Judicial Council policy for judgeship, circuit boundary studies Initiation Recommendations to the governor and the General Assembly for judicial personnel allocations for the superior courts shall be made annually prior to the beginning of the regular session of the General Assembly. Studies by the Administrative Office of the Courts of the need for judgeships or of the need for changes in circuit boundaries may be authorized by the Judicial Council upon the request of the governor, members of the General Assembly, or by a judge of the county or counties affected. Such requests shall be submitted in writing by September 1, prior to the session of the General Assembly during which the judgeship or change in circuit boundaries is sought. Any judge who intends to make a request for a study must notify the Judicial Council of any special circumstances or data of the courts involved in the request by June 1 so that these special circumstances may be investigated during the studies conducted by the Administrative Office of the Courts. (Rev. 12-13-91) Purpose The Judicial Council seeks to achieve a balanced and equitable distribution of caseload among the judges of the state to promote speedy andjustdispositions ofcitizens' cases. The Judicial Council recognizes that the addition of a judgeship is a matter of great gravity and substantial expense to the counties and the state and should be approached through careful inquiry and deliberate study before action is taken. (10/27/81) Policy Statements The Judicial Council will recommend the creation of additional judgeships or changes in circuit boundaries based only upon needs demonstrated through comparative, objective studies. The Judicial Council will not recommend the addition of a judgeship not requested by the circuit under study unless there is clear and convincing evidence that an additional judgeship is needed. (10/27/81) As a matter of policy, the Judicial Council recommends that no new part-time judgeship be created. (10/27/81 ) Because of the advantages of multi-judge circuits, the Judicial Council generally will not recommend the creation of additional circuits. (10/27/81) Judgeships 1. Part-tjme judgeships As a general rule, part-time judgeships are not an effective method of handling judicial workload. The disadvantages of part-time judgeships are many; a few specific ones are: a. The cost of training a part-time judge is the same as that of training a full-time judge, but the benefits to the state or local government of training a part-time judge are only a fraction of those realized bytraining a full-time judge, since a part-time judge will hear only a fraction of the cases heard by a full-time judge receiving the same training. (10/27/81) Additionally, part-time judges are generally not paid for the time they spend in continuing education. This creates a financial disincentive for part-time judges to attend continuing education courses, since the time spent in continuing education might ordinarily be spent practicing law or conducting other business. (10/27/81) b. Conflicts of interest often arise in professional relationships for part-time judges. It is often difficult for other attorneys to litigate against an attorney and have to appear before the same attorney, sitting as judge, the next day. (10/27/81) Additionally, cases in which part-time judges are disqualified usually arise in their own court, thus eliminating a large potential portion of their law practice. (10/27/81) 2. Promotion of Multi-Judge Circuits Multi-judge courts are more effective orga, nizations for administrative purposes. Some specific advantages of multi-judge courts are: a. Accommodation of judicial absences. Multi-judge circuits allow better management in the absence of a judge from the circuit due to illness, disqualification, vacation, and the demands of other responsibilities such as continuing legal education. (10/27/81) b. More efficient use of jurors. Better use of jury manpower can be effected when two judges hold court simultaneously in the same county. One judge in a multi-judge circuit may use the other judge's excess jurors for a trial of a second case ratherthan excusing them atan added expense to the county. Present courtroom space in most counties may not permit two trials simultaneously; but such a practice, if implemented, may justify the building of a second smaller courtroom by the county affected, or the making of other arrangements. (10/27/81) c. Accommodation of problems of impartiality or disqualification. A larger circuit with additional judges may permit hometown cases where acquaintances are involved to be considered by an ouFof-town judge without the appearance that the local judge is avoiding responsibility. (10/27/81) d. Improves court administration. Multi-j"dge circuits tend to promote impartiality and uniformity of administrative practices and procedures by making court administration something more than the extension of a single judge's personality. Multi-judge circuits also permit economies in the deployment of auxiliary court personnel. (10/27/81) e. Expedites handling of cases. Probably most important of all, under the arithmetic of calendar management, the judges of a multi- judge court can handle substantially more cases than an equal number of judges operating in separate courts. (10/27/81) Besides the advantage of improved efficiency to be realized through the use of multijudge circuits, there are also a number of other reasons as to why this approach should be taken. Under the existing law, a new judgeship may be created without the addition of another elected district attorney, although an assistant district attorney is added. However, when the circuit is divided and a new circuit thereby created, another elected district attorney is needed. (10/27/81) A second reason supporting the use of multi-judge circuits is that upon division of an existing circuit into two new ones, one new circuit may grow disproportionately to the other, or population or other factors suggesting division may diminish, thus negating the factors which initially led to the division and compounding future problems of adjustment. (10/27/81) Methodology 1. Criteria for Superior Court Judgeship Re guests In establishing the need for additional superior court judgeships, the Judicial Council will consider weighted caseloads per judge for each circuit. If th.e per judge weighted caseload meets the threshold standards established by the council for consideration of an additional judgeship, additional criteria will be considered. The threshold standard for the Ratio Weighted Caseload System is 1,500 weighted caseload filings per judge and the threshold standard for the Delphi Weighted Caseload System is any value over the current number of judges in the judicial circuit. For example, if the circuit being considered has 2 judges, then the Delphi value must be any fraction over 2. Additional criteria considered may include, but are not limited to the following, and are not necessarily in the order of importance as listed below: a. Filings per judge b. Growth rate of filings per judge c. Open cases per judge d. Case backlog per judge 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 superior court asking for their input. (9/13/85) 10 GEOGRAPHY AND PERSONNEL as of November 1, 1996 CY 1995 WEIGHTED CASELOAD CIRCUIT NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF SUPERIOR STATE JUVENILE PROBATE COURT COURT COURT COURT NUMBER JUDGE JUDGE JUDGES& JUDGES DELPHI RATIO If OF POSITIONS POSITIONS ASSOCIATE HEARING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED Pl COUNTIES AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED JUDGES TRAFFIC CASELOAD CASELOAD RE ALAPAHA 5 2 ALCOVY 2 3 APPALACHIAN 3 2 ATLANTA* 1 15 ATLANTIC 6 4 AUGUSTA 3 7 BLUE RIDGE 2 3 BRUNSWICK 5 4 CHATTAHOOCHEE* 6 5 CHEROKEE 2 3 CLAYTON* 1 4 COBB 1 8 CONASAUGA 2 4 CORDELE 4 2 COWETA 5 5 DOUGHERTY 1 3 DOUGLAS* 1 2 DUBLIN 4 2 EASTERN 1 6 ENOTAH 4 2 FLINT 4 3 GRIFFIN 4 4 GWINNETT* 1 6 HOUSTON 1 2 LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN 4 4 MACON 3 5 MIDDLE* 5 2 MOUNTAIN 3 2 NORTHEASTERN 2 3 NORTHERN 5 3 OCMULGEE* 8 4 OCONEE 6 2 OGEECHEE 4 3 PATAULA PIEDMONT 7 2 3 3 ROCKDALE 1 2 ROME 1 3 SOUTH GEORGIA 5 2 SOUTHERN SOUTHWESTERN 5 4 6 2 STONE MOUNTAIN* 1 9 TALLAPOOSA TIFTON TOOMBS 3 3 4 2 6 2 WAYCROSS 6 3 WESTERN 2 3 1 1 .o 3. 0 1 9 5 6 1 2 3 1 + 4 4 5 2 2 0 ' 2 3 3 8 4 0 1 0 0 3 4 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 5 3 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 3 2 4 4 1 0 5 3 0 2 2 2 0 0 3 2 1 3 4 2 3 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 0 0 2 4 2 0 1 ' 3 0 4 4 3 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 4 6 6 0 5 2 0 1 2 1 5 0 3 2 6 3 1 (TOTAL) OR MEAN (159) (169) (91) (89) Notes: 1. As of 1/1/97, there will be 2 state court judges. 2. Juvenile court judges & associate (94) judges includes three pro tem judges. 3. All whole numbers have been rounded from decimal values. 1.45 2.90 1.24 20.80 4.16 8.78 1.94 2.59 3.91 3.12 3.51 6.71 5.04 1.89 3.43 1.87 1.97 1.38 4.72 1.22 2.47 3.04 5.36 1.27 2.83 4.07 1.89 1.43 2.30 2.38 4.27 1.42 2.58 0.86 2.82 1.22 2.55 1.23 3.31 1.88 10.11 3.00 1.25 1.37 2.49 2.55 1,900 1,778 1,153 1,647 1,038 1,426 1,184 1,197 1,419 1,439 1.,508 1,449 1,154 1,567 1,364 1,210 2,091 1,418 1,192 1,003 1,633 1,425 1,446 1,183 1, 141 1,269 1,630 1,225 1,354 1, 125 1,501 1,218 1,477 1,019 1,130 754 1,336 1,319 1,550 1,359 2,181 1,454 1,360 1,018 1,469 1,222 1,368 11 FILINGS PER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, RANK, AND GROWTH: CY 1995 TOTAL CIRCUIT FILINGS INCLUDING PROBATION REVOCATION % CHANGE RANK CY91 -CY95 3,058 1 10% 2,818 2 -34% 1,684 33 16% 1,920 20 7% 1,649 35 -21% 2,264 10 -17% 1,532 43 15% 1,489 44 -16% 1,845 25 -9% 1,951 18 -8% 1,986 16 16% 1,809 28 -9% 1,997 14 -27% 2,564 5 15% 1,710 31 -19% 1,615 38 -50% 2,751 4 2% . 