E P 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 ll It 11 li l l l i

COURTROOM AUTOMATION,

AND IMPROVING UTILIZATION OF COURT STAFF

~TREAMLINING DATA ENTRY,

57rH DISTRICT COURT ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN

/

INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT COURT EXECUTIVE DEVEOPMENT PROGRAM

PHASE 111 PROJECT MAY 2000

Carol J. Barnhardt Court AdGinistrator 57'h District Court

113 Chestnut Street Allegan, MI 49010

cbarnhar@accn.org (616) 673-0344

0 2000

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Kevin J. Bowling, J.D., Director of the Michigan Judicial Institute,

for all of his support, suggestions, patience, encouragement, guidance, and for

graciously accepting the request to become my mentor for this project at the last

moment.

I wish to thank the Honorable Gary Stewart, Chief District Judge, and the

Honorable Stephen E. Sheridan, District Judge, for their support, patience,

understanding, encouragement, and for working with me to complete this project.

I wish to thank the staff for their thoughts, suggestions and ideas during the past

four years, and for their patience, understanding and enthusiasm regarding this project.

ii

ABSTRACT

This is a “work-in-progress” where the 57‘h District Court administrative team,

composed of the judges and court administrator, will research, evaluate and assess the

feasibility of developing and implementing a more efficient automated case disposition

and scheduling system. We are reviewing ways to restructure the current procedures

for entering dispositions,, for preparing notices to appear, and evaluating ways to better

utilize existing staff. Available technology will be examined as a tool to improve

customer service, and as a method to innovatively reallocate existing resources for the

purpose of streamlining case data entry.

Two of the main methods of information gathering will be: I) networking with

other courts in the State of Michigan via the Internet and on-site visits; and 2)

interviewing court staff. The third method of information gathering will be a time study of

the length of time necessary to enter certain case information. The fourth method of

information gathering will be independent research on the subject matter.

We have found that one of the best teachers is experience, (Le., learning from

what works and what does not), and applying the learned principles. Networking is

another important and effective tool. Reliance on others who have already experienced

similar changes is another good source of information.

This research and report will focus on:

0 the need for courtroom automation - we will review our existing processes of

data entry and updating, and examine ways to enter data and update files in

the courtroom;

iii

0 the benefits of real-time scheduling -we will examine the present system of

scheduling and experiment with utilizing clerks and/or court recorders to

prepare notices and enter case disposition information in the courtroom;

0 the potential redesign of the automated case scheduling and disposition

system - we will examine other courts that have implemented real-time

courtroom case updating and prepare flowcharts of the existing processes

and the proposed processes;

who the automated case scheduling and disposition system impact - we will

evaluate the impact of the newly implemented changes on the staff, the affect

on the customers (both internal and external), and any savings in time.

The review and redesign of our existing processes will lead to better use of

automation, better use of existing staff, and improvements in customer service which

will enable us to become a more efficient, proactive organization.

Research for this project includes a review of literature related to caseflow

management, an evaluation of the court’s current caseflow management and

procedures, and information and feedback from internal and external customers (staff

and other courts).

Findings related to improving existing processes and procedures, we believe, will

uncover areas where we can improve case management efficiency. Information from

staff and other courts will provide us with valuable input regarding the development of a

better scheduling system and better use of existing staff to accomplish our goals and

objectives.

IV

Efficiency and innovation have been our goals for the past four years. We will

provide quality justice by promptly processing the sizeable volume of cases we handle

and provide quality service to those who use the court system. Reorganization, better

use of technology and resources are the means by which we will reach our goals.

1:

II

I1 11 4 I! 1[

11 II 11 I1 II 1 I1 I I

11

ii

V

The 57'h District C urt, I

INTRODUCTION

cated in the City of Allegan, Allegan County Michigan, is

a limited jurisdiction court with two elected judges and 24 full-time support staff.

It is statutorily designated as a first-class District Court with countywide

jurisdiction.' A first-class district consists of one or more counties in which each county

comprising the district is responsible for maintaining, financing and operating the district

court within its respective county.*

According to the 1990 Census figures, the population serviced in Allegan County

is 90,509. This represents a 6.2% increase (or 5,576 people) during the past ten

years .3

We receive criminal and traffic filings from 21 city, village and township police

agencies, the Allegan County Sheriffs Department, and the Michigan State Police.

Civil litigation is handled by the General Civil Division that processes all civil

cases within the $25,000 jurisdictional limit, and the Small Claims Division that

processes cases within the $3,000 jurisdictional limit.

The court's caseload trends for the last five years are graphed in Appendix 1.

The majority of the court's new filings (74.5%) are in the traffic division as exhibited in

the New Filings Caseload Mix pie chart and the graph of Trends in New Filings in the

Traffic Division found in Appendix 1.

In the spring of 1995, the 57th District Court began a complete reorganization

M.S.A. 27A.8127; M.C.L.A. 600.8127.

M.S.A. 27A.8103; M.C.L.A. 600.8103.

Region I/ Management Assistance Report, State Court Administrative office, September 1996.

1

1

process when a long-term magistrate retired. During the summer of 1995, the position

of court administratorlmagistrate was divided into two full-time positions. In the fall of

1995, I was appointed court administrator.

In May of 1996, at the request of the judges and myself, the Michigan State Court

Administrative Office conducted an extensive Management Assistance Study of the

overall operations and procedures of this court. The Management Assistance Report

was completed in September of 1996. The purpose of the Management Assistance

Report was to provide the judges and staff with a management review of the court's

operations and to cooperatively develop recommendations. It included an

implementation plan to improve the court's ability to efficiently provide a high quality of

judicial services to the citizens of the county.

The Management Assistance Report focused on areas of operation including

general administration of the court, record retention, caseload management, case

processing, and probation. In addition, it evaluated the court's compliance with

Michigan Court Rules, statutes and administrative directives from the Michigan

Supreme Court which govern district courts4

The Management Assistance Report presented a series of I 18

recommendations and supportive or explanatory comments for the court to consider in

its effort to improve operational efficiency and service to the public. The

recommendations were intended to serve as a blueprint for the court to use to establish

immediate, short and long range goals and objective^.^

Region I/ Management Assistance Report, State Court Administrative Office, September 1996.

Region I/ Management Assistance Report, State Court Administrative Office, September 1996. 5

2

The Management Assistance Report has been an extremely helpful and effective

tool for improving the serviceability of the 57‘h District Court, for making informed

decisions as to where resources should be directed and/or what additional resources

are needed to reach optimum operational efficiency, and assisting in planning for the

future needs of the court. Thus began our journey to implement a multitude of changes

and improvements.

This report’s primary focus evaluates our current practices and procedures

relating to case processing and data entry by case processing staff. Case processing

staff are defined as the staff who initiate the cases, prepare the case files, receive and

process pleadings, answer questions about the status of the case, schedule case

events and prepare court dockets, input data entry regarding case events, file and refile

case jackets, collect fines and fees, prepare and send notices, and dispose of cases!

This report addresses improvements by assigning existing staff to courtrooms, enforcing

adjournment policies, and realigning duties and responsibilities of existing staff.

In evaluating and gathering data, we will conduct a time study to measure the

amount of time it takes to process case activities as recommended in the New Mexico

Court Workload Measurement Project. At the writing of this report, that time study is in

the process of being completed.

This is a “work-in-progress,” therefore, at the time of the writing of this report, we

are unable to measure the precise effectiveness of planned changes.

