Public Notice Detail
2003 State of the Judiciary
Posted: Friday, June 20, 2003
Chief Justice Kathleen A. Blatz
Minnesota State Bar Association Annual Convention
Minneapolis, MN
June 20, 2003
Thank you for your very kind introduction.
It is great to be here. We are fortunate to be a part of this profession of law, and I believe it is important that we have this opportunity to gather – formally – each year. Not only are we given the opportunity to learn at the many CLE credited events, but we are given a wonderful opportunity to catch up with colleagues, learn about mutual challenges, and use each other as a sounding board.
One of the greatest benefits of having a sounding board is to find out whether we’re on the same page. As we all know, even when we are all in the same room listening to the same thing, we sometimes hear a different message. Human beings are unique and each one has our own filters.
A friend of mine teaches 6th grade. Her students all studied for the same social studies test. The students had the same teacher; they had the same textbook; and they all studied the same basic material. Yet, when you look at the answers they submitted on their tests, you had to wonder if they were on the same planet – let alone in the same classroom! Let me share just 3 of the answers submitted.
- Who is Benjamin Franklin? One child wrote: "Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity by rubbing two cats backward and declared, "a horse divided against itself can not stand." Franklin died in 1790 and is still dead."
- In response to the question, "who was Beethoven?," another child wrote: "Beethoven wrote music even though he was deaf. He was so deaf he wrote loud music. He took long walks in the forest even when everyone was calling for him. Beethoven expired in 1827 and later died from this."
- But my favorite test result came from a student who wrote about two other famous musicians. He wrote: "Bach was the most famous composer in the world and so was Handel. Handel was half German, half Italian, and half English, so he was very large. Johann Bach wrote a great many musical compositions and had a large number of children. In between he practiced on an old spinster he kept up in his attic."
* * *
Recognizing that you may all take different things away from my remarks today – I hope that all of you will remember at least one thing – and that is – we have a strong judiciary today because of the courts’ partnership with the Minnesota State Bar Association. This year we mark the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Court of Appeals and the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court Task Force on Racial Fairness in the Courts—two major initiatives we achieved together. And we should be proud of what we achieved – together – again this year.
First and foremost, I want to begin by thanking your President, Jon Duckstad. We worked closely with Jon this past legislative session on the revenue enhancements proposed to stem the tide of budget cuts. Jon was a true leader and made a huge positive difference because of it. Also, very supportive and helpful were Ken White who actively participated on the court’s legislative strategy team; new officers Jim Baillie (president-elect) Sue Holden (secretary); David Stowman (treasurer), and Bar Association lobbyists Lloyd Grooms and Tim Groshans. And, there was no better team than the legions of lawyers headed by Kent Gernander and Roger Stageberg, working with Jerry Lane, Bruce Beneke and Nancy Kleeman on behalf of legal aid.
I also extend a sincere thank you to the entire membership of the Minnesota State Bar Association for the unprecedented cooperation during this tough legislative session. Your efforts helped to lessen the cuts originally proposed by the Governor by a significant amount. And we could not – and I repeat – could not have done it without you.
Finally, we are so grateful for those lawyer-legislators who fought for us at the Capitol – Senators John Hottinger, Dick Cohen, Jane Ranum, and David Knutson and Representatives Steve Smith, Doug Meslow, Eric Lipman, Keith Ellison and Matt Entenza.
Thank you for your support. And, while we are now preparing for the cuts to the judiciary, overall, the court’s strategic priorities remain intact. We have a strong judiciary today because we have committed ourselves to finding ways to make the justice system fairer, more accessible and to prevent some of our citizens from entering the system in the first place. While in difficult times, it might be easy to say that the first things that should be cut are special initiatives, we have the ability and intend to continue these strategic priorities.
Accomplishments
Two years ago, I spoke to you about our strategic priorities. Today, I am pleased to report to you on the successes and accomplishments thus far.