2,025 13 -2% 1,551 42 -2% 1,560 41 9% 2,081 12 2% 1,873 23 -23% 1,870 24 8% 1,570 40 -30% 1,690 32 -29% 1,620 37 -21% 2,269 9 1% 1,920 20 20% 1,637 36 -2% 1,650 34 -38% 2,420 6 12% 1,822 26 -14% 2,160 11 -23% 1,410 45 -13% 1,902 22 -25% 1,015 46 -14% 1,994 15 4% 1,759 29 -13% 1,964 17 ~J 2,409 7 -7% 11% 2,778 3 36% 2,357 8 -23% 1,813 27 -13% 1,729 30 -8% 1,939 19 12% 1,597 39 -51% 1,935 .j -1 .I TOTAL CIVIL FILINGS 916 1,253 846 1,059 850 1,221 1,072 978 1,216 1, 181 1,241 1,076 957 1,266 1,206 905 1,528 1,202 1,031 855 1,4_49 1,147 1,373 1,052 1,051 921 1, 136 1,012 1,075 880 1,003 863 1,320 673 859 685 1,008 1, 153 1,205 783 1,673 1, 161 1,226 729 1,278 879 1,075 RANK 34 8 42 24 41 11 23 31 12 16 9 21 32 7 13 35 2 15 27 40 3 19 4 25 26 33 20 28 22 36 30 38 5 46 39 45 29 18 14 43 1 17 10 44 6 37 % CHANGE , GENERAL CY91-CY95 CIVIL -12% 289 -40% 492 11% 314 37% 526 -13% 282 -24% 289 18% 237 -19% 274 -8% 364 2% 472 19% 172 -16% 214 -26% 321 17% 379 -14% 297 -56% 212 8% 739 -18% 351 12% 271 27% 295 4% 647 -30% 420 1% 420 -38% 233 -30% 234 -21% 443 c20% 335 13% 292 0% 310 -45% 252 -13% 346 -19% 343 -25% 379 -26% 236 -35% 281 -15% 187 -1% 388 -22% 336 . -14% 409 -23% 367 37% 203 -31% 430 32% 322 -5% 252 12% 370 -45% 341 338 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 627 761 532 533 569 932 835 705 852 709 1,069 862 636 887 909 692 790 851 759 561 802 726 952 820 817 478 802 720 766 628 657 520 942 437 578 498 620 817 796 417 1,470 731 904 478 908 538 737 - TOTAL CRIMINAL % CHANGE FELONY FILINGS RANK CY91-CY95 DOCKETS 2,142 1 23% 1,565 2 -29% 838 9 43% 861 8 -16% 252 46 -65% 457 43 -16% 460 42 7% 511 36 -7% 563 32 -13% 770 11 -20% 745 13 11% 733 18 2% 470 41 -50% 820 10 1% 504 38 -29% 710 21 -39% 1,223 3 --4% 669 22 30% 520 34 -21% 414 44 -34% 632 25 -2% 727 19 -7% 497 39 35% 518 35 -4% 639 24 -27% 659 23 -20% 744 14 39% 600 28 33% 562 33 -1% 565 31 -29% 1,026 6 38% 737 17 -13% 491 40 -26% 738 16 17% 570 30 -36% 330 45 -11% 986 7 8% 606 27 9% 752 12 6% 1,078 5 13% 1,104 4 34% 717 20 -38% 587 29 -9% 740 15 -22% 510 37 5% 615 26 ~19% 732 445 263 649 207 267 300 370 337 265 487 550 149 298 346 389 468 347 386 152 286 414 e335 356 244 368 581 263 ~/ 431 284 375 296 355 379 211 210 234 291 462 309 843 228 309 199 362 379 716 357 -~;,/ 12 MISDEMEANOR DOCKETS PROBATION REVOCATIONS TOTAL JUVENILE (NUMBER OF CHILDREN) 1,336 75 ci 827 293 0 390 186 0 0 213 0 5 40 547 93 97 587 51 109 0 67 74 .o . f34 93 66 2:30 275 0 20 238 0 21 162 0 165 156 570 256 267 478 75 83 0 .1s6o8o. 153 249 0 0 216 106 154 12 123 0 173 90 291 214 131 0 215 98 0 1'' 16.1 0 51 111 0 292 103 0 50 241 40 i:;--::_:_ t::rr 129 . .,1.41 209 390 309 62 68 0 137 144 205 $'66 285 391 325 117 222 9 127 349 254 105 0 137 222 472 10 111 0 565 186 0 99 216 0 137 153 7 368 402 548 0 261 0 354 134 480 146 133 0 409 132 260 41 107 151 62 '174 103 200 160 144 RANK 4 1 19 2 6 16 12 20 9 11 15 8 14 10 7 21 3 5 13 17 18 %CHANGE CY91-CY95 44% 3% 19% 18% 38% 48% 120% -16% 39%' 21% -26% 52% 4% -7% 47% 250% 168% 103% 51% 44% -88% OPEN CASELOAD PER JUDGE AND RANK: CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JURY TRIAL DISPOSITIONS PER JUDGE AND RANK: CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CY 1995 CY 1995 TOTAL OPEN FILINGS 1,769 1,515 1,200 1,035 421 1,188 732 468 1,211 1,025 492 705 780 422 739 497 1,584 669 637 422 1,240 1,249 558 961 633 1,126 977 395 622 1,032 498 408 379 319 708 418 988 575 1,084 875 1,259 894 974 647 890 833 827 RANK 1 3 8 12 41 9 25 38 7 14 37 27 23 39 24 36 2 28 30 39 6 5 34 18 31 10 16 44 32 13 35 43 45 46 26 42 15 33 11 21 4 19 17 29 20 22 TOTAL BACKLOG RANK CRIMINAL COUNTS HEARD BY JURY RANK CIVIL CASES HEARD BY JURY RAN 1, 187 1 10.0 46 3.0 4 928 4 39.0 24 6.0 2 828 7 88.5 4 3.5 3 593 17 34.1 26 19.9 210 42 30.5 30 8.3 1 854 6 55.7 11 7.3 2 395 29 60.3 10 7.7 1 244 37 16.5 42 7.5 2 877 5 24.0 40 2.4 4 672 15 176.0 1 5.7 3 930 3 96.8 3 5.3 3 504 23 37.9 25 5.3 3 466 25 46.0 16 7.3 2 202 43 15.5 44 3.0 4 441 28 28.0 34 4.8 3 215 41 70.3 6 3.0 4 1,019 2 62.5 9 10.5 349 32 16.5 42 6.0 2 391 30 29.3 33 6.5 2 223 38 40.5 22 5.0 :: 733 11 41.3 21 8.0 1 786 9 47.3 15 6.0 :; 222 39 27.3 36 22.5 677 .14 44.5 17 24.0 344 33 63.3 8 7.8 797 8 43.0 19 9.0 724 12 30.0 31 6.5 : 195 44 41.5 20 6.0 : 277 34 54.0 12 9.7 749 10 32.0 27 8.0 267 35. 31.3 28 3.0 ' 161 46 25.5 38 5.0 164 45 10.7 45 13.0 219 40 25.0 39 2.0 442 27 67.0 7 7.7 261 36 108.0 2 11.5 553 20 88.0 5 10.7 352 31 53.5 13 6.5 662 16 31.0 29 4.0 588 18 27.0 37 3.5 583 538 19 . 30.0 22 40.0 31 23 9.9 8.7 700 13 48.5 14 7.0 458 26 27.5 35 7.5 552 21 20.7 41 11.3 484 24 44.0 18 11.7 522 45.2 7.8 13 DISPOSITIONS EAND RANK: _AND CIVIL 1995 CIVIL CASES HEARD K BY JURY 3.0 6.0 3.5 ' 19.9 I 8.3 7.3 I 7.7 ' 7.5 I 2.4 5.7 i 5.3 i ' 5.3 7.3 I 3.0 I 4.8 i 3.0 I 10.5 ~ 6.0 I 6.5 ~ 5.0 I 8.0 j 6.0 5 22.5 r 24.0 ~ 7.8 ~ 9.0 I 6.5 ) 6.0 2 9.7 7 8.0 B 3.0 B 5.0 5 13.0 9 2.0 7 7.7 2 11.5 5 10.7 3 6.5 9 4.0 7 3.5 1 9.9 3 8.7 4 7.0 5 7.5 1 11.3 8 11.7 7.8 RANK 41 28 39 3 14 22 18 20 45 32 33 33 22 41 37 41 9 28 25 35 15 28 2 1 17 12 25 28 11 15 41 35 4 46 18 6 8 25 38 39 10 13 24 20 7 5 POPULATION SENIOR JUDGES AND RESIDENT ACTIVE ATTORNEYS 1995 ESTIMATED POPULATION PER SUPERIOR CT.JUDGE RANK 24,458 46 32,446 33 25,139 45 46,713 9 30,555 36 42,989 14 59,029 4 39,956 18 49,796 6 34,058 28 49,638 7 65,682 2 27,016 41 27,694 38 48,099 8 32,504 32 41, 149 16 33,646 31 37,693 22 27,069 40 44,442 12 43,647 13 76,176 1 49,824 5 36,426 26 37,628 23 46,346 10 33,942 29 40,158 17 26,030 44 33,901 30 30,624 35 34,585 27 26,224 43 27,079 39 32,224 34 27,978 37 38,589 20 45, 151 11 42,138 15 64,677 3 39,356 19 37,608 24 26,231 42 38,513 21 37,132 25 38,956 U.S. CENSUS 2010 PROJECTED POPULATION PER SUPERIOR CT.JUDGE 24,417 41,657 28,470 50,462 37,623 51,442 74,328 46,689 53,710 43,410 ~6,313 90,026 33,722 30,807 59,078 35,389 52,487 37,768. 45,565 32,949 52,578 54,338 108,455 61,623 40,307 37,391 50,843 37,961 50,897 35, 151 38,419 32,677 40,080 25,948 32,061 50,122 30,307 . 40,906 50,941 43,389 79,973 46,988 41,024 28,106 43,158 46,881 46,453 RANK FY96 SENIOR JUDGE DAYS OF ASSISTANCE 46 25 43 16 / 33 12 4 20 9 22 5 2 37 41 7 35 11 32 21 38 10 8 1 6 28 34 15 31 14 36 30 39 29 45 40 17 42 27 13 23 3 18 26 44 24 19 73.5 4.0 54.5 368.5 153.5 109.0 25.5 157.5 111.5 22.0 12.0 262.5 0.0 6.0 19.0 63.0 54.0 17.0 48.5 10.0 53.5 85.5 4.5 3.0 38.5 62.5 6.0 30.5 44.0 21.0 26.0 0.0 1.0 55.0 21.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 165.0 1.0 186.0 4.0 47.0 0.0 22.5 109.0 55.7 , RANK 1996 RESIDENT ACTIVE ATTORNEYS PER JUDGE 11 18 36 38 15 31 1 641 6 22 8 59 24 61 5 58 7 75 26 36 31 62 2 169 43 31 33 21 29 50 12 73 16 41 30 30 18 106 32 27 17 43 10 55 35 137 38 68 21 25 13 108 33 45 22 44 20 80 27 27 23 30 43 22 42 27 14 21 27 18 43 51 39 47 39 20 4 53 42 21 3 173 36 28 19 41 43 20 25 40 8 107 65.2 RANK 45 27 29 1 38 14 13 15 9 28 12 3 29 41 19 10 24 31 7 35 23 16 4 11 37 5 21 22 8 35 31 38 35 41 45 18 20 43 17 41 2 33 24 43 26 6 ALAPAHA ALCOVY APPALACHIAN ATLANTA* ATLANTIC AUGUSTA BLUE RIDGE BRUNSWICK CHATTAHOOCHEE* CHEROKEE CLAYTON* COBB CONASAUGA CORDELE COWETA DOUGHERTY DOUGLAS* DUBLIN EASTERN ENOTAH FLINT GRIFFIN GWINNETT* HOUSTON LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN MACON MIDDLE* MOUNTAIN NORTHEASTERN NORTHERN OCMULGEE* OCONEE OGEECHEE PATAU LA PIEDMONT ROCKDALE ROME SOUTH GEORGIA SOUTHERN SOUTHWESTERN STONE MOUNTAIN* TALLAPOOSA TIFTON TOOMBS WAYCROSS WESTERN .. 14 Judicial Council policy continued 2. CriteriaforStudying ReaueststoAlter Circuit Boundaries The criteria used by the Judicial Council in reviewing proposals to alter circuit boundaries will include the following criteria: a. Weightec! Caseload per Judge - 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. (10/27/81) 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. Changes in Judicial Travel Time - Travel time diminishes total judicial time available for case processing; th~refore, 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. projected Changes in Cost to State and Local 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 sh9uld 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. (12111/81) f. Operational policies of circuit as presently constituted as might involve inattention to smaller counties in circuit. (12111181) g. Whether creation of new circuit would obviate necessity of one or two additional judges in parent circuit. (12111181) h. Travel and other expenses incident to serving smaller counties. (12111/81) i. Alleviation of case assignment problems in larger counties of circuit. (12/11/81) j. Population growth of counties of circuit which would reflect need for new circuit. (12111/81) k. Comparison population per judge in new circuit with standards approved by Judicial Council in recent years. (12/11/81) I. The Judicial Council will presume that a multi-judge circuit is preferred over a single- judge circuit. (12111/81) " 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 ex- hausted prior to the council's recommending a single-judge circuit. ( 12111/81) allocations. Votes on such motions shall be by secret written ballot. A two-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. Length of Recommendations Upon a recommendation of an additional judgeship or to alter circuit boundaries 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. 12/13/96) 6. Disqualifications Any council member in a circuit or county affected by a 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) 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 ofthe 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 considered. 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) Dissemination of Recommendations 1. Study of the Need for Additional Superior Court Judgeships 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 superiorcourtjudges 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. Final Deliberations After all written 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 presentations The Administrative Office of the Courts will present data evaluating the need to add judgeships or to alter circuit boundaries based on council approved criteria and will make staff recommendations. (10/27/81) 4.~ After final deliberations, the council will, in open session, entertain approve ordisapprove recommended changes in judicial manpower 2. Special Studies of Judicial Manpower, Including Alteration of Cjrcuit 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 court and shall distribute them to the requester and, in the discretion 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. (12/11/86) 15 For Your Information ... COSTS OF A NEW SUPERIOR COURT JUDGESHIP & JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DIVISION I. Cost of a new superior court judgeship: A new judgeship requires funding from the state and counties of the circuit. Fixed costs do not fluctuate with the volume of activity. Variable costs fluctuate according to changes in the volume of activity or local preference. State Costs 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 Variable costs travel expenses Superior court judge Assistant district attorney Total average/range of variable costs TOTAL RANGE OF STATE COSTS Salary $85,782 19,956 27,696 - 68,382 960-4,560 Fringe benefits $28,430 7,142 9,912 - 24,474 Total range $114,212 27,098 37,608 - 92,856 960-4,560 $7,225 Average $2,229 1,233 $3,462 $7,225 $187,103. 