The vanguard, 2006 August

Volume 12, Issue 1

August 2006
The Vanguard

A

PUBLICATION

OF

THE

COUNCIL

OF

STATE

COURT

JUDGES

Judge Kent Lawrence Elected to Board of Directors of National Association of Drug Court Professionals

By Kelly Moody
Judge Kent Lawrence of the State Court of Athens-Clarke County was recently elected a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP).
"I am both honored and humbled to have been elected to serve on the NADCP Board of Directors, whose primary function is the facilitation, implementation and advancement of Drug and DUI Courts across the country. Drug Courts and DUI Courts work as the offender is subjected to individual accountability, enhanced supervision, extended treatment, and continuing judicial monitoring. Our local DUI Court program in Athens has to date proven successful in reducing fatalities and injuries in alcohol related crashes."
The mission of the NADCP is to seek a solution for the reduction of substance abuse, crime, and recidivism by promoting and

advocating for the establishment and funding of Drug and DUI courts and providing for collection and dissemination of information, technical assistance, and mutual support to association members.
Judge Lawrence meets with Gov. Sonny Perdue to discuss the future of DUI Courts in Georgia. (l-r) Judge George Kreeger, Cobb County Drug Court; Debra Nesbit, AOC; Judge Kent Lawrence, Athens-Clarke County DUI/Drug Court; Gov. Sonny Perdue

Judge Lawrence implemented the first DUI/Drug Court in Georgia in February, 2001. He currently serves on both the Statewide Drug Court Advisory Committee for the Judicial Council Standing Committee on Drug Courts. In 2005, he was the recipient of the Governor's Office of Highway Safety Director's Award in recognition of his dedication to the highest standards of excellence in promoting public safety in Georgia. He has been a facilitator for DUI/Drug Court teams across the country. He has served as President of the Council of State Court Judges and is an active member of the State Bar and the Western Judicial Circuit Bar Association. Judge Lawrence recently qualified for re-election without opposition for a new judicial term beginning January 1, 2007.
For more information on DUI Courts in Georgia, see article on page 4.

Judge Donny Peppers named 2005-2006 Elks Lodge Citizen of the Year

Judge Donny Peppers, State Court of Walker County, was recently named as the 2005-2006 LaFayette Elk's Lodge Citizen of the Year by the LaFayette Elk's Exalted Ruler, Mary Jane Melton. Judge Peppers was chosen as a recipient of the Award because of his lifelong dedication to improving the community of LaFayette and Walker County.
Each Year the Elk's Lodge is encouraged to select a Citizen of the Year who has contributed in a special way to improve the local community. This individual is someone who has shown leadership in

the community, has contributed voluntary service and is recognized as being an all around good citizen.
" Judge Peppers was chosen as a recipient of the Award because of his lifelong dedication to improving the community of LaFayette and Walker County."
Judge Peppers was appointed by the Governor to serve as the Walker County State Court Judge in 1985. He was subsequently elected by the citizens of Walker County and has honorably served in that capacity since May 6, 1985.

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

Farewell from Stephen Frank

2

Judge Wayne Purdom Serves on Civil Justice Committee

3

New Judges

3

DUI Court Spotlight

4

Judge of the Week

5

Evolution of Justice

6

All pictures by Ashley Stoller, AOC Layout by Tonya L. Griesbach, AOC

Page 2

The Vanguard

Farwell Letter from Stephan J. Frank

Dear Council of State Court Judges:
First, THANK YOU so very much for all of your support during my deployment to Iraq and throughout my entire active duty stint. Although it has been rewarding in many ways, it has also been a difficult and trying time for my family. Having the support of such wonderful people as you means a lot to me and I will not forget it. I have attached some recent, post-Iraq, pictures of me with this letter and have already sent some

Iraq ones throughout the year. Once I get the entire Iraq lot organized (so as to not subject you to the slide shows my grandma used to make me watch), I will be more than happy to show them to any of

Director when Uncle Sam has had enough of me and I get back to my normal life later this summer. I have been offered the position of Trial Court Administrator for the BellForsyth Judicial Circuit

"Your advice, wisdom and friendship have made [the past five years] rewarding and
memorable."

