THE COURTS AS A BUSINESS Research Committee Minutes Meeting Date: 01.17.06 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Auditorium, Department of Motor Vehicles Hazen Drive Concord, NH Members Present: Eric Herr, Chair, Bruce Felmly, Gary Hicks, John Crosier, Jack Brady, Harley Eaton, Dan Callaghan Following the presentations of Don Goodnow, director of the administrative offices of the Court, and Richard Uchida, president of the New Hampshire Bar Association, to the Commission, The Courts as a Business Research Committee (the “Committee”) met in the auditorium. Prior to the meeting E. Herr had circulated materials for discussion regarding possible recommendations of the Committee to the Commission. Prior to substantive discussions, the Committee established its calendar to accomplish its assignment within the time frame established by the Commission. The Committee calendar is: ACTION DUE DATE Develop and circulate recommendations with rationale among committee members 02.08.06 Circulate comments to recommendations 02.22.06 File recommendations with Commission 03.01.06 E. Herr opened the discussions by providing the Committee with his research and investigation on the assignment before the Committee. E. Herr had met with Chief Justice Broderick previously to discuss what business attributes and strategies could be utilized by the judicial system to better manage the courts. E. Herr also indicated that he had spent time understanding the operations of the courts to understand where the courts spend time. As a result, E. Herr developed the five recommendations which were circulated to the Committee members. The Committee agreed to use these draft recommendations as the catalyst for its discussions. The first recommendation was to direct the focus of the courts on management of outcomes rather than solely on process. The rationale for this proposed recommendation is that the courts will achieve better outcomes by focusing its efforts on results which matter most to the various constituencies of the judiciary. Focus solely on process will not produce desired outcomes. This recommendation generate a wide ranging discussion among Committee members. G. Hicks provided the Committee with background information based on his experience as a superior court judge. G. Hicks suggested that the courts need to improve its administrative reporting system to improve outcomes. G. Hicks indicated that a significant improvement in the judicial system occurred when the superior courts established individual dockets. In so doing, superior court judges became invested in their case loads. E. Herr suggested that the system should establish mechanisms to generate, regular reports and to create metrics to measure results. B. Felmly shared his experiences with a commission which he chaired last year. The most critical aspect for that commission was to create a body of data which could be used to measure results, evaluate performance, and provide oversight. The judicial system is complex but appropriate measuring systems can be developed. Committee members agreed that the courts need to establish measurements in order to manage appropriately. This discussion continued with a focus on some present problems with the court structure. These problems include the demands on the judges who also have administrative roles; the flaws in the current review system for selecting judges; and the need for a full time judiciary. This last point is significant at the family and district court levels. The Committee acknowledged that a full time judiciary will create more costs to the state; including the selection, training, and evaluating of all judges. The Committee acknowledged that a significant business tool which the judiciary could use is the investment in the people who are delivering the product to its customers. These investments include full time judges, adequate compensation to attract and keep qualified candidates, and ongoing training and development. The Committee also acknowledged that a part of the investment is evaluation and removal of under performers which may not be transferable to the courts based on constitutional constraints. The Committee looks at shortcomings in the courts from the perspective of the customer. H. Eaton noted a significant complaint is delayed in getting cases resolved. All participants in the system need to work to provide resolutions timely. G. Hicks noted that superior court judges now are required to submit reports if issues pending in a case are not acted upon within 60 days. The Committee focused on the demands of active management and questioned whether administrators should also be judges. The business model suggests that a chief operating officer reports to the chief executive. The Committee questioned whether this model had some role with the courts. The Committee acknowledged that the current system will require a change in culture. J. Brady asked whether the courts can be receptive to change and what tools are available to accomplish change. The Committee discussed that changes will occur throughout the leadership of the high quality judges. Again, investment in talent, training, and evaluation are the key. The Committee discussed aspects of the court system which currently create issues which can change. By way of example, casualty insurance companies regularly analyze operations of their customers who have frequent claims and recommend changes in the operations to reduce losses. The Committee pondered whether similar issues exist in the courts. For example, in the criminal justice system, the Committee considered tools to reduce repeat offenders. Can judges use alternative sentencing to send juvenile criminals to academy programs rather than jail? What alternatives are available in family courts to help children? The Committee also considered tools in the civil justice system. Should New Hampshire develop a business court system similar to Delaware or North Carolina? The Committee explored these questions without resolution. The Committee considered whether new technologies could be used by the courts to produce better outcomes. For example, courts should conduct pretrial conferencing by telephone conference. Lawyers on the committee cautioned that having all parties present may, in some cases, be very important in the process. All agreed that courts can enforce its rules and deadlines in order to provide its services timely. The Committee also agreed that the electronic case management system will be an improvement and must be implemented in a timely fashion. Based on these discussions, the Committee agreed that it should develop three recommendations for further discussion. The topics and assignments are: RECOMMENDATION AREA DRAFTER Proactive management of outcomes D. Callaghan Resource quality; development of professional organization B. Felmly Examine technology, system delivery tools E. Herr Following these discussions, the Committee completed its meeting by reviewing the current survey system and agreed that the recommendations may include some discussion of better data collection. J. Brady suggested some techniques to improve data collection including a shorter, clearer survey which utilized telephone input. The Committee agreed that improved data collection would be considered as the recommendations are developed. The Committee adjourned at noon. J:\WDOX\DOCS\CLIENTS\08001\00031\M0813809.DOC