245,951 Range $0- 8,757 0- 7,096 $015,853 $187,103. 261,804 II. Cost of dividing a judicial circuit without adding a judgeship: The division of a judicial circuit always requires additional state funding and may result in substantial changes in county costs as well. County costs could decrease significantly if salaries for county-paid positions are subsequently assumed by the state (such as when the total number of assistant district attorneys in a circuit remains the same and a county-paid assistant district attorney is shifted to the state payroll as the assistant district attorney that is added when the circuit is divided). Depending on what the county sees as necessary for meeting its needs, however, county costs could increase due to a number of other factors (such as any county salary supplements, hiring of additional county-paid personnel, operating expenses, etc., as well as when the total number of assistant district attorneys in the circuit is increased). While the minimum new costs to the state can be estimated, the effect of a circuit division on county costs will vary dramatically depending on the balance of the county's needs and resources as well as on the proportion of the total circuit costs that each county paid prior to the division of the circuit. The figures listed below represent the range of new annual costs that the state would bear (as of January 1, 1997). Assistant district attorneys can be hired at any pay level of the statutory scale (at the discretion of the district attorney), based on the attorney's experience. The salary for an assistant district attorney can range from $27,696 to $68,382 annually. The assistant district attorney salary information in the following table illustrates the potential range in state costs if an assistant district attorney is hired at the lowest pay scale as compared to when an assistant district attorney is hired at the highest pay level. State Costs Fixed costs salaries and fringe benefits District attorney Assistant district attorney DA's secretaries (2)t DA's investigator Law clerk for chief judge Total Fixed Costs Variable costs travel expenses District attorney Assistant district attorney Total average/range of variable costs TOTAL RANGE OF STATE COSTS Salary $76,404 27,696 - 68,382 39,912 24,426 28,218 Average $1,304 1,233 $2,537 Fringe benefits Total range $23,029 9,912 - 24,474 14,285 8,742 $99,433 37,608 - 92,856 54,197 33,168 5,686 33,904 $258,310. 313,557 Range $0- 4,079 0- 7,096 $0-11,175 $258,310. 324,732 Georgia Courts journal 16 March 1997 For Your Information ... ~- . COSTS OF A NEW SUPERIOR COURT JUDGESHIP &JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DIVISION ~ llt Cost of dividing a judicial circuit and adding a superior court judgeship simultaneously: The creation of a new judgeship and a new circuit would result in the following additional positions and costs. State Costs Fixed costs - salaries and fringe benefits District attorney Assistant district attorney DA's secretaries (2)t DA's investigator Law clerk for chief judge For adding a judgeship Superior court judge Judge's secretary ADA Court reporter (contingent expense) Other fixed costs Library Total range of additional fixed costs Salary $76,404 27,696 - 68,382 39,912 24,426 28,218 Fringe benefits $23,029 9,912 - 24,474 14,285 8,742 5,686 Total range $99,433 37,608 - 92,856 54,197 33,168 33,904 $85,782 19,956 27,696- 68,382 960- 4,560 $28,430 7,142 9,912 - 24,474 $114,212 27,098 37,608 - 92,856 960-4,560 $7,225 $7,225 $445,413 - 559,508 Variable costs - travel expenses For circuit division District attorney Assistant district attorney For adding a judgeship Superior court judge Assistant district attorney Total average/range of variable costs TOTAL RANGE OF ADDITIONAL STATE COSTS Average $1,304 1,233 $2,229 1,233 $5,999 Range $0- 4,079 0- 7,096 $0- 8,757 0- 7,096 $0- 27,028 $445,413 - 586,536 t These figures reflect the total costs for two individuals in these positions. Notes: All expenses are annually recurring costs except for the following: establishment of judge's library, acquisition of office equipment, necessary renovations. Salaries and fringe benefits are calculated from 111197 figures. Travel expenses are calculated from fiscal year 1996 expenses. Average figures for county costs are unavailable or vary too widely to be included here. However, county costs will include the following: Fixed costs Salary supplements for any or all of the following: judge, judge's secretary, district attorney, assistant district attorney, district attorney's secretary, district attorney's investigator, and law clerk Salaries and/or fees for court reporters Salaries and fringe benefits for other, county-paid 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 March 1997 17 Georgia Courts Journal Highlights of the Judicial Council meeting continued from page 1 New members welcomed Judicial Circuit), Seventh Judicial The council welcomed the follow- Administrative District, replaces ing new members: Judge Walter J. Matthews. Judge A. Wallace Cato (South Judge Richard W. Story (North- Georgia Judicial Circuit), Second eastern Judicial Circuit), Ninth Judi- Judicial Administrative District, cial Administrative District, replaces replaces Judge Joe C. Bishop. Judge Richard S. Gault. Judge Rita Cavanaugh (Spalding Judge T.O. Sturdivant III (Cobb County), president, Council of County), president-elect, Council of Magistrate Court Judges, replaces Magistrate Court Judges, replaces Judge Kelly R. Burke. Judge Dan F. Pierce. Judge Howard Cook (Gwinnett County), president-elect, Council of Meeting highlights State Court Judges, replaces Judge Court of Appeals Judge Dorothy Kathlene Gosselin. T. Beasley reported that the Com- mission on Appellate Courts would publish its report after its final meeting on December 18. For more informa- tion, please see the article on page 1. The chief justice summarized the Final Report of the Commis- sion on Lawyer Disci- pline, which was re- leased in September 1996 and included these recommenda - tions: 1) the Supreme Judge William M. Towson Sr. and Chief!udge Dorothy A. Robinson study the caseload data chart prior to voting on new judgeship recommendations. Court should place lawyer discipline under a disciplinary commis- sion composed oflaw- Judge E. Purnell Davis II (Toombs yers and nonlawyers; 2) the State Bar Judicial Circuit), Tenth Judicial Ad- should continue to operate central ministrative District, replaces Judge intake and coordinate ancillary ser- William F. Grant. vices; 3) no Bar officer or employee Judge Philip F. Etheridge (Atlanta should participate in the prosecu- Judicial Circuit), Fifth Judicial Ad- tion, adjudication or deliberation of ministrative District, replaces Judge these matters, other than the initial Isaac Jenrette. screening; 4) the Supreme Court Judge Sanford J. Jones (Fulton should give investigative and County), president-elect, Council of prosecutorial functions to an inde- Juvenile Court Judges, replaces Judge pendent disciplinary counsel ap- George J. Heam III. pointed by the court. The Supreme Judge George F. Nunn Jr. (Hous- Court has created a subcommittee to ton Judicial Circuit), president-elect, receive comments on the proposal Council of Superior Court Judges, from the public, lawyers, judges and replaces Judge H. Arthur McLane. legal scholars. Judge Dorothy A. Robinson (Cobb Two of the Georgia Commission Judge Rita L. Cavanaugh and Judge T.O. Sturdivant III were welcomed as new members ofthe Judicial Council at the December meeting. on Dispute Resolution's primary projects include the development of ethics procedures for handling disciplinary complaints and implementation of a statistical automated reporting project. The commission director, Ansley Barton, reported that the Office of Dispute Resolution will seek an increase in the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) filing fee surcharge in counties with populations less than 500,000 to help smaller counties develop ADR programs. Institute of Continuing Judicial Education (ICJE) Director Richard D. Reaves reported that the Institute for Court Management court executive development program will be offered through ICJE in Georgia for the first time. In response to survey results, ICJE has begun designing training curricula for law clerks of the trial Continued next page. Court ofAppeals ChiefJudge Gary B. Andrew:: (far left) and AOC staffMarla S. Moore, Gregory W. Arnold (seated) and Victor L. Webb tabulate voting results. Georgia Courts Journal 18 March 1997 Judicial Council continued courts. New facilities at ICJE include . a modem, computerized courtroom (_ where judges can make videotapes of their courtroom style for a later critique. The chairperson of the Georgia Courts Automation Commission, Judge Hilton Fuller, reported GCAC's recently adopted mission statement: 1) to facilitate appropriate and prompt collection, via GO Network or otherwise, of court data in compatible or standardized electronic formats; to arrange for storage in state databases; and, to make such data available to, and provide for data exchanges between, local courts and state agencies; 2) to assist local courts in automated case management and legal electronic research; and 3) to provide such services with awareness that: court needs and resources vary, accurate and prompt data collection are both statewide and local objectives, and data collected has both state and local value. Recent GCAC projects include coordination of distribution of the Law Office ._____. Information Systems (LOIS) electronic research program. GCAC is also working with the Georgia Tech Research Institute to develop data compatibility for reporting to state databases. The term of the Supreme Court Commission on Equality has been extended for two years. The interpreters committee has developed a code of professional conduct and guidelines