, my col-

court incumbents have faced opposi- criminal cases. They would provide

leagues on the Court of Appeals

tion ten times and won nine of those for a review of fact and law in these

each write five-or is it six? They are

times-a track record that challenges cases, many of which are now dis-

basically writing one opinion for

the system. Should a newly ap-

cretionary. This appellate division

each workday, an enormous load--

pointed member of either of these

would be a primary court of appeals.

an impossible load. They seek your

two courts be required to face elec-

Our present Court of Appeals, on

help in order to provide sufficient

tion within a few months after taking the other hand, would be a true

staff to keep them afloat and I know

office? Is that fair to the judge? Is it

intermediate court of appeals. It may

you will be responsible and meet

fair to you and the rest of the voting

well need no more members. It

their needs. Be generous with them.

public? Will we see the same in-

would take capital criminal cases on

Don't compromise, be generous.

crease in campaign contributions--

direct appeal, but others would be

They are the hardest working appel-

mainly from interested lawyers-as

largely discretionary. Because of the

late judges in the counby, and they

has occurred in Alabama, North

work of the primary court of appeals,

need and deserve your help.

Carolina, and Texas? I hope not, but

its workload would be greatly re-

To be honest, they need more than I am worried about it and you should duced. It would be manageable; it

staff. They need, although they may

be too.

would be important. It would be the

not agree with me, they need the

high error-correcting court.

benefit of a restructured appellate

Vision

The Supreme Court then, except

court system. They need more

Let me conclude with a vision--

for death penalty cases, constitu-

judges--either on their court or at

my vision of what our court system

tional issues, tax cases, and claims

least on another appellate tier-- but

should be and, yes, it will cost more

against the state, would be a true

you cannot solve that now, even if

than a tenth of one percent of the

cert court. It would take its cases

we were to agree. how to solve it.

state budget. But you will have

by writ of certiorari to the Court of

So there you have it. You get a

plenty of lead time to adjust. It is a

Appeals. Unlike now, the Supreme

high grade from me. We are grateful vision that no other judge necessarily Court and the Court of Appeals

for what you do, and I thank you

shares, but you get it from me for the would not be doing the same

once again for the across-the-board

price of admission.

thing--they would not be sharing

pay raise you gave all judges last

Beyond the probate and magistrate the error-con-ecting function. That

year. You were generous--most

courts whkh could be joined together, would primarily rest with the Court

generous. Decent compensation says but probably never will, there would

of Appeals and the primary appellate

a lot about the state of our judiciary

be three tiers.

division. The Supreme Court could

and we are grateful that you recog-

There would be one trial court--

fulfill its principal role, that of mold-

nized and met our need.

the superior court, with a family law

ing the common law, that of inter-

division, including juvenile matters,

preting the constitution, and that of

Selection of judges

and perhaps a criminal division. All

overseeing the legal profession--an

We are also grateful that a decade

civil and criminal cases would go

increasingly important and urgent

ago you were wise enough to let the

there and superior court judges

role. The Supreme Court would

people tell us through their constitu- could try something besides divorce

speak to broad issues of justice and

tion that judges' elections should

and felonies. Why have both supe-

equality.

be nonpartisan. We have thereby

rior courts and state courts? There is

The judges of these courts would

avoided the confusion and distress

no reason. State trial courts should

be fairly selected by a method that

suffered by our neighbors in Alabama, be funded by state moneys.

would insulate them as far as pos-

North Carolina, and Texas. The pres-

There would be a well staffed me-

sible from unwanted political pres-

sure of party politics and political

diation/arbitration office through

sure, but would permit the voters to

action committees has cast a dark

which most of the civil work would

decide, either directly or indirectly,

shadow on the legitimaq of their

be funneled initially. There would

who serves. That method would also

method of selecting judges.

be--as there is now in some states-- insure the selection of judges who

But our system still deserves

an appellate division of the superior

See Chief J&-ice, page 19

February 1995

5

Georgia Courts Journal

Fiscal year 1996 appropriations request submitted

Judicial branch agencies have submitted budget requests for fiscal year

services such as tutorin~ counseling symbolic restitution, transpor-

more competitive salary structure for

--

the Court of Appeals ($.55,454).

1996 (July 1, 1995-June 30, 1996)

tation and community service super-

The judicial branch is usually

totaling $77.9 million. Requests

vision ($150,000);

allocated approximately seven-

include $73 million in continuation

q a survey of local courtrooms to

teenths of one percent of the total

funding and almost $5 million in

develop plans to make courtrooms

state budget.

improvements or enhancements to

accessible to persons with disabili-

A breakdown of the fiscal year 1996

existing programs.

ties ($20,000);

requests for state appropriations is

The fiscal year 1996 continuation

c additional support staff and a

presented in the table below.

request represents a 6.6'%0 increase

over fiscal year 1995 appropriations

of $68.4 million. Funding for 14 su-

Judicial Branch Appropriations Request

perior court judgeship positions held vacant due to voting-rights litigation

Fiscal Year 1996 (July 1, 1995- June 30, 1996)

has been included for the past several years in the continuation budget

Budget Unit/Agency

Continuation

Improvement

Total

of the superior courts. Improvement funds have been

Supreme Court

$5,671,506

$0

$5,671,506

requested for the following

Court of Appeals

6,559,028

710,092

7,269,120

q an increase in state funds avail-

able to reimburse counties for the

Superior Courts

52,971,537

32,000

53,003,537

costs of indigent defense, including funds for the legal representation of children appearing in juvenile court

Operations Council of Superior Court Judges Judicial Administrative Districts Prosecuting Attorneys' Council

49,044,898 341,297
1,303,018 2,282,324

0 0 32,000 0

49,044,898 341,297
1,335,018 2,282,324

($2,000,000);

--.

. installation, training and support

Juvenile Courts

for the case-management software

Council of Juvenile Court Judges

1,050,000

150,000

1,200,000

susmm in 150 local courts ($1,050,000);
. five additional central staff attorney positions and related expenses

Institute of Continuing Judicial Education Operations Magistrate Courts Training Council Municipal Courts Training Council

759,630 594,150 151,230
14,450

0

759,830

0

594,150

0

151,230

0

14,450

to deal with increased caseload in

the Court of Appeals ($536,435); q state funding for the continued
operation of the Multi-County Public Defender's Office of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council, which

Judicial Council Operations Board of Court Reporting Case Counting Council of Magistrate Court Judges Council of Probate Court Judges

1,921,445 1,323,860
75,183 76,500 28,302 21,200

0

1,921,445

0

1,323,960

0

75,183

0

76,500

0

28,302

0

21,200

provides direct representation when

Council of State Court Judges

37,500

0

37,500

requested in death penalty cases ($500,000);

Council of Superior Court Clerks Appellate Resource Center

33,800 325,000

0

33,800

0

325,000

. programming funds for development of an interface to convert local

Judicial Qualifications Commission

162,458

0

162,458

court caseload data into a format reportable over the GO Network

Indigent Defense Council

2,200,000

2,500,000

4,700,000

($300,000); . development of an offender-
based case-management system for

Georgia Courts Automation Commission Operations Computerized Information Network

1,351,435 667,635 683,800

1,596,500 1,411,250
185,250

2,947,935 2,078,885
869,050

use by prosecutors ($185,250); . state funding for the Purchase

Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution

252,430

0

252,430

,.. \

of Services Program to reimburse

Judicial Branch Totala

$72,899,669 $4,988,592

$77,888,261

local juvenile courts purchasing

Georgia COUYLS Journal

6

February 1995

Key to the caseload data chart: calendar year 1993

The chart on the following pages

present number of judges in the

needed to bring a case to completion

shows caseload data for each of

circuit. For example, if a circuit has

compared with time taken to try a

Georgia's 46 superior court judicial

two judges and the delphi value is

typical felony case. Filings of all case

circuits. Data are grouped by filing

greater than 2, the workload war-

types are converted to felony equiva-

type: civil, criminal, and juvenile,

rants consideration for an additional

lents for comparison. When a circuit

and more specifically by case type:

judgeship.

passes the 1,500 felony-case equiva-

general civil, domestic relations,

. The ratio weight represents

lent threshold, another judgeship

felony, misdemeanor and probation

caseload in terms of amount of time

may be considered.

revocations.