New Mexico Court WorWoad Measurement Project, National Center for State Courts, November 1997 6

3

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

Successful caseflow management is based on the concept that it is the court's

responsibility to control the progress of its cases. This concept is emphasized in the five

principles of caseflow management, including:

0 early court intervention;

0 establishing meaningful events;

0 establishing reasonable timeframes for events;

0 establishing a reasonable timeframe for disposition; and

0 creating a predictable ~ y s t e m . ~

Courts must recognize that all areas of the justice system are affected by its

ability to process cases in a timely fashion. Many studies have focused on the need for

courts to reduce delay. Several articles, research studies and books have addressed

this issue. Two of the important factors in reducing delay are the establishment of

performance standards and development of an effective scheduling system.

As a result of the development of the Trial Court Performance Standards in 1987

by the National Center for State Courts and the Bureau of Justice Assistance', (as well

as public demand, budget cuts, understaffing and other variables), many courts are

looking at ways to improve the way business is done. In our current ever-changing

climate, we must constantly monitor the present processes, evaluate the information

tools presently used, and take an active part in recognizing the need for processes and

Caseflow Management A Pracfifioner's Guide, Michigan State Court Administrative Office, October

Trial Court Performance Standards with Commentary, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Monograph, July

7

1993. 8

1997.

4

structures that keep pace with the changing environment.

Change in court organizations seems to be the new status quo. "It is the one

certainty all courts face and must do. 1. . .] Explaining to staff why the change is

necessary; the undesirable consequences if the change is not made; and the benefits

gained by making the change can create a sense of urgency. [. . .] Management can

greatly reduce uncertainty by openly sharing information with staff."

In managing change, three issues are important: the first issue is to recognize

the need for change; the second issue is to formulate and share the vision of how the

court will work after the change; and the third issue is to commit to educating staff, a

willingness to confront the issues and individuals that stand in the way, to realign the

resources, and to measure the results of the process. 10

How court staff copes with change is an issue and concern for a good manager.

Because courts have considered themselves immune to change for such long periods

of time, the courts seem particularly sensitive to the intensified challenges caused by

inevitable changes.

The first major change made by the 57'h District Court was its reorganization in

1995. As newly appointed court administrator, the judges and I formed an

administrative team to embark on a long and winding road of reorganization, growth,

changes , imp rove men ts and enhancements.

Realizing that there is a difference between management and leadership -

Brenda J. Wagenknecht-lvey, Bringing About Change in Courts: Tips for Success, National Association

Lawrence P. Webster, Automating Court Systems, National Center for Sate Courts, 1996.

for Court Management Court CommuniquC, June 1999.

10

5

management about coping with complexity, leadership about coping with change,” the

judges and I formed a solid team combining both functions. We created networks and

relationships to accomplish our goals and objectives. We set out to implement several

changes in a short period of time, which in retrospect, was too overwhelming for an

already under-staffed, over-worked group of dedicated individuals. Learning from our

mistakes, we slowed down and realigned our goals and objectives.

Vision, direction, courage, and leadership skills were necessary for framing

and making sense of the numerous ambiguities and uncertainties in the transformation

process that we were about to embark upon. We began developing strategic and

inventive agendas, building teams with the supervisors of the Clerk’s Office and

Probation Department, and attending management training sessions to improve

ourselves as managers and to educate and train the supervisory staff as well.

I read several articles on Total Quality Management (TQM) and believed that our

court needed to look at a new management approach. The judges agreed and we

adopted the TQM approach and philosophy.

What is TQM and how has it affected us? TQM, as defined by Regina Kay

Brough, Executive Director of the Governors Center at Duke University’s Institute of

Policy Sciences and Public Affairs, is ‘a set of principle[s], tools and procedures that

provide guidance in managing and achieving organizational goals and objectives. TQM

is about results. It involves everyone in continuously improving how work is done to

meet customer expectations of quality. And through iteration, the process improves.

John P. Kotter, What Leaders Really Do, Harvard Business Review, May 1990.

Ronald J. Stupak, Strategic Leadership in the Courts: Assumptions, Processes, and Projecfions,

11

12

American Judges Association, Summer 1996.

6

And finally and importantly, TQM is about att i t~de.” ’~ TQM has changed our

organizational culture completely in the last four years.

Following the TQM guidelines, this project focuses on:

shifting the focus from what is produced to how it is produced;

0 continuous and incremental improvements;

0 responsiveness to customer desiresheeds (both internal and external); and

0 empowering line staff.

While attending the ICM Fundamentals of Caseflow Management in Scottsdale,

AZ in October of 1998, 1 learned and then shared with the judges and staff, the

strengths of teamwork, which are:

0 no single person can make the system work, but one person can cause it to

fail;

0 teamwork helps promote efficiency, motivation, and commitment;

0 teams can withstand more stress, generate and sustain energy, excitement

and enthusiasm; and

0 different perspectives are necessary in problem solving. 14

In 1999, we formed teams with the clerks in the Clerk’s Ofice and found the

team concept to be more effective and efficient. It improved morale, improved work

productivity, and improved overall working relations within the court.

Alexander B. Aikman, Total Quality Management in the Coufis: A Handbook for Judicial Policy Makers

Fundamental lssues of Caseflow Management, National Center for State Courts, October 1998.

13

and Administrators, National Center for State Courts, 1994.

14

7

Why do we believe that there is a need for courtroom automation and

efficient use of existing staff? Today’s society is a “fast” everything society.

more

People

using the court system expect swift adjudication from the time of the filing of an action

through its final disposition. They also expect efficiency and accuracy.

The Report of the National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration

states that “almost every court counts the number of cases filed and disposed, broken

down to greater or lesser degree by type. A growing number of courts are collecting

data on the age of dispositions and some are keeping data on the age of pending

cases. Almost none of these data will help to analyze how cases are going through the

information-processing steps, where the redundancies are, why errors are occurring, or

where delays in processing are happening. One of the easiest ways to answer these

questions is to create a detailed flowchart of the process being studied. Such a

technique normally identifies where two or more people are creating or reproducing the

same information. It also can show unnecessary loops of work or unneeded stops for

paper.”15 The four flowcharts in Appendix 2 detail our existing and proposed

scheduling, noticing and disposition processes.

Finally, this project focuses on Recommendation 106 of the Management

Assistance Report that addressed courtroom automation. The recommendation

suggests that we consider assigning court officers or clerical staff to input case activity

on the courtroom terminals, including scheduling new hearings, entering dispositions,

etc? The relevant literature discussed above is assisting the 57‘h District Court

Alexander B. Aikman, Total Quality Management in the Courts: A Handbook for Judicial Policy Makers 15

and Administrators, National Center for State Courts, 1994.

Region I/ Management Assistance Report, State Court Administrative Office, 1996. 16

a

administrative team and staff in developing and implementing a plan that will aid in

achieving our goals.

9

METHODOLOGY

The increasing size of Allegan County and the increasing size of the criminal

justice community requires a constant monitoring of the needs relating to the criminal

court processes.

The 57'h District Court administrative team recognized the need to better utilize

existing staff and to find ways to improve and redesign existing processes. Our

philosophy is to work smarter, not harder. The impact of inefficient caseflow, repetitive

or redundant data entry, and backlogs in case file preparation are significant problems

that dramatically affect the efficient use of time and resources, and ultimately impedes

performance. The judges, the chief deputy clerk, the assignment clerk, the chief

probation officer, and myself have discussed the issues of realigning staff, redefining

responsibilities, and implementing courtroom automation and modifying data entry

practices for approximately a year.