for using court interpreters, suggested language for judicial benchbooks regarding use of interpreters, and created a registry of interpreters. The commission also developed a Guide to Bias-Free Language. During the 1997 legislative session, the Commission on Family Violence will promote these legislative measures: prohibiting insurance discrimination against victims of domestic violence; expanding collection of the 5% penalty in criminal cases to be distrib. uted for the support of shelters; and establishing a criminal penalty for revealing the location of a shelter. ICJE honors Judge Johnny Warren At its November 1996 meeting, the Board of Trustees of the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education (ICJE) honored Judge Johnny W. Warren, former Chief Magistrate of Laurens County. Judge Warren was recognized for /1 exemplary leadership within the judiciary of the state of Georgia, and public service to the citizens of this state, by strengthening the administration of justice through improved state judicial education." The ICJE proclamation reviewed Judge Warren's numerous accomplishments. In addition to appearing regularly as an ICJE program instruc- tor, he "served ably as an ICJE trustee from 1990 to 1996, as well as with extraordinary distinction as chair of the Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council from 1985 through 1996." Judge Warren took office as a magistrate court judge in 1983. He began his legal practice in Dublin, GA, in 1979 and served as judge of the Laurens County Small Claims Court from 1979 to 1983. He received a B.B.A. from Georgia College and aJ.D. from Atlanta Law School. Judge Warren is author of the Magistrate Court Handbook to. Judges councils The Council of Superior Court Judges continued its Judges Online Project: 46 personal computers for state-paid law clerks were purchased and installed. One hundred and forty-two copies of word-processing software, 57 fax rnachines and 146 printers were also purchased. The Council of State Court Judges will introduce three legislative items this year: a minimum salary bill for full-time state court judges and two retirement bills. The Council of Juvenile Court Judges is working with the Supreme Court Child Placement Proceedings Project and its implementation committee. The Council of Probate Court Judges reported that the Court Futures Committee is developing a mission statement for the probate courts. Efforts are underway to connect all probate judges to the GO Network. The Council of Magistrate Court Judges has accomplished major revisions to its civil and criminal benchbook. The council is also planning a pictorial directory. to Mark your calendar: Deadline for pilot projects is June 1 Courts interested in establishing experimental court projects of nonuniform jurisdiction must submit their request for consideration in writing to the chairperson of the Judicial Council, ChiefJustice Robert Benham. According to Judicial Council policy, the deadline for submitting requests is June 1 prior to the beginning of the regular session of the General Assembly during which the experimental project legislation will be considered. The request can be made by the chief judge of one of the affected courts, the governor, a member of the General Assembly, or the governing authority of an affected county. The proposal must contain a plan for the experiment which includes the information set out in Judicial Council policy. For a copy of the policy, contact the AOC (404-656-5171). to March 1997 19 Georgia Courts Journal Newly elected judges take office The following new judges, district attorneys, solicitors-general and superior court clerks were elected for the term of January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2000 (unless otherwise indicated). Please make a note of these changes in your Geargia Courts Directory. Superior Courts Alapaha Judicial Circuit Judge Dane Perkins Atlanta Judicial Circuit Judge T. Jackson Bedford District Attorney Paul Howard Augusta Judicial Circuit Judge Neal W. Dickert Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Stephen Kelley Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit District Attorney John Gray Conger Coweta Judicial Circuit Judge John Simpson Dougherty Judicial Circuit Judge Willie E. Lockette District Attorney Ken Hodges Houston Judicial Circuit Judge Edward D. Lukemire (Though elected for the term beginning January 1, 1997, Judge Lukemire was appointed and sworn in by Gov. Miller on September 3, 1996, to complete the term of a retiring judge.) District Attorney Kelly R. Burke Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit District Attorney Herbert E. (Buzz) Franklin, for the term January 17, 1997, through December 31, 2000. Northern Judicial Circuit Judge Lindsay A. Tise District Attorney Robert W. Lavender Ogeechee Judicial Circuit Judge John R. Turner Rome Judicial Circuit District Attorney Tami Colston Southern Judicial Circuit District Attorney J. David Miller South Georgia Judicial Circuit Judge J. Richard Porter III Tifton Judicial Circuit Judge Gary Mccorvey Toombs Judicial Circuit Judge Roger W. Dunaway Jr. Waycross Judicial Circuit Judge Stephen L. Jackson State Courts Bibb County Solicitor-General Otis L. Scarbary Brooks County Judge William R. Folson Bulloch County Judge F. Gates Peed Solicitor-General Gary Mikell Cherokee County Solicitor-General Leslie Case Abernathy Clayton County Judge Morris Braswell Clinch County Solicitor-General George A. Bessonette Coffee County Solicitor-General Boyd English Colquitt County Judge Richard T. Kent Fayette County Judge Fletcher Sams Solicitor-General Steven L. Harris Forsyth County Solicitor-General Leslie Case Abernathy Fulton County Solicitor-General Carmen D. Smith Habersham County Judge Linton Crawford Jr. Jefferson County Judge John R. Murphy III Solicitor-General Mickey Moses Liberty County Solicitor-General Edward L. Colby Jr. Mitchell County Judge Michael Bankston Putnam County Judge Jesse Copelan Jr. Richmond County Solicitor-General Sheryl B. Jolly Screven County Judge Lisa Gross Solicitor-General J.A. Bazemore Probate Courts Atkinson County Judge Jeffrey Paulk McGowan Ben Hill County Judge Tommy Walton Ash Bleckley County Judge Kenneth Powell Burke County Judge Preston B. Lewis III Carroll County Judge BettyB. Cason Charlton County Judge Bob Phillips Cherokee County Judge Kip McVay Clarke County Judge Susan P. Tate Dawson County Judge Jennifer Evans Burt Floyd County Judge Steve Burkhalter Franklin County Judge Eddy Fowler Houston County Judge Janice Davidson Spires Long County Judge Marie H. Middleton Pike County Judge Lynn Brandenburg Putnam County Judge Patrice Howard Taliaferro County Judge Martha R. Mayo Terrell County Judge Nancy P. Fryer Union County Judge Dwain Brackett Wilkinson County Judge Vivian Cummings Magistrate Courts (Chief Magistrates) Atkinson County Judge Rowan Sirmans Baker County Judge Wanda T. Floyd Barrow County Judge Michael A. Barnette Bartow County Judge Tom Moseley Georgia Courts Journal 20 March 1997 Newly elected judges cont. { Burke County ~ Judge Alma Young Tuff Catoosa County Judge Donald Caldwell Charlton County Judge Reginald F. Todd Clayton County Judge Michael P. Baird Coffee County Judge Betty S. Lanier Coweta County Judge James C. Stripling Decatur County Judge Billy G. Mills Effingham County Judge Preston G. Exley Floyd County Judge Jerry Wood Gilmer County Judge Roger Kincaid Glascock County Judge Terry Usry Hall County Judge Charles S. Wynne Jeff Davis County ,'-- Judge Chris Davenport Lamar County Judge Brenda Williamson Laurens County Judge Thomas C. Bobbitt III Lee County Judge Jim Thurman Lumpkin County Judge Jeff Lowe Spalding County Judge Rita L. Cavanaugh Stewart County Judge George Hancock Sumter County Judge R. Lawton Lesueur Jr. Telfair County Judge Vickie Scarborough Terrell County Judge Linda Freeman Ware County Judge Lawton G. Taylor Washington County Judge Clayton Sheppard - White County Judge Maylou K. London Superior Court Clerks Barrow County Gloria Wall Bibb County Dianne Brannen Bryan County Rhonda Reese Charlton County Kay Carter Chatham County Susan Pruse Coweta County Joan Griffies DeKalb County Jeanette Rozier Forsyth County Douglas Sorrells Gilmer County Glenda Sue Johnson Glynn County Larry Ellison Gwinnett County Thomas Lawler Haralson County Jo Ann Hutcheson Harris County Jo Alston Irwin County Sharon Martin Jenkins County Elizabeth Landing Monroe County LynnW.Ham Putnam County Shelia Layson Quitman County Becky Findley Talbot County Linda Lucas Taliaferro County Sandra Green Telfair County Laura Neal Washington County Joy Conner Wilkes County Mildred Peeler This information was compiled by the Office of the Secretary of State. tc. Notice and opportunity for comment on proposed rule The following proposed Court Information Rule will be presented to the Council of State Court Judges in May. Comments concerning this rule may be directed in writing to the Council of State Court Judges, 244 Washington St., SW, Suite 550, Atlanta, GA 30334. Rule - Court Information The chief judge of each State Court may require the clerk of that court to furnish to the chief judge within 10 days after the end of each month, a general civil and a criminal, including traffic violation bureau offenses 4013-50 et seq., caseload management report. The Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court may request copies of the information that is furnished to the Chief Judges of the Courts pursuant to this rule. The case types, events types and disposition methods used in these reports will conform to Judicial Council guidelines for reporting caseload. Each such report shall include the following: (A) the number of cases filed by case type in the prior month and year-to-date; (B) the number of cases disposed by case type and disposition method in the prior month and year-to-date; (C) the number and type of pending cases; (D) a list of cases more than 120 days old (criminal) and 180 days old (civil) to include the following data: (i) case number, (ii) style, (iii) case type, (iv) filing date, (v) next event scheduled (vi) date of that event; and (E) any other information the chief judge requests that is contained within the court's standardized computer programs.