. Filings per judge are calculated

so that each circuit's workload is compared on an equal basis. The

Costs of a new superior court judgeship:

number of filings per judge is the

A new judgeship requires funding from the state and counties of the arcuit.

total number of filings for the circuit

Fixed costs do not fluctuate with the volume of activity. Variable costs fluctuate

divided by the total number of

according to changes in the volume of activity or local preference.

judges authorized by the General

Assembly for that circuit. Some

State Costs

judgeships may be vacant. a Shaded areas indicate circuits
requesting an additional judgeship. q Boldface numbers indicate
figures exceeding the threshold caseload per judge on either the delphi weighted or ratio weighted method.

Fixed costs - salaries and fringe benefits
Superior court judge Judge's secretary Assistant district attorney Court reporter (contingent expense)
Other fixed costs
Library
Total range of fixed costs

Salary
$78,564 18,282
25,368-62,628 960-4,560

Fringe benefits
$26,044 6,543
9,079-22,414

7,225 $172,065-226,261

-----

q Mean figures for all circuits are

shown at the bottom of the columns.

q Rank is the position of the indi-

Variable costs - travel expenses
Superior court judge Assistant district attorney

Average
$2,188 1,141

Range
$0-8,905 0-9,522

vidual circuit as compared to that of

Total average/range of variable costs

$3,329

$0-18,427

other circuits. q Under 0/0 Change, a noticeable

TOTAL RANGE OF STATE COSTS

$175,394-244,687

change in superior court filings per

judge may occur. Presence of courts of limited jurisdiction within a circuit

County Costs*

may decrease or increase filings in

Fixed costs

the superior court. Numbers also vary if a new judgeship was created between 1988 and 1992.
. Population figures are based on
U.S. 1992 estimated census figures for county population.
q . Two systems, the delphi weighted caseload and ratio

Salary supplements: judge, judge's secretary and assistant district attorney Salaries ancf/or fees for court reporters Salaries and fringe benefits for other court personnel: assistant district attorneys,
investigators, law assistants, secretaries and bailiffs Office equipment and furniture
Variable costs
Travel allowances Office operating expenses Necessary courtroom and office space acquisition

weighted caseload, are used to ana-

lyze workload per judge.

. The delphi system applies an

All expenses are annually recurring costs except for the following: establishment of

estimated amount of time required for hearing various case types to each circuit's caseload filings. To qualify for an additional judgeship,

judge's library, acquisition of office equipment, necessaty renovations. Salaries and fringe benefits are calculated from 7/1/94 figures. Travel expenses are calculated from fiscal year 1994 expenses.
q Average figures are unavailable or vary too widely to be included here.

the delphi value should exceed the

Februaxy 1995

7

Georgia Courts Journal

initiation

fraction of the cases heard by a full-time judge judge circuits, there are also a number of other

Recommendations to the governor and the receiving the same training. (10/27/81 )

reasons as to why this approach should be

General Assembly for judicial personnel allo-

Additionally, part-time judges are generally

cations for the superior cqurts shall be made not paid for the time they spend in continuing

taken. Under the existing law, anew judgeship may be created without the addition of another

./

annually prior to the beginning of the regular education. This creates a financial disincen- elected district attorney, although an assistant

session of the General Assembly. Studies by tive for part-time judges to attend continuing district attorney is added. However, when the

the Administrative Office of the Courts of the education courses, since the time spent in circuit is divided and a new circuit thereby

need for judgeships or of the need for changes continuing education might ordinarily be spent created, another elected district attorney is

in circuit boundaries maybe authorized by the practicing law or conducting other business. needed. (10/27/81 )

Judicial Council upon the request of the gover- (10/27/81 )

A second reason supponing the use of `

nor, members of the General Assembly, or by

b. Conflicts of interest often arise in profes- multi-judge circuits is that upon division of an

a judge of the county or counties affected. sional relationships for part-time judges. It is existing circuit into two new ones, one new

Such requests shall be submitted in writing by often difficult for other attorneys to litigate circuit maygrowdisproportionateiy to the other,

September 1, prior to the session of the Gem against an attorney and have to appear before or population or other factors suggesting divi-

eral Assembly during which the judgeship or the same attorney, sitting as judge, the next sion may diminish, thus negating the factors

change in circuit boundaries is sought. Any day. (10127/81 )

which initially led to the division and com-

judge who intends to make a request for a

Additionally, cases in which part-time judges pounding future problems of adjustment. (10/

study must notify the Judicial Council of any are disqualified usually arise in their own court, 27/81)

special circumstances or date of the courts thus eliminating a large potential portion of

involved in the request by June 1 so that these their law practice. (10/27/81 )

Methodology

special circumstances may be investigated

1. Criteria for Su~erior Court Judaeshir)

during the studies conducted by the Administrative Office of the Courts. (Rev. 12-13-91)

2. Promotion of Multi-Judae Circuits Multi-judge courts are more effective orga-

Fk29U@S In establishing the need for additionalsupe-

nizations for administrative purposes. Some rior court judgeships, the Judicial Council will

Purpose

specific advantages of multi-judge courts are: consider weighted caseloads per judge for

The Judicial Council seeks to achieve a

a. Accommodation of judicial absences. each circuit. If the per judge weighted case-

balanced and equitable distribution of case- Multi-judge circuits allow better management load meets the threshold standards estab-

load among the judges of the state to promote in the absence of a judge from the circuit due lished by the council for consideration of an

speedy andjustdispositions ofcitizens'cases. to illness, disqualification, vacation, and the additional judgeship, additional criteria will be

The Judicial Council recognizes that the addi- demands of other responsibilities such as con- considered. The threshold standard for the

tion of a judgeship is a matter of great gravity tinuing legal education. (10/27/81)

Ratio Weighted Caseload System is 1,500

and substantial expense to the counties and

b. More efficient use of jurors. Better use of weighted caseload filings per judge and the

the state and should be approached through jury manpower can be effected when .wo threshold standard for the Delphi Weighted

careful inquiry and deliberate study before judges hold court simultaneously in the same Caseload System is shown in the following

action is taken. (10/27/81)

county. One judge in a multi-judge circuit may scale:

use the other judge's excess jurors for a trial of

Policy Statements

a second case rather than excusing them atan

Delphi Weighted Caseload

The Judicial Council will recommend the added expense to the county. Present court-

Threehold Standard

creation of additional judgeships or changes in room space in most counties may not permit

circuit boundaries based only upon needs two trials simultaneously; but such a practice,

#of Judges

demonstrated through comparative, objective if implemented, may justify the building of a

in Circuit Threshold Standard

studies. The Judicial Council will not recom- second smaller courtroom by the county af-

1

1.50

mend the addition of a judgeship not requested fected, or the making of other arrangements.

