Why don't we try to get started here, folks?
Good morning.
Good morning to everyone.
Good to see everybody.
We'll try to get started here.
Just a couple of housekeeping matters.
I know this morning we have Assistant Chief Judge Elizabeth
Elizabeth Strand with her somewhere attending on behalf of Chief Judge Lewis.
Just.
And then from the fifth, we've got Assistant Chief Judge Darcy Binns
attending for Chief Judge Anderson.
And I understand Fourth District Judge Jamie Anderson is not here today.
And Hans Holland from court admin notified me that he's going to be late.
He had an emergency bench meeting in Rochester this morning.
So with that, again, welcomes Good.
It's good to see everyone.
We'll start with our first decision item, which is the approval of the draft
on November 16th, 2023, meeting minutes.
There were a few
technical changes that were highlighted in yellow.
If everybody had a chance to look at those, I'll entertain
a motion to approve the minutes as amended
so they don't.
Everybody jump in there at once. Yes.
Thank you, Justice Anderson.
Moved and seconded.
They've been approved.
Moved number two is a discussion item
on our special topic, dealing with psych services.
Today, we've got Judge Mess.
Rick and Jeff Schaub, obviously are going to start us off on this question
on this issue.
And Judge Manzarek and asked me if we could save questions for the end.
And I think that's a good idea.
There's a lot to cover here today, and it would be helpful
if we just kind of waited till they got through all of those materials.
So with that,
we will turn it over to the judge and to Jeff and let you guys decide
how you want to proceed.
All right.
Good morning. I'm Kathie Mills. Rick.
I am a senior judge, formerly with the First Judicial District.
And before my retirement, I chaired the psychological Services workgroup.
And I've been called back in to facilitate
the presentation of the transformation of psychological
and psychiatric services work that has been going on since I retired.
And let's see, I need next slide.
I've lost my technological edge.
That's probably a good sign.
It's a really good sign.
We may have lost our technological
Just a moment.
Cue the hold music.
Here we go.
All right.
I'm just quickly going to go over the agenda and we'll get into more detail.
But first of all, we're going to talk about the goals
and objectives of this work, the current state of services,
the challenges and ideas which include volume, money,
quality examiners, availability and the good old inefficiencies.
And finally, we invite you to participate
in a question and answer and also cover next steps.
Next slide, please.
Today, we're going to learn about the mandated psychological
and psychiatric services provided by the judicial branch
so counsel can confidently make policy and procedure based decisions
and collaboratively set the strategic direction for a sustainable,
efficient and effective long term approach
to providing these services.
So our objectives, again,
but with a little bit more detail, are to learn about the statewide
psych services program, history and historical challenges.
In addition to the PowerPoint in
Your Materials is a rather lengthy
list of sources that you can look at.
And included in that is the number of times we have addressed
these issues starting back in 2008 and the number and and
of efforts that have taken place to try and solve some of these issues.
We also want to understand the current mandated services,
psychological service, budget trends and current challenges.
As anyone who has followed counsel for a while,
you know that mandated services was one of those things we can't
control or camp
mandated services mean mandated services.
Let's learn about the challenge changes underway under Jan's direction
through a statewide project and develop a common understanding
that of the issues that may come to you for future decision, because
this is going to be an effort where we we have to all be on the same page
and we want your continued direction and support.
I'm going to turn it over to Jeff Schaub
to talk about the urgency of of this work
and the fact that now is the time we need to do it.
So, Jeff, Thanks, Judge.
So my job here is to
hopefully help you to think big picture.
As Judge Merrick said, we've spent 15 years looking at this problem.
We've had multiple workgroups, We've done extensive
trainings for judges, We have done audits.
We have bitten off all the low hanging fruit.
And so the reason why Jad is coming forward with a new direction
is because we think we need to have really
a bigger picture look at this particular issue.
So this is an education session today, and we'll be asking you
at the end for some direction from you as to when we come back where we go next.
You support the place that Jad is going,
but the Jad solutions that you're going to hear about are not easy.
Some may
change significantly the way we're doing business,
but we really feel at this point
we can't just bite off the little pieces or nibble around the edges.
And as you know, one of our top priorities for this legislative session
is to seek additional funding
to fill our deficit on a permanent basis and also to look for new money.
But I can't tell you the number of times I have had
to go over to the legislature and ask for new money for psych services.
And at some point that part is going to be fairly empty
unless we can prove that we are doing what we think we need to do to contain costs.
And it's a very difficult issue because a lot of these things
are not directly under our control, which is why if it were easy,
we would have done it already after 15 years of trying.
So I am hopeful that all of you guys, people around
the table, will be able to listen to what some of our ideas are
and also provide any feedback and suggestions on
big structural changes that we think could really try to tackle this deficit.
So I appreciate all the hard work that the group has put together
to provide you with as much information as possible this morning.
So thank you.
All right.
Next slide.
I'm going to turn it over to excuse me.
Tonya winning Dr.
Kathryn Cranbrook and Dr.
Jacqueline Buffington to talk about the current state of psychological services.
Tonya, thank you, Judge Merrick.
Good morning. My name is Tonya Wenning.
I am the coordinator for the Statewide Psychological Services Program.
We're going to kick things off this morning with a brief
overview of the program structure.
In 2003, the legislature mandated
funding for criminal Rule 20 and civil commitment exams.
In 2008, the Judicial Council
established the Psychological Services Program.
The program is structured around two policies 510, eight
and 510 be aimed at providing consistency of the statewide
roster of examiners, payment rates and business practices.
The judicial Council also established cost savings
measures, cost saving measures for mandated services in policy 512
and specific to psychological examinations.
It encourages judges to verify that parties have reviewed
the first examiners report before ordering a second exam and encourages
judges to order separate Rule 21 and 20 or two exams when appropriate.
The statewide
program has oversight of policy and procedure
and supports the day to day operations for mandated exams.
The work, however, is carried out at a district and county level
and is not centralized.
For example, examiners are assigned by the county
and invoicing is approved by the district.
Examiners must meet the statutory definition of a court appointed examiner
licensed in Minnesota
by the Board of Psychology or the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice
and adhere to SCA qualifications and requirements.
The program gives guidance on billing and invoicing and responds
to and investigates examiners complaints.
By the numbers at present
we have 117 rostered examiners.
23 are employee examiners with the fourth District Regional Psychological Services
and 20 examiners are affiliated with DHS Direct Care and Treatment.
We also have nine psychiatrist MDs on the roster.
In fiscal
year 23, over 10,000 exams were conducted.
And you will hear more about our annual volume later
in the presentation.
The focus of today is on exams that are mandated
expenses of the state courts, as outlined in Minnesota.
Statute for 80.182.
It is important to remember there are a number of evaluation types
that are not covered by the SCA or psych services program
or funding, including some of those that are listed here.
Competency and juvenile delinquency.
Early neutral evaluations, child custody, Pre-Sentence investigation,
Psychosexual evaluation is mandatory repeat sex offender assessments
and the Commitment Appeal Panel.
In an effort
to meet the increase in volume of exams with limited resources,
Our statewide practices have been modified in some districts.
Generally, judges and court staff access the roster of examiners and appoint
an evaluator based on exam type, location and availability.
This slide illustrates some variation from the statewide process through the day
due to the unique needs of specific districts and to meet the demand for services.
Few will learn more about the fourth District's
regional psychological services and the Sixth District screening process.
But first, Dr.
Kathryn Cranbrook will give an overview of the Rule 20 and civil commitment
process from an examiner's perspective.
Good morning.
Thank you.
I'm Catherine Cranbrook.
I'm the chief of psychological services
for the Fourth District and Regional Psychological Services.
I'm going to give a little overview of the examination types that we complete
under the mandated services budget, as well as a brief overview of our program.
So this may be review for many people, but a competence evaluation
as outlined in real 20.01, is an evaluation
of an individual's present competence related abilities.
So 20 or one tells us that an individual may not proceed with their criminal case
if as a result of mental illness or cognitive impairment,
they lack the ability to rationally consult with their attorney
or understand the proceedings or participate in their defense.
It's important that that that we think about this as a present state evaluation.
It's a functional evaluation.
We're looking at their capacities relative to a certain domain,
and that incompetence must be based on mental illness or cognitive impairment.
When examiners are doing competence
evaluations, they're looking at a few different domains of functioning.
One of the primary domains is rational capacity to consult with their attorney.
This includes things like tracking
conversation and recalling it,
considering their attorneys input being able
to discuss differences of opinion and engage in rational conversation
and maintain their behavior appropriately in the courtroom.
Another another domain of functioning has to do
with understanding the proceedings and participating in the defense.
The first component of this is factual knowledge.
So understanding what the parties do, what is a lawyer do, what does a judge do?
Basic legal terminology, factual information about the legal process.
And this is rarely where individuals struggle.
Where most individuals struggle has to do with the understanding of being able
to participate in their defense and understanding things rationally.
So being able to weigh evidence free of delusional thoughts,
being able to consider the risks of waiving a plea or waiving testimony,
accepting a rejecting a plea, the kinds of risks
and benefits decisions that they may need to make as part of the legal process
and the most, most individuals are incompetent.
It is a result of a psychiatric illness, most frequently a psychotic illness.
So individuals experience altered perceptions, hearing things
or seeing things that aren't there, or they hold beliefs that are not accurate.
They hold beliefs in spite of objective reality being different.
And these kinds of symptoms can interfere
with their capacity to rationally consider their legal situation.
And that tends to be the most frequent basis for incompetence.
Are those kinds of symptoms.
It's important to be aware that incompetence, evaluations,
the Examiner does an interview, but that is not the most important part
of the evaluation.
Frequently, because individuals may be motivated
to present themselves in a certain manner to achieve a specific outcome
or they may be poor historians due to the impact of their psychiatric symptoms.
And so it's also important to consider the individual's history.
Third party information about the individual.
And in cases where individuals are attempting to feign
or exaggerate psychiatric symptoms known as malingering,
that kind of decision making is extremely important for the examiner
because it can have ripple effects for not only that case, but
other cases that the individual may be facing.
If people are trying to intentionally suppress their accurate capacity
abilities in order to achieve a less aversive legal outcome,
I'll talk briefly
about criminal responsibility evaluations.
These are known by a variety of names.
You might hear them as sanity evaluation
or a mental illness defense, not in defense.
All of them are the same thing.
And in Minnesota, they're guided by rule 20.02,
which indicates that an individual cannot be held responsible
if as a result of their mental illness or cognitive impairment
at the time of the offense, they were laboring under such a defective reason
as not to know the nature of their act or that it was wrong.
So taking that definition apart a little bit, this is a retrospective analysis.
So you're looking back to the time of the offense
and you're trying to piece together what was going on with that individual at
the time of the offense.
And when we defined the nature of the act,
we're looking at what are the actual behaviors they engaged
in, engaged in, and did they know the actual impact of those behaviors?
Did they understand that from a logical perspective, were assessing
wrongfulness both in terms of legal wrongfulness and moral wrongfulness?
So did they know that these behaviors were wrong at the time of the offense?
In Minnesota, this is a strictly cognitive test.
So some some states also have a volitional component.
We do not.
We are just looking at did they have the capacity to know
this different information, which makes it an extremely stringent standard.
Many people who have mental illness may not meet the test
for a mental illness defense because they may know
that their behavior is wrong but be unable to control their behaviors.
So nationally, we have research that tells us
these evaluations are ordered in fewer than 1% of criminal cases.
And of that 1%, once they're ordered, about 10% of those people
actually meet the criteria for a mental illness defense.
So these should be, in practice, pretty infrequent evaluations.
Now, criminal responsibility
evaluations are an affirmative defense with associated risks.
So defendants in theory should have discussed this with their attorney,
considered the risks and benefits of proceeding with this defense
and made a decision to pursue a criminal responsibility defense.
In practice, we see many examinees who arrive at our office
and are not aware of what the offense entail or the evaluation entails,
what the purpose of it is, or any of the risks or potential benefits.
And examiners may try to explain that somewhat,
but it isn't really our job to provide legal advice.
So frequently we have to disrupt the evaluation
to refer them back to their attorney if they have questions.
Alternately, many defendants acquiesce because they believe
that the evaluation has been ordered.
Their attorney thought it was a good idea.
So they just proceed.
So this can have negative implications
on justice on the outcome of the case,
because people haven't actually considered their participation in the defense.
Especially important is that as part of this evaluation,
when the examiner is inquiring and gathering detailed information
about the individual's thoughts, feelings and behaviors
before, during and after the offense.
And then we're comparing all that information with collateral data.
But in in fact, we are eliciting a confession
as part of the evaluation.
And so there historically, I think there have been a lot of occasions
when people thought that it was in the best interests of the process
to order the Toyota evaluation and the 20 evaluation
simultaneously, because it was thought that it would be more efficient.
But there are a variety of reasons to think that this is not best practice.
First, the first set of reasons have to do with justice.
If we think that an individual may not be competent to proceed
and a Toyota evaluation is an affirmative defense,
how do we know that that individual was competent
to make the decision to proceed with the Toyota evaluation?
Additionally,
because we do elicit basically a confession
as part of the Toyota evaluation and Rule 20, then advises us to provide it
to the prosecution, to the judge, and to their own attorney.
We have then shared the information that the defendant has shared with us
about their thoughts and feelings
and actions at the time of the offense with all of the parties.