First, the judiciary is committed to improving our handling of children and family cases – with a particular focus on child protection . It is an issue – that after being involved in it for more than 20 years – I care deeply about. In 2001, we started the country’s first statewide reform of the child protection system to move children into safe, permanent homes faster. The Children’s Justice Initiative is based upon these principles:
- The philosophy of looking at the system and time through the eyes of the child;
- Improving the processing of child protection cases and outcomes;
- Providing permanent homes for children; and
- Meeting the goal of having Guardian ad Litem coverage in 100 percent of child abuse and neglect and termination of parental rights cases.
Currently, 27 of 87 of Minnesota’s counties are working to implement the CJI best practice protocols and court reform innovations. The remaining 60 counties will begin court reform efforts this year.
Among the activities we count as successes:
- CJI counties have effective, functioning multi-disciplinary teams whose members are working together to identify and implement court reforms designed to improve outcomes for abused and neglected children.
- Child protection court calendars have been staggered so cases are processed one at a time, rather than in large "cattle calls" that cause delay and frustration for the families.
- The "one judge-one family" model is taking hold around the state, improving a judge’s knowledge of each family’s situation.
- Many judges are employing a policy of no continuances to keep the cases on track and issuing orders at the end of every hearing or within 24 hours to ensure that all parties are clear on the next step.
- 85 percent of children are represented in child protection matters, up from 60 percent just 2 years ago.
- Most important , CJI counties are making progress in getting children to permanency faster. This is good because studies and common sense tell us that impermanence and disrupted placements can have life-long negative effects on children.
In order to keep the CJI moving forward without losing momentum, hands-on leadership is necessary to further institutionalize the CJI vision and best practice protocols. For that reason, it is with great pleasure that I announce that Judge Wally Senyk from Ottertail County has agreed to serve as CJI Project Chair. As Project Chair, Judge Senyk will help ensure that all of our collective efforts take root and assist me in representing the CJI to the broader community. He brings an understanding and enthusiasm for this work to the table that is, for me, both inspiring and greatly appreciated.
Our second priority is improving technology. The Minnesota Court Information System – also known as MNCIS – is a major, multi-year undertaking, critical to increasing the efficiency of court operations and enhancing public safety. Our current computer system (built when President Carter was leaving office) is out of date, poorly integrated and difficult to use. It was built to warehouse – not retrieve – data. It hampers policy evaluations and public requests. Most troubling is that judges are not getting the information they need to make good decisions.
MNCIS will link court records across the state and significantly improve the collection, storage, retrieval, tracking and sharing of court information.
In February, we rolled out the new system in Carver County as our first test bed to ensure it meets the business needs of the courts. By all accounts it is working extremely well.
We are now planning for the next implementation of MNCIS in Blue Earth and in the Hennepin County Probate Division. While budget cuts have extended our timeline for statewide implementation, we are hopeful that this massive effort will be completed by the end of 2006.
The third priority we identified is the need to increase the public’s trust and confidence in the judicial system.
Several years ago, we surveyed Minnesotans about their opinions of the court system. While we found a high level of trust and confidence in our judicial system overall, we also found that both Caucasian respondents and respondents of color said they believe the courts treat people of color, the poor, and those who do not speak English less fairly.
To address this perception of bias and obtain data about where bias exists, we are undertaking the country’s first race data collection project in our courts. Since 2001, every court in Minnesota has collected self-reported race data at the first court appearance in traffic, criminal and juvenile cases. The goal is to understand whether bias enters into decisions made in the criminal justice system and to address those problems so everyone is treated fairly.
Race data collection is integral to our court information system because it allows us to look at all aspects of the business we do and its impact on persons of color. As time goes on, we will be able to look at both current and trend data at each point in the court process by racial breakdowns. This includes filings, hearings, trials, dispositions and sentencing. It is our expectation that the data will help us recognize not only potential areas of concern but also fair and consistent practices.
As I mentioned at the outset, this is the tenth anniversary of the 1993 Task Force on Racial Fairness report. While we would like to hold a celebration, there is still much work to be done. So, as part of this milestone, we are planning several forums this fall in communities of color both in the Twin Cities and in Greater Minnesota. We are also planning forums in conjunction with the area’s law schools to raise issues and ensure that we keep the issue of eliminating bias from the courts front and center. As chair of the task force, Justice Alan Page continues to lead this effort.