you who might be interested.
Second, I regret to inform you that I will not be continuing as your Executive

and will work up in Cumming. It is bittersweet as I have had such a wonderful experience working for you all, but I am also eager to serve the very fine folks

in Forsyth County.
THANK YOU for your kind support to me over the past 5 years that I have served as your Executive Director. Your advice, wisdom and friendship have made them rewarding and memorable. I hope that I have helped the Council to achieve its goals while, at the same time, also being of the highest possible service to each of you individually.
In short, it has been a privilege and a pleasure to work for you all and if there is anything that you ever need, please do not hesitate to call on me. Once I am settled into my new position, I will ensure that I get my new contact information out to you all.
Respectfully Yours,
Stephan J. Frank Cell (678) 480-1100

Volume 12, Issue 1

Page 3

Judge Wayne Purdom Selected to Serve on Supreme Court Committee on Civil Justice

Judge Wayne Purdom, State Court of DeKalb County, was named as a member Judge Wayne Purdom of the Supreme Court Committee on Civil Justice Reform in May of 2006. Judge Purdom is the only State Court Judge to assume this position. Committee members will serve four year terms.

The Supreme Court Committee on Civil Justice was created in May of 2005 and will work to strengthen Georgia's civil justice system by developing, coordinating and supporting policy initiatives to expand access to the courts for poor and vulnerable Georgians.
Some of the key initiatives of the Committee will include: promoting public understanding of access to justice problems; improving collaboration and training for advocate organization; increas-

ing coordination of services; and encouraging lawyers and judges to take a leadership role in expanding access to justice.
Judge Wayne Purdom received his undergraduate degree from Yale University, and holds a Juris Doctor in law from Emory University School of Law. He previously served as Chief Magistrate of DeKalb County. He was appointed to the DeKalb County State Court Bench in July of 1998.

Two New Judges Appointed to the State Court

Ernest D. Blount, State Court of Henry County

John K. Edwards, Jr., State Court of Lowndes County

Judge Blount was appointed by Governor Sonny Perdue on June 30, 2006, to serve as Judge of the State Court of Henry County. Judge Blount is filling the vacancy of the newly created third state court judgeship in Henry County.

Judge Edwards was appointed by Governor Sonny Perdue on May 31, 2006, to serve as Judge of the State Court of Lowndes County. Judge Edwards is filling the vacancy left by Judge Kelly D. Turner when she resigned.

Judge Blount has served as a municipal court judge for the cities of Stockbridge and McDonough. Previously, Judge Blount spent more than twenty years in general law practice in the cities of East Point and Stockbridge and another five years as the Henry County attorney.
Judge Blount earned an associate of arts degree from Gulf Coast Junior College as well as his juris doctor and master of laws degrees from the Atlanta School of Law.

Judge Edwards has served as a judge of the Municipal Court for the City of Valdosta since June 1997. Previously, he served as an attorney with the law offices of Saliba, Edwards and Moore and as solicitor of the municipal Court for the City of Valdosta.
Judge Edwards earned his bachelor's degree in political science from Wake Forest University and his law degree from the Walter F. George School of Law at Mercer University.

Page 4

The Vanguard

DUI court Spotlight

By Kelly Moody

Governor's Office of Highway ment officers, as well as drug court

Safety, Mike Mears, Director of personnel attended the Conference.

Georgia DUI Courts have had an Georgia Public Defender Stan-

exciting year with several judges dards Council, and Gwen Skinner, The National Association for Drug

showing an interest in start-up courts, Director of MHDDAD at the De- Court Professionals held their 12th

the 2006 Georgia Drug and DUI Court partment of Human Resources annual Conference, Successful

Conference in Peachtree City, and the were among the dignitaries at the Partnering for Recovery, in June,

2006 National Association of Drug Conference.

2006 in Seattle. Judge Kent

Court Professionals Conference in

Lawrence of Athens-Clarke County

Seattle.

Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson, and members of his DUI Court team,

Chief Executive Officer, National as well as Judge Charles Auslander,

Currently Georgia has nine

were invited to present at the

DUI Courts in existence in

Conference in a educational

Burke, Forsyth, Cherokee,

program, Court Spotlight: The

Troup, Chatham, Gwinnett,

Athens-Clarke County, GA

Hall, DeKalb, and Athens-

DUI/Drug Court. The

Clarke Counties. Several

workshop highlighted the

State Court Judges have

many successes of the Court

committed to start-up DUI

and served as a model for

Courts, including Judges

other DUI Courts across the

Cole, Forsling, and Porter of

nation. Several State Court

Fulton, Judge Clayton of

Judges attended the

Cobb, Judge Cowen of Clayton, Judge Finster of Chattooga, and Judge Bills

Athens-Clarke County DUI/Drug Court Team presented at the NADCP National Drug Court Conference in Seattle.