And while the actual Toyota report is protected
from the guilt phase of the proceedings and inadequately considered
Toyota evaluation can compromise the fairness of the process.
I have absolutely had prosecutors tell me that they could glean theories
of the case from a poorly considered Toyota evaluation.
And that is a bill that about all that it wants.
It is wrong. It is can't be it can't be done wrong.
So it's just something we need to consider.
Another area that is frequently comes up for examiners
is with voluntary intoxication.
If the psychiatric symptoms observed at the time of the offense stem
from voluntary intoxication, oftentimes use of methamphetamine or other stimulants
or symptoms stemming from that voluntary use,
it is very commonly considered that the
that they will not have a mental illness defense available to them
because we all know
that the impact of substance use on thinking and behavior in judgment.
So when individuals present to us and their symptoms have been substance
induced, we are still providing all of the information to the parties,
and it is highly likely that they will not have a viable defense.
The other area of concern
for ordering these evaluation types simultaneously has to do with cost.
They shouldn't be equally common questions.
So competence evaluations should be ordered
much more frequently, should be a concern much more frequently.
Whereas as I mentioned, the criminal responsible evaluation
should be much less frequent questions.
So if they are being ordered consistently, at the same time, we're doing a lot
more criminal responsibility evaluations than are warranted.
The same is true if the true concern is about
the mental state at the time of the offense.
Ordering a competency evaluation is probably an unnecessary part of the process.
If the examiner has
confidence concerns during the 22, they will certainly alert the court.
So there's no worry there.
And again, as I mentioned,
ordering 22 evaluations when voluntary intoxication is really
the issue is also costly and a poor use of resources.
Finally, the preparation for a 2002
evaluation is much more involved and labor intensive for the examiner.
So poorly considered 22 evaluations end up in a significant amount
of lost time for the Examiner.
I'll talk very briefly about civil commitment.
I'm primarily referencing the top three kinds of civil commitment,
mental illness, chemical dependency, and developmental disability.
Those are the most frequent types of civil commitment.
The the mentally ill and dangerous and sexually dangerous persons
and sexually psychopathic personalities
are a whole nother ball of wax and involve a much more in-depth evaluation.
But with regard to the top
three allegations during the exam,
the evaluator is looking for the presence of the alleged condition
and then assessing current risk towards self or others
that would warrant involuntary court ordered treatment of that condition.
These can be more streamlined and focused evaluations
because typically we're just looking at data within the past six months.
It is treatment oriented and in theory
there are severely negative consequences for the individuals involved.
So they tend to be a good candidate for a more streamlined
report.
Switching topics, I'm going to talk a little bit
about regional psychological services.
At present, we have 23 examiners on staff, plus a team of support staff.
We have created a model in which our support staff complete
elements of the exam at a lower hourly rate than examiners.
So there are elements of the exam that need to be happening scheduling,
requesting records, distribution of reports, distribution of materials
to defense and prosecution when there's a trial, all those kinds of things.
If we didn't have the support, staff
examiners would be doing those at a much higher cost.
So we have developed a model where we use support
staff to complete things more efficiently and at a lower cost.
Examiners within the division have different
areas of specialty and expertise, and so we are able to employ them
in that way in order to make sure
that we are providing a consistently high quality report.
Now, we began providing
psychological services to other districts in about 2009,
and while we're housed in the fourth, we have provided evaluations
under various milieus to the second, to the first
and the 10th in 2021, probably in part as a response
to the backlog from the pandemic and the national trend of evaluations
rising really dramatically, we experienced skyrocketing evaluations
across evaluation types across the districts we were serving
and ultimately were overwhelmed
and unable to continue meeting the demand that we were experiencing.
So we needed to reduce the amount of external evaluations
we were completing for districts outside of the Fourth,
we have continued to complete evaluations for those other districts to some degree.
And as we the other thing that happened at that time, as we lost staff
which further constrained our capacity to complete the work that we wanted
to complete,
we have stabilized our workforce.
We are working on efficiencies
and trying to maximize the impact that we can have in the branch
we recently entered into in MSU in the 10th District, where we are
obligated to complete 208 civil commitment evaluations in a six month period.
And we're working on other ways that we can maximize our impact.
To give you an idea
of what we have been able to do over the past couple of years, in 2022,
we did complete 425 referrals
for evaluations outside the fourth District.
I should say. We accepted the referrals.
Every referral does not result in a report
because sometimes our population is hard to find.
In 2023, this year we have accepted about
200 referrals.
I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the efficiencies
that we have attempted and means of attempting to attract
and retain expert examiners staff.
About five years
ago we created a post-doctoral training program,
so we recruit and train individuals who have just completed
their doctoral programs and we provide a high level of forensic training.
We have been successful in retaining three of our graduates, so they have at it.
They've entered the Minnesota Examiner pool.
The added benefit is that the ongoing training keeps our existing staff
really up to date in terms of case law and trends in forensic psychology.
And so this has been a very positive thing.
We did have to reduce our training ship, our training year a little bit
during the pandemic, but we're back up to two trainees this year.
I'd also like to talk briefly about our targeted misdemeanor real 20 program.
I realized later that we inaccurately named that
because we aren't discussing targeted misdemeanors, we are talking about
targeted reports in response to misdemeanor.
So this is a report in Wake or an evaluation
that in response to very high rates of misdemeanor
defendants being referred or competence evaluations,
we started a same day evaluation process where we completed
a streamlined
report with a more rapid turnaround a same day.
So we started the per the day the person was ordered.
We would see them that day because these people tend
to have a high rate of life instability, chemical dependency,
mental illness, frequently not coming to appointments.
So we figured the only way to interrupt that was to see them the day it's ordered.
So and then we would complete a more streamlined report.
We did an evaluation after about one year because it started, I think in 2018
and we did a one year evaluation and achieved really positive results
in terms of the cost of evaluation, the timeline to reaching
a competence finding and the timeline to resolution of the case.
We did initiate this program in the Second District in 2018 as well.
However, the pandemic disrupted both programs.
We had reinitiated the program in the fourth District.
Currently
in the last year or so.
We've been really looking at ways that we can streamline our reports
in order to maximize efficiency but maintain a high quality
work product.
If you look at the comp
at the population of individuals referred for competence evaluation,
there is a wide diversity in their competence related abilities
and a certain percent of them are extremely impaired.
They're acutely psychiatrically ill.
Those are populations that we can do a more streamlined report
because the issues are very clear.
These people are extremely ill and a less or less
complex report is appropriate in those situations.
The other area that we have been targeting targeting is reevaluations.
So a large proportion of our referral group,
I would say over 50% of the referrals
that we do annually are of people who have already been found incompetent
and are referred for reevaluation every six months according to Rule 20,
until they either attain competence or the charges are dismissed.
So we have many people that we see more than once and some people
we've been seeing for many years.
So this is a group where
we have attempted to streamline the reports because oftentimes
because we don't yet have attainment in this stage, there
hasn't been a change in their condition since the last time we saw them.
And so we are attempting to provide
a more streamlined report in clinically appropriate situations.
At the time I created the slide, we had done about
85 of these reports at an average of 3.9 hours per evaluation
as compared to 12.4 hours for a standard competence evaluation.
We have also been focusing on delayed reports.
We have a proportion of individuals where the examiner has offered the opinion
that the individual cannot be restored to competence, or
at least not in the current context, without some kind of court ordered mandate
that they participate in psychiatric treatment or something along those lines.
And so in those situations, with court approval,
we do a record review, assess the current situation
and request to postpone the evaluation to an annual basis
rather than every six months, thereby saving one evaluation per year.
In those circumstances.
So now I would like to turn it over to Dr.
Buffington.
Thank you.
Space.
Hello, I'm
Jackie Buffington, a forensic examiner, court consultant
and the rule 20 screener in the Sixth Judicial District, and also an associate
professor in criminology at the University of Minnesota, Duluth.
I had the honor of working
with Judge Sally Turner now for eight years,
including since 2018 on the Rule 20 screening Project.
Just briefly, the project came about as a result
of our examination of the Rule 20 evaluation data
over the preceding years in prior
to 2018, in which we discovered that in 2016
and 2017 alone of all
rule 20 evaluation was ordered in our district,
only 37% of those were coming back,
with the examiner concluding that the defendant was incompetent.
That might
be interpreted to mean that 63% of those cases
in which the person was opined to be competent by the rule 20 evaluator
in at least a good proportion of those,
a fall rule 20 evaluation was likely unnecessary.
And as everyone knows that agreed expense
since the Rule 20 screening
process began in 2018, a significantly larger percentage of role
20 evaluations that are done in our district
are now coming back with the forensic examiner.
The fall rule 28 examiners concluding that the person was incompetent.
And I have that data for you in just a few minutes.
And I just wanted to start by outlining
our Rule 20 screening process.
It starts with a screen being requested
by either attorney or the judge.
It does usually come from the defense attorney.
The screen is requested with a form that we developed.
It's not an official court order in most cases.
Once the requests is received, I see I currently screen
the individual when in the jail I try to do it within five days
at most, ten days in four.
For defendants who are out of custody.
Obviously it can take a bit longer
because of the difficulty in tracking, tracking them down.
Usually within the day after I've done the screen,
a file of form with my recommendations recommending
whether in my opinion, a 21, a 2002
and or a 24 hour warranted
then with the screen recommendations, the judge makes the ultimate opinion
whether to go ahead and order the fall rule 20 evaluation
or to proceed with the case as usual.
So it's important to be clear that the the attorneys
or that the recommendation isn't absolute, the attorneys can challenge
it and or the judge can disagree and order a full evaluation anyway.
That doesn't happen a great deal, but it does happen on occasion.
And the screen isn't required for 20 tattoos being a defense issue,
although there are attorneys who request a screen on the 22 to help them decide
whether to just to pursue a 20 or to evaluation or not.
All right.
A few other points about the process that I wanted to mention.
It's a district Y, It's district wide.
Both in and out of custody.
Just quickly, I have a funny
and endearing story about Judge Turnout ski.
So when we when we first started the pilot
for the project, the plan was to start out with screens being done in one county
in our district, in one one of the jails
chief Darren Aronofsky went to
the bench meeting, came back and we met.
And as I was walking out of her chamber door, she said, by the way,
I told them it's going to be in and out of custody throughout the district.
So I was I was a bit shocked.
But I, I had such respect for Judge Chinaski that I, I did as she wished.
As I said, any party can request a screen.
A screen isn't required on a 2002.
And as I mentioned, the request is e filed an email which begins the process.
Perhaps it should be noted that currently I serve as the screener
and I'm the only screener in our district at this time.
But it certainly can be expanded and it can be suited to
to whichever district
a practice that has developed over the years of the project is.
If I similar to what Dr.
Bruckner mentioned,
if I learn that a defendant
is in treatment or is about to enter treatment,
I will typically recommend holding off on the rule to screen or rescreen
seeing the individual after they're getting close to finishing treatment.
Because as we know, people can look very different
after some stabilization time and time and treatment.
In the past, cases like
that, a full rule 20 would have been ordered at the outset.
And then by the end of those 60 days that the evaluator
had to complete the evaluation, the person would be competent to make that point.
So with this practice, a number of rule 20 years have been avoided.
Other aspects
of the rule 20 screening process that you may be wondering about
the screen is based on an abbreviated
Rule 20 interview
focusing.
I tend to focus on a history of intellectual neurological
difficulties, traumatic brain injury, mental health,
chemical dependency.
Typically, the interview takes about 30
to 60 minutes, sometimes less than that.
The point of the screen is to identify any red flags
indicating that a Rule 20 evaluation might be warranted
So as soon as that threshold is crossed, I'll recommend a rule 20 evaluation.
At that point,
given the limits of the screen,
I that that it is it is based on an interview.
I do air on the side of caution.
So if there is any question about competency, I do recommend
a full evaluation.
It's important to note that the screen is not court ordered.
So a downside is that I don't receive thorough records
as I would when I do my fall rule 20 evaluations.
But I am in frequent contact with the defense attorney,
the jail collateral contacts regarding their experiences
with the defendant and the defendant's functioning.
And upside to this process in, in my opinion, as a forensic examiner
who does rule 20 evaluations, is that since the process, since the rule
screening, 20 screening process, defense attorneys are more often
meeting with their clients before a full evaluation is ordered than in the past.
As as you can
imagine, a defendant's ability to work with their attorney
is such a key piece of information for us as forensic examiners.
But without the screening process I was routinely being asked to do.
Full rule is with the attorney never having talked with the client.
They requested a rule 20 upon learning
that the person had a mental health history
without really consideration of how that mental illness
was impacting that person's functioning at the current time.
And so with the with the screening process, I frequently
and emailing with the attorneys, asking them to meet with their client.
So I have that information of whether the defendant can work
with with that particular defense counsel.
Another aspect of the screening process is that it is independent
from the Rule 20 evaluation, the fall rule 20 evaluation,
meaning if a if a full rule 20 evaluation is recommended,
I don't provide specific information
on my impressions of the defendant to the fall rule 20 evaluator.
And that's by design so as not to affect the opinion of a forensic examiner.
So to some degree that that is a strength of the screening process,
that there are essentially two opinions in the cases
in which fall rule toes are being recommended and ordered.
And I don't do
full rule 20 evaluations on the people I screen.
That is, unless a defendant is very, very ill
and in need of emergency treatment
and or an expedited rule 20, which can happen in the jail,
I've been seeing some very, very ill people in the jails
who I haven't seen that ill since I worked in the state hospitals.
