Communication and Customer Service Committee 12/14/05 Minutes Members Present: Michael Callahan, Byron Champlin, Dick Chevrefils, Larry Gilpin, Mary Krueger, Mark Mackenzie, Michael Morgan, Laurie Morrow, Stephanie Nute, Jeffrey Osburn, Terri Peterson, Ray Taylor Next Meeting Thursday January 5, 1-3 PM at the AOC. Open Larry opened the meeting noting that our final report is due on February 15, 2006. He discussed creating a vision and executing that bision Mary gave an overview of the first meeting minutes Each committee member present introduced themselves and their background Brainstorm/Blue Sky Session Dick – discussed the need for standards and training Jeff asked whether out scope is just customer service or whether we are looking at streamlining as well such as computer services, reducing costs and saving on duplicative efforts Larry – discussed that technology is certainly an area of need Stephanie – discussed the need to identify the “customers” she talked about how most people have direct contact with the court through family issues; that there are represented and unrepresented people; that there are different kinds of pro se litigants, including those who may be able to afford legal help but choose to do it on their own. This makes it difficult in how we decide to frame documents for people with varying levels of education and reading. She emphasized the need for a live person. For example, the family division has case managers to help people. This is a positive thing. Mike Callahan – we need to look at customer satisfaction, especially for civil and marital litigants. He sees both sides walking out of court dissatisfied. He talked about the need to treat people with dignity and fairness, even if they are not happy with the decision, they will feel good about the process – that they had their say and feel heard. Byron – brought up the idea of the ombudsman – the complaint department for the court. Says that Maryland has one and we could find out how that works. Mike Morgan – compares courts to schools. Just like schools, there are two kinds of courts, staff centered and client centered. It varies depending on the staff. He suggested the idea of the “wal-mart greeter” and brought up the sheriff’s department being the front line people. Talked about “client-centered courts” He also brought up the “old bank mentality” where hours are limited. There is a need to be more flexible. Mark MacKenzie – asked about whether the group should look at pro-se clients v. those who are represented – is there a difference in how these people are treated? Mike Callahan – responded that there is still an issue for those who are represented because they have to pay for the lawyer to wait until the case gets called. He discussed how there is a need for more efficiency in scheduling. Terri – brought up that there is the “cattle call” schedule with the 9 o’clock list and the 1 o’clock list where everyone is scheduled at the same time. She said there are some courts doing it differently. Mike C. – the billable hour exploits the court’s inefficiency. Stephanie – the ultimate customer service is a speedy resolution to the case Mike C – he saw a 4 day divorce cast take over 4 ½ months. He acknowledged the difficulty in predicting how long something will take – what you think may be a 1 hour hearing could turn into 4 hours. Terri – agreed that scheduling it hard to predict. She said that is complicated when there are only part time judges on certain days which can stretch things out to take much longer to resolve. Jeff – talked about mediation as a means for greater customer satisfaction. It allows people to be heard. Good mediators can bring a lot of satisfaction. Some cases may be diverted to narrow the issues before going to trial. Mediation requires less judge time. Case monitors can divert judge time too by doing neutral case evaluation. Mike C. – discussed the idea of the ombudsman – email or 800# Mark m – brought up the need to explore staff job satisfaction and its impact on the way in which services are provided. Ray – superior courts sheriff dept. is full of part time retired police – is not consistent as to who is working when – is not consistent as to how people are greeted – greeting is not really seen as the job of the security people. Stephanie – says that court staff is overworked and underpaid – they are asked to do so much for so little. They are up at the counter answering questions and trying to help as work piles up on their desks. She gave the example of a multi-page parenting plan passed by the legislature which adds more work. She discussed how things like this cost money, but there is an unwillingness to fund it. No one seems sensitive to the overworked staff. Laurie – if the court was a school, she says she would be a special education student. She said many people are like her and that we need to step back and think about what takes place before someone steps inside the court building. We need to create an outline or a “fellow citizen” profile. She says the public is asking and we need to answer, “What can the courts do for me?” She stressed that unless we can communicate what our committee is doing for people, our work is for naught. We need to educate people – we need to put a face on the court. People do not know how to go about setting foot in the court. She suggests we create a pamphlet or brochure with common questions and answers. Terri – brought up the idea of a helpline with trained people on the other end of the line to answer questions. They can call in to find out which court to go to, ect. Mike C – said a help-line could be problematic, especially when people will call about everything, including to get legal advice. Ray – reiterated what the sometimes unrealistic expectations people may have about what the court can do. for example, if your neighbor is shoveling snow in your yard, people may turn to the court for help in dealing with the nuisance. It is not easy to just tell someone that is not the court’s role when there are gray areas as to whether it may be a worthy legal case. That is up to an attorney to decide, not a helpline. Post-Brainstorm/Blue Sky The group began to identify subcommittee sections for the ideas that were raised. One recommendation is to think of the ideas as pre-involvement in litigation and post- involvement in litigation Under those headings, it was suggested to create subgroups: Education; Technology; Staff Training; Values and Standards/training; Environmental Systems; Identifying the customer Next Time It was agreed the group will meet next time to further refine the sub-topics so that we may break into sub-committee groups to research these areas and draft recommendations.