Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2006.10.05 - 28303MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION "6193 October 5, 2006 BY: General Government, William R. Patterson, Chairperson IN RE: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS —APPROVE CREATION OF ONE (1) ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGESHIP EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2009 To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS the Supreme Court is responsible for making recommendations to the Legislature regarding the number of judges in the state's trial courts to reflect changes in judicial activity (Constitution 1963, art. 6, §11); and WHEREAS the State Court Administrative Office, in its Judicial Resources Recommendations report issued in October 2005, has determined that the 6 th Judicial Circuit Court is more than three judges understaffed; and WHEREAS the State Court Administrative Office recommended an increase of one circuit judgeship in 2007 and an increase of one circuit judgeship in 2009; and WHEREAS the Circuit Court has requested an increase of one circuit judgeship in 2009, consistent with the recommendation of the State Court Administrative Office; and WHEREAS the creation of a new judgeship requires statutory authorization and approval by the local government that funds the court (MCL 600.550(1); and WHEREAS the total annual compensation for circuit judges is paid by the State of Michigan; and WHEREAS requests for support personnel corresponding to the new judgeship in 2009 will be included as part of the FY 2009-2010 Biennial budget process. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approves the creation of one new judgeship in the 6 th Judicial Circuit Court to be filled by election in 2008 for a judicial term of office beginning on January 1, 2009. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners agrees to provide and maintain facilities, personnel and operating costs to support the new judgeship in accordance with the statutes of the State of Michigan, the Michigan Court Rules, and the Michigan Constitution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution shall be flied with the State Court Administrator. Chairperson, on behalf of the General Government Committee, I mo‘e the adoption of the foregoing resolution. GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE VOTE: Motion carried on a roll call vote with Patterson absent. WENDY POTTS CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE circuit (gaud aTstartu UI Maktunb 1200 N TELEGRAPH RD DEPT 404 PONTIAC MI 48341-0404 SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF MICHIGAN (248) 858-0365 FAX 248-975-9787 September 8, 2006 Oakland County Board of Commissioners 1200 N. Telegraph Pontiac, MI 48341 Dear Commissioners: Please accept this letter on behalf of the Oakland County Circuit Court as our request for Board approval of one new judgeship to be added to the Circuit Court effective January 1, 2009. Our request is consistent with the recommendation of the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) as presented in its report on judicial resources issued last October. The following attachments, including a brief description of each, are enclosed for your information: Attachment #1: Judicial Resources Recommendations as issued by SCAO, pages 1-3. The SCAO has developed a sophisticated method for determining judicial need in Michigan's trial courts. The method was recommended by the National Center for State Courts and is highly regarded by the Legislature as a sound, comprehensive and objective approach to estimating judicial need. The methodology uses a two-phased approach to assess judicial need. The first phase involves a statistical evaluation of the weighted caseload of each court, where case "weights" have been developed to reflect the differing amounts of judicial effort required to resolve each case type. The second phase involves an analysis of many factors that affect the workload of each court. This attachment provides additional information regarding the process used by the SCAO to develop judicial resource recommendations. Attachment #2: Resolution to approve a new judgeship. The resolution is respectfully offered for the Board's consideration and approval. The creation of a new judgeship requires statutory authorization by the Oakland County Commissioners September 8, 2006 Page Two Legislature and approval by the local government that funds the court. A Bill exists that would authorize the creation of a new judgeship in this Circuit Court effective January 1, 2009. The Bill passed the House and is sitting in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Legislature typically requires an acknowledgement of approval by the applicable