Conference including, Judge Gober of Cherokee, Judge McClelland of Forsyth, and

of Rockdale.

Judge Wynne of Hall.

Association of Drug Court

In May, 2006, the Standing Committee Professionals (NADCP), and Additionally, DUI Courts that received

on Drug Courts hosted a highly Executive Director, National Drug funding from the Fiscal Year 2006

successful Drug and DUI Court Court Institute (NDCI), was the Standing Committee on Drug Courts

Conference, Georgia Drug Courts: The keynote speaker. Several grant funds were eligible to apply for

Time is Now. Justice P. Harris Hines, nationally known presenters were Year Two funding for up to 75% of

Supreme Court of Georgia, Thurbert r e c r u i t e d f o r e d u c a t i o n a l their Fiscal Year 2006 grant award

Baker, Attorney General of Georgia, workshops. Over 250 people, amount. DUI Courts that applied

Hannah Heck, Office of Governor including judges, legislators, were fully funded by the Standing

Sonny Perdue, James E. Donald, department heads, prosecutors, Committee on Drug Courts at a total

Commissioner of Department of public defenders, treatment pro- of $105,423.

Corrections, Bob Dallas, Director of viders, probation and law enforce-

Judge C.J. Gober receives State Justice Institute Scholarship

By Bob Bray
Judge C.J. Gober of the Cherokee County DUI Court attended the National Association of Drug Court Professionals 12th Annual Drug Court Training Conference in Seattle, Washington on June 21-24, with the support of a scholarship awarded by the State Justice Institute (SJI).

The 12th Annual Drug Court Training Conference provided the opportunity for DUI/Drug Court teams from across the country to attend training sessions that offered innovative ideas, testimonials, and resources from leaders of the DUI/Drug Court movement
SJI is a non-profit organization established by Federal law to award grants to improve the qual-

ity of justice in State courts nationwide, facilitate better coordination between State and Federal courts, and foster innovative, efficient solutions to common problems faced by all courts.
More information about the Institute is available on the SJI website (http://www.statejustice.org).

Volume 12, Issue 1
Judge of the week

Page 5

By Judge Ben Studdard
We're at the halfway point of calendar year 2006. In my court, that means we start thinking about the calendar for 2007. Some of you are probably ahead of us on that count. As you begin that process, I want to follow up on a subject discussed at our Executive Committee meeting last month in Savannah: the legislative session.
I believe we can be much more effective in our legislative relations with a more concentrated presence there. Judge-of-the-Day is good, but my own experience is that you end just as you're beginning to figure out what's going on.
To that end, at our last meeting, I asked that our most active, key members consider setting your 2007 calendars to allow you one full week at the Legislature during the session. The Session begins on Monday, January 8, and goes for 40 days. Of course, those days are not consecutive, and there's often a week off

during mid-January for committee and budget meetings. Knowledgeable staff and judges have suggested that the most important times for us to be present are
the weeks February and March; but I'd like to see us represented every day possible. SO HERE'S THE PLAN: I'd like to ask each of you to set up your early 2007 court calendar with an eye toward saving a week to spend under the Gold Dome.

If so, please call Tonya Griesbach at (404) 656-6404 and let her know what week you're considering. She will maintain a list showing who is scheduled when, so we can make sure each week is covered and we don't end up with a bunch of judges coming at the same time.
The Council will reimburse your mileage and, if you're coming from outside the Atlanta area, hotel costs for this important work.
Of course, once you schedule it, do your best to be there. If you must change, let Tonya know so we can seek someone else to cover.
This will be an important session. Time after time, legislators have commented on how important it is that they see us there. Several of you expressed willingness to do this at our last meeting; I am grateful.
Please contact Judge Ben Studdard at 770-898-7612 or Tonya Griesbach at 404-656-6404 if you have any questions.

Fall Council of State Court Judges Meeting Jekyll Island, Georgia

The next Council of State Court Judges meeting will take place on October 11-13, 2006, at the Jekyll Island Club in Jekyll Island, Georgia. The Council of State Court Judges Committee meetings will be held the day prior on October 10, 2006.

In order to make your reservations at the hotel, call 1-800-535-9547 or email sales@jekyllclub.com. If you have questions regarding Continu-

ing Judicial Education credits, please contact Rich Reaves, Executive Director at the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education at 706-542-7491.