The Management Assistance Report previously mentioned, has been one of our

most relied upon tools for improvement. Recommendation 1 of the Report was to

develop an action plan to implement the numerous recommendations. An action plan

was developed; however, due to a shortage of staff, turn over of staff, and other

stumbling blocks, we were not able to follow through with the original action plan.

We implemented several changes in a very short period of time. We soon

realized that too many changes in a short period of time lead to confusion, frustration

and failure. From this experience we learned to keep projects and changes small and to

build on their success as time goes on.

We realized in a very short period of time that it is vitally important to keep staff

10

informed of what is transpiring within the organization, to involve them in all projects,

and to educate and guide them in the workings and expectations of the court. To

accomplish this, we began having staff meeting on a regular basis. The staff meetings

proved to be beneficial to the administrative team, the supervisory team (chief clerk,

assignment clerk, and chief probation officer), and the remaining staff (attorney

magistrate, bailiffs, secretaries, court recorders, and clerks). The recommendations,

suggestions, and ideas of the staff became very important to the court‘s stepping stone

process of changing and improving the organization.

An understanding of the history of the existing case processing system

demonstrates the court’s commitment toward implementation of a more efficient case

processing system. The change in the court’s organizational structure in 1995 and the

implementation of numerous case management recommendations of the State Court

Administrator’s Office in 1996 also demonstrates the court’s commitment toward

improvement of an out-dated system.

We are focusing on Recommendation 106 that urges implementation of

courtroom automation and better utilization of existing staff. We are also focusing on

four specific areas where we have repetition andlor redundancies; specifically, 1) data

entries by disposition clerks on cases that are placed on probation status; 2) data

entries by disposition clerks on cases not on probation status; 3) the scheduling

practices of the assignment clerk, and 4) adjournment of cases.

The original project of reviewing our existing case processing procedures and

courtroom automation began with vigor in July of 1999. A staff meeting was held shortly

after my return from the National Center for State Courts Phase II Program. Information

11

regarding the CEDP program, the purpose of this project, how it affects the court and

why it is important was shared with the staff. Staff were informed of present problems

and concerns and asked to develop or arrive at solutions to problems in their specific

areas.

Questions posed to the staff at the July 1999 meeting were:

0 How can we become more effective and efficient in preparing various court

documents?

How can we reduce the repetitive handling of case files? 0

Ideas and goals presented were to:

0 reduce the number of times and the number of people handling files/tickets

(i.e., dispositions, probation files, assignments, etc.);

0 utilize disposition clerks and/or court recorders for courtroom data entry;

0 redefine the duties of probation secretaries; and

0 schedule future hearings immediately and provide defendants with notice

before leaving the courtroom.

Tentative plan of action was to:

0 research other courts (local and national);

0 involve staff (staff defines what they perceive to be problems and what their

solutions are to the problems);

0 review and evaluate information, ideas and suggestions from staff;

0 develop flowcharts;

0 implement a plan; and

0 monitor results.

12

li li It II II I1 l l I I I1 I I I1 II It It It II I1 I! li

The staff was asked to suggest improved procedures relating to these specific

areas, to put their suggestions, ideas, comments and recommendations in writing, and

submit them to the court administrator.

Three of 24 employees responded. One clerk listed and diagramed the

numerous steps necessary to complete disposition tasks; one clerk listed the

numerous steps necessary to complete tasks other than dispositions and her

recommendation to simplify; and a court recorder suggested ways pre-trial notices

could be prepared in the courtroom and provided to the defendant(s)/attorney(s) before

they leave the courtroom. The suggestions and diagram can be found in Appendix 3.

Unfortunately, the project was suspended almost immediately pending the

October 1 , 1999 implementation of 1998 PA 340-359, also known as the Repeat

Offender Legislation. This was a package of 20 bills that amended various sections of

the Motor Vehicle Code, Penal Code, Felonious Driving Act and the Natural Resources

and Environmental Protection Act. Several new crimes were also established.

The purpose of the new legislation was “to increase penalties and offer law

enforcement, prosecutors, the courts, and the Secretary of State additional tools to

combat the problem of repeat offenders - those individuals who continue to drive

despite the fact their driving privileges are suspended or revoked, and those who

Implementation of

repeatedly commit alcohol-related driving offen~es.”’~

To comply with Trial Court Performance Standard 2.3.1 ,

” Elaine Chamey, Repeat Offender Legislation & Its Impact on the Courts, Michigan Judicial Institute, 1999.

13

Changes in Substantive and Procedural Laws," extensive time and training had to be

devoted to the multitude of mandatory changes and the development of new forms and

procedures. Other obstacles encountered during this project were Y2K issues, end of

the year and end of the century issues, and a staff shortage in the Probation

Department.

Although there were many obstacles, the Internet was used to keep the project

going. Michigan District Court Administrators have an Internet e-mail group composed

of several trial court administrators. Whenever a court administrator has questions or

needs information, we e-mail the group and get informal responses. As a part of the

research for this project, in December of 1999, I did an informal survey via the Internet

group and asked the following questions:

How many of you have a position entitled assignment clerk?

0 Do you have an assignment clerk for each judge?

0 Does the assignment clerk go into the courtroom and prepare notices of next

hearings?

0 Do you have positions called courtroom clerks or disposition clerks?

0 Do your probation secretaries prepare any dispositions on probation cases?

I received responses from three counties, Kent, Oakland, and St. Clair, which

was less than I anticipated. The responses were varied, as expected, and were

informative and beneficial.

In further research, I found helpful information on the website of th~?12'~ District

Court in Jackson, Michigan. The website indicated that in addition to monitoring

Court Performance Standards: Guiding the Courts info the Future, National Center for State Courts, 10

February 1999.

14

equipment and logging court proceedings, the court recorders perform data entry of

cases onto the court’s case management system. They found that the real-time data

entry has proven to be an efficient method of producing notices and updating the case

management system, which would otherwise have to be handled at a later time by the

Clerk’s O f f i~e . ’~

Since the 57‘h District Court effort is a “work-in-progress”, it is our intent to visit

the Jackson and Kent County Courts and observe their procedures on real-time data

entry, processing and noticing. These particular counties have been selected for their

relatively close proximity to Allegan County and their established procedures.

Observations and question and answer periods will be conducted with the respective

staff of each court.

Research will include a time study that will be conducted by our disposition clerks

that will measure the amount of time it takes to process case disposition activities and

other daily activities. Again, this being a “work-in-progress,” the time study has not

been completed at the time of the writing of this report.

An area of concern of the administrative team and the assignment clerk was the

increasing number of adjournment requests the court was receiving. As stated in the

Fundamentals of Caseflow Management, “no system will work if continuances are

allowed.” *’ Adjournments contribute to delay. Court control is vitally important.

Although the court has had an adjournment policy in effect since 1994, the court

1 2th Judicial District Court, <http:/~.dl2.com/recorders.htm>

Court Performance Standards: Guiding the Courts into the Future, National Center for State Courts,

19

February 1999.

15

1, l l I I II I1 II I1 II I1 II I I I I I1 II I1 It I1 li 11

became lax in enforcing compliance. In several meetings, the assignment clerk

recommended we revamp our adjournment policy and enforce the Michigan Court Rule

adjournment requirements (MCR 2.503) and the Trial Court Performance Standard

Guidelines ( 2.1.4 - Certainty of Trial Date). Effective January 1 , 2000 we implemented

a more stringent adjournment policy.