We also are making progress in targeting problems that bring people into the courts in the first place through specialty courts, drug courts, local initiatives and community cooperation. There are currently eight drug courts operating in the state, and Hennepin County has recently launched a specialized mental health court to bring problem-solving strategies used in drug court to the unique problems of litigants with mental health issues.
Our court interpreter program is expanding to meet the increasing diversity of our state. Last year, more than 19,000 court proceedings were conducted in languages other than English. We are creating a program that ensures competence, availability and coverage by qualified interpreters in a multitude of languages.
And, in the past two years, judges and court staff have opened our doors to the public—educating more than forty-thousand (40,000) youth and adults about the courts through traveling oral arguments, speeches to civic groups, schools and visitors to our courthouses.
Budget Cuts
The courts fourth priority is to provide access to justice for all of our citizens . This leads me to the good news and the bad news of the budget, which impacts our ability to provide access to justice.
While our base budget for the next biennium has been cut 3 percent and health insurance and inflationary increases result in an effective cut of more than 6 percent to our branch, we still came in well under the Governor’s initial recommended base cut. This was accomplished in partnership with the bar leadership, by proposing increases in court fees to be used to offset some of the proposed cut.
The partnership between the bar and the courts reminds me of a story I heard last February from a man who had run his car into a snow bank somewhere between St. Cloud and Alexandria. He trudged through the snow to a farmer’s house and asked if the farmer had a tractor to help pull him out. The farmer said he didn’t have a tractor but did have a blind mule named Big Red that was very strong and might be able to pull his car out.
The farmer got the mule, Big Red – tied him to the car and then started to yell. "Go Max" – nothing happened. The blind mule stood still. "Go Boots" - nothing happened. "Go King" – again nothing happened. "Go Blackie" – nothing happened. And finally, "Go Big Red." After he yelled Go Big Red, the mule began to pull the car out of the snow bank.
The man thanked the farmer for the help but asked: "Why did you call out all those names?" The farmer replied. "Look, if he didn’t think he had any help, he wouldn’t even try!"
***************
Without the help and support of the Bar, I’m not sure we would have had the muscle, or the heart, necessary to try as hard as we did to minimize the proposed cuts.
By comparison, other state offices and departments were not as fortunate as we were. Most state departments and constitutional offices took cuts of 15 percent. The House and Senate were cut about 9 percent.
Now, the good news is that most of the needed funding for MNCIS was secured. In addition, the Children’s Justice Initiative will survive. Although we did not get the additional funding needed to increase staffing of Guardians ad Litem, we are allocating resources within our budget with the goal of ensuring that 100 percent of children in child abuse and neglect and TPR cases receive representation – be it through volunteer or paid Guardians.
Finally, the transition to state funding was protected and will continue on schedule. In just a little more than a week, the second and fourth judicial districts will become state funded; followed by Districts 1 and 3 in 2004 and Districts 6 and 10 in 2005. This transition from essentially 87 different court systems into a unified state funded system will truly transform us into a cohesive branch of government.
In the coming weeks, we will assess the full implications of the budget cuts. The final budget picture will not be known until fall, after union contracts are completed, compensation issues finalized and health insurance plans and costs established.
The bad news is that we know there will be impacts to the system. We have had a hiring freeze in effect for about 6 months and we now have nearly 150 positions vacant throughout the state. Further reductions in court staff may be needed, and some reduction in services will occur. The Fifth Judicial District has already closed a satellite court location in North Mankato, and closing of some other facilities is likely.
Finally, we recognize that additional impacts to the justice system depend on how the state and local cuts affect our partners – especially public defenders, prosecutors and probation services.
But, we are committed to working with our justice system partners to try to assess and respond in a coordinated way to the impacts of the budget cuts on all parts of the system.
Challenges
These budget cuts create challenges for both the Bench and the Bar.
I last spoke to this group before 9/11. That day increased our attention to threats to our security and safety. Since then, we are no longer enjoying the heady times of a strong economy, and that results in increased work for the courts. With a nationwide recession and state budget cuts we will now have more to do with less.