~ March 1997 21 Georgia Courts Journal Judge Jeffrey S. Bagley takes office Jeffrey S. Bagley (center) was sworn in by Gao. Zell Miller as judge ofthe State Court of Forsyth County on January 2. He was accompanied by his wife, Anita. Legislative Log tracks court-related legislation The Administrative Office of the Courts publishes and distributes the judicial Legi.slative Log each week during the 1997 session of the General Assembly. The Log includes summaries of court-related legislation and tracks the status of these measures through the House and Senate. To be added to the mailing list or for copies of bills, contact Billie Bolton, senior communications officer (404656-5171). Information on legislation is also available on the GeorgiaNet. Go to http:// www.ganet.state.ga.us/ and click on "Index of Services." tc. Vol. 22 No. 5 Februay 21, 1wr Judicial Legislative Log PuCU&l'l$d ror ine ~gla jtddary by lhe AdmlOIS1ralrYe Olllc.;i or t~ COUlll, 2 Waa/llflglon Sir eel SW, Surtc;iSSO.Allana,GA 30334-59004041856-5171 Georgia Courts JOURNAL Vol. 24 No. 3 Georgia Judicial Council Chief Justice Robert Benham, Chair Presiding Justice Norman S. Fletcher, Vice Chair Chief Judge Gary B. Andrews Chief Judge A. Wallace Cato Judge Rita L. Cavanaugh Chief Judge Howard Cook Chief Judge Daniel M. Coursey, Jr. Judge E. Purnell Davis II Chief Judge Philip F. Etheridge Judge Stephen E. Franzen Judge John E. Girardeau Judge Edward B. Johnson Judge Sanford J. Jones Judge William F. Lee Jr. Judge Jeannette L. Little Judge George F. Nunn Jr. Judge LaVeme C. Ogletree Judge Floyd E. Propst Chief Judge Dorothy A. Robinson Chief Judge Richard W. Story Judge T.0. Sturdivant ill Chief Judge William M. Towson Sr. Judge E. Mullins Whisnant Judge Amanda F. Williams Administrative Office of the Courts Director Robert L. Doss Jr. Senior Cammunicatians Officer Billie Bolton Editor Nancy K. Pevey The Georgia Courts Journal is a publication of the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts. It welcomes news about Georgia's courts, their programs and personnel. 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 PERMIT #1880 Address Correction Requested 0 Printed on recycled paper. 'vA J8oo . Pl Git ;).4/3 Vol. 24 No. 3 March 1997 Courts Judicial Council meets New superior court judgeships recommended for five circuits At its December meeting, the Judicial Council recommended creation of additional superior court judgeships in five judicial circuits for consideration by the 1997 General Assembly. The council ranked the recommended circuits in the following order: 1) Stone Mountain (DeKalb County), 10th judgeship 2) Gwinnett (Gwinnett -- County), 7th judgeship 3) Atlanta (Fulton County), 16th judgeship 4) Douglas (Douglas County), 3rd judgeship 5) Ocmulgee (Baldwin, Greene, Hancock, Jasper, Jones, Morgan, Putnam and Wilkinson Counties), 5th judgeship. The council also voted to carry forward a recommendation made last year to split the Blue Ridge Judicial Circuit (Cherokee and Forsyth Counties) into two single-county circuits. See Judicial Council, page 18 Judge Jeannette L. Little, ChiefJudge Howard Cook and Judge La Verne C. Ogletree (I. to r.) cast their votes at the Judicial Council meeting. Chief Judge Gary B. Andrews takes office ChiefJudge Gary B. Andrews (left) and Presiding Justice Norman S. Fletcher. Court of Appeals Judge Gary B. Andrews became the court's 18th chief judge in ceremonies on January 6. He was elected to a two-year term, succeeding Chief Judge Dorothy T. Beasley. Chief Judge Andrews holds a B.B.A. degree from the University of Georgia and a J.D. degree from the University of Georgia Law School. He was elected judge of the superior See Chief Judge Andrews, page 3 Report suggests adding judges to Court of Appeals The Commission on Appellate Courts was established by the 1996 General Assembly to analyze the current structures and operations of Georgia's appellate courts and determine what changes, if any, should be recommended. The commission has issued its report and finds that "immediate action is necessary to relieve the caseload currently placed on the judges of the Court of Appeals." The report reveals that the number of matters filed at the Court of Appeals per judge increased from 287 in 1985 to 434 in 1994. The judges also write more opinions than those of any other intermediate appellate court in the country: 278 per judge in 1993, compared with 137 in secondplace California. In addition to examining caseload, the commission evaluated the histmy and jurisdiction of the appellate courts; the level and number of See Appellate Courts Commission, page 3 Inside Attorney general's opinions ........................ 2 Chief Justice's address to legislature ..... 4 NCSC conference report ............................. 7 New Superior Court Uniform Rule ........... 7 1998 appropriations request ..................... 8 Key to the caseload data chart .................. 9 Caseload data chart ................................... 11 Costs of new judgeship/circuit split ...... 16 Judge Johnny Warren honored ............. 19 Pilot projects deadline ................................ 19 Newly elected judges ................................ 20 Proposed State Court Uniform Rule .... 21 In Brief ... Appointments State Court, Cherokee County G. Channing Ruskell was appointed solicitor-general for the term January 1, 1997, through December 31, 1998. State Court, Decatur County Ben Kirbo was appointed solicitor-general for the term December 16, 1996, through December 31, 1998. State Court, Forsyth County Judge Jeffrey S. Bagley was appointed for the term January 1, 1997, through December 31, 1998. Juvenile Court, Bibb County Judge Quintress J. Gilbert was appointed for the term February 1, 1997, through December 31, 2000. Judge Thomas J. Matthews was appointed for the term February 1, 1997, through December 31, 2000. Council of Superior Court Clerks elects new officers The new officers of the Council of Superior Court Clerks are: President - Dwight S. Wood, Hall County; First Vice-President - Linda D. Hays, Newton County; Second Vice-President - Curtis (Buddy) Rogers Jr., Treutlen County; and Secretary-Treasurer - Jean H. Rogers, Crisp County. New member appointed to Judicial Qualifications Commission The State Bar has appointed Savannah attorney Walter C. Hartridge to the Judicial Qualifications Commission. He replaces Bob Reinhardt, whose term has expired. GIDC Juvenile Advocacy Division hires new director Jan Wheeler has joined the Juvenile Advocacy Division of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council as its new director. Previously, Ms. Wheeler served in the Appalachian Judicial Circuit as a juvenile court judge pro tern and as an assistant district attorney. The Juvenile Advocacy Division was created in July 1996 as a resource center for attorneys representing clients in the juvenile courts. AOC establishes Accounting and Budget Services Users Group, SusrA1N Users Group The first meeting of the AOC Accounting and Budget Services Users Group was held on January 14 in Atlanta. The users group will provide a forum for receiving feedback and disseminating information. The SusrAIN Users Group met for the first time on February 13 at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center in Forsyth to share information on new releases of the court case management software, training, problem resolution and future plans. The groups will meet quarterly. Commission reports available on World Wide Web The executive summaries of the final reports of the Supreme Court Committee for Gender Equality and Commission on Racial and Ethnic Bias are now available on the World Wide Web. The summaries, along with information about the Supreme Court Commission on Equality, can be found on the Georgia Supreme Court home page at http://www.state.ga.us/Courts/Supreme. Georgians receiving training, teach at National Judicial College In 1996, 42 Georgia judges attended courses at The National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. Juvenile Court Judge Steven J. Messinger of Douglas County was awarded a Master of Judicial Studies degree. Volunteer faculty from Georgia included Judge Clinton E. Deveaux of the Municipal Court of Atlanta. Attorney general's opinions State Attorney General Michael Bowers issued the opinions summarized below. Complete copies are available from the AOC. Official opinions Officers and employees, Public; conflict of interest. OCGA 16-10-9 prohibits an individual who is employed as a staff member in the judicial branch of state government or in the General Assembly from being employed as a graduate research, laboratory, or teaching assistant at any unit of the University System of Georgia. (1116/97 No. 97-1) Unofficial opinions Rape and aggravated sodomy; prison sentences for. Pursuant to an act passed in 1996, rape and aggravated sodomy are no longer included within the crimes for which the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is ten years; for these offenses, the mandatory term is one year in prison. Life without parole remains the mandatory term for repeat offenders. (10125196 No. U96-20) Weapons, deadly. The provisions of OCGA 16-11-127, which prohibit the carrying of deadly weapons to or at public gatherings, while not limited in application to the enumerated places and functions in the statute, do not apply to every place in which the public may be present, but only to those places in which the public is gathered. (10/26/96) No. U96-22) Grand jury. Neither a district attorney nor members of the district attorney's staff should be present for deliberations of the grand jury. (1117197 No. U97-3) Or:. Georgia Courts Journal 2 March 1997 Commission on Appellate Courts issues report continued from page 1 appeals allowed in different types of cases coming before the various L courts; the roles played by the various courts in Georgia's judicial system; the other duties and responsibilities of the appellate courts; and trends in the development of other states' judicial systems. The commission also considered studies conducted by nationally recognized authorities and held a public hearing (see the October 1996 Georgia Courts Journal). After discussing possible changes which might be made in the jurisdiction and operation of the various courts, the commission made the following recommendations: "l) That an additional panel of three judges be added to the Court of Appeals immediately. The caseload of the court