The expected benefits of a more stringent adjournment policy are:

the police will appear in court only when necessary, thereby requiring

overtime only when necessary;

the prosecutor will prepare for trial only once, eliminating or reducing the

number of times witnesses are called, thereby saving witness fees;

the defense will prepare for trial only once;

the court support staff will have less paperwork to handle, enter court dates

less often, and reduce the volume of work under pressure; and

the judges will have better docket control and management, and will conduct

trials on the date scheduled.*'

The results of the more stringent adjournment policy will be tracked for a period

of six months. The administrative team will review and evaluate the results after that

time period.

Listed below are problems encountered by the assignment clerk, the disposition

clerks, and the probation secretaries. The problems are followed by suggested

solutions.

*' fundamental lssues of Caseflow Management, National Center for State Courts, October 1998.

16

The 57‘h District Court utilizes an individual calendar system. All cases are

scheduled through the assignment clerk. A problematic area is the scheduling and

noticing of criminal and traffic matters. The present process is to send all files to the

assignment clerk to schedule all dates or actions. It currently takes approximately two

to four days to turn the files back to the shelves for refiling after they have been

scheduled for next action. When the assignment clerk is behind in scheduling, it has

taken as long as five weeks from the date of the last court appearance to the scheduling

of the next appearance.

An increasing problem encountered is the return of notices for incorrect address.

Although addresses are required of the defendants at the time of appearance and it is

their responsibility to keep the court notified of their current address, we often find the

address given is not correct. If the defendant fails to appear for the scheduled hearing,

a bench warrant is authorized and issued. This is an added step and task for the

clerks.

It is common knowledge within the court community that adjournments are not

difficult to obtain. The court’s adjournment policy had become lax which created

additional work for the assignment clerk in renoticing matters for adjourned hearing

dates.

About four years ago, we redesigned our courtroom forms for pleas and/or

sentencings to contain all necessary information needed by court staff. Oftentimes,

however, the clerks cannot read the judge’s writing or are uncertain what the judge

may have meant, thereby causing frustration, clerical error, confusion, inconsistencies,

and time delays in the preparation of the judgments of sentence, commitments, or

17

I I I I 1 I I) I1 ll II II II II II It I1 II II

other paperwork. It is common for dispositions to be entered as long as two to three

weeks after the court hearing date.

In some instances, when a defendant is committed to serve jail time the

paperwork is not prepared timely or a file is misplaced and papetwork is not generated

and sent to the jail. The defendant may appear for hislher scheduled weekend

commitment, however, the papetwork was not received by the jail. This creates

additional work for the jail staff because they have to notify the court on the next

scheduled business day that paperwork was not received. A clerk has to locate the

file, discuss the matter with the respective judge, and new commitment paperwork has

to be prepared, sent to the jail and to the defendant notifying them of the change. This

creates additional work for the staff and can unnecessarily erode the credibility of the

court. Mistakes of this type may also inconvenience the defendant.

The cashiers indicate that occasionally the defendants appear at the service

window to pay fines and costs and they have to wait for the bailiff to bring the file(s) to

the service window. Once the file(s) is received, the cashiers have to enter the

disposition(s) or ask a disposition clerk to enter the disposition(s) before taking

payment. If the cashiers and defendants have waited for a period of time and the bailiff

has not delivered the file(s) to the service window, the cashiers will either leave their

station to retrieve the file(s) from the bailiff or inform the supervisor that the file(s) have

not been delivered to the service window. This is an inconvenience and disservice to

the cashier and to the defendant(s).

To resolve these problems, we intend to try two different processes. Both

processes will be pilot tested in Courtroom B for three months. Modification and

18

I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

adjustments will be made as needed.

workable, then Courtroom A will be modified to process cases in the same manner as

Courtroom B.

If the trial period proves to be efficient and

The first process will be to utilize the court recorder in Courtroom B to prepare

pre-trial notices after the arraignment and to provide the notices to the defendants

an/or attorney(s) at the time of the arraignment. This should reduce the number of

notices returned for incorrect address, and provide the defendants andlor attorney(s)

with the next action date prior to leaving the courtroom. Furthermore, this should

reduce delay in notification, reduce the cost of mailings, and improve the accuracy of

reporting courtroom operations. The recommendation for this procedural change came

from the court recorder assigned to Courtroom B who is anxious to try her suggestions

and will report results weekly to the court administrator. Modifications will be made as

needed. Courtroom B is set up with a complete computer system that accesses the

Judicial Information System (JIS - State of Michigan court software). A new printer (at

a cost of approximately $1,750) had to be purchased for Courtroom B and installation

is expected to be completed by the first part of March 2000. As soon as the printer

is installed, we will start processing pre-trial notices in real-time.

The second process will be to utilize a disposition clerk in Courtroom B at time of

pleas and/or sentencings to input the data. Because there are several tasks involved

in entering plea and/or disposition information, the court recorder is not able to prepare

a verbatim record of the court proceedings and enter the case information at the same

time. By utilizing a disposition clerk in the courtroom at the time of plea and/or

sentencing, the disposition clerk will be able to prepare all necessary documents in

19

real-time, provide copies to all parties before they leave the courtroom, and the files will

be ready for refiling the same day.

The printing of commitments in the courtrooms in real-time should reduce

miscommunications and disagreements between the court and the local jail. Preparing

the paperwork in the courtroom should increase accuracy and should save clerical

time.

It is our belief and intent that the revised adjournment policy, strictly enforced, will

decrease the work load of the assignment clerk, will increase the court’s credibility with

litigants and attorneys, will reduce the number of cases on the calendar and/or force

cases to trial or disposition, and will reduce delay.

Service at the cashiers window should be faster since all information would be in

the system by the time the defendant reaches the window. This should eliminate

inconvenience and disservice to the cashiers and the defendants.

The Probation Department staff has indicated for the last two years that they

have to wait for a long period of time for the disposition clerks to process probation

status cases. When the disposition clerks receive probation status file(s) from the

bailiff, they enter the disposition, prepare a judgment of sentence, prepare a

commitment (if necessary), attach the paperwork to the front of the file, type a bond

check (if necessary), and walk the file to the Probation Department which is

approximately 60 feet from the Clerk’s Office. They return to the Clerk’s Office and

begin processing the next probation status file(s). The probation secretaries will often

call the disposition clerks and ask how long it will be before the probation ofice

receives the file(s). This is an interruption and annoyance for the disposition clerks.

20

When probation status files are delivered to the Clerk’s Office, oftentimes two or three

clerks will be working on probation status files and the bailiff continues to deliver other

files for disposition. This process creates congestion and disruptions in the Clerk’s

Office. The present process of waiting for files is viewed by probation staff and some

defendants/probationers as a disservice to them.

Although not an in-courtroom process, a solution to the above problem is that the

file(s) and defendant(s) placed on probation status should be taken directly to the

Probation Department by the bailiff at the conclusion of the court hearing. The

probation secretaries can enter the disposition, prepare a judgment of sentence, attach

all paperwork to the front of the file, type a bond check (if necessary), prepare all of the

probation orders and paperwork, and return the file(s) to the Clerk’s Office upon

probation status completion for signature(s) of the judge(s) and for refiling.