We also know from historical trends that in hard times, our judges and court staff handle increasing workloads. And the courts are already under incredible pressure. Caseloads have gone up 700 percent in the last 25 years.
In the past decade, criminal cases increased 58 percent. Juvenile cases skyrocketed by 47 percent and civil cases are up by 20 percent.
To handle this increase, we have asked and received additional resources from the legislature. But when the dust settled, our increased funding has not kept up with the workload increases. For example the number of judges has gone up 12 percent in the last 10 years, while case volume has gone up 33 percent when you blend all the case types together.
Complicating our lack of resources is the fact that we handle our burgeoning caseloads by reducing the minutes allotted for each case. In fact, this was the biggest concern or criticism voiced by lawyers and judges in the 2001 legislative auditor’s report.
I can tell you that, today, judges are regularly dealing with calendars where there are hundreds of cases to hear – and only moments to comprehend. Judges do the best they can, but what does that really mean when the caseload pressure has compressed your total court time to 120 seconds per case? Judges just don’t have enough time to handle the cases before them.
We simply must do better – not for the judges and court staff who work in the system – but for the people who come to us every day with their most troubling disputes – the people we serve.
A national survey by the ABA, done in 1999, showed that the more people understand about the court system, the more confidence they have in it. But 2 minutes is not enough time to understand anything, and this is eroding the public’s trust.
Simply put, justice is more than efficiency. It is about fairness. And, it is about more than just the courts.
The impact of the Omnibus Judiciary Finance bill on civil legal services and public defense is a very serious issue for our entire profession. Access to justice is truly at stake.
During the session, we worked closely with both civil legal services and public defense representatives to develop civil and criminal revenue enhancement proposals to offset reductions to all justice system budgets. These strategies softened the cuts, but have left both legal services and public defense unable to cope with the demand for their services. Staffing reductions and layoffs are a given. The result: The fair administration of justice in our state is in jeopardy.
We need to again work together—starting today—to develop a strategy to secure adequate funding for these vital components of our justice system. In the near future, I will be appointing a broad-based commission to evaluate the civil legal services delivery system and to make recommendations concerning strategies to assure its future financial well being.
And, we have already begun meeting with public defense officials to assess and attempt to coordinate between us the budget cut impacts on case processing. The lack of funding for public defense threatens to bring some areas of our criminal justice system to a grinding halt. With budget cuts and public defender caseload growth of 20 percent, there simply are not enough public defenders to meet the demand. Together, the bench and bar must commit themselves to resolving this critical issue.
Finally, let me say that we have a strong and independent judiciary today, in large part, because of Minnesota’s balanced judicial selection system. But this independence is also threatened. As a result of the White decision, we face the real potential that our judicial races will become increasingly political. I was gratified by the overwhelming response of judicial candidates in the last election, who refused to state their personal views on disputed legal issues. I urge the bar to continue to be a strong voice for an impartial and independent judiciary, and I look forward to the results of the MSBA Judicial Elections Committee.
We need to work together to preserve an independent judiciary – free from partisan elections that flow from platforms that by definition are the antithesis of neutrality and impartiality. Judicial independence is not about judges doing what they want – it is about judges doing what they must do in order to honor and serve the law – be it the Constitution, a statute or binding precedent.
Importantly, judicial independence belongs to the people who depend on a safe harbor – the courts – to go to with the most pressing matters in their lives. The bar will have to be vigilant in its efforts to protect the system that we expect and, to some degree, take for granted in this state.
In these times of international turmoil, remember that our independent judiciary is what sets the U.S. form of government apart from other forms of government. It is at the heart of our democracy.
In closing, let me underscore two points that have been threaded throughout my remarks today. One, the judiciary is strong because of the extraordinary leadership provided by the members of your profession. Two, we need to continue to partner – more than ever – in order to protect the third branch of our democracy. These are tough times, but I believe we are up to the task.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moment of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
As our partners in the justice system, you can and do make a difference. My challenge to all of us is to dig down even deeper – to contribute even more of our time, resources and support for our system of justice in Minnesota – a system of which we, the bench and bar, are so proud and are committed to maintain. I look forward to working with you toward that end. Thank you.