This year, as part of the business strategic plan to increase interjudiciary relations, the President of each Council and the Chair of each Committee of each Council will be invited to participate in the Council of State Court Judges meetings.

Page 6

The Vanguard

The Evolution of Justice: Part 1 Problem-Solving Courts

By David L. Ratley
The very concept of justice in today's society is a moving target! Also, the definition of justice is vague, relative, and open to interpretation. It is this vagueness that has facilitated an evolution of both the meaning and application of justice throughout history.
The administration of justice changes over time to reflect the values of the society in which it exists. The history of the administration of justice in the United States finds its logical starting place in the Declaration of Independence. For the United States, acknowledgement of justice began in the negative; we first looked at what justice was not. For our forefathers justice was not obstruction of laws establishing judiciary powers, it was not judges dependent on the will of a tyrant, it was not mock trials for soldiers, and it was not the depriving citizens of trial by jury.
After these "what is it not" acknowledgements were made, the first Americans were left with the arduous task of defining what the administration of justice was and how that administration would be reflected in the newly established United States. Dialogue about effective administration of justice through an independent judicial branch of government can be found within the Federalist Papers and the Constitution.
In Federalist paper 51, Alexander Hamilton wrote: "In framing government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." It was obvious to the writers of both the Federalist papers and the Constitution that it was necessary to establish three separate branches of government with meaningful checks and balances over each other. As we are all aware, those three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) are all armed with certain powers over the others within the Constitution.
These philosophical issues were brilliantly resolved; and, since 1787 when the Constitution was signed, the judi-

cial branch has engaged in the interpretation, construction, and application of the law, but, as the definition of justice has changed, so has the practical application of the duties of the judiciary. Civil society in the late 18th and early19th century embraced a cultural attitude that excluded certain members of society from the legal process and often applied different laws to different classes of citizens. It was also common that psychosocial circumstances of birth were not taken into consideration when a case was tried within a court. In the past, both civil and criminal cases were tried on the concept of distributive justice where each person received a specific punishment for a specific crime. This resulted in, what we would call today, unjust and harsh arbitrary punishment for certain members of society.
In the late 19th century, the obligations of justice began to expand beyond dispute resolution and became more multidimensional. This was enabled in part by the Industrial Revolution which brought about specialization and enlightenment to American society. For example, during the 19th century, society became more knowledgeable and sensitive to mental health issues and addiction, realizing that not all defendants or cases could be tried under the same set of rules or offered the same sentences. Judges turned more toward commutative justice which deals with the application of the law to a specific person and circumstance.
As a result of the evolution of values of society and beliefs about what is right and just, judges have begun to fill roles they never played in the past. Previously, legal culture perceived the judge as a dispassionate arbiter, but many people appearing before a judge today are seeking a protector or advocate, not a detached referee (Tobin). This socially involved role often requires judges to assume responsibility for seeing that mandated services to families

are provided. The new role also places judges at the head of a network that includes many non-court agencies and makes the judge a coordinator and facilitator as well as an adjudicator (Tobin).
Judicial roles have further changed in the twenty first century in response to the disintegrating social fabric of the country. Family problems, substance abuse, disabilities of age and infancy, and the mental illnesses caused by the social pathologies of contemporary America have placed judges (whether they want to be or not) on the front line of a struggle to address social problems. The primary role of the judge remains that of adjudication, but adjudication no longer totally defines the judge's role. Judges are now problem solvers and often lead troubled persons to resources that can help them recover their ability to function in society. This is not a traditional arbiter role, nor is it restricted to family, juvenile, and mental health matters (Tobin).
Problem-solving courts are a 20th and 21st century tool that the judicial branch has employed out of necessity to help addicted defendants break a cycle of recidivism. This departure from tradition with in the branch is a reflection of a larger change in the concept of justice within contemporary society. The changing role of judges is most noticeable in the exercise of juvenile and family court responsibilities where judges have an obligation to oversee the execution of their orders and engage in quasi-executive rather than judicial functions. This new post adjudication role may be more important and time-consuming than adjudication for the defendants and may go beyond oversight to mandating provision of services by executive branch agencies or administering social service and detention programs that are under court guidance (Tobin).
An overview of problem-solving courts published by the National Center for State Courts notes that in the last fifteen years, problem-solving courts have become an important feature of the American court landscape. These courts were developed in response to frustration by both the court system