local government before it will adopt authorizing legislation. Approval of the attached resolution would sufficiently demonstrate the Board's support for the new judgeship and would act as an impetus for passage of the aforementioned Bill in the Senate. It is important that the Senate vote on the Bill this year or it will fall off the legislative calendar at year's end. Attachment #3: Comparison of New Filings and Reopened Cases. Case filings in this Circuit Court have been generally flat for the past several years. My colleagues and I believe that a simple review of recent years' caseload filings can lead to the erroneous conclusion that our workload over this period is unchanged: therefore, a new judgeship is not needed. We contend that our caseload is higher than most other courts in Michigan, and that a new judgeship is needed so that we can catch up to other judges in terms of comparable caseload. Please note on the attachment that the average statewide judicial caseload in 2005 was 1,611 cases. Our judges had a docket of 1,746 cases, or 135 more cases per judge than the "average" docket in Michigan. Near the top of the attachment you will see a reference to "Region 1." Most southeast Michigan courts are located in Region 1, as are we. Even in the high- volume and litigious counties in Region 1, our judges still have 100 more cases per judge than the average docket (1,647 cases) among our contemporaries in the Region. Attachment #4: Circuit Court Workload Analysis. The attachment contains some indicators of workload for the period 1999 to 2006. The information is largely self-explanatory. Please remember that the family division of Circuit Court was not implemented until 1998, and so we selected 1999 as the first full year after the family division's creation to begin the analysis. As you think about this request, please consider the following issues. The characteristics of cases in our court have changed. We hear increasingly complex 4 L DITRODUCTION The State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) has completed its biennial review of the judicial needs of trial courts. The Judiciary is responsible for making recommendations to the Legislature regarding changes in the number of judges (Const 1963, art. 6, §11). The following recommendations are based on a statistical analysis of the weighted caseload of trial courts and an extended analysis of additional factors affecting the workload of trial courts, such as the types of cases processed, demographic trends, and the availability of other resources. IL METHODOLOGY The estimation of judicial workload and a community's need for judges is a complex and multidimensional process. Most states, including Michigan, consider both quantitative and qualitative factors in determining the need for judgeships. The process in Michigan involves two stages. The first stage utilizes a quantitative method, specifically a weighted caseload formula, to estimate the judicial need in each court. As a general rule, courts with an estimated need of one additional judge or an estimated excess of one judge, were included in the second stage. The second stage involves an extended analysis of quantitative and qualitative factors. This analysis is tailored to each court and results in the development of the final recommendation. Weighted Caseload Formula: The preliminary quantitative method for identifying a potential need for a change in the number of judgeships is the weighted caseload formula. Weighted caseload is an approach that attributes a "weight" to different case types to account for varying degrees of judicial effort required for distinct case types. That weight, when applied to new case filings, yields an estimate of the judicial time required to process a caseload. The total judicial time required to process the caseload is then divided by a factor that represents the amount of time available in a judicial year to arrive at the approximate number of judgeships required to process that caseload. This report was based on the most recent available case filings: 2002, 2003, and 2004. Because the weighted caseload provides a means for distinguishing the varying degrees of effort involved in handling different case types, it provides a significant advantage over the use of unweighted total case filings. The proportions of different caseload types may vary significantly from court type to court type,' and from court to court.2 Weighting the cases allows for a more precise means of estimating judicial workload when such caseload variations exist. The National Center for State Courts recommends a weighted caseload methodology above all others, including a simple population analysis. Approximately one-half of the states use a weighted caseload methodology. There are different approaches to developing the weights used in the weighted caseload formulae. Some have been For example, a significant portion of district court caseload consists of traffic cases, making the total number of cases processed in district courts significantly higher than either circuit or probate courts. 