is such that this is imperative to ease the current problem of a per judge caseload that adversely affects the quality of the court's work; "2) That a plan to modernize and improve the appellate court system be developed through a continuing study based on the extensive information and issues which have already been developed and considered by this commission. Such continuing effort should be undertaken either by this commission with a reconstituted membership or by some other commission constituted as recommended in item (3) below. ~ Court ofAppeals Judge Marion T. Pope Jr. signs the commission's report. This plan should include the possible revision of jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the possible future addition of judges to the Court of Appeals, and the possible creation of an appellate division of the superior courts. "The goal should be to have in place by the year 2000 a streamlined, modem, and efficient appellate court system in which jurisdictional division is clear and the appellate courts are given the resources needed, on a continuing basis, to render highquality and cost-effective service to the people of Georgia; and "3) That any continuation of this commission or another commission be restructured so that no current members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals are included as members of the commission. Current or former members of the appellate courts have valuable information which should be received and utilized; however, recommendations that involve choosing between sometimes competing points of view can be made more easily and effectively by those with no immediate or direct stake in the appellate courts. It is suggested that legislators, trial judges, practicing members of the bar, and law teachers would bring to the work of the commission the expertise and interest needed." Senate Bill 78, which would increase the number of judges on the Court of Appeals from 10 to 13, was Commission members attending the final meeting included: Front row, left to rightJudge Dorothy T. Beasley, Chieflustice Robert Benham, Judge Kathlene F. Gosselin. Back row-former Justice George T. Smith, Chiefludge H. Arthur McLane, Sen. David E. Ralston, Senior Judge Harold R. Banke Sr., Rep. Thomas S. Chambless, Judge Marion T. Pope Jr., R. Alex Crumbley. introduced by Sen. Mary Margaret Oliver on January 16. For a copy of the report, contact the AOC (404-656-5171). Commission members Former Rep. Thomas S. Chambless (District 163) chaired the commission; Sen. Mary Margaret Oliver (District 42) was vice chair. The other members were: Senior Appellate Court Judge Harold R. Banke Sr.; Chief Judge Dorothy T. Beasley, Court of Appeals; Chief Justice Robert Benham, Supreme Court; R. Alex Crumbley, attorney; Ben F. Easterlin IV, president of the State Bar; Judge Kathlene F. Gosselin, State Court, Hall County; Chief Judge H. Arthur McLane, Superior Courts, Southern Judicial Circuit; Presiding Judge Marion T. Pope Jr., Court of Appeals; Sen. David E. Ralston, District 51; Rep. William C. Randall, District 127; and former Justice George T. Smith. (fl; Judge Andrews takes office continued from page 1 courts of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit in 1980, serving until 1985 when he was appointed to the Public Service Commission. In 1990, Judge Andrews won election to the Court of Appeals. He is a 1981 graduate of the National Judicial College. (fl; March 1997 3 Georgia Courts Journal Chief Justice Robert Benham delivers State of Judiciary Address to 1997 General Assembly ChiefJustice Robert Benham made his second State ofthe Judiciary Address to the Georgia General Assembly on January 17, 1997. His remarks follow. Introduction Lieutenant Governor Howard, Speaker Murphy, officers and members of the Senate and House, my colleagues on the Supreme Court, my colleagues on the Court of Appeals, ladies and gentlemen, it is a high honor and magnificent privilege to address this joint session and to report on the operation, the needs and the future plans of the court system of this state. I first came to these chambers 30 years ago. I came as one of the governor's first interns. At that time, my chest swelled with pride as I listened to an address being given from the well. Little did I know, some 30 years later, I would be standing here delivering the State of the Judiciary Address from that same well. It was made possible because courageous judges and legislators put principle above politics and sought to make the American Dream a reality for all of our citizens. Today I am proud to report that while we in the judiciary are not without our problems, the state of the judiciary is good and we are still in the business of making the American Dream a reality for all of our citizens. Cooperation among judges is at an all-time high, and we take our oaths seriously to do justice to the rich and the poor alike. We realize that our role as a court is to interpret the law, but it is your role as the legislative body to make the law, and we are respectful of your role. This is my second appearance making the State of the Judiciary Address, and I come today to_ express appreciation for your efforts on our behalf and to offer our support for the sometimes difficult and oftentimes thankless task of public service. I come to express thanks for your providing us with a full complement of judges at the trial level and at the appellate level. I also come to express appreciation for the funding you have provided for the courts over the years and the spirit of cooperation and collegiality you have shown us throughout the years. Accomplishments Let me reflect briefly on the past year. Just last year we celebrated our. sesquicentennial, 150 years' existence of the Supreme Court of Georgia. We celebrated that sesquicentennial in the company of many of our friends and lawyers throughout the state. We also celebrated that history with courts throughout the state, journeying as far away as Louisville to celebrate that circuit's bicentennial. It shows that here in Georgia, we have been in the business of doing justice for over two centuries. We've hosted many meetings, national and local meetings, to showcase the accomplishments of our courts. Even during the Olympies, we kept our doors open. We kept them open to show to the world what we are doing in Georgia in the area of justice. We were proud of our court system, our professionalism, our automation and our casemanagement programs in this state. Just recently we invited many of you to come and see your court system in operation because the beauty of our court system, unlike many other countries, is that we do our business in public. Our doors swing open on welcome hinges. Throughout the year, we have put in place some new procedures. We -~ sought to lessen the delay in criminal proceedings by instituting new rules in the habeas corpus area. We are proud of our judges, too. They are better educated, better trained and better qualified than ever before in the history of this state. We truly believe that they are the best and the brightest. They are committed to the rule of law, concerned about all of our citizens and dedicated not only to protecting the rights of citizens, but also to protecting the rights of victims of crime. They are also committed to providing an atmosphere where businesses can thrive and prosper, to create jobs and opportunities for all of our citizens. Let me give you a brief glimpse of some of the legislation you might be presented with during this session. I will do so without commenting on any of that legislation because from time to time these matters come to the Supreme Court for review, and we must be sure to keep an open and impartial mind. You will probably receive legislation concerning the compensation commission, retirement parity between trial judges and appellate judges, change in the composition of the jury systern, lessening the time limits in death penalty appeals, recommendations for additions to the Court of Appeals, increasing the divisions on the Court of Appeals, adding more categories in discretionary appeals, increasing compensation for senior judges, changing the pay structure for court employees, limitations on firearm possessions by convicted criminals, and increasing penalties for juvenile offenders. These matters will be brought to you at a time when our court system is busier than ever before. I come from an era and from an area of the state where we went to court for Georgia Courts Journal 4 March 1997 entertainment. We went to court after the crops were laid by to see what was going on in our commu- nity. That is no longer the way the { ~ courts are operated. It's a full-time business. It's an everyday business, and oftentimes, it's an all-nightbusi- ness in traffic courts and municipal courts throughout this state. Judges are busier that ever before. Courts and society At the Supreme Court level in the last three years there has been a 17% increase in our caseload and a 38 % increase in the number of opinions that we have issued. The same is true of the Court of Appeals: their business has increased. The same is true of the superior courts of this state. Filings are at an all-time high, and filings continue to increase as our population increases. Our state courts are busier than ever before. The number of filings is almost astronomical in the juvenile courts. Just this past year, we have had 116,000 cases filed. When I grew up, I don't even remember one child in my community who ever went to juvenile court. Now all of you know children who have gone to juvenile court and some who are in detention. It is not enough to tum to the courts to solve all of the problems of the community; the community itself has a responsibility. Parents must be willing to raise their children. Communities must be willing to take children in. If they come to the courts, there is little we can provide for them, because courts can only give out time and give out fines. Oftentimes our children need some attention in their homes and in their communities. All our courts are busy, and they will continue to be busy because the public turns to us with alarming frequency to solve society's problems. The courts were not designed to be a cure-all for society's problems. We - were designed to take the extreme issues. Now we must deal with the ordinary and oftentimes