Volume 12, Issue 1

Page 7

The Evolution of Justice: Part 1 Problem-Solving Courts (Continued)

and the public to the large number of cases that seemed to be disposed repeatedly but not resolved. Problemsolving courts offer the promise of a more meaningful resolution of cases involving people with psychosocial problems as well as legal issues.
Problem-solving courts vary considerably by jurisdiction and case type within a jurisdiction. However, despite their differences, all problem-solving courts focus on closer collaboration with the service organizations within their communities and focus on a multidisciplinary approach to addressing the underlying issues of individuals appearing in court.
Currently, there are four prominent problem-solving courts in the United States: (1) community, (2) domestic violence, (3) drug, and (4) mental health courts. The movement for creation of problem-solving courts has recently increased. Advocates of specialty courts base their position on the necessity to focus resources on a specific problem and to obtain judges who have the expertise and desire to handle the problem (NCSC Overview).
Georgia has several types of problem solving courts the most prominent being Family courts, DUI/Drug courts and Mental Health courts. Family courts offer a unified, one-judge/onefamily assignment, and focus on the need for all family information to be centralized and accessible. These courts may have jurisdiction over a variety of domestic relations, juvenile, and criminal issues.
As you know, the Superior Court of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit has a Family Division. The Family Division was instituted in July 1998 as a "system reform" pilot project designed around the "One Family - One Judge concept. The One-Family - One Judge Concept seeks to consolidate multiple court cases involving the same family under one judge. The basic tenets of this concept are to:
provide a comprehensive ap-
proach to helping families in crisis by using both judicial adjudication and service intervention methods, and


improve case processing from
initial filing to case disposition by consolidating multiple cases involving the same family under one judge, thereby preventing fragmented decision-making. The emphasis of the Family Division is on the best interests of children affected by legal proceedings and the family unit affected by the process. The Family Division's role is to provide a comprehensive, nonadversarial approach to solving domestic disputes while simultaneously reducing the use of forced problemsolving via the litigation process (fultoncourt.org).
The most common specialized court (outside of Juvenile court) in Georgia are the Drug and DUI Courts. Currently, Georgia has 47 active Drug and DUI courts and 9 in the start up phase. The purpose of Drug and DUI courts is to incorporate intensive judicial supervision, treatment services, sanctions, and incentives to address the needs of the Drug and DUI Court participants A Drug or DUI court team (composed of the judge, prosecutor, public defender, probation officer, and treatment providers) works in concert to ensure that defendants have the support of the justice system and treatment services to address their drug abuse problems (NCSC Online).
The final special court of prominence in Georgia is the mental health court. Currently, Georgia has three mental health courts in operation, with several more under consideration. The premise of a mental health court is that with proper diversion, monitoring and intensive supervision, there is no gap between the court and service providers that would allow a person to fall through the cracks and re-offend. In response to the number of individuals with a mental illness in the criminal justice system, some jurisdictions have implemented special calendars intended to divert a defendant with a mental illness into treatment rather than incarceration (NCSC Online).
Mental health courts vary in their

approach and procedures, however, they focus on similar goals. These specialized courts seek to preserve public safety, reduce inappropriate incarceration, relieve the burden on county and state Corrections officials that are presented by inmates with mental health issues who won't take their medicine, reduce recidivism, and reduce unnecessary hospitalization of the mentally disabled. Several evaluative studies have been conducted in relation to mental health courts. These studies find that mental health courts are effective in linking participants to treatment services, that their participants receive more treatment while involved in the mental health court compared to the level they received prior to entering the program, that the treatment plans are based on individuals' specific needs, and that bookings decrease for individuals once enrolled in the mental health court compared to prior mental health court involvement (NCSC Problem-Solving Courts: Models and Trends).
Another prominent offshoot of the boutique court phenomenon is that of Alternative Dispute Resolution. The formal adversarial process that individuals experience within the trial courts is costly and traumatic to all involved. Anyone who experiences the litigation process in its entirety comes away scarred. Trials occur in very few cases, but trial lurks as the fate that will await people who do not plead guilty or settle their civil disputes. Thankfully, there are different processes, such as ADR, that people can enter in to in an effort to avoid this situation (Tobin).
Georgia currently has 41 active ADR programs in 85 counties around the state. Throughout the country, many states have either implemented courtconnected ADR or have task forces studying the feasibility of making court-connected ADR available to litigants. The ADR processes which are used most widely throughout the country and in Georgia are (1) mediation, (2) arbitration and (3) case evaluation (godr.georgia.gov). I might also add that divorcing parent's seminars seem to be most effective when linked to good ADR programs.