2

1.50

by the circuit understudy unless there is clear (10/27/81 )

3

! .33

and convincing evidence that an additional

c. Accommodation of problems of impartial-

4

1.25

judgeship is needed. (1 0/27/81 )

ity or disqualification. A larger circuit with addi-

5

1.20

As a matter of policy, the Judicial Council tional judges may permit hometown cases

6

1.17

recommends that no new part-time judgeship where acquaintances are involved to be con-

7

1.14

be created. (10/27/81)

sidered by an out-of-town judge without the

8

1.13

Because of the advantages of multi-judge appearance that the local judge is avoiding

9

1.11

circuits, the Judicial Council generally will not responsibility. (10/27/81 )

10

1.10

recommend the creation of additional circuits.

d. Improves courtadministration. Multi-judge

11

1.09

(10/27/81)

circuits tend to promote impartiality and unifor-

12

1.08

mityof administrative practices andpracedures

13

1.08

by making caurtadministrationsomething more

14

1.07

Judgeships

than the extension of a single judge's person-

15

1.07

1. Part-time iudaeshim

ality. Multi-judge circuits also permit econo-

16 or more

1.06

As a general rule, part-time judgeships are mies in the deployment of auxi!ary court

not an effective method of handling judicial personnel. (10/27/81 )

Additional criteria considered may include,

workload. The disadvantages of part-time

e. Expedites handling of cases. Probably but are not limited to the following, and are not

judgeships are many; a few specific ones are: most important of all, under the arithmetic of necessarily in the order of importance as listed

a. The cost of training a part-time judge is calendar management, the judges of a multi- below:

the same as that of training a full-time judge, judge court can handle substantially more

but the benefits to the state or local govern- cases than an equal number of judges operat-

a. Filings per judge

ment of training a part-time judge are only a ing in separate courts. (10/27/81)

b. Growth rate of filings per judge

fraction of those realized by training a full-time

Besides the advantage of improved effi-

c. Open cases per judge

judge, since a part-time judge will hear only a ciency to be realized through the use of multi-

d. Case backlog per judge

8

;EOGRAPHY AND PERSONNEL as of 11/01/94

:IRCUIT
ALAPAHA AIXOVY+ APPALACHIAN

NUMBER OF
:OUNTIES

NUMBER OF SUPERIOR
COURT JUDGE POSITIONS AUTHORIZED

NUMBER OF STATE COURT JUDGE
POSITIONS AUTHORIZED

5

2

1

NUMBEROF NUMBEROF

JUVENILE

PROBATE

COURT

COURT

JUDGES &

JUDGES

ASSOCIATE HEARING

JUDGES

TRAFFIC

1

4

AW3USTA*

BLUERl~E

BRUNSWICK

GHATTAHCXXX4EE'

CHEROKEE

CLAYTON

1

4

3

2

0

COBB+

1

7

8

4

0

CONASAUGA+

2

3

0

1

2

CORDELE

4

2

0

0

4

COWETA+

DOUGHERTY

13CWGLAS"

DUBLIN

EASTERN ENOTAH

1

6

2

2

0

4

2

0

0

4

FLINT

HOUSTON

LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN

MACON+

fWDIJLEx

MOUNTAIN

NORTHEASTERN

tm-m-ww'

OCMJLGEE

OCONEE

6

2

0

0

6

OGEECHEE+

4

2

4

0

0

PATAULA

PIEDMONT*

ROCK13ALE

ROME

SOl)TH&XIRGh$'

WXJ'ftiERN'

SOLWI-IWESTERN

STONEMOUNT4W4+

YALLAPOOSA TIFTON

4

2

2

2

2

TOOMBS

2

0

0

6

WAYCROSS

WiiSTER%4

(TOTAL)ORMEAN

159

159

92

90

94

"Additional judgeship request.

This circuit received a judgeship recommendation from the Judicial Council either in 12/91 or 12/92.

buttheposition wasnotauthorized bythe legislature. Therecommendations remain pending.

Notea: l. Fayette state court judgeship created effective l/l/95. 2. Juvenile court judges&associate

judges donotinclude protemjudges. 3. Allwhole numbera have been rounded from decimal values.

CY 1993 WEIGHTED CASELOAD

DELPHI WEIGHTED CASELOAD
1.47 2.37

RATIO WEIGHTED CASELOAD
1,750 2,828

TOTAL CIRCUIT FILINGS INCLUDING PROBATION REVOCATION
2,857 4,395 1,624

3.85
2,87 6.52 4.46 1.70 4.06

1.383
1 ;339 1,586 1,602 1,497 1,862

1.25 2.75 3.23

1,622 1,123 1,533

2,155 1,772 2,018 2,567 2,382 2,302
1,359 1,513 1.940
2;079 1.656

3.94 1.45 2.22 1.07 %m 0.61

f ,430 1,432 2,031 1,086 4$3$ :
652

2,092 2,958 1.572

1.07

1,252

1.28

1,170

1,469

1,623 1,868
2,059

9

I

FILINGS PER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, RANK, AND GROWTH: CY 1993

TOTAL CIRCUIT FILINGS INCLUDING PROBATION REVOCATIONS
2,857 4.395

% CHANGE RANK CY89 - CY93

4

12%

1

18%

TOTAL CIVIL FILINGS
867 2.046

RANK
30 7

% CHANGE CY89-CY93
-lYO 11'%

GENERAL CIVIL
268 575

DOMESTIC RELATIONS
599 1.471

TOTAL CRIMINAL FILINGS
1,990 2,349

RANK
2 1

`h CHANGE CY89-CY93
19% 25%

FELONY DOCKETS
638 810

1,772

32

62%

1,030

5

36%

158

873

742

20

124%

463

2,018

23

28%

1,309

6

26%

271

1,037

710

23

32yo

541

!,

2,587

6

-3%

1,332

17

-2%

387

945

747

19

-670

276

2,382

10

16!/0

1,199

35

14%

331

868

818

9

1 o%

306

2.302

11

29%

1.573

40

28%

391

1.182

729

21

31%

546

.-

1 ;359

45

-34%

712

1

-51 `%

251

461

647

29

3%

403

1.513

43

1270

783

37

38%

304

479

512

40

-29Y0

118

2;092 2.958

16

17%

2

36%

1,111

36

1,827

25

19% 32%

325

786

455

1.372

750

17

18%

701

25

37%

347

. . .

516

1 ;623

40

-22Y0

1 ;077

33

2V0

303

775

546

37

-22Y0

310

2,059

1,190

358

832

746

372

10

MISDEMEANOR DOCKETS
1,312 1,160

PROBATION REVOCATION
41 360

TOTAL JUVENILE (NUMBER OF CHILDREN)
0 0

RANK
25 25

% CHANGE CY89-CY93
. . . . . ..-

OPEN CASELOAD PER JUDGE AND RANK:
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CY 1993

TOTAL OPEN FILINGS
1,233 2.150

RANK
6 1

TOTAL BACKLOG
793 1,412

RANK
6 1

JURY TRIAL DISPOSITIONS PERJUDGEAND RANK: CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CY 1993

CRIMINAL COUNTS HEARD BY JURY
20.5 34.5

RANK
39 7!=,

CIVIL CASES HEARD BY JURY
2.5 95

19

260

21

146

260

210

249

264

69

114

17

228

293

101

104

96

251

146

0

25

----

421

40

192

41

48.5

13

8.0

0

25

----

776

21

380

28

38.~

21

10.4

508

2

-IYO

1,067

9

674

10

56.3

9

12.3

366

5

42%

360

45

127

46

18,0

41

9.0

0

25

----

770

22

415

26

55.0

10

53

0

25

----

218

13

225%

0
0

25

----

25

----

1,320

4

710

25

938 473

I4
22

10,0

46

53.2

11

6.0 2.5

278

125

9

176

232 430

12 3

7'% 53%

405

42

494

36

159 167

I45
43

12.0

45

31.5

28

6.0 19.0

;29

108

446

125

213

161

0

25

-IOOYO

824

19

579

17 I

32.5

27

7.5

188

14

53%

682

27

462

23 I

16.0

44

5.5

123

809

495

39

10

;