In those cases,
I will communicate that to the parties
and if I have the capacity at that time,
I may offer to write the full evaluation
so that we can get that process rolling
as quickly as possible.
And but I only do that if both sides agree.
I pose that to the court and to the parties.
And if everyone is in agreement, then I right there for all 20 evaluation
in some cases.
I've been able to do that in ten days or less.
So in that way, the
screening process is somewhat of a safety valve
for those very ill defendants who need emergency
treatment
on this slide.
The last bullet I just want to go back to my point about that.
I don't have contact with the evaluator that gets assigned that it's independent
any information that I might have.
Like, for example, if a defendant is very ill
and I am not the one doing the full evaluation,
and I know that that defendant really needs to be seen as soon as possible
or if a defendant has special needs,
expert or high functioning autism, for example,
if the defendant has specific needs and I'm aware
that a particular examiner has special expertise in that area,
I will mention that to the court administrator who assigns the cases,
but she's the only one that has contact with the
the the examiner does that does the full role 20 evaluation
Now, in terms of the recommendation
form, it is not a report.
It's a basic form in which I specify
the sort of rule 20 that I recommend, if any.
Again, with the caveat that the judge can go ahead and order
a rule 20 as they see fit.
Even though I'm not providing a report, though
I do spend a lot of time following up with and responding to questions
by attorneys and judges as needed,
responding to questions they have, or if there are particular
things that I think are important for the defense attorney
to know in order to be able to work with this defendant.
I do spend a lot of time communicating with the
the attorneys and the judges, and I'm readily accessible to the judges.
There have been a number of times when judges have called me
for clarification or they
they have the attorneys in their chambers and they want to discuss the screen
and whether a full evaluation needs to be done.
So I am readily accessible to the judges as well.
All right.
So you may be wondering why the parties would be okay with this
extra step to the rule 20 process, which is already complicated.
And I do have some data here for you.
This first slide shows the number of Rule twenties ordered in our district
before and since we've started the screening process.
As you can see, in 2016, 2017, there were about 100
and 1516 rule 20 evaluations ordered in our district.
In the first two years of the screening project,
we saw a reduction between 925
and 30% in the number of rule twenties
from before the screening process to or since the screening process.
Then COVID hit and all bets were off.
As has happened throughout the state, we've seen an increase ever since that time.
Well, that may seem just the continuing,
continually growing number of rule 20 evaluations being ordered.
While that may seem like the screening process is no longer working,
it's it's important to look at the data a little more closely.
This slide shows statistics
about the rule 20 screenings themselves.
On the left, you can see that the number of screens
increased substantially in 2023.
I did a 100, I've done 192 screens.
So it's not just the number of overall twenties
that have increased, but it's also the number of screens.
But probably more importantly importantly,
on the right side,
my screen out
rate screen out right or screen in rate, whichever which however you want to look
at, it has remained consistently at around
50% every year of the project.
So the increase in the number
of overall 20 evaluations isn't an indication
that more evaluations are being recommended.
In terms of percentages, it's just an increase
in the sheer number of cases.
Now, the $100
million question is has the screening process made a difference in
identifying the cases in which full role
20 evaluation is necessary?
What this slide represents is essentially
and I'm hesitant to say that, but the accuracy rate
of the screening process versus when rule 20 evaluations are ordered
without a screen, which do still happen in our district.
As you can see, as I mentioned previously,
prior to the screening process in 2016, 2017,
when Rule 20 were just being ordered outright, the examiners who did
those Rule twenties were only finding defendants incompetent 37% of the time.
As I said,
one might one might interpret that to mean that a good portion.
Well, it does suggest that a good portion of those rule twenties
might have been not necessary.
Of course, I do want to give this explanation to that.
We have to keep in mind that those percentages also have something
to do with the quality of the examiners doing the full rule twenties,
which we know
is an issue that is being addressed.
So we can't necessarily assume
that in all 63% of those cases in which the examiners concluded
that the person was competent, we can't conclude that it was necessarily
accurate or true, that that person was competent.
But so really the number of unnecessary rule toes
probably falls somewhere in the middle, probably closer to 50%.
Now, since the Rule 20
screening process began each year of the practice.
Since the process, we've computed the percent of cases
in which rule 20 examiners concluded in competency,
and we separated that out by those cases that were screened
and those that weren't.
The Navy bars, the Navy blue bars,
those represent Rule 20 is ordered without a screen,
as you can see, hover right around 50%, meaning that
when a judge has ordered a rule 20 evaluation without a screen,
about half the time the defendant has concluded to be incompetent by the fall
Rule 20 evaluator, half the time they're found to be competent,
which that percentage is higher than in 2016.
In 2017.
What the olive green bars represent are the percent of cases
found incumbent incompetent by the fall Rule 20 evaluator.
When a screen was done first and a full rule 20 was recommended.
Over the years.
As you can see here, the average rate of incompetency
as concluded by the full rule 20 examiners is around 75%,
which is approximately 25% higher than when a screen isn't used.
Unfortunately, it's not 100%.
But you know,
the reality is it's social science.
We're dealing with infinitely complicated people,
infinitely complicated process.
But that is just my summary of the rule
20 screen, and I'll be happy to answer questions about that.
Thank you, Dr. Buffington.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Sarah Conservation,
and I am the District court administrator for the Fourth Judicial District.
We're going to switch gears now a little bit
and we're going to talk about challenges
and the ideas that have been put forth to meet those challenges.
So all of my
counterparts at Chad have been talking for some time about the stress
the districts are under to provide these services
within the confines of our mandated services budgets.
The main stressors we've already heard, many of them include volume
looking at both civil and criminal case types.
We've seen a 143% increase
from fiscal year 20 to fiscal year 23.
Of course, that comes along with
an associated rising cost for those exams.
And we also have been talking as a group about the difficulty districts
are experiencing in finding qualified examiners to conduct exams.
As Jeff mentioned earlier, we've also been reflecting on the fact
that past tweaks to the program or to various policies
just haven't been enough to meet these challenges.
And we decided to come together as a group
to talk through and see if
there are any steps that we could take to improve the current state.
The workshop that we had among Jad was similar to today's session.
For all of you.
We spent time educating one another about the realities in one
another's districts, discussing what efforts have already been taken
in the past by various work groups or audits.
We looked at the cost trends and we heard from our subject
matter experts, including Ms..
Wenning and Dr. Cranbrook.
Our goal was and remains to maintain
or improve exam quality while better predicting costs
and providing these services within our budgets.
Before the Workshop, Psychological Services program staff
gathered a lot of ideas.
Those ideas came from prior workgroup recommendations
and many of our stakeholders, including the examiners, the employee
examiners with the Fourth District, Regional Psychological Services,
District Court Administrators, rostered examiners and others.
A small workgroup analyzed those ideas
and presented at the five and I'll use the term neediest ideas
for Dad to take a look at at the workshop and to prioritize.
We put those ideas into phases by priority.
So phase one includes taking a look at whether or not it
it could be possible to establish a flat rate by exam type
or establishing flat rates for testimony and travel and other expenses
so that we could have a little bit more predictability
in the expenses that we're seeing in our districts.
Also in phase one is looking at how exam quality
might improved by establishing standards and performance
measures like we have in many other areas of the court.
And in order to increase examiners availability,
we wanted to see what we could do to promote remote exams or allow examiners
outside of Minnesota to conduct exams for us
in phase two.
We talked about needing to examine the feasibility
of specialized units or work structures,
whether that's for judges, court staff or examiners themselves,
and looking at
different examiners models that currently exist across the nation
and assessing them for efficiencies, whether that's an employee model,
contractor model or some sort of a hybrid
statewide project has now been established to work on those priorities.
And we're just getting started.
Project co-sponsors are myself and Kim Larson, who's the deputy director
with court services here at ACL.
We're providing monthly updates to Chad on
Project Progress and needs.
Now Tonya and I will be taking you through the challenges
identified and some of the potential solutions.
So the first challenge is volume, which we've already heard a lot about.
Volume is a significant pressure.
Minnesota's massive increase in civil commitment and rule 20 exams
between fiscal year 20 and 23.
This slide shows the volume of work
requested by district end by fiscal year 21 to 23.
This is not a problem unique to Minnesota.
This is a national problem based on materials
from the National Center for State Courts and other sources.
Colorado and Virginia are seeing big increases in the number of exams
ordered, while other states are seeing more modest increases.
But the materials make it clear that this is a national problem.
So what have we tried?
So what have we tried with regard to volume in the past?
Well, we have tried various trainings at multiple venues with the bench.
We also part in and sponsored a mental health
summit that was conducted in 2022.
That summit came out of a recommendation of the 2019
Psychological services Judicial Work Group.
The goal of that was to bring a whole government approach to addressing
the increasing demand for mental health services across the board.
Multidisciplinary teams, including judges from each
district, were invited to participate in the summit
and teams worked on local action plans during the summit.
In addition, we've tried being more intentional
about partnering with DHS, as well as engaging our local partners on.
The challenges involved involved with this problem.
So what are the ideas for change?
Well, when it comes to volume,
there isn't a whole lot we can do to control the volume of exams.
Mental Health is rightfully in the spotlight right now.
Nationally, mental health resources are scarce and people are suffering
severe commitment and competency.
Competency exams are constitutionally required.
If someone thinks that's needed, it's usually provided.
However, there are several changes Ideas for change that will be investigated.
The first idea is to establish a mental health
advisory group similar to the Children's Justice Initiative,
to keep all players in the system more closely connected on all challenges.
This idea also came out of the 2019 Psych Services Judicial Workgroup.
Another thing to explore might be the Miami-Dade model,
which is a mental health diversion program that has shown some positive outcomes.
More information about that program, as well as many other diversion programs,
are included in your supplemental materials for today's meeting.
More potential ideas for change include reserving exams
for only the most serious charges or cases.
Even though we're bringing this idea forward,
doesn't mean that we're necessarily endorsing this idea.
We know that it's a controversial idea,
but because it was mentioned multiple times in various publications
as an option across the nation and which other states are looking into.
We wanted the Judicial Council to hear it as an option.
We know that changing our competency process
could only occur if there was also a significant, improved access
to community supports and mental health treatment.
And now I'm going to turn it
over to Dan to talk about costs.
Thank you.
Good morning, everybody.
I'm here to talk about mandated services costs.
And so I will run through this website
right away off the bat.
Just to give you a flavor of the expenses
that go through mandated services, you can see this chart, you know, expenses
in fiscal year 2012 were roughly $10.4 million.
And you can see the growth of expenses.
And this is all mandated services right now.
But you can see the growth in fiscal year 23.
That number has gone up to $22.8 million.
You know, if you look below the budget for all of mandated
services was $16.765 million.
So you can see there is a shortfall here in this budget of $6 million and 23.
It's a lot of money, a lot of growth here in this
psych
services, that budget and I'll go to it next.
Has grown from 40% of this budget of mandated services
to almost 50% of this budget.
So you can see there's an issue there.
So to get into psych services budget
again in fiscal year 2012,
it was roughly $4 million of expenses for psych services.
And that number has grown to about $11.8 million in fiscal year 23.
The budget for psych services in 23 was $7.6
million, roughly.
So what have we done about this?
Well, we've gone
to the legislature a few times in the last ten years,
but back in fiscal year 2018 and 19, we requested 2.3
to $8 million, what we called an overall man deficit.
And we received the 2.3 to 8.
And that's a biennial number, by the way.
In 2021, we requested $2.14 million for the biennium
for a psych services deficit, and we received $2.14 million.
In 24 and 25.
We received some money for additional competency exams
and we received 1.5 million in 24
and 5.0 for 2,000,025.
And the only reason there's a difference there is the legislature cut back
and 24 just because of the program starting a little bit later.
So they cut back that amount in fiscal year 24, 25,
we requested $3.992 million for the biennium
for a psych services deficit.
And then in the end, we received $3 million.
But unfortunately, that was one time money.
We requested permanent money, part of negotiations
at the end of the legislative session.
I also wanted to talk about, you know, a lot of people ask me,
how is this budget, how is this psych services budget formulated?
How is it calculated?
So I wanted to go over that quickly.
The district psych mandated services budgets are calculated
using a three year rolling average of operating expenses,
and that was prescribed by Judicial Council
a few years ago.
The Regional Psych Services Unit is funded
with a unique cost, a $1.409 million.
We also put into that budget a salary supplement that we get from the
legislature.
So for 24 and 25, you recall we received 9% for 24 and 6% for 25.
So we put that money in there for attributable positions in that unit.
And then they also receive revenues from work being charged to the districts
through either a billable rate or an interagency agreement.
That's been done both ways in the past.
So in the past, regional psych services,
they've done work for districts one to themselves, four and ten.
So what are
part of the problem with this budget?
I'll be quite honest
with the district psych mandated services budget calculation.
A big problem with this is when expenses are growing
every year, the three year rolling average, it
basically creates a budget that insufficient rate from the start.
Think about that.
Expenses are going up every year
and you're running a three year rolling average rate from the start.
You're behind. Okay.
And so the idea is budget has to make up for that in this case.
And also, one of the problems with this, too, is there's a wrong incentive in this.
So if you reduce costs in this budget,
you're not rewarded, you're penalized.
You get less of a budget. Right. So why reduce your cost?