The benefits of the above process, as outlined by one of the disposition clerks,

would be that the Probation Department would receive the probation status files

immediately; they can process them more timely; physical congestion in Clerk’s Office

and the interruptions by the probation secretaries would be reduced.

In October of 1998, we installed a closed circuit TV video arraignment system

between our Hearing Room and the jail. We have tested the process of real-time

dispositions and scheduling by utilizing a disposition clerk at the daily video

arraignments. We found that most of our objectives (saves time, paperwork

immediately processed, information is more accurate, files are ready to be refiled on

the shelf after arraignment) have been met. Although this process is still met with

21

some resistance by a few clerks, the overall end results are beneficial to the jail staff,

the defendant in the jail, the citizens, and to the court.

A measure of success is the ability to eliminate or reduce repetitive data entry.

The more people entering data for a particular case, the greater the likelihood that data

will be entered inaccurately, incompletely, or inconsistently. Less redundancy and

repetition means greater consistency." Staff resources allocated to producing duplicate

or redundant records is also substantially reduced when data is generated only once

and in the most efficient manner.

Appendix 2 contains four flowcharts of our existing and proposed scheduling,

noticing and disposition data entry processes. Flowcharts 1 and 3 identify where two

or more people are creating or reproducing the same information. The flowcharts also

show unnecessary loops of work or unnecessary stops or steps in the completion of

tasks. Flowcharts 2 and 4 identify ways to simplify our procedures and eliminate

unnecessary loops or repetitive data entry.

Appendix 4 is a daily activity time log that will be utilized for two weeks by the

disposition clerks in the criminal and traffic division. The time log will be used to track

activities, such as, the time it takes for case intake, disposition activity, warrant entry,

phone or public information, jail paperwork preparation, video arraignment, files to

probation, and daily file preparation. The time log will help us to evaluate case

processing time.

As stated earlier, we adopted the TQM standards for courts. In doing so, we

agree and believe that TQM is implemented over time. The time frame within which

Report of the National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 22

June 1999, ~http://ncjr~.org/txfilesl/177601 .txt>.

22

changes are implemented can be shortened or lengthened, depending on a court’s

circumstances. 23 In this case, we will have to lengthen the time parameters to

implement the new changes. This is a “work-in-progress” and implementation is

expected to be completed by the end of this year.

Alexander 6. Aikman, Total Quality Management in the Courts: A Handbook for Judicial Policy Makers 23

and Administrators, National Center for State Courts, 1994.

23

FINDINGS

Based on what was learned in the literature review, through the analysis of court

data, from employee interviews, and from the Michigan Court Administrator’s

Association Internet questionnaire, the following findings were made.

We learned that it is important and necessary to allow the employees to be

creative and to offer ideas. We learned that if we listen to their suggestions and

involve them in the planning process, a sense of individual ownership is created. We

learned that this promotes initiative that has increased employee morale and gives

them a better understanding of the case processing system.

One of the problems most trial courts face when looking at case management

issues is that when the question is asked - “why do you do it that way?” the response

is generally the same - “because that’s the way we have always done it.”

What are we seeking to achieve and improve? By streamlining our current

procedures for entry of case dispositions and preparing notices to appear in the

courtrooms, we can:

0 improve productivity that may defer future staff increases and enable us to

remain current with present staff;

0 improve services to staff, citizens, attorneys, prosecutors, and police

agencies;

0 improve staff ability to process caseload in an accurate and timely fashion;

and

0 reduce the number of notices returned for incorrect addresses.

24

By implementing courtroom automation procedures and eliminating repetitive

data entry we will open a new frontier for this court. We will also comply with

Recommendation 106 of the Management Assistance Report.

By preparing as much information in the courtroom as possible, customer service

(both internal and external) will improve. Defendants will leave the courtroom with the

next action date in hand; providing services to customers at the cash register will be

faster since all information will be in the system by the time the defendant reaches the

cashier’s window to make payment; and all information will be input immediately,

thereby reducing the turnaround time from days andlor weeks to minutes.

By strictly adhering to the new adjournment policy effective January 1 , 2000, we

believe that within a short period of time the perception of the court’s leniency with

adjournments will be abolished. Reducing the number of adjournments reduces the

work of the staff to reschedule, renotice, remail, and refile cases. It will help to rebuild

trust and confidence in the court system.

We are seeking the best solution to improve case processing, looking at creative

ways to save both cost and time, while maintaining high performance standards. Our

administrative team believes that if individuals are given state-of-the-art tools and are

active participants in the design and implementation of changes, performance levels

increase and quantitative and qualitative improvements are achieved.

Courtroom automation has been widely researched and the needs of various trial

courts are similar. The project plan includes our staff observing courts in Michigan

utilizing real-time scheduling and disposition data entry, setting up workshops with our

staff to discuss their observations of the courts visited, consideration of the staff

25

suggestions, and the development and implementation of a plan that will work in the

Allegan County 57th District Court.

Our objective is to design a system that meets the changing needs of this

community. This will be an incremental process. It is believed by our administrative

team that from all the research that has been completed, the information that will be

gathered from other courts, and the ideas and recommendations of the staff, this

project can and will be a workable, time saving and cost effective alternative to the way

we are currently processing cases.

26

CONCLUSIONS

Since July of 1999, many obstacles have been encountered with this project.

The first obstacle was the necessity of dealing with major legislative changes impacting

this court with the enactment of 1998 PA 340-359. Other obstacles facing us were

staffing shortages in the Probation Department, Y2K issues, and end of the year and

century issues. Having most of those obstacles behind us at the time of the writing of

this paper, we are moving ahead to develop and implement improvements to our

existing system.

Our goals are to:

provide effective and responsive services to all of our customers, both internal

(staff) and external (agencies, general public, police, etc.) given our current

level of resources and allocations; and

assure compliance with legally mandated requirements, assuring the best

customer service possible.

Where will this take us and what will we accomplish? We believe we will:

expand and enhance skills of the staff;

better utilize the existing staff;

enhance our teamwork concept;

educate the staff regarding courtroom procedures;

emphasize the court's philosophy of working smarter, not harder;

reduce repetitive handling of case files;

reduce paper distribution;

increase public trust and confidence in the judicial system; and

27

0 utilize resources, time and technology more efficiently.

The staff is still enthusiastic about sharing ideas, information and job redesign.

Training programs must be developed and implemented to support the new way of

doing business.

Strong leadership by the judges and myself will help to create the changes, but

ultimately it is the individual employees that will make it happen. All of us at the 57th

District Court have recognized that there are problems with the existing processes and

that there is an urgent need for improvements. There must be a commitment to

change. We have all made that commitment.

Some of the foundations for good caseflow management are a workable

scheduling system, efficient case disposition methods, and courtroom automation. The

57'h District Court's current scheduling and disposition processes are not as efficient as

they could be, and to continue the current method of processing is a detriment to the

court and its users. Accurate and timely scheduling and disposition entries are vital to

be effective and to provide good public service. The processing of papework and the

flow of moving people from the courtrooms to the Probation Department are not as

smooth and efficient as they could be. By automating the courtrooms, redefining the

job tasks of certain clerk staff, probation secretaries, and judicial staff, we will better

utilize their skills and expertise, reduce the delays in case processing, and reduce the

delays for litigants.