POPULATION

1992 ESTIMATED POPULATION
PER

U.S. CENSUS 2010
PROJECTED POPULATION
PER

SENIOR JUDGES AND RESIDENT ATTORNEYS

FY 93 SENIOR JUDGE

1994 RESIDENT ACTIVE

28

36;566

38 I 24.623

27 43

41,024 28,106

I31
44

61.0 0.0

14 39

40 20

39,200

49,816

74.5

64

ALAPAHA ALCOVY+ APPALACHIAN ATLANTA** ATLANTIC AUGUSTA* BLtJERllXX BRUNSWICK
GHATTM-IOOCHEE' CHEROKEE CLAYTON COBB+ CONASAUGA+ CORDELE COWETA+ DOUGHERTY
IXUJGLAS" DUBLIN EASTERN ENOTAH FLINT

HOUSTON

LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN

MACON+

M I D D L E * :.

MOUNTAIN

NORTHEASTERN

NORTHERV

UCMULGEE

OCONEE

OGEECHEE+

PATAULA

P#ti?)MONT'~

ROCKDALE

ROME

sOtmif2Ezor@A*

SOUTHERN* ~

SOUTHWES'fEf?f4

STONE MOUNTAIN"

TALLAIWOSA

25

TIFTON

40

TOOMBS

WAYCROSS

WESTERN*

r > ) ,
. .
11
I
h 1

12

5

L". ,. ,

e. Population served per judge f. Population growth g. Number and types of supporting courts h. Availability and use of senior judge assistance i. Number of resident attorneys per judge j. Responses to letters to legislators, county commissioners, presidents of local bar associations, district attorneys, and clerks of supsriorcoufi asking for their input. (9/13/86)
2. CriteriaforStudvina Reauests to AkerCircuit Bou ndarieg The criteria used by the Judicial Council in
reviewing proposals to alter circuit boundaries will include the following criteria:
a. Weiahted Caseload ~er Judae - After the proposed change in circuit boundaries, caseload should be more evenly distributed. In addition, a proposed circuit's workload should not vary significantly from the statewide average weighted caseload per judge. (10/27/8 1)
b. Caseload Growth Trends - Caseload growth trends should be examined so that an imbalance in growth rates when a circuit boundary is changed will not necessitate a reallocation of manpower or alteration of circuit boundaries again in the near future. Such continual shifts in circuit boundaries or manpower could be very unsettling and, thereby, significantly reduce judicial efficiency. (10/27/81 )
If a reliable caseload projection method is available, this technique will be used to determine future case filings; if one is not available, caseload growth rates, increases in the number of attorneys per capita and population projections will be analyzed. The population per judge should be evenly divided among the geographical areas affected by the proposed circuit boundary change if a recommendation is to be made.
Secondly, population projections should be examined to insure that disparate population growth rates will not create a great imbalance in the population to be served by each judge within a short period of time from the date of the alteration of the circuit boundaries. Lastly, the population per judge of the altered circuit should not be substantially different from the statewide average population per judge. (10/27/81 )
c. Chanaes in Judicial Trave I Time - Travel time diminishes total judicial time available for case processing; therefore, travel time should not be significantly increased for judges in circuits affected by a change in circuit boundaries before such a change should be recommended. Terms of court in and the number of times each county was visited on caserelated business by the judges should be determined and these trips should be translated into travel time by using official distances between courthouses and road conditions determined by the Georgia Department of Public Safety. (10/27/81 )
d. Proiected Chanaes in Cost to State and LOCaI Government-Cost savings or additional

expenditures required of local and state governing authorities should be determined. Changes in cost for personnel, facilities, and travel should be considered. A recommendation for change should not be made unless additional expenditures required are minimal or balanced by equivalent cost savings. (10/ 27/81)
e. Characteristics of populace in areas of circuits sought to be separated, such as rural or urban. (12/1 1/81)
f. Operational policies of circuit as presently constituted as might involve inattention to smaller counties in circuit. (12/1 1/81)
g. Whether creation of new circuit would obviate necessity of one or two additional judges in parent circuit. (12/1 1/81)
h. Travel and other expenses incident to serving smaller counties. (12/1 1/81 )
i. Alleviation of case assignment problems in larger counties of circuit. (12/1 1/81)
j. Population growth of counties of circuit which would reflect need for new circuit. (12/ 11/81)
k. Comparison population par judge in new circuit with standards approved by Judicial Council in recent years. (1 2/1 1/81)
1. The Judicial Council will presume that a multi-judge circuit is preferred over a singlejudge circuit. (12/1 1/81 )
m. If a county is to be split off from the circuit of which it is a part, the possibilities of adding that county to another circuit should be exhausted prior to the council's recommending a single-judge circuit. (12/1 1/81 )
Judicial Council Deliberations 1. Testimony
Judges, legislators, and others deemed appropriate by the chairman shall be invited to make written remarks or present data regarding the need for judgeships or to alter circuit boundaries. Any special circumstance or data of a circuit for which a request is to be made must be brought to the attention of the Judicial Council by a judge of the requesting circuit by June 1 of the year prior to the year of the legislative session during which the judgeship or change in circuit boundaries will be ccmsidered. The written testimony of the judges, legislators and other persons shall be reviewed and considered by the Judicial Council in their deliberations regarding judicial manpower. Oral arguments will not be made. (6/6/84)
2. Final Deliberations After all wri~en presentations, the Judicial
Council and key Administrative Office of the Courts staff, in open session, will discuss the merits of each request. (6/6/84)
3. Staff r)resentations The Administrative Office of the Courts will
present data evaluating the need toadd judgeships or to alter circuit boundaries based on council approved criteria and will make staff recommendations. (10/27/81 )

4. m After final deliberations, the council will, in
open session, entertain approve or disapprove recommended changes in judicial manpower allocations. Votes on such motions shall be by secret written ballot. A hva-thirds vote of the council membership present at the session will be required to override an unfavorable recommendation based on the criteria contained in these by-laws (policy). After determining those circuits in which the council recommends an additional judgeship, the council will rank the recommendations based on need. (6/6/84)
5. Lenath of Recammendations Upon a recommendation of an additional
judgeship for a judicial circuit by the council, the recommendation shall remain approved by the council for a period of three years, unless the caseload of that circuit changes by plus or minus ten percent. (Rev. 6/6/84)
6. Disaua lification~ Any council member in a circuit or county
affected bya council recommendation shall be eligible to vote by secret ballot on motions affecting that circuit, but shall not be present or participate in the council's final deliberations regarding his or her circuit. (Rev. 6/6/84)
Diaaemination of Recommendations 1. Studv of the Need for AdditionalSuDerior
Courl Judaeshios The Administrative Office of the Courts shall prepare a report, including data required by the council for their deliberations and council policy statement, on the Judicial Council's recommendations as to the need for additional superior court judgeships. Such report shall be distributed to the governor, members of the judiciary and special judiciary committees of the Senate and House,all superior aurtjudges and other interested parties approved by the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Additionally, the Administrative Office of the Courts shall prepare and distribute a press release summarizing the council's recommendations. (10/27/81 )
2, .%ecial Studies of Ju dicial ManDower, Includina Alteration of Circuit Boundaries a. The Administrative Office of the Courts
shall prepare reports on the Judicial Council's recommendations for special studies, including reports on requests to alter circuit boundaries and for judgeships of courts other than the superior courl and shall distribute them to the requestorand, in thediscretion of the director, to other interested parties. (10/27/81 )
b. In preparing special reports, written remarks of judges, legislators, and others deemed appropriate by the chairperson shall be solicited by the Administrative Office of the Courts and considered by the Judicial Council. (12/1 1/86)