And I'm not saying people think like that.
They don't obviously.
But it is a very weird incentive structure for this budget.
I know in the past, the third District did some things with rural tows,
reduced their costs.
Congratulations.
You get less money, you know, that kind of thing.
And it just doesn't reward
some of the efficiencies you can do.
Trent, back over to Tanya. No.
Continuing with musical chairs.
So what has been tried partially in response to a 2014 internal audit?
It was determined that billing practices and internal controls were inadequate.
Efforts were directed to the development of a new database and the examiners
resource application or ERA was launched in March of 2020.
Iora has a robust integration with Mincer and Swift for accuracy in auditing.
An era allows for better, better monitoring of statewide costs
and standardizing of invoicing practices.
This Like services program has also put forward a legislative budget
request to address the underfunded, mandated expenses.
Some ideas for change to better established, predictable costs.
The program is exploring alternative cost model options, which add
including a maximum exam rate or a flat rate,
which is a per exam fee, which is distinct from our current hourly rate structure.
The program should review and consider other states payment models
and gather additional data to implement cost containment measures.
We know that volume is a predictor of costs, and while there was
a significant in examinations immediately following the pandemic,
we do not know how volume will trend in the next few years.
We may see changes in the future with the exception of the competency
attainment Board and Forensic Navigators, which council will learn
about more later today?
The next
challenge facing the program is quality.
We know from our stakeholders and feedback from the bench that exam quality varies.
Some written reports are too brief and others provide unnecessary detail.
While the increase in volume has impacted examiners availability and timeliness,
the rules of Criminal procedure
and statute require that reports are filed within a specified time frame.
Additionally, the report must include the requisite requirements
to aid the court in making an informed ruling.
We know that exam quality can also be hindered if the examiner
has not been provided with the necessary information and pertinent records.
What have we tried?
Prior judicial workgroup recommendations included the use of court order
templates for judges and report templates for examiners.
The program implemented report templates in 2022,
but the format and ease of use were identified as barriers.
Research
suggests that when the reports themselves are dramatically different
in content, style and structure, delays may result.
Several states have used report
templates to ensure that all statutory elements are addressed.
Factual background and detail are consistent and conclusions
and recommendations are legally sufficient.
So what are some ideas for change?
The program should establish performance measures
aimed at addressing exam quality and timeliness.
A peer review process should be explored
and is supported by practices within the field of psychology.
Accountability measures are needed to address examiners
issues that are not violations of business practices.
For example, the program can investigate and remedy overbilling,
but is more challenged to address poor exam quality, which can be subjective
and require subject matter expertise.
The report template should be updated to comport
with new statutory requirements and to address examiners concerns.
Additional ideas for change
include a training and orientation component for newly rostered, examined,
focused on exam quality and a centralized system or repository
that makes it easier for examiners to access necessary records.
The next challenge faced
the program faces is examiners availability.
We know from judges and court staff that it has been increasingly difficult
to sue, to secure examiners, to complete all types of evaluations.
Forensic examinations are a specialized field
within the practice of psychology and psychiatry, and research suggests
that there is a national shortage of forensic examiners.
Compensation may also be a contributing factor.
Examiners have indicated the current
level of pay is not equitable to other areas of practice.
And finally, although exams have moved to largely
the use of remote technology, GES, geography still impacts
accessibility to examiners, particularly in greater Minnesota.
So what have we tried?
The program policy rates were established in 2008, with metro area examiners
receiving $105 an hour and outstate examiners receiving $125 an hour.
In 2022, the differentiation was eliminated.
We know that in other states and the Commitment Appeal panel
in Minnesota pay added pay at a higher hourly rate
for examiners and examinations
and as indicated earlier in the presentation,
some judicial districts have utilized contracts or memorandums
of understanding to secure examiners in an effort to meet the increased volume.
Our ideas
for change include the law proposal that was introduced last month
that council and is on the agenda today for a vote.
The proposal was twofold and intended to address an increase
in examiners compensation and a change to the statutory language
that would permit examiners licensed by other jurisdictions
to provide remote examiners services.
This could potentially increase the number of examiners
available to meet the court needs.
The courts needs the statute change is intended
to remove the barrier to expanding the roster of examiners.
However, additional policies and procedures will need to be established
to minimize costs, assess travel considerations and other logistics
before allowing out-of-state examiners to take court appointments.
And finally, the court should establish the presumption
exams and testimony will be completed remotely unless otherwise
ordered by a judicial officer.
We need to ensure that the way we do the work
today is as efficient as it can be.
We need to look into the work structures of everyone who touches an exam
or relies upon an exam from schedulers to examiners themselves and to judges.
We've already heard many arguments for not ordering
rule 20 or ones and 20 or two together.
On the administrative side, local district staff reports
spending too much time trying to find examiners to take on cases,
locating examinees, scheduling exams, rescheduling
exams, finding documents and delivering documents to the examiners.
We've tried to reduce inefficiencies by establishing
better communication between the branch and DHS.
As we've talked about, that was a key goal of the Mental Health summit,
as well as additional listening sessions that were held in 2020 to.
There are many
ideas about how we could impact some of these inefficiencies.
One idea is to establish specialized teams of judges, court staff, schedulers
or examiners, as we've done in other case types, and with other efforts
consolidating or regionalized calendars,
exams or schedulers might be possible.
Establishing a team model like CJI for
these case types is also something that's been mentioned.
We may be able to reduce inefficiencies by centralizing where records are accessed.
As Tanya pointed out, there is no central repository for records today.
Roster examiners other than employee examiners do not have access to medicines,
and even if they did, not, everything needed for an exam lives within minutes.
Nor is easily found within minutes as it might be possible to expand
era the exam invoicing system to also be a central place for records.
Finally, revisions to Rule 20 are already well underway,
with a report to the advisory committee due to the Supreme Court tomorrow.
We mention that here because the proposed rule changes include recommendations
with regard to ordering simultaneous rule 21 and 22 exams.
Now I'm going to turn it back over to Judge
Mazur to summarize and to open this up for comments.
Right. Next slide.
Well, I think the bottom line is we've been at this for 15 years
and many of these documents have been proposed in time.
But the program continues to, have significant challenges
with cost and quality.
We have a complex interplay between courts
and the justice system, just so on and so forth.
Law enforcement
and leadership has endorsed
key ideas here today, and the project work is underway.
But we're going to need judicial council to make decisions and lend support.
Legislative rule program and policy changes. So
our question to
you is what additional information would be helpful to you as we may
as Judicial Council is asked to make decisions on these changes?
And with that, that is our our presentation.
Chief Justice I, i
the panel is happy to take questions at this time.
And I know, Judge, she did.
Yeah.
Why don't we open it up for questions here for maybe
15, 20 minutes before we take a break.
But Chief Judge SIEGEL, did you want to start out
I know you had a question.
my only question was with that
dramatic increase in the numbers of
cases requiring competency evaluations, is
is there any and nationally, is there any explanation for that?
Is that because of the pandemic in that number
will come down back to kind of a more normal number?
Know, it seems quite dramatic, particularly for a national, if anybody?
That was my only question.
I think that's the million dollar question.
I you know, as Sarah had pointed out, we know that
there is an increased focus on mental health.
Right.
So we're seeing an increase in judges and other stakeholders
making sure that defendants respondents are receiving the services.
I think that we have to examine our data
a bit closer to see where we're seeing those increases.
Is it regionally?
Is there specifically we were seeing a significant increase
civil commitment exams.
Does that have to do with a lack of access
to competency, competency exams, a lack of services in the community?
So, yes, certainly something that requires a lot more research and evaluation.
But also we know nationally and I think Dr.
Cranbrook has discussed this in previous presentations as well,
the competency rate, the excuse me,
the rate of incompetency has continued to grow over the years.
And so I think that's pretty
a pretty astounding statistic as well
to say, Anderson.
So three points here.
First, I want to express my appreciation to the panel and to leadership here
that decided to put this panel together and have this presentation.
When you look at the numbers that we're seeing.
Dollars and cents just alone.
Obviously need to have a discussion about some of the fundamentals here.
The second observation I would make is that
I, I hate to be doom and gloom about this,
but if you look at some of the coverage of mental health issues in young people,
this is going in a direction
that suggests the problems going to get worse, not better.
In the final observation I would make is a lot of the suggestions here
and they're very good strike me as moving deck chairs around.
And I'm just wondering,
you know, there's some
discussion here about really dramatic changes.
You mentioned Miami Dade, maybe some other possibilities.
And I'm just wondering if there isn't more out there in terms
of what could be fundamental changes to deal with some these problems.
I, I, I'm not optimistic that we might.
My time here is coming to an end in the next little while and
I'll be sitting on my front porch watching you people solve this problem.
But I'm not optimistic that some of these changes necessary
as they might be, are really going to get at this fundamental problem.
There's a question buried in there.
Do, do, do, do what you want with it.
I guess.
I think that's where when we started the conversation
today and Jeff used the term nibbling around the edges.
Judge Merrick has talked about it as admiring the problem.
I think what we're hoping to do today with special topic
is really spark robust discussion and utilize all of the people power
that we have here to really think big outside of the box.
As you bring those ideas forward to us through this
new EPI project that we're starting.
We want to be able to look at all the data and make decisions
that are good for Minnesota.
So it's helpful for us to look at the research
and see what might be working in Colorado or in Florida, in Miami-Dade.
But we need to know if that fits with our statutes, our values,
and if this is the direction we want to go.
So it will take time.
We ask for your patience,
but we are certainly hoping for a robust discussion and ideas.
And my comments are not criticisms.
I mean, I think this is a great conversation to have and
this is not admiring the problem, to look at the magnitude of it,
because that's really what this last 45 minutes or so has been.
Justice Anderson,
I think that you are expressing
a sentiment that has has flummoxed
anyone who has involved in trying to look at psychological services
and mandated services for the branch, at least in my tenure.
And Chief Judge Castro
has been intimately involved with all of this as well.
He took over for me when I retired.
We I think one of the first things
we have been able to accomplish is we're starting
to have more conversations with our partners in this.
DHS is a huge partner,
law enforcement.
We need to have the support
of district administrators in making sure that we have process
sees that that don't allow these things to fall through the cracks.
We've got to figure out a way to deal with the fact that Rule twenties
get ordered over and over and over again because there's no way
to figure out what
Carlton County did, what Saint Louis County did, etc..
And they I think there's been
so much media attention to it as well that it it
at times kind of creates this this is just too big.
What what are we going to do?
So this is a call to action.
I think this is a we have great people
in this room that I think can add to the conversation. And
we have to try something.
We have to try something bold.
I think at this point, it's Castro.
I think you had your hand up and then
a thank you.
I first want to note and thank the Rules Committee for making
the changes that I think going to be recommending as it relates
to never ordering a 22 with a 21
and providing
defendants with the right to counsel, even though
they may not want the right to counsel.
Because if they can't
communicate with their lawyer, then they probably need a lawyer.
So my my question is,
I think we need to move
quickly as it relates to creating a mental health
justice initiative similar to the Children's Justice initiative.
I think we've talked about that enough and I think it's time we move forward
and bring the professionals that we need to to help solve these problems.
And so
and my other question well, my other suggestion is
I think we seriously need to think about
changing the process that we use for competency.
I don't understand, honestly why
it takes 60 days to determine whether someone's competent or not
when on the commitment side, in two weeks
we can decide that someone
can be locked up and electrocuted.
That doesn't make sense to me, and maybe I don't understand it
well enough, but I think those are we can change a process
and make this move more swiftly and more accurately.
I also,
as it relates to the 22 process, I don't understand
why are involved in any way with an affirmative defense.
It seems to me when someone wants to challenge DNA,
they go get a DNA expert and they challenge the DNA.
Why are we involved in that process?
It's an affirmative defense, and I think the rule needs to be
frankly, eliminated, at least to the extent that
we are involved in
ordering exams and reviewing exams on an affirmative defense.
Unless, of course, the defense actually wants us to review it.
So those are my comments,
and I think those are things we can do relatively quickly.
I'll wait to beat up Mr.
Flynn when the competency Competency attainment Board presents.
Thank you,
Justin.
I have two questions, but one of them follows
when Judge Castro was just talking about and that people decompensated obviously
while they're in jail and we're waiting for all 20 evaluations to come back,
it can be very expensive when the jail is destroyed.
You know, certainly there's a lot of anecdotal issues and problems
and costs associated with that as we're gathering information.
Are we working with DHS to find out if there is a correlation
between the speed of getting a Rule 20 evaluation
and the length of time somebody may be committed
if they are found incompetent so that there would be
some more of an umbrella cost savings if we see if we're
getting people in stabilized much faster because obviously we have people
that are rotating through repeatedly as well.
I don't know if that data's being gathered.
I don't know that
we are looking at that data, but it raises some interesting points
in terms of the process that we have in place.
Certainly, I understand and I can't speak for DHS.
I know that bed space and accessibility has been an issue.
I know there have been occasionally issues related to transport.
So I would really like to invite DHS to the table
if there's an interest in gathering more information from that agency
and about their processes, I think that would be beneficial.
But I appreciate raising that issue.
If I.
I have one other question, if I could, to Dr. Buffington.
How how how well would the
system you're using lend itself to doing it remotely so screening
remotely as opposed to knowing the people that are in the jail
and knowing those people that are giving you feedback obviously
can improve the accuracy and speed of a screen.