All of the work that has gone into this project can serve as a baseline or a guide

for caseflow management improvements. Some research is still in progress. The

suggestions, ideas and concerns of the staff have been received and reviewed. It will

28

take time to implement the goals and objectives that will improve the caseflow

management functions. The end result will be justice, quality and quantity work

products by the staff, and affirmation of the court's commitment to continually improve

its processes and procedures.

29

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aikman, Alexander B. Total Quality Management in the Courts: A Handbook for Judicial Policy Makers and Administrators. National Center for State Courts. 1994.

Caseflow Management A Practitioner's Guide. Michigan State Court Administrative Office. October 1993.

Charney, Elaine. Repeat Offender Legislation & Its Impact on the Courts. Michigan Judicial Institute. 1999.

Church, Thomas, Jr. Justice Delayed: The Pace of Litigation in Urban Trial Courts. National Center for State Courts. 1978.

Court Performance Standards: Guiding the Courts into the Future. ' National Center for State Courts. February 1999.

Defeating Delay: Developing and Implementing a Court Delay Reduction Program. American Bar Association. 1986.

Fundamental Issues of Caseflow Management. National Center for State Courts. October 1998.

Lawson, Harry 0. and Gletne, Barbara J. Workload Measures in the Court. National Center for State Courts. 1980.

Region I1 Management Assistance Report. State Court Administrative Office. September 1996.

New Mexico Courf Workload Measurement Project. National Center for State Courts. November 1997.

Spes, Larry L. Managing to Reduce Delay. National Center for State Courts. 1980.

Webster, Lawrence P. Automating Court Systems. National Center for State Courts. 1996.

Articles

Kotter, John P. What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review. May 1990.

Stupak, Ronald J. Strategic Leadership in the Courts: Assumptions, Processes, and Projections. American Judges Association. Summer 1996.

30

I Wagenknecht-lvey, Brenda J. Bringing About Change in Courts: Tips for Success. National Association for Court Management Court Communique. June 1999.

Electronic Sources

1 2'h Judicial District Court, ~http://www.dl2.com/recorders.htm~

Report of the National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration. Bureau of Justice Assistance. June 1999. ~http://ncjrs.org/txfiles1/177601 .txt>.

31

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - Caseload Statistics 1 . I New Filings Caseload Mix 1.2 Trends in New Filings - Total Caseload 1.3 Trends in New Filings - Criminal Division 1.4 Trends in New Filings - Traffic Division 1.5 Trends in New Filings - General Civil 1.6 Trends in New Filings - Small Claims Division 1.7 Trends in New Filings - Summary Proceedings Division

Appendix 2 - Flowcharts 2.1 Flowchart Abbreviations, Definitions and Legends 2.2 Chart 1 - Existing Scheduling and Noticing Process 2.3 Chart 2 - Proposed Scheduling and Noticing Process 2.4 Chart 3 - Existing Probation Disposition Process 2.5 Chart 4 - Proposed Probation Disposition Process

Appendix 3 - Relevant Memoranda 3.1 Memo dated 8-6-99 from Kathy detailing existing and proposed disposition

data entry on probation status cases 3.2 Diagram by Kathy of existing and proposed disposition data entry on

probation status cases 3.3 Memo dated 7-9-99 from Carole suggesting in-courtroom data processing 3.4 Memo dated 8-24-99 from Becky listing several existing and proposed

procedures (2 pages)

Appendix 4 -Time Log 4.1 Daily Activity Time Log

32

APPENDIX I

CASELOAD STATISTICS

33

I I I 1i li It I' I I I I I I I I I I 1 I

1.1 NEW FILINGS CASELOAD MIX

j ict Court, llegan County

-____ -_ 1

CIVIL - Soinmary Proceedings (2.69Oh) CRTL - Small Claims (2.0%)

CWIL - Gencr CRIMINAL - Felonv (2.05461

W F T C - Misd/CI (74.50%)

34

34%) I Civil Infraction (0.64%) - 0 ~ i V O w i (3.23%)

1.2 TRENDS IN NEW FILINGS - TOTAL CASELOAD

I

J I Total Caseload

33000 32000 31 000 30000 29000 28000 27000 .. -- ._ .

1 995"- --%-

I 9

35

1.3 TRENDS tN NEW FILINGS - CRIMINAL DIVISION

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 I000 500

I I -- -

36

I I I I I I I I Il I' I1 Ii It I1 I1 I I II I Ii

1.4 TRENDS IN NEW FILINGS - TRAFFIC DIVISION

26000 25000 24000 23000 22000 21000 20000

37

1500 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

38

I I 1 I I I I I

I 1 I I I

1 I I I

m

e!

1.6 TRENDS IN NEW FILINGS - SMALL CLAIMS

. - _ - . . - __ - . _ - I-__c_-

TRENDS IN NEW FIL Small Claims Divisio

I000

800

600

400

200

0

39

E 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1

1.7 TRENDS IN NEW FILINGS - SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS

- -I_ ____^I_--

TRENDS IN NEW F Summary Proceedings

_ _

I000

800

600

400

200

0

40

__ .. . . - . .

2.1 FLOWCHART APPREVIATIONS, DEFINITIONS AND LEGENDS

AC = assignment clerk

ACSD = Allegan County Sheriffs Department

AOR = attorney of record

BLF = bailiff

CAA = court appointed attorney

CC = courtroom clerk

CR = court recorder

CTN = criminal tracking number

DC = disposition clerk

DF = defendant

JIS = Judicial Information System

PO = probation officer

PS = probation secretary

ROA = Register of Actions

PCN = Post card notices (short notices), notices that generated overnight

LN = 8 %" x 11" notices (long notices), notices that generated immediately

0 Information =

0 Steps =

Processing time = n

42

2.2 CHART1

r- ~

File delivered from courtroom by BLF to AC to schedule for pretrial.

I I

1 ii

EXISTING SCHEDULING AND NOTICING PROCESS

ASSIGNMENT CLERK SCHEDULING AND NOTICING OF

TRAFFIC AND CRIMINAL PRE-TRIAL CASES

appears at arraignment, pleads not guitty

PCN and ROA are printed next business day. 57 Clerk responsible for printing PCN prints and distributes to AC.

AC matches PCN and ROA with files, separates 3 part notice - one for AOR (if there is an AOR. If no AOR, notice prepared for DF), one for prosecutor, one for court.

43

CHART 1 - CONTINUED

AC files new ROA in file, mails AOR notice (if there is an AOR). If no AOR, then AC mails notice to DF. Places AOR notices in in-house bins if appropriate, mails if no in-house bin.

AC stacks files to be refiled by herself or co-op student.

I

process: 1 to4days.

44

2.3 CHART2

PROPOSED SCHEDULING AND NOTICING PROCESS

COURT RECORDER SCHEDULING AND NOTICING OF

TRAFFIC AND CRIMINAL PRE-TRIAL CASES

Judge has file. DF

CR has next available dates for pre-trial from AC. CR schedule next appearance on JIS system, request LN and new ROA. .

I

File returned to clerk's office at end of session for refiling by co-op student or CR.

Time to process: unknown at the time of writing of this paper; but anticipate 8-10 minutes per case including filing.

45

2.4 CHART3

EXISTING PROBATION DISPOSITION PROCESS

DISPOSITION CLERKS ENTERING DISPOSITION DATA

ON PROBATION STATUS CASES

BLF walks file to clerk's office, hands file to I DC.

1 BLF walks DF to Probation Department and returns to courtroom. BLF repeats process as needed. (Depending on number of DFs placed on probation status, BLF either does individually or in small groups).