mundane issues. We call on you to put into place institutions in the communities and require parents to be responsible for their children. We realize that the systemic problems keep coming around and around and around. When we send youngsters to jail for stealing hubcaps, they get an education on how to steal the car. We must provide some vehicle in the community to cut off this vicious cycle. I remember when I first came to the courts, my first death-penalty case. After the execution, someone called me and said, "Do you remem ber that defendant?" I said, "No, he is just one among many on our death row." The guy said, "You ought to remember him because his aunt came to your office when you were practicing law." I said, "Well, this defendant went by the name of Mad Dog." He said, "Yes, but when he was in your office he went by the name of Little Mikey." If you don't provide a way to deal with the Little Mikeys then you'll have to deal with the Mad Dogs of society. So I call on you to put in place those institutions to help our parents and to help families deal with our children. But you must also put in place institutions to deal with those we have been unable to help within the community and remove them from our community so that they will not be a menace to our society. Initiatives We have many programs that are carried out without fanfare or publicity. Our Administrative Office of the Courts helped with the Commission on Appellate Courts. Our Judicial Council provides assistance as a forum for judges throughout the state to help in filtering requests for judgeships and dividing circuits throughout the state. We appreciate your creating the Commission on Appellate Courts. That commission has made a report. We submit it to you for your consideration. We call on you to address the critical issue of domestic violence. Earlier this week, Governor Miller highlighted the need to curb family vialence. Our Commission on Family Violence works to develop a coordinated response and comprehensive plan for addressing this type of vialence. Family violence causes families to become dysfunctional and splintered; it causes medical expenses to rise; it causes a loss of work and productivity; it causes decreased performance of our youngsters in the schools, and it causes a host of other problems too numerous to catalog, including a burden on our courts and eventually a burden on the taxpayers. I encourage you to support efforts of the Family Vialence Commission. We're trying to do our part in the courts. We have created family violence task forces throughout this state, and we now have them in 39 of our 46 judicial circuits. We hope to have 100% participation by the end of the year. We ask you to give attention to the area of foster care. The advisory committee has just made its report, and we will be submitting it to you for your consideration. That report stresses better representation for the parties and the need to move toward full-time juvenile court judges in this state. It has worked under the direction of one of our most capable trial judges, Judge Bryant Culpepper of the Macon Judicial Circuit. If you have any questions about that commission, feel free to call on us. We appreciate your support of our Georgia Courts Automation Commission chaired by Judge Hilton Fuller. We're excited about the progress made in the area of automation. I take pride in the fact that my children call me a computer geek, because those are the same See ChiefJustice, page 6 March 1997 5 Georgia Courts Journal Chief Justice Benham address General Assembly continuedfrompages children who said seven years ago that I was afraid of computers. When they went to bed at night, I sneaked in and learned on their computers because I could not have twelve-yearold children embarrassing a judge of the appellate courts of this state. We now have information for you on our World Wide Web page. We have computers, thanks to you, on the desk of every superior court judge in this state, and by the end of the year we will have every full-time state court judge linked to the GO Network. We will link to the Internet. We are making our Supreme Court opinions available to the world by way of the Internet. In Georgia, we are proud of our decisions. We are proud of the laws, and we are proud of our legislature. We are proud of the accomplishments that have been made in this state. Thanks to you, our Commission on Equality has been heralded as one of the best in the nation. No longer do we look to California and New York to set the trend in terms of human relations. We can do a pretty good job of it ourselves right here in the state of Georgia because we know something about raising children and caring for family. Our Substance Abuse Committee is one of the best in the nation, and other states look to us for guidance. Our Institute on Continuing Judicial Education and Commission on Professionalism are in the vanguard of activities in the country. We insist and will continue to insist that our lawyers be competent, that they be civil, that they be courteous, that they engage in community service and public service. Just this morning, we recognized the lawyer-legislator members here so that everyone would know that we are proud of our lawyers and the sacrifice and the service they give. We ask you to give serious consideration to the recommendation of the Commission on Appellate Courts as to increasing the number of judges on the Court of Appeals. Our Supreme Court has one of the heaviest jurisdictions of any Supreme Court in this country with 15 specific items being directly appealable to our Supreme Court. Our Court of Appeals is one of the busiestCourts of Appeals in the country. We ask you to give them relief, but not at the expense of the Supreme Court by shifting jurisdiction to us. It is help they need-not spreading of the load with the present personnel. We ask you to consider the needs of our superior courts, our state courts, our juvenile courts, our probate courts, our magistrate courts, and our municipal courts. We have 29,000 lawyers in this state. We have 1,600 judges, and the business continues to increase. Future projects We have several future projects we would like you to consider. One is creation of a blue-ribbon commission to look at the court system to provide for the future of the courts, not just at the appellate level but for all of the courts in this state. We ask you to join with the Supreme Court in creating such a commission made up of legislators, lawyers, experts and lay persons to take a long-range and comprehensive look at our court system. We have decided to make our own responsible. Just recently, we received from the Bar a recommendation that lawyers be respon~ible for supporting their children-something known as the "Dead-Beat Dads" bill. We plan to move on that matter expeditiously because we do not see lawyers as needing any separate and distinct treatment when it comes to supporting their children. We are tightening the requirements for those who seek to become lawyers. We have approved the ereation of a commission to look into campaigning by those who seek judi- cial positions. The Judicial Qualifica- tion Commission has appointed a -- panel to make recommendations to that body and eventually to the Supreme Court. We realize that the business of the law is not just the business of lawyers: it is also the business of the public. So, we are rec- ommending to every judicial circuit that they establish a citizens' advisory committee so that citizens can inform the courts about issues such as re- spect for the rule of law, civility, access to justice, efficient operation of the court system, timely disposi- tion of the court's business, protect- ing the rights of the victims of crime, the affordability of the legal system, court services and accountability. Each court must be aware that it should be in the business of solving problems. That's why courts were created. We are grateful for your under- standing and your support. We ask that you empower the communities _ .._. _,/ to address problems and not leave those problems for us to address in the courts. We ask that during your deliberation you provide adequate funding for the court system, provide a system that attracts qualified and committed judges, provide access to justice for all of our citizens, allow judges to exercise some discretion as they carry out their duties, provide for a court system that has three levels- one for the trial of cases, one for the correction of error, and a court of last resort. We continue to solicit your sugges- tions on improving the court system. We look forward to working with you and maintaining the spirit of coop- eration, collaboration and collegiality. In the words of my mother, whenever we were faced with a difficult prob- !em: "Son, I raised you right, do the best you can, but whatever you do, remember that I've got your back." Thank you very much. tr. Georgia Courts Journal 6 March 1997 Futures conference produces c Leadership Agenda for courts The National Center for State Courts recently published the conference proceedings of the National Conference on the Future of the Judiciary held last year. Georgia judges and court administrators were among those participating. Leadership Agenda for the courts The Leadership Agenda which follows is the principal conference product. The agenda is designed to guide the actions of the judiciary as it administers justice. Participants devised and refined the agenda in small group discussion meetings and plenary voting sessions, then ranked and organized the selected items into priority levels. First tier, in order of importance: establish strong team leadership among judges and administrators at all levels; explore techniques for reducing the cost of participating in the justice system; institutionalize strategic planning, research and evaluation; continue current efforts implementing trial and appellate court performance standards; eliminate race, ethnic and gender bias; make court procedures, forms and instructions easy to understand; encourage rededication of personal commitment to equal justice under the law, including the role of judges in community/ on bench; cre~te a broad, inclusive process for feedback on the system and planning future governance (e.g., using citizens, bar, staff, judges); enhance training, education and