But do you think it could be done remotely?
And do you think it could be expanded statewide?
You No.
Can you hear me now?
Okay.
I do.
I did do the majority of my screens remotely during COVID
and and
I, I wouldn't
necessarily want to do full roll 20
remotely personally, but it works.
It works just fine for a screen
in terms of
I think it I certainly think that it could be expanded
statewide.
It does help that in our district.
I have you know, I have close
connections with with the jail and and
all evaluators don't necessarily, you know, when we do
our full roll 20 exams, all evaluators don't necessarily have that.
So that is something that that does need
to be does to be considered.
But I certainly think that it can be expanded
statewide.
If I may, Chief,
it's I know we said we addressed all the low hanging fruit previously.
I'm not saying Dr.
Huffington is low hanging fruit, but it does seem like that's something
that would be a fairly
easy first transition to addressing statewide
how to limit the number of world toes we're doing.
If we had had screeners that were operating statewide
that could do these things remotely so that in every district
we could start with that screen, it doesn't.
I know financially we have to figure out how that works.
And I'm wondering, does is Dr.
Heffington employed a through dis funds from the district or what?
How does that work?
I think that we contract with Dr.
Buffington
and we also use some grant funding through the jail
to do these
rural 20 screens.
So those are the primary sources, So dis funding and grant funding
and I can't remember the name of the
the close up grant.
Yes. So up until this point
the jail has been funding as as Chief Myers just mentioned,
the jail has been funding the in-custody
screens in Saint Louis County, at least
all out of custody cases and cases outside of Saint Louis
County have been paid for by the judicial branch or the district.
But it's my understanding
that the jail is going to be taking on all evaluations
for the next several years that are all screens for the next several years.
And I'm sorry if I had your name wrong, it was Buffington.
It's okay. Okay.
So I'm I'm wondering if we've had a chance to look at
what the how many screeners we would need to handle the numbers
that we have statewide and what that would cost the branch
and compare it to the savings based on the percentages of
fewer, I guess, full
evaluations that are being ordered.
So certainly what comes to mind immediately is
I don't know if the process of a screener falls under the mandated services budget.
So we would have to
figure out if that would be a mechanism for funding it.
We'd also want to evaluate and balance the costs of paying for screenings
with the savings of doing the rule to evaluate.
And then the third thing that just comes to mind is
there would have to be some significant legwork, if you will,
with probably the public defender's office and the bar to foot private defense bar
to get some engagement agreement to go along with this process.
If they are not willing,
it may just either be
duplicative or it may just be become ultimately
not fruitful if we don't have engagement from that agency as well.
And certainly there may be some other things as well, But it's a great idea.
I think we just need to figure out the nuts and bolts of it.
And if it could be implemented, maybe it's something
we could look at piloting in another district or county as well.
Thank you,
Jesus Castro.
I'm I don't I'm going to put Dr.
Greenberg on the spot.
But, you know, I can't help but notice that the force
or regional sex services has not implemented a screening process.
And so I think I'd like to know why
this pilot I mean,
I think it has to do there are district
specific concerns that make it functional or not functional in some settings.
We have a very adversarial or active defense bar.
And so I think we would be testifying all the time if we were trying.
I think they would routinely ask the full evaluation,
and I think
not that that
couldn't change, but it would take some significant work to gain buy in.
I don't think that would work very effectively at this moment
in our district.
That may not be true in other settings.
I also think there are issues related to referral practices in a given district.
So, Doctor, I was trying to understand
Doctor Buffington statistic because he just didn't make sense to me
because we have a higher rate of incompetency findings in general.
And I think it depends on the referral practices
by the public defender's office or other parties.
We do not see very many evaluations that we ask the cast
think this was a bad evaluation.
I think our public defenders are pretty good at discerning
when they should ask for an evaluation and when they shouldn't
varies a little bit.
But for the most part I think that's true.
So I so we have differences there.
The other piece is, as I mentioned, about 50% of our cases are reevaluations.
So They're we've already seen them once they've been found incompetent
and they're coming back without any restoration.
So the odds are very good they will continue to be incompetent.
Dr. Buffington group doesn't include those people,
so we have different populations.
She's only really talking about initial evaluations for the most part.
So that some of those kinds of factors
make a difference in how it is implemented and
other states that do a screening process also often have other factors at play.
So, for example, if either party doesn't agree
with the screening, they get an inpatient evaluation,
which clearly tilts the scales
in favor of agreeing with the evaluation.
So there's there's just a lot of things to consider
in whether it works in a given jurisdiction.
Thank you,
Judge Clinton.
This is for the practitioners.
When can we use an evaluation
from another jurisdiction
to apply?
In my case, in Dakota County?
That would be great
if there was a really clear answer.
There's not really a timeline that makes it appropriate or not appropriate.
This is a discussion that we just had the other day preparing for this.
If an individual is grossly psychotic,
probably they're going to be incompetent across all their cases.
But there are situations where an individual
could be competent on one case, an incompetent, dead another.
I think I've only seen it
a couple of times in 20 years of practice, but it can happen.
So we offer, you know, to look at evaluations
to see if there appropriate, to apply in other settings in the fourth.
We don't always get taken up on that, but we make that available.
I think mostly it's appropriate.
But mental illness is a waxing and waning presentation.
People get better and get worse, and so it's hard to say.
I seen it more, it seems.
Yeah, I actually
I'm not saying it happens a lot, but it does happen
frequently enough that I don't.
I mean, I know that, for example, and maybe
I didn't hear all of your question, so maybe this is what you said, but
I know that an evaluation in one district.
Sometimes it's being used in another district, and
I wouldn't recommend that unless the evaluator is aware
at the time that they're evaluating that defendant so that they can ask them
about that particular offense and that particular defense attorney,
because competency to stand trial really is specific
to those particular offenses and those particular
defense attorneys
Having that information, though, that another jurisdiction
is because we've got different examiners covering different parts of the state.
But there's multiple evaluation is ordered having that information,
does that help short circuit
and reduce the time and expense on the one that I'm ordering today?
Yes, I think that if the evaluator is informed at the outset
before they see the defendant that there are these charges
in these different districts, they can ask about all they can.
They can interview the defendant, they can assess the defendant
on all those charges in one interview, in one evaluation.
And even if they you know, we see a percentage of people who are
acutely psychotic, if the examiner knows that the evaluations exist,
then that would probably apply across cases, whether or not you knew in advance.
But that's not the majority of defendants, which is why we have case manager staff
that is looking for, you know, scanning minces to try to see
if there are other evaluations co-occurring so that we can catch that.
We don't always catch it because it's not really readily obvious and means Yes,
but if if we know
and the defense attorney knows it, it obviously would be helpful for
where do you want that information in the order?
I mean, how is how do we make sure that that gets to you
so we can short circuit reduce the time we do possibly reduce the cost
if possible, ordering it to the same examiner
But I mean, then there's these contractual issues.
You know, somehow we can
I shared ideas with Eric.
Sure. Don't.
I don't know exactly how that all works, but
that it might be a location.
I know the issue has come up in the past, and so we need to be able
to develop a better mechanism track when rule toes are being shared.
Because certainly
if a rule 20 is being shared among various districts and counties, that's a cost
saving measure that right now we don't have a data tracking point for.
So it should be developed in these enhancements
we are looking at with our examiner resource application.
But it doesn't it exists in a really limited fashion at this point.
What we hear from court staff
is that when they're real time on the calendar and rule 20 has been ordered,
they're going back to their office,
starting the process of making the phone call to the examiner.
But if they're in the courtroom and have the capability,
they're having to scroll through this to determine if a rule 20 has been ordered,
We also procedurally have to identify is there a timeframe we're setting?
Are we looking to share rule 20 that's occurred within the last 30 to 60 days?
Are we sharing will 20 that have occurred within the last 12 months?
So all of those things need to be considered.
I think we can establish some policy around that and have it be more effective
and then get that information to examiners when appropriate.
One more question
here from Judge Myer and then take a break and then maybe come back.
And then just I think we need to wrap it up and decide.
I think your final question to us was what additional information we you need
might be helpful to the counsel and maybe we can gather in and talk about that.
But it sounds like there's another discussion session coming up
and so maybe we can give some direction to that.
So Judge Meier, and then we'll take a break.
Thank you.
There was discussion
at the beginning about a central deposit repository for records.
Wouldn't that help with this? Multi-County
Absolutely. Yeah. Okay.
We really are decentralized in a lot of aspects, and that's to give
districts, right,
the ability to sort of meet the needs of their own unique jurisdictions.
But there are some benefits that we need to look at,
look at going forward in terms of centralizing processes more.
I think we have some guidance from the interpreter program
in some of the crossover we've seen with scheduling
and accessing interpreters through the statewide program.
There.
Great.
Why don't we take about a 15 minute break and then we'll come back?
If we could just
try coming back together again.
I do want to take maybe two more comments, one from Judge Meier,
and then I want to circle back to Chief Judge Castro.
But and then I think we just will
sunset this issue for today to end today only.
But before I do that.
So I really do want to thank the committee and the group that came today.
This was very, very helpful.
It was just
much needed to have this kind of information put before the council.
And so I do want to thank Judge Merrick and Jeff and Tanya winning and Dr.
Cranbrook and Dr.
Buffington, all of you, thank you so much for.
Providing the information you did today.
So maybe we'll circle back for a moment to know you're shaking your head.
I thought you had it. Okay.
You actually go. Okay.
All righty. All righty.
Chief Judge Castro, I think you wanted to make one more comment.
I do think in chief, I'd like to make a motion at this time
that we create a mental health justice initiative
similar to what we did with the Children's Justice Initiative
so that we can at least start moving forward
with these changes.
We have that motion,
which I do think that's a good idea.
I think it would be helpful out of all the many suggestions that were made here
today, I think that's something we might want to try to move on.
We've seen the success of CGI.
I think it could be modeled similarly, but
we could certainly get into the details of that.
But we we have that motion on the floor here today.
Do people feel ready or prepared to.
Yes, Judge, I would second that.
I think that that's needed.
We've been talking about it for several years, and I think our local partners
would probably be relieved if we were able to take some movement on this.
It's been moved and
seconded to have any discussion.
Judge, this may be a huge decision.
Thank you.
Decision eight and maybe ask if anyone objects to having it considered today.
And if they don't, then I think we I mean, I think it's a great idea,
but I think if not an objection, we can move forward.
Thank you for that.
Justice Anderson Does anyone object to having a considered today?
I see no hands.
Okay.
But thank you, Justice Anderson.
You've got a motion.
And the second all in favor signify by saying I.
All right any opposed?
Not opposed. Wonderful.
At least I think that's a good move
on our part and good forward motion.
So we'll we will do that.
My thinking is, though, you know,
as I listen to the presentation, one of the things that I heard mentioned
is that it might be helpful to have some input or more direct
input from DHS and also maybe from some law enforcement partners,
law enforcement stakeholders.
And so maybe we could push the next discussion of this topic, too.
I was going to say, Jan,
but I know we have the discussion and some other things in January.
I'm thinking maybe now February, the February meeting,
could you folks possibly come back and and with some DHS representation
in law enforcement or we could talk about what that might like
and get a little more information and kind of continue the discussion.
So I think, you know, your question to us is what additional information
would be helpful to judicial counsel as we try to make this decision?
And I think that input would be helpful to us.
Anything else anybody wants to add to that that might be helpful
for another discussion? Judge Byers
I think that
just in having some conversations after your presentation
that it would be helpful to explore the possibility
of having a central repository for rule tees
just about is that, is that feasible?
Someone said that that's been tried in the past.
There have been many advances in technology
and I think we're going to hear about those next
next month.
But I think that would be really helpful just to be able to input someone's
name to see the status of pending rule toes passed.
Rule toes.
Yes. Judge also wondering, Chief, if it would be possible for the group
to look into the feasibility of having
some staff screeners that can be used statewide
for those jurisdictions that have interest in that.
I've been talking to some of the other chiefs during the break.
I think there may be some jurisdictions where it's just too difficult
to get the justice partners to agree.
But in outstate Minnesota,
I think there would be a lot of interest in using that screening process.
So it'd be interesting to know both whether we are seeing a cost savings
in the six district and whether it's something we could fund as a branch.
I think those are two excellent
suggestions for additional information that would be helpful.
Jeff, I just want to get some clarity.
Do you want the group to meet with some DHS and law enforcement
representatives and then come back with impressions from them
or do you want them to be invited to the council?
What's the wish of the council? What do you think would be helpful?
Most helpful.
I'm not promising they'll come, but we could try.
Well,
nobody's jumping into judgment Where you want to say something?
Yeah. You meet with.
I was going to say the default, I think should be that.
I agree. Okay, great. Thanks.
Okay.
Okay. Wonderful. Thank You.
Thank you so much.
We'll move to the next agenda item, which is
a discussion item,
the competency attainment board and Flynn from the board.
The board president is here.
You hopefully will remember that in 20 2203 from what we did.
Yeah.
No, that's okay.
No, it's good to check.
In 2022, the legislature
passed a competency restoration bill
creating the State Competency Restoration Board.
And the copy of the bill is in your materials.
The 2023 Legislature funded the board,
changed its name to the Competency Attainment Board
and extended the effective date from July 2023 to April of 2024.
The board is charged with certifying competency
restoration programs and operating a forensic navigator program
to assist defendants who are found incompetent.