DC enters disposition into JIS system, prints necessary forms, walks to printer and retrieves forms, places in file.

1 DC walks to cashier area, retrieves check to convert bond to pay fines, returns to desk, types check, locates supervisor to authorize check, returns to desk to finish processing.

* DC reviews paperwork for completeness and accuracy, leaves the clerk's office and walks file to Probation Department. which is approximately 60 feet down the hall.

+ 46

CHART 3 - CONTINUED

DC returns to office, starts process over on each subsequent case.

PS prepares a new file for probation department, prepares necessary probation orders, prints all necessary forms, staples forms to front of file for judicial signature, walks court and probation files to PO.

PO reviews orders, terms and conditions of probation with DF.

receipts payment, places files in judicial bins for signature.

Judges attempt to sign files at end of each day. If unable to sign the same day, files are usually signed the next day.

1 After signature is obtained, DC makes certain all papemrk is fastened in file. File placed in a refiling bin. Co-op student returns files to appropriate areas.

Time to process - 20-30 minutes per case. Average number of cases per day placed on probation is between 6 and 12, depending on schedule Time to refile - 2 days

47

2.5 CHART4

PROPOSED PROBATION DISPOSITION PROCESS

PROBATION SECRETARIES ENTERING DISPOSITION DATA

ON PROBATION STATUS CASES

At plea or sentencing, Judge has file. DF ~ ( pleads guilty in

BLF walks DF and file to Probation Department and returns to courtroom. BLF repeats process as needed. (Depending on number of DFs placed on probation status, BLF either does individually or in small groups).

PS enters disposition into JIS system, prepares necessary forms, types check to convert bond to pay fines and costs, prepares probation file, prepares necessary probation orders, prints all necessary forms, review papers for completeness and accuracy, staples forms to front of file for judicial signature, walks court and probation files to PO.

PO reviews orders, terms and conditions of probation with DF.

48

CHART 4 - CONTINUED

PO walks DF to cashier for payment. Check is attached to file, cashier locates supervisor to authorize check. Cashier receipts payment, places files in judicial bins for judicial signature.

Judges attempt to sign files at end of each day. If unable to sign the same day, files are usually signed the next day.

paperwork is fastened in file. File placed in a refiling bin. Co-op student returns files to appropriate areas.

I

Time to process: unknown at the time of writing of this paper; but anticipate 10 - 15 minutes per case including filing.

49

APPENDIX 3

RELEVANT MEMORANDA

50

3.1 MEMO FROM KATHY

MEMO TO: CAROL FROM: KATRY

SUBJECT: CASEFLOW INVOLVING PROBATION DATE: 8-6-99

TODAY CLERK'S OFFICE DSPO'S PROBATION LOOKS LIKE THIS :

1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10

RECEIVE FILE FROM BAILIFF DSPO IN TUBE GO TO PRINTER & GET DOCUMENTS GO TO CASHIER'S WINDOW & GET CHECK GO TO TYPEWRITER & TYPE CHECK GO TO DESK & POST CHECK TO FRONT OF FILE GO FIND PERSON TO SIGN CHECK PERSON WHO SIGNS CHECK BRINGS FILE TO WINDOW CASHIER BRINGS FILE TO ME . I BRING FILE TO PROBATION

TOMORROW PROBATION DISPO'S OWN FILES

1. PROBATION RECEIVES FILE FROM BAILIFI 2. PROBATION DSPO'S, TYPES CHECK 3. FILE IS FINISHED

BENEFITS : 1. PROBATION CAN GET FILES IMMEDIATELY

2. PROBATION CAN PROCESS FILES AT THE SPEED THEY WISH 3 . FREES UP PHYSICAL CONGESTION IN CLERK'S OFFICE 4. ALLOWS CLERK'S OFFICE MORE SCHEDULED TIME AND LESS INTERRUPTIONS FROM PROBATION 5. ALLOWS CLERK'S OFFICE TIME TO EXPEDITE OFFICER'S WARRANT REQUESTS FASTER SO

6. FREES UP CLERK'S TIME WHICH YOU WILL NEED DESPARATELY WHEN THE NEW LAWS START THERE ARE LESS OFFICERS STANDING AROUND IN THE WAY

OCTOBER 1 THIS YEAR.

I ATTACHED AN AMATEURISH DIFFICULT TO READ DRAWING OF THE BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURES. I THINK YOU CAN SEE THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE, THOUGH. THE ARROWS IN THE TOP BOX REFLECT THE MOVES REQUIRED FOR ONE CLERK TO DISPO ONE PROBATION FILE AND FINISH IT. DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF ARROWS IF 2 PEOPLE ARE DISPO'ING PROBATION FILES AND I THINK YOU CAN SEE WHY I'VE BEEN THINKING OF BUYING A CRASH HELMET. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME! BYE!

51

:7 .t Qc L c

9.

3.2 DIAGRAM BY KATHY

52

52

TO : STEVE FROM : CAROLE DATE : JULY 9, 1999 RE : PROPOSAL

3.3 MEMO FROM CAROLE

MEMO

CAROL MARY JOAN, KAREN

I believe I could alleviate some of the criminal clerk's duties. While I am in the courtroom during all proceedings, I am willing and able to do the following:

At Arraignment, if defendant pleads guilty, and must be set for sentencing, or if defendant pleads not guilty and must be set for pretrial, I could generate a long form Notice to Appear and provide it to defendant before he leaves the courtroom. If defendant requests CAA, bailiff could take file after notice is given to defendant. If CAA is granted, copy of Notice to Appear would go to CAA with a note that defendant was supplied with the date. The same holds true for Pretrials which must be set for trial.

I suggest another laser printed be installed on the floor. For a while now, I have been entering memos of dispositions on the Action screen; entering the Notices to Appear would not take that much longer. If it does take longer than expected, the defendant would just have to wait. (Just one of the consequences for getting into trouble?)

MJ would give me the sheets from her book for the appropriate days that would be used. I would fill in the information on her sheets and return them to her daily.

Obviously, this would clear up a tremendous amount of work for the Assignment Clerk, as when I'm finished, all I would have to do is file the court file on the shelf and distribute notices to appropriate counsel. All notices, as well as new ROAs, would be in the file at that time.

MJ would still have control of the book, ie: adjournments, motion hearings, etc.

The way it is now, MJ gets stacks of files, must go through them in the book, input on the computer, wait one day f o r ROAs and Appear to generate, file documents, and then file the court files.

53

each one, write short Notices to

3.4 MEMO FROM BECKY

1 I It It I' I' I! I 1 I

1' I 1 I

n

EXTENSIONS OF TIME 1. LElTER IS RECEIVED, DATE STAMPED, FILWICKET IS PULLED. 2. NOTE PUT IN COMPUTER THAT CORRESPONDENCE WAS FILED, FILE/TICKET TO JUDGE. 3. JUDGE RESPONDS. LETTER IS TYPED BY JUDGES SECRETARY TO LET DEFENDENT KNOW IF APPROVED OR NOT. 4. FlLEiTlCKET IS PUT IN TRAFFICICRIMINAL'S BIN TO EXTEND TIME IF APPROVED OR PUT REQUEST DENIED IN COMPUTER. 5. NEW ROA 6. TO CO-OP STUDENT TO FILE

1. SAME 2. SAME 3. JUDGE RESPONDS. LETTER IS TYPED BY JUDGES SECRETARY TO INFORM DEFENDENT OF JUDGES DECISION. SECRETARY TO EXTEND TIME OR TYPE DECISION WHILE HER HANDS ARE ON THE FILE. 4. NEW ROA 5. TO CO-OP STUDENT TO FILE

CORRESPONDENCE FILED THE SAME PROCEDURES FOR THE EXISTING & PROPOSED APPLY TO CORRESPONDENCE FILED TO THE JUDGE. MANY TIMES THE JUDGE WILL SIMPLY WRITE "REVIEWED ON THE LElTER. IT IS THEN PUT IN THE TRAFFIC/CRIMINAL BIN TO TYPE "JUDGE REVIEWED CORRESPONDENCE & A NEW ROA. SAME PROPOSAL APPLIES TO THIS.