professional development, including law-related education; ensure collaboration with other areas of government, bar and the public; cultivate relations with the legislature; establish a funding process that provides maximum flexibility in use of resources; and undertake a critical evaluation of the process of providing justice. Second tier, in order of importance: respond to demands for therapeutic justice, e.g., alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that complement the adversarial system within the courts; collect and use customer information as an on-going management process; provide leadership needed to assure well-qualified representation for indigent defendants; encourage volunteerism among lawyers and law students; use in-state conferences to build on the work of this conference; encourage state courts to expand the use of ADR techniques; courts and bar should assume responsibility for legal-services planning to poor and middle classes, establishing effective procedures for pro se litigation; the Conference of State Court Administrators and Conference of Chief Justices should assume a leadership role in implementing the conference agenda; courts should take initiative to establish linkages with public and private social institutions; and courts must take an active part in the political process underlying funding decisions. See NCSC conference, page 9 Notice of new Uniform Rule for the Superior Court On February 13, 1997, the Supreme Court of Georgia approved the amendment below, which adds a new Rule 39.9 to the Uniform Rules for the Superior Court. Rule 39.9 - Court Information The chief judge of each circuit may require the superior court clerk of each county of that circuit to furnish to the chief judge within 10 days after the end of each month, a general civil, domestic relations and a criminal caseload management report. The Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court may request copies of the information that is furnished to the Chief Judges of the circuits pursuant to this rule. The case types, events types and disposition methods used in these reports will conform to Judicial Council guidelines for reporting caseload. Each such report shall include the following: (A) the number of cases filed by case type in the prior month and year-to-date; (B) the number of cases disposed by case type and disposition method in the prior month and year-to-date; (0 the number and type of pend- ing cases; (D) a list of cases more than 120 days old (criminal) and 180 days old (civil/domestic relations) to include the following data: (i) case number, (ii) style, (iii) case type, (iv) filing date, (v) next event scheduled, (vi) date of that event; and (E) any other information the chief judge requests that is contained within court standardized com- puter programs. to March 1997 7 Georgiil Courts Journal Fiscal year 1998 appropriations request submitted Judicial branch agencies have sub- mitted budget requests for fiscal year 1998 Guly l, 1997-June 30, 1998) totaling $98.9 million. Requests Judicial Branch Appropriations Request* __, Fiscal Year 1998 (July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998) include $95.4 million in continuation funding and $3.5 million in improve- Budget Unit/Agency Continuation Improvement Total ments or enhancements to existing programs. Supreme Court $6,832,973 0 $6,832,973 The fiscal year 1998 continuation request represents an 11.8% increase Court of Appeals 8,209,707 199,180 8,408,887 over fiscal year 1997 appropriations of $85.3 million. Superior Courts Superior Court Judges 69,811,908 36,212,635 623,560 0 70,435,468 36,212,635 Improvement requests Improvement funds have been requested for the following: a contract for microfilming briefs, District Attorneys Council of Superior Court Judges Judicial Administrative Districts Prosecuting Attorneys' Council 28,736,570 562,587 1,571,079 2,729,037 0 0 623,560 0 28,736,570 562,587 2,194,639 2,729,037 enumerations of error, motions and opinions, pursuant to the Court of Appeals Record Retention Schedule Juvenile Courts Council of Juvenile Court Judges 1,t96,232 0 1,196,232 (first-year cost $58,438); implementation of a new Court of Appeals pay scale and service increments for staff attorneys and administrative assistants ($85,465); Institute of Continuing Judicial Ed. Operations Magistrate Courts Training Council Municipal Courts Training Council 904,910 719,800 166,976 18, 1 3 4 0 904,910 0 719,800 0 166,976 0 18, 134 an additional computer support position for the Court of Appeals ($55,277); ten systems analyst positions for the ten Judicial Administrative Districts ($605,560); a study of the feasibility of a statewide video link through the ten Judicial Administrative Districts ($18,000); Judicial Council Operations Board of Court Reporting Case Counting Council of Magistrate Court Judges Council of Probate Court Judges Council of State Court Judges Council of Superior Court Clerks Appellate Resource Center 2,483,129 1,749,352 89,779 76,500 26,700 58,700 45,748 58,350 378,000 0 2,483,129 0 1,749,352 0 89,779 0 76,500 0 26,700 0 58,700 0 45,748 0 58,350 0 378,000 an increase in funding for the Georgia Indigent Defense Council's Judicial Qualifications Commission 175,924 0 175,924 Grants to Counties program Indigent Defense Council 3,000,000 2,750,000 5,750,000 ($2,500,000); an increase in funding for the Georgia Courts Automation Comm. 2,521, 181 0 2,521, 181 Georgia Indigent Defense Council's Operations 1,721,181 0 1,721,181 Multi-County Public Defender's State-wide County Computerized Office ($250,000); Information Network 800,000 0 800,000 The judicial branch is usually allocated approximately seven- Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution 276,339 0 276,339 tenths of one percent of the total state budget. Judicial Branch Totals $95,412,303 $3,572,740 $98,985,043 A breakdown of the fiscal year 1998 requests for state appropriations is presented in the table at *Legislative action on these requests will be reported in the June issue of the Georgia Courts Journal. right. tc. Georgia Courts Journal 8 March 1997 Key to the caseload data chart: calendar year 1995 The chart on the following pages t shows caseload data for each of ~ Georgia's 46 superior court judicial circuits. Data are grouped by filing type: civil, criminaL and juvenile, and more specifically by case type: general civil, domestic relations, felony, misdemeanor and probation revocations. Filings per judge are calculated so that each circuit's workload is compared on an equal basis. The number of filings per judge is the total number of filings for the circuit divided by the total number of judges authorized by the General Assembly for that circuit. Some judgeships may be vacant. Shaded areas indicate circuits requesting an additional judgeship. Boldface numbers indicate figures exceeding the threshold caseload per judge on either the delphi weighted or ratio weighted method. Mean figures for all circuits are shown at the bottom of the columns. Rank is the position of the individual circuit as compared to that of other circuits. Under % Change, a noticeable change in superior court filings per judge may occur. Presence of courts of limited jurisdiction Within a circuit may decrease or increase filings in the superior court. Numbers also vary if a new judgeship was created in the five-year period shown. Population figures are based on the U.S. Census Bureau's 1995 estimated census figures for county population. Two systems, the delphi weighted caseload and ratio weighted caseload, are used to analyze workload per judge. The delphi system applies an estimated amount of time required for hearing various case types to each circuit's caseload filings. To qualify for an additional judgeship, the delphi value should exceed the present number of judges in the circuit. For example, if a circuit has two judges and the delphi value is greater than 2, the workload warrants consideration for an additional judgeship. The ratio weight represents caseload in terms of amount of time needed to bring a case to completion compared with time taken to try a typical felony case. Filings of all case types are converted to felony equivalents for comparison. When a circuit passes the 1,500 felony-case equivalent threshold, another judgeship may be considered. tl. NCSC conference proceedings continued from page 1 Third tier, in order ofimportance: move away from the adversary model in family cases; promote the use of federal/state judicial councils; encourageoutreach to communities: involvement of judges in interdisciplinary boards and commissions; expand neighborhood dispute centers and community courts; and establish local court-appointed advisory boards of court stakeholders. Prlnclpal Issues facing the courts Meeting in small discussion groups, participants were challenged to identify the three most important issues facing the state courts today. Each participant stated his or her top issues, and then each group reached ~ a consensus on the top three to five issues. Conference staff and faculty consolidated the 16 issues identified into five categories. In a plenary session, participants ranked the categories in order of importance. The issues within each category were not ranked. I. Perform as an Organization maintain competency of the judiciary measure court performance strengthen judicial leadership develop well~manage9 and accountable governance, structures, procedures and systems II. Open Access to the Justice System assure access to justice tie together justice and social in- stitutions to deal with continuing and emerging problems III. Develop Capacity to Respond to the Changing Environment define role of the courts concern- ing specialized offenses (e.g. substance abuse, domestic violence, juvenile) define role of alternative dispute resolution manage increasing caseloads (number and complexity) N. Secure and Manage Scarce Resources secure appropriate funds and resources V. Build Relationships with Customers create effective means to communicate with the public regarding issues of concern to the public help media understand the role and function of the judiciary improve communication and relationships with other branches improve federal/state relations improve public perception, understanding and confidence in the courts. tl. March 1997 9 Georgia Courts Journal