And so at this time,
I'd like to ask Ryan Flynn to join us.
You're right there already
and kind of give us an update on what's going on with the board.
Thank you.
Okay.
My name is Ryan Flynn.
I'll tell you, introduce myself to you all first.
I'm a assistant county attorney in Ramsey County.
So under the Second Judicial District, I've been a prosecutor for 13 years,
and I got involved in this in about 2017
when the Minnesota County Attorney's Association started, looking at what's
commonly referred to as gap cases and possible solutions, the Gap cases.
Since that time, I was asked to represent the NCAA
on the newly created State Competency Attainment Board, and the board
acquiesced by be the best way to put it.
To me being the board chair in lieu of it was not a very competitive race.
So just so you know about
me, I am not in management,
I am not an elected official, I am a trial attorney.
So I appear in front of district court judges on a regular basis.
So being here today in front of the chief justice of the state Supreme Court,
the chief judge of the Court of Appeals, other judges, Court of Appeals
and the chief judges from districts around the state
is one missing pair of pants away
from being my nightmare.
But given the warning from Judge Castro,
I did double check over the break and I am fully clothed.
So it is a privilege to be here today.
So I'm going to talk a little bit about the background of the board,
how we came into the circumstances that we're in.
And then I'm going to talk a little bit about what I expect to be
the process of how we serve lunch, this program in April.
And then at the end,
I'm going to I do have an ask of you and I'll tell you what the ask is. Now.
I'm going to ask that the particularly the chief judges of the different districts
go back and identify some core district court judges
who can be supporters or leaders
of what will be focus groups in the coming months leading up to April
and then also coming months after April 1st, 2024.
That will help us identify members of court admin
caseworkers, any pretrial release, probation officers
or other sort of local leaders who play a role in these gap cases
and how your districts have attempted to adapt
to sort of the the nuanced issue of gap cases.
Now the focus all of those focus groups,
I won't go into the specific questions, but it's really going to be identifying
the process
of how your districts handle gap cases, whether there's a specialty court
or other process, the identification, those sort of significant
leaders, persons or programs available, including housing,
medication, local clinics, things along those lines.
What sort of things that you would expect in a court order,
what your expectations of forensic navigators would be,
as well as interim really saw role management and how they would interplay
with pretrial supervision versus probation versus caseworkers.
And really to help us understand ways that we can prioritize cases
now get into how we reformed
deeply, there was a significant amount of debate
about what to do with gap cases back in 2021, 2022.
This was a negotiated
result, so nobody was 100% happy, nobody 100% agreed.
But everybody 100% agreed that we needed something
and this was as good as we were going to find agreement on.
After that was created,
there was a a typo, for lack of a better term,
that produced a funding problem where the board was supposed
to come into existence in August of 2022,
but the funding wasn't allowable until 2025.
That had to get fixed pending that fix.
Obviously, nobody wanted to appoint the
because they would have no authorization to do anything.
Once that was fixed, the board was appointed after
last session, so we came into existence.
Our first meeting was the week of July 4th of 2023.
Now as a result of that, there's approximately a year less of time
for us to launch this brand new state agency.
We are simultaneously attempting to launch this agency
while also launch a major statutory change and adapt to a multitude of issues.
What I
quickly learned is that when they create a state agency and appoint a board,
they do not hand you a checkbook and a pamphlet of how to do this.
So my thanks to members of the court
administration, including Jeff, including Dan, who you heard from.
We had several meetings throughout the summer trying to find a way
that we could effectively get launched.
And what ultimately has happened is a guardian ad litem board, true
to their sort of philosophy and purpose, really became guardians.
And they are guiding us through this process.
They are posting positions for us,
they are giving us our advice, they are assisting us with it.
Things along those lines.
And they are why we are going to be able to exist April 1st.
So I can say that we are not going to be asking for a delay in the implementation.
We are intending launch April 1st of 2024.
We have, through the Guardian ad Litem program, been able
to post a position for our state administrator.
They will be our first hire.
We are intending to conduct interviews prior to Christmas and we are hoping
to be able to have a person in that role come January of 2024.
So what what are we doing?
I want to be clear.
The good news is, is we can help.
The bad news is, is we can't solve it.
We are not a replacement for the civil commitment process.
We are not a replacement for the role that DHS traditionally played
in helping people attain competency.
Where we come from is in looking at how other
jurisdictions respond to the issue of gap cases.
And as you've heard from previous speakers, the sort of rising issue
of issues of competency in the criminal justice system
is other jurisdictions found great success with creating these forensic navigators
to help individuals become aware of of programing that's available to them,
become aware of housing options, medication options, treatment options,
and really to offer a greater degree of assistance
and having them fill out paperwork applications
so that they can get some of the services that already exist.
As many of you are familiar with these gap cases, the court can order
somebody to go fill out paperwork for a voluntary program.
The forensic navigators supposed to take that extra step
and really guide them through process of doing that.
While we are not able to
provide a security hospital,
we are I think we're all aware from our prior experiences
that even when somebody just has stable housing
and consistent access to food and medication,
that that can do a lot to take some of these gray competency cases
and really put them into the category of being stable,
competent and stable.
So what that's going to look like in April
is we're doing what's called a soft launch.
So have been afforded $3 million for this year.
There is an additional $10 million coming in July of 2020 for the
it has always been the intent to do this soft launch where we have a very small
amount of forensic navigators available for the entirety of the state,
and that will be able to use that as a learning process to figure out what works.
What doesn't work?
Do we need to change items of the job description?
Do we need to change how people are assigned?
As we can all understand, it is easier to change before you
somebody as opposed to hiring somebody you know, where they're place,
what they've been trained to do, and then tell them to shift jobs.
So this was an intentional decision
to do a soft launch rather than a full launch April 1st.
So it's going to be it's not going to be many.
It's going to be between ten and 15 forensic navigators
for the entirety of the state come April 1st, 2024,
given changes in sort of inflation and
just what people sort of expect for pay, I would guess
that it will be closer to the ten rather than the 15,
because our obviously our budget that was afforded to us
few years ago didn't with with inflation rates.
So once those are hired, we are still assessing how they will be distributed.
We do have raw numbers from court administration
about where rule tows are coming from as well as gap cases.
And obviously we're not going to assess where people are going to be placed
until we've had some good conversations
with members of the judiciary and others locally.
We really want to make sure that we're seen as an entity that empowers
district court judges empowers individuals and empowers others
to to address the nuances that each of these cases
have, as opposed to sort of taking the route of dictate.
This is how you can or can't handle a case.
So we're trying to set up
these conversations in these focus groups so that it's clear that we are a partner.
We are not somebody who can can exempt
local authorities
from having to make tough decisions
and really get into the weeds in these these cases.
But we are somebody who can hopefully help,
for lack of a better term, navigate through that process.
So the bad news is
what I sort of start out by saying is we are
we offer the programing that's necessary.
That was a part of sort of the
the mixture of bills that came out of that session.
One of the big areas was there was supposed to be locked earths facilities.
I think many of you are familiar with Earths facilities.
They are considered very effective.
The issue was locked, Earths facilities received funding
and there was a RFP for them that DHS put out.
No private providers applied to be a long term facility.
There is a multitude, I think, of circumstances that exist
that discouraged private providers from applying for that.
But that is a reality.
We, the board, exists in the same circumstances that you do.
And so we are
trying to have conversations about what we can do to address that.
I will say that there are some conversations that are going on right now
that are above our pay grade
pay grade of the board, not your not above yours
that will have influence on that.
Many of you know, the 48 hour rule was hotly debated.
There is a task force that exists.
One of the things that they are looking at is our competency attainment
programing, where that can be done, how that can be done.
There is other conversations
going on as well, including conversations about juvenile competency.
And we're aware of those conversations and we are watching them and seeing
trying to keep an eye on how we can be helpful to them and how
it will affect our work as well as the work of each of these cases.
So it will be a skeleton crew.
The purpose is to sort of get the kinks out.
And really one of the things we want those focus groups to be our method
of receiving feedback and refuting suggestions.
There's going to be a lot of complaints no matter how many times.
I think I need to tell everybody we are not the solution to the problem.
I know that there's going to be an instinct on the part of some
to see us sort of like the replacement of DHS.
And so I understand that there's going to be complaints, Complaints to you,
all complaints to us.
That's going to be a part of this launch.
That's okay,
particularly if we can turn those complaints
into constructive feedback and constructive suggestions.
It can actually be a very positive thing.
Last thing I'll say is that things are going to be moving quickly.
We are looking to get a website up and launched.
We are looking to get a internal software management
so we can begin managing these cases.
One of our aspects, not on April 1st, but one of the things that I heard
you all talking about that is expected us by statute is data management.
One of the things when we were drafting sort of the the negotiators statute was
there was never a central authority really advocating for this group of folks
and maintaining data not just about court cases, but about
individuals and what works for folks and what doesn't work for folks.
That is something that we think is needed and something that will be addressed.
Really what that's going to look like is
we would like to be able to keep a data management that says,
here's our forensic navigators, here's who they've helped, here's programs
that have been tried before, here's programs that are successful.
So as we go into this process, years in the future,
five years, ten years from now, the conversations
we're having is how do we get some sort of program into existence?
But then we can say, what are what are the what is the data saying
about the best practices for getting folks competent?
So this is going to be a long term launch.
Try not to think about this as like an April 1st to a May 1st issue.
This is what what are we going to be able to provide the next course of five years?
And really,
as these other conversations are going on, it's going to be a moving target.
Now, I think I've already taken on a lot of your time.
I will.
there is one more thing I want to talk about.
There is two aspects to the forensic navigators.
There is the competency attainment program
and trying to helping them get their services.
The other big thing and one of the major reasons why,
you know, we're not going to delay even given the fact
that some of the long term facilities aren't successful,
the bridge plans, the idea the bridge plan is the diversion.
So the ability to take these misdemeanors, these targeted misdemeanors or low level
felonies and try and get folks connected to local services
before they get to those higher severity crimes, we're now it's it's
you judges are put in a place where they feel like they have to keep
somebody locked up just so they can await civil commitment
or wait some other process just to keep the public safe from them.
We really want to be able to get into those cases
as quickly as possible so that we can try and get people
local services so that they don't come back.
And that's not that revolving door.
The issue is, and this is why I'm putting it on on your radar
that is going to conflict with the lack of net of resources come April 1st.
So we are going to have folks who are sitting in jail who are cap cases
and they need to have services.
So they're going to receive priority.
At the same time, we have to figure out how do we balance our ability to intervene
in these low level severity cases so they don't come back
and be those severe cases.
So that sort of restriction of resources is going to have to be a discussion about
how do we identify folks that we are most capable of helping
in a way that's actually productive and not just
we don't want to just be filing orders
so we can wait six months and file more orders.
So I throw in a lot of information at you all.
I'm sure that there's many, many questions.
I will I will yield.
Thank you very much, Ryan.
Any questions for Ryan?
When we identify those judges
who may be appropriate to be part of these focus groups,
do we provide them to you or will you be reaching out to the chiefs?
I think I know what that's a good question.
I think for is is just reach out to me.
It is my intent to be reaching out to two chiefs.
I know Jeff has said that
I can send out an email.
I believe there's a listserv for chief judges would be an easy way to do it.
So I'll I'll ask him to forward my contact information
just since we don't have that state
administrator hired right now, I think it makes sense just to say,
you know, you can email me.
It is a Ramsey County website.
Don't be fooled. That is me.
We just don't have a state email address yet. So
other questions, Judge Castro
and maybe I missed this, but
so when will have forensic navigators
you will have, let's just say about ten when?
April 1st we will have ten forensic that we know what the qualifications
of a forensic navigator. So we
I should be clear,
we intend to have ten by April 1st, 2024.
That is our hope and that is what our goal is.
So that means we're going to have to get out
these applications in these job duties out pretty quickly.
Really, January, we're going to start interviewing.
Our intention is late March,
early February, bring people on site or training them in.
I'm sorry, late February, early March, start
training them in so that they're ready to go.
April 1st,
your other questions was their qualifications.
So we haven't we have looked at a couple different job descriptions.
We have started that process and what we want for qualifications is
we have made a couple of decisions.
One, obviously we want people
to have a history of working with this population or something similar.
So very similar.
What you see is case workers or pretrial or probation officers similar to that.
We are not going to require a bachelor's degree
for forensic
navigators, but some sort background in that.
The specifics,
I don't want to say because it just hasn't been approved by the board yet
in the statute also requires an advisory board as they have been put together.
We put the advisory board.
Yes, the advisory board.
I should step back.
So I mentioned a little bit about the adoption
by The Guardian and Light on board that happened mid-October.
So really, we have been able to launch since then.
Our our certification advisory board came into existence
late September and started meeting, I think mid to late September.
So they meet about once a month and they we did approve the curriculum.
It is largely based on what DHS has.
That is extremely preliminary.
There is better curriculum out there in the United States,
but we we just didn't have the time or the resources to really be able
to dive into that.
So the advisory board is just for the competency programing.
Is that all that's for?
So the advisory board is advising on how we anything that we have to certify.
And so certification of competency attainment,
programing certification of forensic educators
as well as certification of the curriculum.
Thank you. Yes.
So we will have the finish by April 1st
and sorry, is was there a number post April 1st?
So after this on soft launch and when you get the additional resources,
do you know how many additional navigators
will come along with it, with the additional money?
