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