Page 8

The Vanguard

The Evolution of Justice: Part 1 Problem-Solving Courts (Continued)

Since 1991, the Commission on Dispute Resolution and the Office of Dispute Resolution have worked closely with court programs, providing partial funding and, in many cases, technical assistance. Grants to local ADR programs have been made possible by funding from the Georgia Bar Foundation. Permanent funding for these programs was legislated in April 1993 through a filing fee surcharge in participating counties (O.C.G.A. 15-23-1 -13). Georgia ADR programs are a resounding success!
Georgia is already seeing a further evolution in the definition of justice through a more specialized court structure involving such classes of court as environmental and business and may see courts specializing in immigration and the homeless in the future. The issue of immigration in Georgia tops every branch's agenda. For many years the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was the only government agency responsible for enforcing and interpreting the immigration laws of the United States; but in 1983, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) was established and assigned the responsibility of interpreting immigration laws and conducting hearings on a variety of immigration issues. Immigration Judges in Immigration Courts across the country adjudicate thousands of cases each day involving individuals who have been charged by the INS with violating U.S. immigration laws (NCSC Online). It is not hard to imagine that as Georgia's immigrant population grows that Georgia could see an immigration court in the near future. Homeless courts are another class of court that Georgia could benefit from in the future. Homeless courts are special court sessions held in a local shelter or other community site designed for homeless citizens to resolve outstanding misdemeanor criminal warrants (principally "qualityof-life" infractions such as unauthorized removal of a shopping cart, disorderly conduct, public drunkenness,

and sleeping on a sidewalk or on the beach). Resolution of outstanding warrants not only meets a fundamental need of homeless people but also eases court case-processing backlogs and reduces vagrancy. Homeless people tend to be fearful of attending court, yet their outstanding warrants deter them from using social services (sometimes a public health issue) and impede their access to employment (an economic issue for taxpayers). They are effectively blocked from obtaining driver's licenses, job applications, and rental agreements. The homeless population is also growing in Georgia, and these courts could be a first step in leading some of the homeless toward reintegration with society (courtinfo.ca.gov). We can't just buy them a bus tickets and ship them out of town like we did for the Olympics. Environmental courts involve everything from pollution to screeching owls or overactive cat serenades at midnight. Maintenance of private property, pooper scoopers for pets, garbage backup, and noise pollution are also considered environmental issues. Many local governments already have special courts dealing with such issues; and, as the levels of environmental violations rise from the local level to the federal level--the state cannot be far behind. It is clear from the literature and current trends within the judicial branch that (whether we like it or not) today's judges perform duties outside the confines of the traditional adjudicative role. This changing role of judges (whether we like it or not) reflects a changing view about the meaning and scope of justice. A pragmatic view is that doing justice is not a selfexplanatory term. Its meaning may have to be inferred from the way a system of justice conducts itself. It is apparent from observation (whether we like it or not) that the meaning of justice is being expanded and will continue to evolve into the future. As a profession, we need to be able to respond, (whether our judges like it or not) to the changes that will surely come--as they have come since 1787.

This article is the summation of research conducted for a presentation on this topic to the Georgia Council of Court Administrators. Appreciation goes to Kelly C. McQueen, Program Manager with the Administrative Office of the Courts for the research that went into preparing this presentation. REFERENCES www.ncsconline.org www.fultoncourt.org www.courtinfo.ca.gov www.godr.georgia.gov Hamilton, Alexander, John Jay, and James Madison. The Federalist. Random House, Inc., New York, 2000 Tobin, Robert W. Creating the Judicial Branch. National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, 2004 Casey, Pamela M. and David B. Rottman. "Problem-Sovling Courts: Models and Trends", National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, 2003

UPCOMING EVENTS

Council of State Court Judges Executive Meeting

Aug. 28, 2006

Judicial Council of Georgia Meeting

Aug. 29, 2006

Council of State Court Judges Fall Committee Meetings

Oct. 10, 2006

Council of State Court Judges Oct. 11--13,

CJE Training

2006

Council of State Court Judges Executive Meeting

Dec. 4, 2006

Judicial Council of Georgia Meeting

Dec. 5, 2006

Legislative Session Begins

Jan. 8, 2007

Volume 12, Issue 1

Page 9

Council Committees Meet and Develop Two Strategic Plans Business Plan and Information
Technology Plans Drafted