So more of
that is about as much as I can narrow it down right now.
So one of the issues is, is
we we had thought that we would be able to
borrow resources at a greater debt level.
That's not really a reality
that can come to fruition.
That means that we have to be our separate a separate state agency
so we can't continue to live off
of the good graces of guardian ad litem program,
which I have to say again, has been amazingly lenient and helpful.
But so that's some additional costs that we did anticipate.
So we're going to have to get an i.t. Department.
We're going to have to hire our own h.r.
Department.
We're going to have to do some additional
software development.
Meaning we're going to need a server that's capable of holding hippo related
data.
So these are sort of added expenditures that didn't
weren't necessarily anticipated when we wrote the statute.
So the exact amount
which when we wrote the statute, different wages,
not the additional administrative costs, we were thinking between 80
to 100 forensic navigators for the state.
That's going to have to be lowered where you can expect
that we're going to go to the legislature and ask for more money. And
I, I won't say anything about whether or not
we should expect the legislature to grant that request.
But you,
Ryan, kind of in line with that on the money.
You you touched on something I was wondering about.
You've got the 3 million this year and you said another 10 million in 2024.
But with these additional costs in terms of i.t.
and in getting your own h.r.
You anticipate you're going to run through all of that,
it looks like or i think we're going to run through.
Do you think you're going to be allocating that?
There is
in my limited role of advocating for like mental health.
What i have quickly learned
is that there is always something that you could put more resources to.
So we will run through that money.
I we are going to, you know, do our best
to make sure we don't run out of money by measuring our expectations.
But we are for sure going to run through that.
Yes. Thanks, Chief.
In the interest of opening the lines of communication,
it sounds like this is going to be a work in progress for your board.
The Chiefs have, an implementation committee that meets once a month.
And if you at any point feel that there's something that chiefs
could be doing to help implement this in our district,
you can if you reach out to Jeff,
he can give you our contact information and you can contact me on the committee.
And we can invite you to come and let us know where you are
and what we can do to be helpful.
So please don't be afraid to reach out.
thank you.
Right.
Well, doesn't I think that's it. No further questions.
Thank you, Ryan, very much for this helpful information.
We appreciate it. Thank You, Madam Chief Justice.
And with
that, we'll move to our fourth item on the agenda, which is a discussion item
dealing with the criminal case backlog review.
And I think Grant is here.
He's coming up from court research
to walk us through the backlog.
Welcome, Grant.
Thank you.
Right.
So we have a brief update today for the backlog.
And as a quick refresher on the background to the backlog
and how we got here today, in November of 2021,
the Judicial Council implemented the long term goal
to eliminate the backlog by June of 2023 in, July of 2023.
You may recall we provided an update on the backlog progress.
At that time, we had three districts who had eliminated the backlog
as of July of 2023, and 68 total counties had met the goal.
At that point, it was agreed upon to extend the backlog goal
to July or end of June of 2024 with an update in December.
So here we are today.
And as a reminder, sir, we're all on the same page about the backlog definition.
Backlog is defined as the change in active pending cases
relative to our March 2020 active biennial level.
That is, in pre-pandemic
so a snapshot of where we are today.
We now have four districts that have met the backlog goal.
The second District has has accomplished that in the six months
since we've done our update.
And you can see our statewide number as of December 1st was down
to just 580 cases remaining, again, kind of above
that pre-pandemic level.
There was a bit of a change
on last week with the annual conference.
We can see those numbers fluctuate on on those weeks,
but we expect to continue to see these numbers decline.
So putting this into kind of graphical form, again,
we talk about the backlog in terms of our pending caseload.
This is a graph that's familiar to those who have been on the council
for new members.
This is a trend line of our total statewide, active, pending
major criminal caseload.
So you can see all the way on the left are March
2020 levels, which was denoted that dotted line on the bottom.
That's where we were.
The pandemic spikes are active, not our number of active pending caseload.
Major criminal cases.
You can see that trend.
The first kind of vertical line is when we implemented our goal
and at that point we had over 49,000 active pending major criminal cases.
And since then you can see that marked decline towards
where we were as of December 1st was 36,000.
Again, just 583 above that March 2020 level.
So that being said, amazing progress right
here.
The now 71 counties have met their that their backlog goal.
Either they resolved it before of November 2021,
they have resolved it during this period
or they were part of a district that has met the backlog goal.
So again, when we were here in July, it was 68 counties were up to 71.
Now we were at three districts now, right. For
so with that kind of brief update,
there are two points for discussion today,
as has been through the seven previous presentations on this topic.
We've talked about strategies
and and how we can kind of finish out these last piece,
but also a clarification in November of 2022, Jad brought the clarification
piece about the definition of what it means to meet the backlog.
And at that point the council agreed with the definition
that if all counties within a district or excuse me, if a district met the goal,
that would mean all counties that the goal, even if an individual county
hadn't quite reduced their their backlog, their backlog cases down to zero.
So the question for the council today is if we can expand that
to the state and district idea is if the state reaches zero, does that mean
all districts have met the goal,
even if we know that
some individual districts have haven't met their individual goal?
So a clarification on that question as well as just a discussion
on our remaining strategies to to get through the rest of the year.
The remaining thousand cases or so.
Great.
Thank you very much, Grant.
Maybe we could go through
talking with the districts that are still working
to meet their backlog, kind of what you're doing at this point.
So we've got districts three, four,
five, six, nine and ten that still have a little bit of a backlog.
Judge Beutel, you want to start us off? Yes.
Good morning.
Glad to see everyone in the third Judicial District.
We've had some of our counties have gone below their backlog number.
But even with these negative backlog numbers,
sometimes those have even increased in some of our county.
So we got at our backlog number got below, but then have seen an increase
just through case loads and in in practices.
And this impacts our ability to get to our
our zero district wide goal.
We're continuing to utilize the strategies
that got us to zero in those counties.
Yet some local circumstances can be challenging.
I think we're all seeing turnover rates within county office
and public defender's office in positions that are open
and that is creating some some concern for us
in one of our larger counties.
We have utilized additional judges,
judge unit personnel and court staff to staff additional trial calendars.
And that has been successful in in in getting some cases resolved.
But we haven't seen an overall, you
impact that we had hoped for
going forward.
We continue to have communities doing kind of mini pandemics,
settlement conferences where they meet monthly with county
attorney or clinic attorney staff, public defenders, and
and look at cases that maybe can get resolved,
ones that really do need their trial date and get to court.
We're also contemplating some additional strategies like was utilized
in the second, the fourth to have unique appear
in front of the chief judge to see
what's the hang up on the case, what can we do to get it either
resolved or to trial in and get working on those older cases that that really is
you know, hits that that phrase justice delayed is justice denied.
Thank you.
I know the fourth had some success with that.
So, yeah.
Judge Meier, you want to talk about maybe more success coming?
Let's talk about that success for a moment.
So we met our backlog.
We you know, we have fewer pending gross misdemeanors than we did.
And that's been true for a while
because of the things we implemented in January of 23.
We really quickly got rid of the gross misdemeanor backlog, and we continue
to be below the number of pending gross misdemeanors from March of 2020.
It's felonies that are continued to be at.
I like last week's number better than this week's number.
So we'll use the one on your screen.
Thanks.
And that is
a lot of that is partner turnover.
We've had so many experienced public defenders and
and a large number of assistant county attorneys leave.
And every time there's a new attorney from either side
on a case that that they're not ready for trial.
And so you know we had 135
felony trials set this week, got as many of those out possible.
It was not 135, though.
We had to continue a lot of them.
So that continues to be the the
the issue continues to be a lack of actual
attorneys to do what we know
finishes felonies, which is have a trial that leads to resolution.
And once and attorneys and trial,
they don't look at their next four or five cases that are set.
And I offer them as much calendar time as possible.
And but there's just times when the cases have to be continued.
So we I think that's the main reason why we saw the backlog.
That and the incoming work has really increased our jail.
I watched that the number every day.
Our population has been extremely high
for the last month
and that leads to and it's more than 80% felonies in the jail.
And so that means there's more cases coming in. So
I'll continue to work individually with the offices,
but I don't have the magic for the felonies.
And but I know that's where the issue is. Yeah.
Thank you.
And the fifth judge bench
and said
this was the seventh time here And I'd like to say that
those tend to be the meetings that Judge Anderson misses because
that corner third time reporting.
But I will say that he is in trial today.
So hopefully that will bring our number down by one.
We are continuing to do work
to try to free up time for the judges to address these calendars.
We Have senior judges in one county
that are doing misdemeanor calendars a couple of times a month.
And in the other county senior judge, again,
hearing trials try to address some of those older cases.
We are also continuing to work on
across county calendars, both eviction
and conciliation calendars, again, to try to free up some time with that.
I think our biggest challenge is we're down to two counties
that haven't met the backlog yet.
The other 13 have.
And again, as other people have said, with
turnovers and staff and
attorneys being ready as well as just
some struggles with some of the justice partners
and getting them on board with addressing the backlog.
So that's all I have.
Thank you.
And judge hires.
Thank you, Chief.
The sixth is a four county district.
We cleared out our backlog in Saint Louis County.
That's our our largest
area.
Half of our judges are in Saint Louis County.
So we've cleared that.
Our three smallest counties.
We still have a backlog.
Cook, Lake and Carlton, Broken Lake.
Judge Clouzot retired
at the beginning of October and you saw his replacement in last week.
So that's the first part of our strategy is to actually have a chamber judge
in those two counties.
Sounds like a great place to start.
Yeah, you know, it's
it's kind of a basic thing.
We have used a senior judges.
We've used judges from Duluth
to to backfill his absence.
We've also taken their trial calendars
and we have a weekly call calendar where we kind of deploy our assets.
We've brought that into our trial calendar, Cook and Lake,
so we can use our available Duluth judges
to have those cases ready to go,
even though Saint Louis County is clear.
Is having has struggled a little bit.
They've added in-person calendars.
They continue to hold backlogged resolution case events.
Last month, their clearance rate was 283%.
So I'm optimistic that they'll clear
that they'll clear their backlog
by summer.
Carleton County has really been a major challenge to Judge County.
It has been 80% of our backlog.
There's a facility issue there.
There should be two functioning courtrooms.
There's only one.
You're in the process of building
justice are our judges There are working really hard.
They have a very high clearance rate.
I just don't know that they can work any harder.
Filings are way
we continue to use
senior judges, provide some support from Duluth.
They're sending out lists of cases
that are ready for resolution.
And I mean, they're they're trying hard.
the most recent
email that went out to the Justice partners
had a subject line of free coffee and coffees
and then encouraged them to read to the bottom of the list.
At the bottom of the email.
They talked about their next backlog reduction event.
So that remains to be seen if that's if that's been effective.
But but, but I'm concerned about being able to clear that backlog.
And I don't know
with the other counties if if we can bring them along with us.
Judge Byers, did I hear you say 80% of your backlog is in?
Is there? Yes.
Okay.
Here they have 78 cases and our total backlog is
70, actually.
yeah.
I guess that shows I'm not very good at statistics, but
we were were
we were like 100 -160 in Duluth.
So that impacts the number.
But they have it's a problem
adjusted for the
for the ninth District.
We've improved in the last week even since last data.
So we're at 97% reduction.
We are getting very close.
We have had 13 counties that met their backlog goals quite some time ago.
So we have four counties
a little similar to the six four counties that are struggling for.
Some different reasons.
One, they didn't have a licensed county attorney.
That obviously slows things down.
They had somebody there now and that judge has is working hard.
I think I saw a 450% clearance rate at one point.
So I'm optimistic that county now is going to be
their backlog for the other three counties.
There's a variety of different reasons,
and they've
changed really over the time that we've been tracking the information.
I can say that
it's not old cases, so it isn't that work isn't being done.
I know that in one of our counties, a larger
one that has a backlog were a number of homicides that
needed to get tried.
And it was difficult to try those kinds of cases during COVID.
And those cases are being tried.
Those are there, they are working, they are talking.
And a little bit
what Judge Myers said, I'm not sure that there's something
that we would ask of them more than what they're doing.
We continue to use a number of the same strategies we have.
The referees who just wonderful
for our district, freeing up time, but also just being very positive
in terms of how much work they're getting done and their personalities
being positive for our district.
They have added major criminal calendars.
There have been some justice partner meetings, there have been case
resolution days that have had some positive impact.
We are tracking the data,
tracking it weekly at this point.
And I can for those counties that haven't met their backlog tracking that weekly.
And so what I can say is that there's some challenges there
because I think there's some charging that's been sitting around
that people are getting to at this point.
So it's newer
that are overwhelming our ability to get to that specific backlog number.
So there is while the definition is known
and there is some acceptance that that is the definition, certainly
there is bristling to the idea that that's the right way to evaluate
their overall effectiveness and productivity and that may be fair.
So that's why I do want to say that I think that all cases
are being taken care of.
So that's not something that's being ignored.
I think that's a positive thing.
Probably the only new thing that's happening now
is that there is going to be more of a move to being a directive
in ordering people to in-person hearings at certain times and the public
who are somewhat overwhelmed in those particular counties
and ask for that to be delayed until January 1st.
And we'll see if that has more of an impact.
Again, I think overall, our district will be able to meet its goal
and fantastic.
And then lastly, Judge Strand.
Thank you, Chief.
I'm pleased to announce
that six of our eight counties in the 10th have reached their clearance goals.