13

Highlights of December Judicial Council meeting corztirmedfrom page I

New members welcomed The council welcomed the follow-
ing new members Judge Richard S. Gault (Blue Ridge
Circuit), administrative judge, Ninth Judicial Administrative District, replaces Chief Judge Bobby C. Milam.
Judge Kathlene Gosselin (Hall County), president-elect, Council of State Court Judges, replaces Judge James N. Butterworth.
Judge George J. Hearn III (Newton and Walton Counties), presidentelect, Council of Juvenile Court Judges, replaces Judge William W. Lavigno 111.
Judge Wdliam F. Lee Jr. (Coweta Circuit), administrative judge, Sixth Judicial Administrative District, replaces Judge WMiam H. Ison.
Judge Walter J. Matthews (Rome Circuit), administrative judge, Seventh Judiaal Administrative District, replaces Chief Judge Tom Pope.
Judge Dan F. Pierce (Walton County), president-elect, Council of Magistrate Court Judges, replaces Judge Guy D. "Pete" Pfeiffer.
Chief Judge E. Mullins Whisnant (Chattahoochee Circuit), administrative judge, Thhd Judicial Administrative District, replaces Chief Judge Walker P. Johnson Jr.
Alternative Dispute Resolution The Georgia Commission on Dis-
pute Resolution provides assistance to local alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs. Current projects include mediation guidelines in domestic violence cases and a Code of Ethics for mediators.
Commission. on Family Courts The State Bar Commission on
Family Courts is working to evaluate and improve the delivery of judicial services to families and children with respect to family law issues. Currently, the commission is collecting data on family courts, the Georgia system and national models.

Commission on Family Violence The Georgia Commission on Fam-
ily Violence is developing a comprehensive plan for ending family violence. Circuit-wide task forces on family violence currently operate in 22 counties.
Supreme Court Committee for Gender Equality
The committee has developed a model sexual harassment policy for all classes of courts. The policy has been adopted by the Counal of State Court Judges, the Council of Juvenile Court Judges, the Council of Magistrate Court Judges, the Council
During the meeting, ChiefJustice Willis B. Hunt Jr. thanked ChiefJudge Marion T. Pope Jr. fir his setvice to the Judicial Council.
of Probate Court Judges and the Georgia Indigent Defense Council. The committee has also developed an intake form for complaints of sexual harassment.
Supreme Court Commission on Racial and Ethic Bias in the Courts
The commission has completed public hearings, and subcommittees are now working on a report and recommendations. The commission is working with the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education on a cultural diversity training program for judges.

Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts
Created in November, this committee reported to the council for the `-' first time. Their work will focus on case management, drug courts and alternative sentencing. A resource manual of drug treatment programs in being updated and will be sent to trial judges.
Georgia Courts Automation Commission (GCAC)
SusTm, a principal case-management software effort sponsored by GCAC, is now used in seven superior courts and the Floyd County Juvenile Court. Ten additional superior courts will be added in 1995, along with five state courts, six juvenile courts, and pilot projects in probate, magistrate and municipal courts.
Institute of Continuing Judicial Education (ICJE)
A curriculum on cultural diversity and awareness produced by the Anti- .+ Defamation League, A Workplace of Diffmence, A World of D.ijfmemx, will be presented early in the year. Instate faculty will conduct future training. In time cultural diversity material will be integrated into continuing education programs for all classes of courts. Additional faculty training on domestic violence, avil and criminal matters will be offered in May.
Judges councils The Council of Superior Court
Judges long-range planning committee has developed a strategic plan with help from the Office of Planning and Budget. The committee has also developed mission and vision statements and devised strategic directions.
The strategic planning committee of the Council of State Court Judges is working on mission and vision statements. In July, a contract began to tailor the superior court criminal `>
Continued next page

Georgia Courts ]ournal

14

February 1995

Judicial Council continued

Committee for Gender Equality

benchbook to state court needs and conducts guardian ad Iitem survey

develop chapters on misdemeanors.

Over the past year, the Council of

The Supreme Court Committee for

four of the judges surveyed use

L.. Juvenile Court Judges Purchase of

Gender Equality recently conducted

guardians ad litem. Most guardians

Services Program provided services

a survey on the appointment of

are chosen from a list of volunteers,

to children on probation. A total of

guardians ad litem. The survey, sent

social workers, attorneys or members

$200,000 was expended on 3,000

to each chief judge of the superior

of the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers

children in 107 counties. The Perma-

courts, was a response to complaints

Foundation and CASA. Some

nent Homes for Children program

received by the committee alleging

choices are based on recommen-

now has nine field staff and 800

gender-biased behavior and atti-

dations and requests made by the

citizens involved, with 152 panels

tudes (against both men and

parties involved or by counsel.

serving 53 counties.

women) among guardians ad litem.

Most judges prefer to use attor-

The Counal of Magistrate Court

The committee hoped to learn

neys as guardians ad litem, although

Judges has begun a mentor program. what qualit3cations and training are

they are willing to consider others.

Three automated systems were sup-

required of guardians ad litem and

Four judges replied that they appoint

ported by the counal in the past yeac

how this may relate to the alleged

only attorneys with family law expe-

a fee and fine accounting system; a

behavior. Survey responses revealed

rience. Other qualflcations consid-

warrant-writing training system; and that little training is required or

ered included education, experience

a computer program dealing with

available; only two programs, offered and character

bad checks and search warrants.
Brooks suit wntinuedj70m page I

by the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation and Georgia CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocates), were identified.

Conclusions The committee concluded that
inconsistencies do exist as to the qualifications and selection of guard-

court judges and clears the way for elections for 48 positions on hold pending resolution of the case.
The chairman of the Judicial Nominating Commission, Norman L. Underwood, stated that the commis-

Survey results Judges were asked about selection
criteria, use of non-attorneys, other qualifications required and training efforts. Forty-six surveys were distributed; 26 were returned. Twenty-

ians ad litem, and more training programs are needed. The committee plans to address charges of genderbiased behavior among guardians ad litem by incorporating training in gender issues into existing programs.

sion is preparing a schedule to select

short-list candidates for the 14 posi- Project will assess child placement services
tions. The commission could present

its first list to the governor as early as Under the Family Preservation and

ing. After an assessment phase is

April 1.

Support Act, the U.S. Congress has

completed, the Supreme Court will

State Representative T~one Brooks provided federal grant funds to en-

decide whether to go forward with a

(Atlanta), the lead plaintiff in the

able state courts to evaluate and de-

court improvement plan. Implemen-

1988 suit, stated his continued belief

velop plans to improve the judicial

tation of the plan could be funded

that at-large voting is discriminatory

processes involved in deprivation

through future grants.

and dilutes the voting power of mi-

hearings, removal of children from

The assessment of child placement

norities. He and the other plaintiffs

their homes, termination of parental

services will be conducted by the

plan to appeal the case to the U.S.

rights, and adoptions.