2 For example, one court may be in a community where fewer highways exist, leading to relatively fewer traffic cases. While that court may have substantially fewer traffic cases, it may have a higher proportion of civil cases, or misdemeanor cases, which typically require more judicial time than traffic cases. Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office Judicial Resources Recommendations October 2005 developed by an expert "Delphi" approach. This approach uses a panel of experts (typically experienced trial judges or others with experience in caseload processing) to estimate the average time required to process different types of cases. The other common approach is to measure actual time spent by all judges or a group of judges over a period of time to process cases or the events that are included in the processing of a case. In some cases, weights are developed using a combination of approaches. In Michigan, the weighted caseload formula was first developed by the Trial Court Assessment Commission (TCAC), which the Legislature created in 1996. The TCAC conducted a time study for a two-month period during 1997 to measure the actual time spent by judges in selected jurisdictions. The results were published in 1998.3 The TCAC contracted with the National Center for State Courts for assistance in developing the weighted caseload formula.4 In 2000, because of the implementation of the family division and changes in the jurisdiction of circuit and district courts since the development of the weighted caseload formula, the Michigan Supreme Court directed the SCAO to update the weighted caseload formula through a new study of the time required to process case types.5 After making some changes in the time study, the SCAO conducted a new time study in September and October of 2000. The data collected from the courts participating in the 2000 study were used to update the weighted caseload formula. To ensure that short-term, year-to-year variations in new case filings do not unduly affect judicial resource need estimates, caseload data reported by trial courts from the preceding three years (2002, 2003, and 2004) were used for estimating judicial resource needs for this report, The use of three years assures that a temporary fluctuation in the caseload for a single year is not given undue weight in the analysis of long-term judicial resource needs. An additional refinement was implemented during the judicial resource analysis four years ago to account for the demonstrated economy of scale that occurs with the increase in the size of a court. Review of judicial time required to process cases in Michigan courts shows that it typically takes more judicial resources in smaller courts to process cases than in larger courts. This reflects the economies of scale that can often be achieved through the availability of a larger pool of judges to assist one another in the processing of cases and the availability of more specialized staff assistance.6 To account for variations in the judicial time required for processing cases based on the relative size of courts, the weighted caseload formula was adjusted across courts based on the relative size of the courts. Thus, larger courts were attributed a smaller relative case weight, yielding a need for relatively fewer judicial resources. 3 Michigan Trial Court Assessment Commission: Recommendations, 1998. 4 The National Center for State Courts, based in Williamsburg, Virginia, is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting the nation's state courts through research and technical assistance. 5 Since the original time study, the family division has been more fully implemented in circuit and probate courts, changes were made in the jurisdictional limits of circuit and district civil cases, and some felonies were changed to misdemeanors. 