POSTING BONDS ON TICKETS 1. BOND COMES IN FOR A TICKET THAT HAS HAD A WARRANT ON IT. 2. TRAFFlClCRlMlNAL PULLS BOND & GIVES TO CASHIER TO RING. 3. CASHIERS PUT TICKET (AFTER RINGING) IN BOND SLOT BY CASH REGISTER 4. NEXT DAY TRAFFIC/CRIMINAL PULLS BONDS OUT OF BOND SLOT. POSTS BOND TO FRONT OF TICKET JACKET. 5. GIVES TO CASHIER TO DO PLEA LETTER. 6. PLEA LETTER DONE 7. TICKET FILED

BONDS POSTED AT WINDOW 1. BOND IS POSTED FOR FILE WITH WARRANT 2. CASHIER GIVES NEW DATE IF ARRAIGNMENT & 3. RECALLS WARRANT. 4. ENTERS DATE IN COMPUTER. 5. GIVES TO TRAFFICYCRIMINAL TO POST BOND 6. TRAFFIC/CRIMINAL DOES BOND PAPERWORK (WHATEVER TASK THEY WERE DOING IS INTERRUPTED). 7. TRAFFIC/CRIMINAL INSTRUCTS DEFENDENT WHERE TO SIGN PAPERWORK. S. TRAFFlClCRlMlNAL DOES NEW ROA

1. SAME 2. SAME 3. CASHIERS RING BOND & PUT BOND INFO ON FRONT OF TICKET JACKET (POST BOND). THIS WILL ELIMINATE TICKET GOING BACK & FORTH BETWEEN TRAFFICYCRIMINAL & CAHIER'S. 4. PLEA LElTER DONE 5. TICKET FILED

1. SAME 2. SAME 3. SAME 4. SAME 5. CASHIER GENERATES BOND PAPERWORK & POSTS BOND, WILL REDUCE INTERRUPTIONS IN TRAFFlClCRlMl NAL AREA 6. CASHIER INSTRUCTS DEFENDENT WHERE TO SIGN 7. CASHIER DOES NEW ROA

*SUPPLY NEEDED FOR THIS TASK TO BE SWITCHED IS ONE BOND POSTING STAMP. BUT REALLY, CHRIS COULD USE ONE OF THESE ANY WAYS. SHE SOMETIMES POSTS BONDS WHEN PUTTING TICKETS IN FILES FOR FORMAL HEARINGSPRETRIALS & SHE HAS TO USE MINE.

SUGGESTION: SOMEONE MUST CHECK RIGHTS SHEETS BEFORE THEY ARE ACCEPTED FOR ADDRESSES WE ARE GETTING MANY RIGHTS SHEETS THAT ARE NOT FILLED OUT, ONLY SIGNED. WE NEED ADDRESSES SO NOTICES CAN BE MAILED, ETC. WE ARE GElTlNG A LOT OF RETURN MAIL. ALSO WE NEED TO BE SURE DEFENDENT PUTS ZIP CODES ON RIGHTS SHEETS. TIME IS SPENT LOOKING UP ZIP CODES & THIS IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY IF SOMEONE WOULD LOOK OVER THE RIGHTS SHEETS AS THEY ARE TURNED IN.

1 54

I1 I1 II II II II I1 I1 II I1 I I I I ll II l l (I

ll I 1

3.4 MEMO CONTINUED

ORDERS FOR FINGERPRINTS 1. DEFENDENTS ARE SENT TO ACSD TO BE PRINTED WITH ORDERS FOR PRINTS. 2. EITHER: A) PRINTS ARE SLID UNDER WINDOW & GIVEN TO CRIMINAL CLERK OR B) PRINTS ARE TAKEN INTO COURT ROOM & PUT IN DEFENDENT'S FILE. 3. IF DEFENDENT PLEADS NOT GUILTY, FILE TO SCHEDULING CLERK. 4. SCHEDULING CLERK GIVES CRIMINAL CLERK PRINTS TO COPY &WRITE CTN NUMBER. 5. CRIMINAL CLERK DOES NOT HAVE THE COURT FILE AT ANY TIME. IF PRINTS ARE SLID UNDER WINDOW, FILE IS USUALLY IN COURT ROOM. CAN'T TIE UP PRINTS RIGHT AWAY. FILE COULD BE WITH EITHER SCHEDULING CLERK, IN TRAFFIC DlSPO BIND, IN CRIMINAL DISPO BIN, OR IN COURT ROOM. 6. AFTER LOCATING FILE, PRINTS ARE COPIED & CTN IS WRllTEN DOWN, PRINTS ARE ENTERED ON COMPUTER. ORIGINALS TO PROSC OFFICE.

1. SAME 2. PRINTS SHOULD STAY WITH FILE IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. IF DEFENDENT PLEADS NOT GUILTY 8 THE PRINTS ARE IN THE COURT FILE SCHEDULING CLERK SHOULD COPY or

TO ENTER FINGERPRINTS IN COMPUTER &WRITE CTN ON PRINTS ORIGINAL PRINTS TO PROSC OFFICE THIS WILL ELIMINATE PRINTS BUILDING UP & BEING SEPERATED FROM FILES. IF DEFENDENT PLEADS GUILTY & FILE GOES TO DlSPO CLERK WITH PRINTS, DISPO CLERK TO TIE UP PRINTS

HAVE CO-OP STUDENT COPY. CLERK

EFFECIENCY OBSERVATION: ALL CLERKS SHOULD HAVE PRINTER EDUCATION & KNOW HOW TO LOAD PAPER. ANSWER MESSAGES. REIACE TONER, START & STOP PRINTERS.

MANY ARE STILL DEPENDENT ON OTHERS TO DO IT FOR THEM. I FEEL THAT WE ALL NEED TO BE MORE SELF-SUFFECIENT, THIS WILL ELIMINATE INTERRUPTIONS.

55

l l I\ I\ 11 I\ II I1 I1 I1 II Ii I I 1 I I I I 8

APPENDIX 4

TIME LOG

56

4.1 DAILY ACTIVITY TIME LOG

1. Ca perwork preparation 2. Case disposition activity 3 Warrants I 9 Files tn nrnbation 4. Record c 5. Bind ovei 6. Phone or public information

I 8. Video arraignments -

I I It I I It II I1 I1 I I II

-. ........"...- hecks/LEIN * preparation

57TH DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL AND TRAFFIC DIVISION DAILY ACTIVITY REPORT -TIME LOG

-. . ..-- .- .---

Clerk's name Date

S D - State Drunk ST - State Traffic FY - Felnnv

Activity Type se filing intake I 7. Jail pa

CD - City Drunk CT - City Traffic

57