Communication and Customer Service Sub-Committee Minutes 
1/5/06 
Members Present: 
Michael Callahan, Byron champlin, Dick Chevrefils, Larry Gilpin, Mary Krueger, Mark 
Mackenzie, Jeff Osburn, Ray Taylor. 
Next Meeting and Location (CHANGE) 
January 19, 2006, 1-3 PM. The AOC is unavailable. The meeting will be held in the New 
Department of Safety Stephen Merrill Building located at 23 Hazen Drive. 
Open 
Larry opened the meeting and explained that the subcommittee needs to have its work 
done by February 15th. He handed off the meeting to Byron. 
Byron explained the meeting’s goal which is to consider suggestions relative to creating 
major categories for the issues raised in last meeting’s Blue Sky session. In addition to 
categories mentioned in the last meeting, Retha and Terri had suggested three categories 
via email which were as follows: 
Retha suggested: 1) Customer/client access to information-self help, using technology; 2) 
process improvement; 3) customer service orientation. 
Terri suggested: 1) Public Access to Information & the Courts; 2) Enhanced Business 
Processes; 3) Customer Service. 
Byron explained that once the group decides what the three (or more) categories to do, 
we will break into subcommittee “task forces.” The purpose of the task forces are to do 
information gathering about their topic areas and to create preliminary recommendations 
based on the information. Specifically, the final task force recommendations should 
include three things: 1) a recommendation; 2) a rational for the recommendation; and 3) 
references and resources for rational and implementation (i.e.: name of program 
elsewhere that has tackled a similar issue). 
Meeting 
Byron – re: technology. There is a great need for a well-constructed website. There is 
already a lot of information on the current court website, but, there is a need to make it 
accessible. We should also consider the way in which people receive information today. 
Consider the proliferation of cell phones. 
Jeff – We need to consider costs associated with court and streamlining. 

Don Goodnow is getting information online, but is concerned over how to handle 
financial transactions over the internet. 
Byron – If the court were a business, we would be concerned about the customer’s 
satisfaction. It is good to have a customer service focus and process. 
Ray – maybe we need to look at things from the perspective of 1) before coming to court; 
2) what is needed when at the court; and 3) how the court interacts with outside agencies, 
the press, etc. 
Mike C. – There is a public misperception of what the court actually does created by TV 
and media. 
Mary – suggests a subcommittee devoted to education and outreach 
Jeff – says we are talking about two things: the perception of the courts v. getting people 
the basic information they need. 
Byron – education and outreach can encompass both 
Mark M – says with customer service there is the courtroom itself, how the judge 
interacts with people from the bench – and there is the interaction of the administrative 
clerks with the public. A person’s experience in the court is heavily influenced by their 
interaction with the judge. How much can this committee influence the experience a 
person has with the judge? 
Mike C – discusses the issue of bailiffs being the “greeters” since they are the first people 
at the door. 
Dick – talks about education and the importance of understanding what is the message 
the court is trying to convey to the public. 
He stresses that we need to also consider the idea of process and customer service. With 
regards to process he discusses the need to address scheduling issues, what courts can do 
practically to better serve the public. With regards to customer service, he says that will 
raise issues over how staff relate to public. Suggests there be a volunteer component to 
helping deal with public’s questions. 
Mike C. – suggests there be a q & a desk at every court house staffed by a volunteer 
attorney who can answer basic questions for people. 
Mary - suggests 3 catagories: 1) education and outreach; 2) standards and training; 3) 
customer needs and satisfaction. 
Mike C. - Suggests that 1) should be customer needs and satisfaction. 

Someone raised the issue of whether we should be cognizant of the potential costs of the 
subcommittee’s recommendations. 
Byron – asked the group whether we should take the 3 areas suggested by Mary and 
refine them. 
The group agreed and came up with the following task forces and charges to be refined 
by the individual task forces. These charges are based on the issues raised in the blue sky 
session. See also separate document of task force and proposed charges. 
Task Forces and Proposed Charges 
I. Customer Needs and Satisfaction 
Chair: Mike Callahan* 
Members: Michael Morgan, Terri Peterson, Jeff Osburn, Byron Champlin and Larry 
Gilpin 
Suggested Charges to be refined: 
Ombudsman scheduling 
immigrant community mediation and diversion 
speedy resolution understanding the process and its limitations 
different/expanded hours fairness and dignity 
II. Education and Outreach 
Chair: Dick Chevrevils 
Members: Laurie Morrow, Retha Fielding 
Suggested Charges to be refined: 
Website content in-courthouse education 
Organizational networking Face of the court 
defining the court’s message(s) 
defining vehicles for the court’s message(s)/communication vehicle 
Communicate what services are available to the public (i.e. ensure public 
understands its input, criticism, complaints will be heard) 
III. Standards and Training 
Chair: Master Stephanie Nute 
Members: Mark Mackenzie, Ray Taylor, Mary Krueger 
Suggested Charges to be refined: 

Public interaction with staff job descriptions 
Create client-centered courts create uniform standards across the state 
Meeting Wrap-up 
Larry – emphasized the need to have a deadline for the group in order to meet the Feb 
15th deadline 
Byron – subcommittees can look at refining their charges 
Larry – the public access committee is not looking at the technology aspects which we 
are considering here 
Byron – Don Goodnow would like to sit down with the group discussing the technology 
issues. This should be coordinated by the education and outreach group since they are 
dealing with the website content. 
The Chief wants to sit down with the group looking at the face of the court. 
Byron – reiterates that the final task force recommendations should include three things: 
1) a recommendation; 2) a rational for the recommendation; and 3) references and 
resources for rational and implementation (i.e.: name of program elsewhere that has 
tackled a similar issue). 
Larry – explained that once our group comes up with its recommendations, we will 
submit those to Kathy and Will who will be writing the report. 
*Larry and Byron later selected the chairs for the task forces which are noted above. 
Next meeting is scheduled for January 19th to check in on subcommittee progress. 
End Meeting