Administrative Office of the Courts

Supreme Court, if the U.S. Justice

Funded through the Administra-

under guidelines promulgated by the

Department does not do so.

tion on Children, Youth and Families Administration for Children, Youth

The ruling came after the state

of the U.S. Department of Health

and Families. Additional financial

abandoned a negotiated settlement

and Human Services, the Court Im-

support has been provided by the

when it was ruled out by a federal

provement Program is open only to

Division of Family and Children

judge in Savannah. Last March, U.S.

the highest court in each state. After

Services under the Child Abuse

District Court Judge B. Avant Eden-

deliberation and consultation with

Prevention and Treatment Act. An

field ruled that the proposed settle-

representatives from the affected trial advisory committee appointed by

--

ment violated Georgia law by depriv-

courts, the Supreme Court of Georgia the Supreme Court will set policy

ing citizens of the right to elect judges. has applied for the first year's fund-

for the project.

February 1995

15

Georgia Courts Journal

Court Futures F~rum

Editor's note: To wntinue the court jidures planning eflort, the Georgia Courts Journal in cooperation with the Institute of ContinuingJudicial Education is sponsoring these feature articles prepared by futures wnsultant Dr. LaVerne Williamson.
PROSPECTS
"The American justice system is at a crossroads, facing challenges unprecedented in the nation's histo~, challenges unforeseen as recently as a generation ago, challenges for which the system was neither designed nor is now equipped to handle. While the system is among the world's finest. . . change is clearly called for." So begins the ABA report summarizing problems in the American legal system and possible solutions to those problems.
"Just Solutions A Public Forum on the Justice System" was held in Leesbur& Vhginia on May 1-3,1994, coinciding with Law Day. The meeting's 380 conferees included educato~, civic leaders, community volunteers, elected and appointed officials, judges, lawyers, and representatives from state court futures planning efforts, business, labor, the media, and consumer groups. The majority of the participants were non-lawyers. Georgia's 15 participants included the executive director and president of the State Bar and representatives from the Georgia Department of Children and Youth Services and Court Futures Project. William Ide of Atlanta, then-president of the ABA, was chief planner and host of the conference. Speakers included futurist Jim Dater and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
The ABA "Justice for All-All for Justice" campaign sparked an inten-

sive public dialogue about justice in the United States and had, as the ]ust Solutions final repofl states, "no precedent in Association histo~." Four ABA forums preceded "Just Solutions" in 1993 and 1994-the Leadership Forum for state, local, women and minority bar and ABA Section leaders, the Summit on Civil Justice System Improvements, the Summit on Crime and Violence and the Summit on Racial and Ethnic Diversity. The results of these four meetings were incorporated into both the planning and product of the Just Solutions conference.
The conference's final report--@t Solutions: Seeking hznooation and Change in the A.merican]ustice System--proposes principles, solutions and strategies for addressing legal system problems. Many of these strategies parallel and underscore suggestions from the Georgia Court Futures Vanguard. Like Georgia's Court Futures effort, "Just Solutions" is the product of many concerned American citizens working hand-inhand with judges and lawyers to find solutions to make our system of justice "more accessible, more serviceoriented, and more fair."
This edition of "Court Futures Forum" is devoted to a review of the conclusions of the ABA conference. "Possibilities" will summarize suggested guidelines and proposals, and "Ptogress" presents innovations. Copies of the full report can be obtained through the ABA Service Center, P.O. Box 10892, Chicago, IL 10892.
POSSIBILITIES
Just Solutions conferees suggested that efforts to improve the administration of justice in the federal and

state judicial systems require a strong partnership between the legal profession and the public. If the campaign to integrate justice reform with social change is to be successful, justice professionals must "reach outside their profession" and join in the search for answers to the multifaceted problems plaguing our legal system.
While some conference delegates were reluctant to acknowledge the influence of social problems on the legal system, others agreed that only by addressing these problems can we begin to correct them.
The report concludes". . . as soaal institutions have come apart, the jus-
tice system has taken on the unenviable role of conflict resolver of first resort, and the added role of society's emergency room. To the extent that `upstream' illnesses can be cured before their victims are left on the courthouse steps, so will the justice system find air to breathe." The willingness of conference participants to address these "upstream" social issues is evident in the final report and in the programs dis-
cussed under "Progress." Five key themes emerged from
conference discussion: Better Acxess to Justic8 (i.e., justice "service centers," ADR, public education, increased legal services for the poor, use of
technology), Seroing the Public (i.e., "demystification of justice" through language revision and public education, public forums on justice), Equal Justice (i.e., racial/cukural/gender diversity "action plans," court interpreters, additions to judicial education programs), Reengineered Processes (i.e., unified family courts, better integration of juvenile justice and social services, drug courts, truth in sentencing civil docket backlog

Georgia Cocwts Journal

16

February 1995

reduction, judicial impact statements), and Rethinking Key Roles (i.e., increased judicial pay, merit selection of judges, increased continuing judicial education, judicial manage`\ . . . . ment performance evaluation). Many of these concepts have been discussed and endorsed by the Georgia Court Futures Vanguard.
One vehicle for change is use of a "state justice commission." Such commissions are partnerships of the state's high court, the state's bar association and other branches. This standing commission would be charged with the responsibility of reviewing problems common to state judicial systems, as well as those unique to its own state, and devising, implementing and evaluating state and local strategies for change. Some states have already established such groups. The ABA has pledged its support to this and other state initiatives to improve the administration of justice in state courts.
PROGRESS --
The Just Solutions Program Guide details over 100 existing projects that share the goal of developing an efficient, fair system of administration of justice. Several programs are cited below.
Access to justice . Alternative dispute resolution
programs, including "neutral evaluation of cases" programs, mediation of criminal complaints, and multidoor dispute resolution divisions in superior courts.
q Specialized legal assistance programs, such as the Georgia State University School of Law Tax Clinic to assist the working poor.
q Task Forces or Commissions on Racial/Gender/Ethnic Bias
Criminal justice q Partnerships between government and citizens to address and combat drug trade in neighborhoods.

q Case-management programs for at-risk children in detention, combining court resources with education, medical and soaal services resources.
. Use of former gang members and ex-convicts to teach life management and cont%ct resolution to children.
. Youth education and employment programs.
. Peer mediation programs in schools.
. Legal education programs for first time offenders and their families.
q Alternative sentencing programs such as day reporting centers.
Children and families q Family courts. q A coordinated response to do-
mestic violence among law, safety, and justice agencies.

v\~/

Serving

the public

. Programs stressing

>

--
\

"user friendly" courts,

such as "meet the courts and

law enforcement" public forums,

summer law internship programs

for high school students, public

education programs, research on

consumer reaction to court services,

detailed pamphlets on court proce-

dures, child care for parents having

business with the courts, simple

guides on court and appellate

procedure for citizens, use of tech-

nology for increased access and

service.

Citizen involvement in justice system reform
* Court futures activities, judicial performance reviews, community courtwatch organizations, citizen advisory groups.