6 For example, larger courts can employ a pool of law clerks, or perhaps a magistrate and other assistants. Moreover, a larger professional administrative staff will be available to assist with case processing duties that are otherwise handled by a judge. Page 2 Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office Judicial Resources Recommendations October 2005 Extended Analysis: As indicated, the estimation of judicial need is a complicated and multi- faceted process. The TCAC indicated that before recommendations are made for the increase or reduction of judgeships, an extended analysis should be conducted by the SCAO of other factors affecting workload. In this study, after preliminary identification of courts that show a need for additional judgeships or fewer judgeships using the weighted caseload formula, an extended analysis was conducted of other factors affecting workload, such as caseload filing trends and other caseload data, demographic factors, and resource factors. As a general rule, courts that statistically displayed a need for at least one additional judge or an excess of at least one judge using the three-year adjusted weighted caseload measure were selected for review. Courts scheduled to switch from a part-time probate judge to a full-time probate judge with district court jurisdiction in 2007 were excluded from the extended analysis. In previous analyses, courts needed to exceed a threshold of +/- 1.50. The threshold was reduced to allow the SCAO to review more courts during the extended analysis. However, the inclusion in the extended analysis does not necessarily result in a recommended change in judgeships. Resource recommendations are made only after an extended analysis is conducted. The extended analysis involves the review of additional quantitative information and qualitative information, such as: the makeup of the caseload, caseload trends, prosecutor and law enforcement practices, staffing levels, facilities, technological resources, the need for assignments to or from other jurisdictions, demographics and demographic trends, and local legal culture. Because the operation of the family division of the circuit court requires many probate judges to perform judicial service in the circuit court, the judicial need in circuit and probate courts are examined concurrently. Specific recommendations for the circuit or probate bench are made where a permanent change in the number of judges is indicated. Factors considered in the extended analysis include: Case related • Caseload mix and case types • Case counting methodology • Docket backlog • Prosecutor and law enforcement practices, charging practices affecting case count, pleas, and trials • Caseload variations/trends Resources • Staffing levels: availability of judicial officers, case-processing staff, and law clerks • Assignments into or out of the court • Facilities • Technological resources: computer systems, networking, video arraignments Environmental • Demographics • Local legal culture • Judicial philosophy Page 3 Sincerely, Wendy Pott Chief Judg Oakland County Commissioners September 8, 2006 Page Three cases and a higher volume of cases involving multiple claims, multiple parties, and cross-claims than were filed merely five or ten years ago. There is escalating pressure to expedite the resolution of cases in compliance with time guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court. Jail overcrowding continues to demand that our judges emphasize the timely handling of criminal cases, but often at the expense of the civil and family dockets. Our judges are conscientious and not afraid of hard work, but the fact cannot be ignored that we are starting from a position well behind most of our colleagues in this state with respect to the volume of cases we hear. We are asking for the Board's approval of a new judgeship so that we can ensure the timely dispensation of justice in accord with the expectations and demands of our constituents. We appreciate your consideration of this request. You are welcome to contact me, my colleagues or our court administrator if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you. WP:she Attachments cc: Circuit Judges L. Brooks Patterson Kevin Oeffner 4 2,148 9 2,109 * 12 1,985* 5 1,764 19 1,746* 5 1,742 9 1,630* Comparison of New Filings and Reopened Cases Source: 2005 State Court Administrative Office Caseload Report Subtotal - Avg. Civil/ Subtotal - Judicial Location Criminal Family Total Judges Caseload Region 1 71,971 39% 112,467 61% 184,438 112 1,647 Region 2 29,938 30% 71,450 70% 101,388 56 1,811 Region 3 12,806 31% 28,517 69% 41,323 30 1,377 Region 4 6,874 31% 15,466 69% 22,340 19 1,176 State 121,589 35% 227,900 65% 349,489 217 1,611 Circuit Court (Region) Muskegon (2) 2,272 26% 6,320 74% 8,592 Kent (2) 5,696 30% 13,287 70% 18,983 Macomb (1) 10,470 44% 13,349 56% 23,819 Kalamazoo (2) 3,234 37% 5,587 63% 8,821 Oakland (1) 15,700 47% 17,483 53% 33,183 Washtenaw (1) 3,684 42% 5,027 58% 8,711 Genesee (1) 4,450 30% 10,224 70% 14,674 gif,09 35% 227,04A;65% 349,480! Jackson (2) 1,702 27% 4,690 73% 6,392 4 1,598 Ingham (2) 3,489 32% 7,444 68% 10,933 7 1,562 Wayne (1) 34,590 37% 60,021 63% 94,611 61 1,551 Saginaw (2) 2,510 33% 5,064 67% 7,574 5 1,515 * a new judgeship was recommended in 2007 Comparison of New Filings and Reopened Cases Source: 2005 State Court Administrative Office Caseload Report Subtotal - Avg. Civil/ Subtotal - Judicial Location Criminal Family Total Judges Caseload Region 1 71,971 39% 112,467 61% 184,438 112 1,647 Region 2 29,938 30% 71,450 70% 101,388 56 1,811 Region 3 12,806 31% 28,517 69% 41,323 30 1,377 Region 4 6,874 31% 15,466 69% 22,340 19 1,176 State 121,589 35% 227,900 65% 349,489 217 1,611 Circuit Court (Region) Muskegon (2) 2,272 26% 6,320 74% 8,592 4 2,148 Kent (2) 5,696 30% 13,287 70% 18,983 9 2,109* Macomb (1) 10,470 44% 13,349 56% 23,819 12 1,985 * Kalamazoo (2) 3,234 37% 5,587 63% 8,821 5 1,764 Oakland (1) 15,700 47% 17,483 53% 33,183 19 1,746* Washtenaw (1) 3,684 42% 5,027 58% 8,711 5 1,742 Genesee (1) 4,450 30% 10,224 70% 14,674 9 1,630 * ffilialMINME11.9 35% 227"0" 55% 349,489: Jackson (2) 1,702 27% 4,690 73% 6,392 4 1,598 Ingham (2) 3,489 32% 7,444 68% 10,933 7 1,562 Wayne (1) 34,590 37% 60,021 63% 94,611 61 1,551 Saginaw (2) 2,510 33% 5,064 67% 7,574 5 1,515 *a new judgeship was recommended in 2007 Circuit Court Workload Analysis 'Yo Chg 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '99-'06 Trials - civil, criminal and domestic 730 719 765 710 673 684 704 770 5.5% Trials - delinquency and neglect 350 413 422 445 542 514 685 608 73.7% Total Trials 1,080 1,132 1,187 1,155 1,215 1,198 1,389 1,378 27.6% Trial Days - civil, criminal and domestic 1,515 1,389 1,364 1,420 1,721 13.6% Hearings - delinquency and neglect Violations - delinquency 7,307 7,134 7,628 8,512 8,471 8,525 8,717 8,786 20.2% 267 242 217 236 272 255 313 314 17.6% Scheduled Court Appearances 60,471 61,879 67,957 69,305 73,731 79,327 79,296 80,507 33.1% Motions 38,005 36,630 38,260 40,359 39,174 40,127 38,784 39,036 2.7% Resolution #06193 October 5, 2006 Moved by Wilson supported by Crawford the resolution be adopted. Moved by Wilson supported by Crawford the resolution be amended in the first BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED paragraph to read as follows: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners agrees to provide and maintain facilities, personnel and operating costs to support the new judgeship in accordance with the statutes of the State of Michigan, the Michigan Court Rules, and the Michigan Constitution, and Oakland County's General Appropriations Act. Discussion followed. Moved by Coulter supported by Woodward to refer the resolution back to the Finance Committee and the Public Services Committee. Vice Chairperson Hugh Crawford assumed the Chair to allow Chairperson Bill Bullard, Jr. to address the Board on Miscellaneous Resolution #06193 — BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS —APPROVE CREATION OF ONE (1) ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGESHIP EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009 and Commissioner Coulter's motion to refer the resolution to the Finance Committee and the Public Services Committee. Chairperson Bill Bullard, Jr, assumed the Chair from Vice Chairperson Hugh Crawford. Discussion followed. Chairperson Bill Bullard, Jr. asked Commissioner Eric Wilson to temporarily withdraw his amendment to allow the Board to focus on Commissioner Coulter's motion. Commissioner Wilson temporarily withdrew his amendment. Discussion followed. Vote on Coulter's motion to refer: AYES: Gershenson, Gregory, Melton, Nash, Woodward, Zack, Coulter. (7) NAYS: Douglas Hatchett, Jamian, Kowall, Long, Middleton, Molnar, Moss, Palmer, Patterson, Potter, Rogers, Scott, Suarez, Wilson, Bullard, Crawford. (17) A sufficient majority not having voted in favor, the motion to refer the resolution back to the Finance Committee and the Public Services Committee failed. Ruth Johnson, County Clerk Resolution #06193 (con't.) October 5, 2006 Commissioner Wilson with the support of Commissioner Crawford reintroduced his amendment to the Board. Vote on Wilson's amendment: AYES: Gershenson, Gregory, Hatchett, Jamian, KowaII, Long, Melton, Middleton, Molnar, Moss, Nash, Palmer, Patterson, Potter, Rogers, Scott, Suarez, Wilson, Woodward, Zack, Bullard, Coulter, Crawford, Douglas. (24) NAYS: None. (0) A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the amendment carried. Discussion followed. Vote on resolution, as amended: AYES: Gregory, Hatchett, Jamian, KowaII, Long, Melton, Middleton, Molnar, Moss, Nash, Palmer, Patterson, Potter, Rogers, Scott, Suarez, Wilson, Zack, Bullard, Crawford, Douglas, Gershenson. (22) NAYS: Woodward, Coulter. (2) A sufficient having voted in favor, the resolution, as amended, was adopted. STATE OF MICHIGAN) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, Ruth Johnson, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on October 5, 2006, with the original record thereof now remaining in my office. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the County of Oakland at Pontiac, Michigan this 5th day of October, 2006.