By Bob Bray
The Future: Recently, a joke crossed my email path that I had not seen before.
A woman visited a psychic of some local repute. In a dark and hazy room, peering into a crystal ball, the mystic delivered grave news: "There's no easy way to say this, so I'll just be blunt--prepare yourself to be a widow. Your husband will die a violent and horrible death this year." Visibly shaken, the woman stared intently at the psychic's lined face, then at the single flickering candle, then down at her hands. She took a few deep breaths to compose herself. She simply had to know. So she met the fortune teller's gaze, steadied her voice, and asked her next question: "Will I be acquitted?"
Oh, to be able to know the future!! But in reality, the future was in the grasp and control of the wife to begin with and so it is with us.
The Council of State Court Judges recently participated in two different types of planning sessions to create a map of where the organization should be this year, next year and in three to five years.
One group, chaired by Judge Joe Iannazzone of the State Court of Gwinnett County, focused its vision on issues surrounding technology and information sharing in the next years. The planning sessions were sponsored by the Georgia Courts Automation Commission and led by Jim Poulakis of the North Highland Company. The Data Definitions outlined all of the processes and forms that occur in state court case processing and trials. The second session created a road map of things that the Council should consider as a

guide over the next few years regarding technology in the state courts.
On a third and separate occasion, the Executive Committee of the Council of State Court Judges met and developed a strategic business plan to focus attention on council business and program matters. This meeting was Co-Chaired by President John Salter and President Elect Ben Studdard. North Highland consultants facilitated the participants through this process to develop an organizational plan to present to the general members at the spring conference.
The work of both groups was quite challenging yet productive. Many great ideas were fostered and insights shared to achieve the drafts that came about from the meetings.
The IT strategic planning occurred over two separate meetings in November and February; one at Callaway Gardens and the other at Brasstown Valley Resort. The meeting was attended by Judges Joe Iannazzone from Gwinnett State Court, Judge Jeannette Little (Troup), Judge Harold Benefield (Clayton), Judge Russ McClelland (Forsyth) and Judge Maureen Gottfried (Muskogee). Court officials also participating were Bob Bray of the Council, Carl Blair of Chatham County, Lawana Moore and Lance Montgerard with Dougherty County, Cheryl Lynn Masters with Fulton County and George Nolan with the Georgia Courts Automation Commission.
The Council business strategic planning meeting was held in March at Lake Blackshear in Cordele, Georgia. The judges in attendance were: President John Salter (Dougherty), President Elect Ben Studdard (Henry), Secretary Brenda Cole (Fulton), Treasurer John Carbo (Clayton), Past President Ed Carriere

(DeKalb), District 1 Chair Gary Mikell

(Bulloch), District 2 Chair Sam Edgar

(Bacon), District 3 Chair Bill Bass

(Grady) [for Kelly Turner (Lowndes)],

District 4 Chair Neal Dettmering

(Douglas), District 5 Chair Richard

Slaby (Richmond), District 6 Charlie

Wynn (Hall) [for Gene Roberts

(Hall)], District 7 Chair Henry

Newkirk (Fulton), District 8 Chair

David Darden (Cobb); and, Commit-

tee Chairs Joe Iannazzone

(Gwinnett), Donny

Peppers

(Walker), and DeKalb County State

Court Judges Wayne Purdom and

Tony DelCampo. Also attending

were Interim Director Bob Bray, and

representatives from the Administra-

tive Office of the Courts: Associate

Director Vince Harris, Tonya Gries-

bach and Kelly Moody.

Some of the items, upon approval, that will be forthcoming from the IT planning meetings are an Inventory of the software and program applications used by the state court judges and clerks to determine if there are any perceived cost-saving benefits that may be shared by the courts. In conjunction with the inventory, a survey is being developed to see what technology resources the judges actually use and would like to use in the future.

An initiative from the business

planning meeting is the

encouragement of district meetings

to discuss the goals and objectives

that will be recommended and

appropriately approved to further

the Council's mission and vision of

the future. Both groups will be mak-

ing presentations to the Executive

Committee and to the general

membership at the annual meeting

in the spring. All members are

encouraged to share their ideas and

suggestions to assist the Council in

meeting its goals for the upcoming

year.

With your continued

involvement and support we can

shape our future together.