Council of Municipal Court Judges elects officers
At the January 6 meeting of the Council of Municipal Court Judges in Morrow, Judge Thomas C. Bobbitt 111, council president, introduced the other officers and district representatives:

Off icers
President - Judge Thomas C. Bobbitt 111, Dublin 1st Vice President - Judge James Lane Johnston Sr., Statesboro 2nd Vice-President - Judge Maurice H. Hilliard Jr., Roswell Secretary - Judge Steve C. Jones, Athens Treasurer - Judge Margaret Gettle Washburm, Lawrenceville

District Representatives

1 Judge Tom Allen Edenfield, Pooler

7' Judge Herbert M. Crane Jr.,

Judge Emmett Preston Johnson Sr.,

Cartersville

Baxley

Judge Charles V. Reeves, Smyrna

2 Judge Denise Marshall, Albany

8 Judge Charles W. Merritt Jr.,

Judge James M. Pace Jr., Attapulgus

Madison

3 Judge Michael P. Cielinski, Columbus

Judge Peter j. Rice Jr., Union Point

Judge Catherine E. Spillers, Leesburg 9 Judge Warren W. Kent Jr., Helen

4 Judge James C. Watkins, Doraville

judge William M. Coolidge 111,

5 Judge Roy Roberts, Alpharetta

Norcross

Judge Glen Edward Ashman, East Point f O Judge Felix P. Graham Jr., Colbert

6 Judge C. David Mecklin Jr., Carrollton

Judge Michael W. Strickland,

Judge Frost Ward, Morrow

Winder

February 1995

17

Georgia Courts Journal

A new Supreme Court of Georgia records retention schedule was approved by the State Records Committee on January 19. The schedule is reprinted here. For more information, contact the Department of Archives.
Supreme Court of Georgia Records Retention Schedule

The Supreme Cuurt of Georgia is a court of review and exercises appellate and original jurisdiction as set out in the Constitution of 1983. In addition, it performs varied administrative functions as the highest court of the State and head of the judicial branch. The records of the Court, dating from its founding in 1846, are presently located in the Clerk's ofOce of the Supreme Court and in the Archives.

1. Appeals

1.1 Criminal Appeals, 1990-[Ongoing]

95-ooo1

Total reterrtiom Permanent retention for legal and hk-torical purposes.

Retention Instructions

Microfilm the paper tile.

Transfer the original microfilm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage.

Retain the paper file for a total of ten (10) years.

Two (2) years at the Supreme Court.

Eight (8) years at the Department of Archives and History.

Then destroy paper file.

1.2 Civil Appeals, 1950-[Ongoing]

95-0002

TotaI retention Pen-mrnent retention for legal and historical purposes.

Retention Instructions

Microfilm the paper file.

Transfer the original microfdm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage.

Retain the paper file tbr a total of five (5) years.

Two (2) years at the Supreme Court.

Three (3) years at the Department of Archives and ~tOr'y.

T h e n destmypaper file. "

1.3 Granted habeas corpus, 1990-[Ongoing]

95-oocr3

Total Retentiom Pement retention for legal and historical purposes.

Retention Instructions

Microfilm paper fde retained by the Court.

Transfer the original microfilm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage.

Retain the paper records for a total of ten (10) years.

Two (2) years at the Supreme Court.

Eight (8) years at the Department of Archives and History.

Then destruy paper file.

1.4 Granted petitions for certiorari, 1990-[ Ongoing]

95-0004

Total retention: Permanent retention for legal and historical purposes.

Retention Instructions

Microfilm paper ffle retained by the Court.

Transfer the original microfflm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage.

Retain the paper file for a total of five (5) years.

Two (2) years at the Supreme Court.

Three (3) years at the Department of ArchIves and H~tory.

Then deatruy paper file.

1.5 Certified questions, 1990-[Ongoing]

95-0005

Total retentiom Permanent for legal and historical purposes.

Retention Instructions:

Microfilm paper file retained by the Court.

Transfer the original microfilm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage.

Retain the paper file for a total of five (5) years.

Two (2) years at the Supreme Court.

Three (3) years at the Department of Archives and Hktory.

Then destroy paper file.

2. Original Petitione

Original Petitions, 1990-[ OngOing]

95-0006

Total retentiorv Permanent for legal and hktorica[ purposes.

Retention Instructions

Microfilm paper file retained by the Court. Transfer the original microfilm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage.

Retain the paper file for a total of five (5) years.

Two (2) years at the Supreme Court.

Three (3) years at the Department of Archives and Hktory.

Then destroy paper file.

3. Denied Applications
Denied Applications, 1974-[Ongoing] 3.1 Denied applications for habeas corpus and interim review involving a defendant under death sentence. 1974-[ Ongoing]

95-0007 95-ooea

Total retentiom Permanent retention for legal and historical purposes. Retention Instruction* Microfilm the paper file. Transfer the original microfflm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage. Retain the paper file for a total of ten (10) years.
Two (2) years at the Supreme Court. Eight (8) years at the Department of Archives and History. Then destroy paper file

3.2 Denied applications not involving defendant under death sentence.

1974- [Ongoing]

95-0009

Total Retention Retain the paper file for three (3) years.

Retention Instructions

Three (3) years at the Supreme Court

Then destroy paper file. Note. These records will not be microfilmed

4. Emergency Motions
Emergeng Motions, 1990-[ Ongoing] Total Retentiom Retain the paper file for two (2) yeara. Retention Instructions Two (2) years at the Supreme Court Then deatruy paper file. Note. These records will not be microfilmed.

95-0010

5. Judicial Qualification Caaea

5.1 Judicial Qualifications Proceedings, 1973 -[Ongoing]

95-0011

Total Retentiorx Permanent retention for legal and historical purposes.

Retention Instruction*

Retain paper copy in Court offices until sufficient quantity accumulates for

microfilming.

Microfilm.

Transfer origiml microfilm negative to the Archives tbr permanent security

storage.

Then destroy paper file.

5.2 Canon 6 [Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct] Reports, W73-[OngOing]
Total Retention Retain the paper file for three (3) years. Retention Instructions
Three (3) years at the Supreme Court Then destroy paper file. Note These records will not be microfilmed.

95-0012

6. Disciplinary Cases

Dkiplirrary Caaes, 1977-[ OngOing]

95-0013

Total Retentiom Permanent retention for legal and hktorical purposes.

Retention Instructions

Microfilm paper ffle retained by the Court.

Transfer the original microfilm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage.

Retain the paper file for a total of three (3) years.

Three years (3) years at the Supreme court.

Then destruy paper file.

7. Reinstatement Proceedings
Reinstatement Proceedings, 1979-[ Ongoing] Total Retentiorr Three (3) years. Retention Instructions Retain paper file three (3) years. Three (3) years at the Supreme Court Then destroy paper file. Note. These records will not be microfilmed.

95-0014

8. Bar Admiesion Appeals

Bar Admission Appeala Written Opinions, 1978-[ Ongoing]

95-0015

Written land published] opinions

Total Retentiom Continued retention for legal and historical .purp.oses. Retention instruction

Microfilmed as part of the appeals tile, see number 1, above, or administrative

minutes, see number 12, below.

Then destroy paper file.

Records, inciuding petitions, briefs, motions, letters and orders filed in the Supreme Court. Retentiorx By the Office of Bar Admissions, per Bar Admissions Retention
Schedule. Applications %-37 and 85-52, adopted in 1985 (Copies attached). Retention instructions Return to the Office of Bar Admissions. Note. These records will not be microfilmed by the Court.

Georgia Courts Journal

18

February 1995

9. Formal Advisory Opinions

Formal Advisory Opinions, 1987-[Ongoing]

95-0016

"<..+

Total Retentiom Pem-anent retention for Ie@ and historical purposes.

Retention Instructiorw

Retain paper copy in Court offices until sufficient quantity accumulates for

microfilming.

Microfilm

Transfer origiml microfilm negative to Archivm for permanent security storage.

Then destroy paper file.

10. Proceedings Regarding the Formation of and Amendments to the Rulee Governing the State Bar of Georgia

Bar Rrdea Proceedings, 1%2-[Ongoing]

95-0017

Total retentiom Permanent for legal and historical purposes.

Retention instructions

Retain the paper copy in Court offices until sufficient quantity accumulates for

microfilming.

Microfilm.

Transfer the original microfilm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage.

Then destroy paper file.

11. Docket Books

11.1 Computerized docket books other than disciplinaries, 1989-[Ongoing] 95-0018
Total retention Permanent retention for legal and historical purposes. Retention instructions: Enter microfilm location of case file into the Docket system. Generate Computer Output MIcrofilrn (COW copy of the Docket. Transfer a COM print to the Archives for permanent security storage. Mahrtain electronic copy of Docket for as long as adrnkristrative and public
reference requirea. Then erase the electronic mod

11.2 Handwritten docket books, 1970-1992

95-0019

Retention instrrrctiorw

The handwritten docket books maintained, 1970 through 1992, recording the fi-

inga in every case, shall be transfened to the Archives six (6) large docket

Secretary of State requires financial disclosure statements

books, forty (40) small one?, and seven (7) applications dockets. The index to the docket, cross-referencing the pre-1992 cases by mmes and docket numbers on 3' x 5' cards shall be retained in the Clerk's office.

113 Disciplinary docket booka

95-0020

Total retention Permanent retention for legal and historical purposes.

Retention instrrrctionw Microfilm the 6 disciplinary docket books Transfer the original microfflm negative to the Archives for permanent security
storage. Then destroy the paper dockets.

12. Minutes

Minutea, 19S9-[Ongoing]

95-0021

Total retentiom Permanent for legal and historical purposes.

Retention instructiomc

Microfilm paper foe.

Transfer the original microfilm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage.

Retain the paper file for a total of one (1) year.

One (1) year at the Supreme Court.

Then destroy paper file.

Note. The 10 large, leatherbmrnd typewritten minute hooks maintained from 1949

through 1989, shall be transferred to the Archives.

13. Roll Books of Attorneys

Roll Books of Attorney's, 1907-[Ongoing]

95-0022

Total Retentiom Permanent retention for legal arrd historical purposes.

Retention Inatruction&

Mlcrofilrn

Transfer the original microfilm negative to the Archives for permanent security

storage.

Retain original roll books in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court

14. Administrative Matters Administrative Fdes, 1977-[ Ongoing]

95-0023

15. Miscellaneous Correspondence
Miscellaneous Correspondence, 1992-[Ongoing] Total Retentiorx Three (3) years. Retention Instructions Retain paper copy three (3) years. Three (3) years at the Supreme Court Then destroy paper file. Note. These records will not be microfilmed.

95-0024

Pursuant to the "Ethics in Government Act," {OCGA ~21-550(a) (1)} a financial statement, Form FD, is to be completed by each public officer not earlier than the first day of January
nor later than July 1, for the preceding calendar year of each year in which the public officer holds office other than the year in which an election is held for such public office.
Public officers required to file such statements areas follows:
(A) Every constitutional officer (B) Every elected state official (C) The executive head of every state department or agency,
whether elected or appointed (D) Every member of the General Assembly (E) The executive director of each state board or authority
and the members thereof (F) Every elected county offkial, every elected county or
area school superintendent and every elected member of a county or area board of education (G) Every elected municipal official.
Public officials defined in (A) through (E) shall file their statements with the Secretary of State Elections Division, Suite 1104, West Tower, 2 MLK Jr. Drive, SE, Atlanta, GA 30334-1505. Telephone: (404) 656-2871.

Chief Justice Hunt addresses General Assembly continuedfrom page 5
look like the people of this state-- representation as to gender and to race.
Well, there you have it. Simple, right? It will come, as do all judicial reforms, in increments. But it will come--trust me--+'ve seen the process close up for 24 years and something like my suggestion, similar to my suggestion, will arrive. It is not unlike the product envisioned by Paul Broun, Lany Walker, and Roy Barnes (and myself) in 1984 on the Governor's Commission on Judicial Processes-- Justice 2000. It is a vision that would simpMy and immeasurably enhance the administration of justice and you-- with responsibility, gratitude, humility and vision-will be proud to fund it.
There is one more word that describes better than any other the journey, the odyssey, the pilgrimage of the courts in our search for justice, and that is persistence. We have a great partnership-our two branches-together we will persist and prevail for the people we serve.

-- February 1995

19

Georgia Courfs ]ouvzal

Committee on Substance Abuse meets

The Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts met recently to develop strategies to address substance-abuse related issues impacting the judiaal system. The following membe~ are pictured here:
Lejl to right, seated--Judge Sanford Jones, Fulton County Juvenile Court; Nolan E. Martin, Court Administrator, 8th District; Jane Martin, Criminal Justice Liaison, DH~ Robert L. Doss Jr., Director, Administrative Office of the Courts; Chief Judge Melinda Fletcher, Liberty County Magistrate Court; T. Vincent Fallin, Associate Commissioner, Department of Corrections.
Standing--Judge Nancy Stephenson, Dougherty County Probate Court; Judge Jeannette Little, Troup County State Court; David Anderson Hooker, Executive Director, Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts; Dr. Tom Hester, Director, Substance Abuse Services, DHR; Co-chair Judge J.D. Smith, Court of Appeals; Judge Michael E. Hancock, Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit; Co-chair Presiding Justice Robert Benham, Supreme Court; Paul Kehir, Supervising Defense Attorney, Georgia Indigent Defense Council; Officer Gary Wisham, Muscogee County Sheriff's Office; District Attorney Edward D. Lukemire, Houston Judicial Circuit; Judge Yvette Miller, State Board of Workers' Compensation; John Wise, Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council; Chief Judge Barbara Harris, Municipal Court of Atlanta; and Judge James E. Bodiford, Cobb Superior Court.
Not pictured-J. Terry Norris, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, and Sen. Ed Harbison, Columbus.

Georgia Judicial Council
Chief Justice Willis B. Hunt Jr., Chair
Presiding Justice Robert Benham, Vice Chair Chief Judge Dorothy T. Beasley
Judge Philip F. Etheridge
Chief Judge Hilton Fuller Judge Richard S. Gatslt
Judge Kathlene Gosselin
Chief Judge William F. Grant
Judge Loring A. Gray Jr.
Judge George J. Heam III
Judge Isaac Jenrette
Chief Judge N. Kent Lawrence
Judge William F. Lee Jr. Chief Judge Faye Sanders Martin
Judge Walter J. Matthews Judge H. Arthur McLane Judge LaVerne C. Ogletree
Judge Dan F. Pierce Presiding Judge Marion T. Pope Jr.
Judge Wayne M. Purdom Judge Ronald H. Rentz Chief Judge William M. Towson Judge John Wheaton Judge E. Mullins Whisnant
Administrative Office of the Courts
Director Robert L. Doss Jr.
Senior Communications Officer Billie Dickerson --
Editor
Nancy Kahnt
The Georgia Courts journal is a publication of the Judiaal Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts. It welcomes news about Georgia's courts, their programs and pemonnel. Editorial and circulation offices: AOC, Suite 550,244 Washington St., SW, Atlanta, GA 30334-5900, (404) 656-5171.

Georgia Courts JOURNAL
Administrative Office of the Courts 244 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 550 Atlanta, GA 30334-5900

BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE
PAID ATLANTA, GA PERMlT#1880

Address Correction Requested ~ Printed.. re.yclectpaper