I Santee County was the most recently added county.
That, of course, means two counties remain, one being sherburn,
the other Anoka.
Sherburne County is a county with four judges.
And when I reached out to their bench to get an update on their efforts
to get at the backlog, the response was We've taken back all of our chambers time.
We're working after hours.
We have to work on our UAS on the weekends.
We're working hard and they are.
And I think the clearance rates in Sherburn prove that
in October their clearance rate was 202%.
In November it was a little lower at 118%,
but consistently they're averaging over 100%.
They only have 66 cases in their backlog
as of Monday, according to the pandemic Board grant.
You're nodding.
Okay Good.
I'm reading the right thing. Okay.
And so they are well within striking distance
and they're confident that they can get there
in August, taking a aggressive approach.
There's no doubt that they have higher numbers there in their backlog.
And so what Anoka did earlier this year is
they took a look at where these numbers are coming from.
They've identified that
half of their backlog numbers are gross misdemeanor offenses coming
primarily from three cities within Anoka County,
and that a third of those gross misdemeanors are drug related offenses.
Because of that, they've now mandated that they're drug docket cases.
The gross misdemeanor drug cases, that those appearances are made in person
because it fosters better negotiating.
An administrative order was issued in August in Anoka County,
assigning six of their 16 judges to oversee the felony cases,
another six judges to oversee the gross misdemeanor cases, which is really enhance
accountability oversight of these cases.
The administrative order also mandates that all continuance
requests must be made in writing and vetted by these judges,
that any best and final offers made by prosecutors
shall be made at least three days before any pretrial hearing.
And I think that it's taken some time
to see if this model is going to be successful.
And the numbers are proving out it's taken time.
But in October, I know because clearance rate was 139%
and then it was 135% for November.
And as of Monday, they needed a clearance of 133.
So they're right on par for at this pace for clearing their backlog.
So everybody's working hard and we're trending in the right direction.
Chief rate, I just want to say thank you to all of the districts for the incredible
hard work that you continue to do to bring these backlog numbers down.
And I'm really encouraged to hear from the districts that are not quite there,
some of the unique efforts that you're engaged in to get there
just to share.
And I was just particularly interested in what you just said.
Your courts took a look at
what are the cases
that are holding us back and those gross misdemeanor drug cases saying, well, maybe
if we pull those folks in here in person, they're more likely to get resolved.
And I think it's that kind of unique efforts
and looking individually at your respective calendars to see
what what's causing the logjam and what can we do about that.
So I think that kind of innovative thinking
is what's going to get us there, all of us there
at the end of the day.
But I'm really encouraged by the ideas and initiatives that I hear
from all of the districts And I can tell you, we're all working very,
very hard and your people are all working very, very hard.
We just want to continue to encourage that while at the same time
recognizing that we're still dealing with human beings.
And and we need some balance in our work lives and our personal lives.
And we don't you know, we don't want to push people so hard
that we cause other problems on the other end, but nevertheless,
making sure people continue to know and appreciate
that this is an important goal that the branch has.
So I'm really pleased with what I've heard.
And we'll we'll just keep pushing and and keep trying to get there.
And I know that we will.
So so thank you all for the efforts that that you're engaged in.
And next
on our agenda is number five, which is the only thing.
Chief, I just I think we as
Chad have talked about this if our statewide number.
That's right.
It's two 100, we're going to claim victory.
Walk away. I agree.
Thank you for.
That reminder, we appreciate the districts that are all helping us get there.
And some are still trying to get there.
But we can't continue this forever and ever.
We need to declare victory sooner rather than later,
especially as I go over to the legislature.
Okay.
I all in favor of that.
I think that's the idea. Yes.
Who will claim victory? Yes.
Thank you, Jeff.
All righty.
And I think that's a fair assessment.
Actually, I think it's a good victory.
You just want to. Yes.
Just to say one comment, I just want make one comment
that that we are not the only place that is struggling with these issues.
I had occasion to go with a group to Scotland
and spent some time talking to their district court
equivalents, call them sheriffs over there instead of district court judges.
And I asked them, you know, how would you identify your two biggest problems?
And the two things they told me were, first, we have great difficulty
coming up with psychologists and psychiatrists to deal with so,
you know, psychological issues related to criminal prosecution.
And the second thing they said was, you know, and we have this problem
with our major criminal backlog as, a result of COVID.
I'm saying I traveled 2000 miles.
I could go to my Judicial council meeting on a monthly basis to hear this. But
I just think that
it is we've made great progress here.
And we're not the only
we're not the only court system struggling with these issues.
Absolutely Absolutely.
All righty. Great.
Thank you, Justice Anderson.
We'll move to number five, which is a discussion item, which is the
proposed revisions to judicial Council policy 2221
dealing with court reporter transcript rates.
And I think we've got some folks here from the legal counsel division.
Liz is here.
So are you there? Yes, you are.
Okay, go ahead, Liz.
You have the mic on.
Good morning, late afternoon to everyone.
It's great to see a few familiar faces in this room.
I will do my best to be respectful that I believe I'm between you and lunch.
So with that being said, policy to 21
before you right now is regarding court reporter transcript breaks
the first
well the reason we're here today you'll see in paragraph seven of page
100, one of your counsel packets indicates that the Judicial Council
will review this policy in every odd numbered year.
The three proposed amendments before you this morning,
starting with the introductory policy statement,
is updating a reference to Supreme Court order.
See 142137.
And that reflects the consolidation with administrative order
ten 8049
Second Amendment is to correct paragraphs
one and two within this policy to add on
the words per page.
after the dollar amount that you see,
I believe that fell off during some prior amendment discussions.
So it's, it's merely to add that in.
And lastly, the Third Amendment is to modify,
modify paragraph four to add references to the court rules
for both the general practice rule and the Court of Appeals
rule reflecting methods and procedures for providing transcripts.
So with that, I would submit
this policy to the Council here today for discussion.
Happy to answer any questions you might have,
any discussion,
or are we addressing the rights
at this time?
That's not one of the proposed amendments before the Council.
I would know back in October of 2021, we did address the rates.
The transcript raised rates increased by a dollar,
and that was the first increase from, 2006
to 2021, which I don't know the percentage.
I won't venture a random guess of what increase was.
We also removed the copy rate, so we ultimately cut the rate.
We said we were increasing it, but it ultimately was reduced
and then we reduced the IFP to a flat rate
and we reduced the sexually dangerous person transcript rates.
It is an odd numbered year.
I guess I would wonder if we couldn't readdress
that issue those issues.
I believe that is something that we can look into and we would
solicit feedback from various parties
that we requested it from for the prior
price discussion.
I okay.
I that's what I'm asking.
We do please
either that I would support that.
I think it is consistent with our policy that we review it in number
numbered years.
And so it seems like it's something that I know we probably do it
by the end of December at this point, but it seems like we should review it
and gives the court reporters a chance to weigh in.
Thoughts on that?
Well, the last time we did this, we also went out to partners
who are paying these rates and, asked them for their input,
because I know some
of them will say you can propose one, but
I have to go and see if the legislature will fund me to pay for them.
So Maybe what we could do is try to bring back some input
and suggestions for January and see if we can make a decision, yes or no.
In between something so that at least somebody would have
a chance to talk to the legislature about their own budgets.
It is a non budget year, so sometimes we've given them a whole year
to get prepared, but that's a discussion
we can have in January.
So may we ask for input from the court reporters
as to what's challenging for them as it pertains to the current structure?
Well, this not a bargaining issue, so we wouldn't
be going to the union with this far as I know.
We'd have to try to figure out some other way
with a representative group of reporters to see what they think would be fair.
Don't we have the group that they sit on?
just an education for me because I had a question about it,
and I assume that there's a difference between a bargaining issue
and a meet and confer issue, and I have no idea what triggers a meeting.
Confer
This is not part of the labor contract.
This is totally separate under Judicial Council policy.
So it's not bargained.
It's not controlled by the union.
We don't go to the union has no say over it.
It's not a contractual obligation.
So the only way we do this is through judicial council policy.
It's not something under the contract.
Okay.
And I think Judge Lennon was suggesting
we just had a group of representative court reporters
talk about the other policy that we're hopefully deciding.
We could certainly get some input from them.
The last time we addressed this, didn't
we gather a lot of information from different like the federal courts?
And I just remember we had a pretty extensive
packet of information to make this determination.
So I don't know, maybe we can resurrect that.
Yeah, we can go back and look at some of the analysis we did the last time.
You're right.
I think we also did some surveying
nationally to see what was happening with the court.
What a transcript reads.
I have two points as well.
I was newer and I recall that the pilot really
at the forefront at the time the rate increases were being reviewed.
And so that was really a huge discussion point.
I think it impacted that. And with the
impact with
inflation that's been talked about at almost every piece of budgets,
I wonder if we shouldn't at least discuss it.
I don't know if we'll make any changes, but at least we should for due diligence,
I think we should have a discussion about it.
Okay.
Well, it sounds like there's a desire to just gather a little bit more information.
Look at what we did last time, maybe put to have
a conversation with court reporters to see what their their thoughts are.
And we can come back in January and revisit
it again.
Sounds like looks like there's consensus for that.
I'm seeing heads nodding. Okay.
All right. Well, that's what we'll do then.
Thank you.
This seems like a good point to break for lunch, so let's do that
all already.
Thank you.
Will come back after lunch. Next
by an hour,
45 minutes from now.
okay.
We have a lot to you.
Yeah, let's say about half an hour.
Let's say about a half an hour because we've got a lot to get through.
So 1230.
Thank you.
Want to get back to it.
I believe we are on
decision item number six.
Is that where we are? Thank you.
I believe we're on number six, which is are the proposed revisions
Judicial Council policy 523
the storage of captured records of court proceedings
and judicial Council policy five 23.1
regarding capturing of the record of court proceedings
and our last meeting, Deb, please walk us through the proposed revisions
to these two policies made in response to the 2023 statewide court records audit.
Of course, as we all know, Deb retired on December 5th,
and Liz is here to walk us through the amended
revisions based upon our discussions from the last meeting.
So, Liz, go.
Thank you, Chief.
I will now try to be respectful
that I am after lunch for all of you in
bad positions.
Either way.
So this policy begins on page,
I believe, 111 of your counsel packets, as was stated it was before you
at the last meeting where Legal received some feedback
and we were directed to gather some additional information
to potentially implement in these two policies.
So following the meeting, what we did is we consulted with IT
professionals, court reporters, district administrators and managers,
and their feedback in light of the goals and directives
that were outlined in that audit you all reviewed a few months ago.
Those are what prompted the changes
in the policies before you.
There are six primary changes to note
if you look at the PDFs, all of the changes between the November
meeting and the current meeting are highlighted with a double underline.
So if you want a quick glance or if you already have, that's how those were
shown in the document.
So we listen
to a lot of the concerns raised administrators.
We heard comments about workload and access in response to that.
One of the first primary differences to highlight is the elimination
of the requirement that filings be monitored by court administrators
or designees for audio and visible characters.
SECONDS There's a change
for consistency purposes from just log notes in some places to now,
it consistently logged notes and tags throughout both policies,
and that was primarily for consistency with definitions.
Third, we and tried to clarify
a no filing submission provision,
and that would occur in the event that there is a calendar.
But perhaps it took place off the record
and that was to alleviate instances we saw in the audit
where a calendar showed there should have been a record. But
and they kept searching, but it wasn't available so that no filing
would hopefully eliminate and signify that there wasn't a record
to be found in the repository
force.
We added further clarification about the individual requirements
for filing between stenographic
e-cars and OHS when the record is taken
in one county and includes cases, venues and other counties.
So we just further broke that out to make it clear about what
those individual responsibilities would be.
Number five, additional efforts
to clarify the frequency and scope and monitoring.
So that's found in policy.
523 Section G.
And that was in the interest of providing
various guideposts
after hearing feedback that obviously different counties,
different workloads, different concerns, different amounts of calendars per day.
So that's what was tried.
That's what we tried to address with that change.
And lastly,
following the meeting and following
submission of the documents before you,
we did catch
and have would propose a change to the definition in policy.
523 Definition I changing
that paper notes are generated on a standard graphic machine
instead of a shorthand machine.
So I have nothing additional
to add beyond those six highlighted items and I would submit both amended
policies to you this morning or afternoon I should say, for
the Council's decision
is the question.
I know it's in there and I don't recall it,
but I did get a question, so I thought I'd just ask you, since you're the expert,
the hearings
that occur in multiple years, what is that
proposed change that we're recommending
so that you.
I think I can respond.
So I think it was just to clarify how the stenographer would do it.
We have two different approaches for standard graphic.
There's a form they complete and that's supposed to be uploaded,
I believe, with the information that goes to the repository
so that whoever has to go to the record would then be able to see that form
and locate where those various records are.
And then I think as far as electronic goes, and I don't think
this has really changed, but maybe we provided some additional clarification
those folks actually have to do like a service desk ticket
and then it has to go into the system
and ensure that the record is where it needs to be.
Was that help?
Yes, and that's why I was asking, is there any consideration
now, especially with remote hearings being so dominant and multiple counties
crossing with this
reconsidered, since it's probably likely our reporters
especially live electronic, which are increasing as employees
and have an easier process?
Or is it just not possible?
It's not possible right now, but that doesn't mean we won't keep looking.
I have just a question.
About five 23.1 of
certified was removed completely
and the certified system
added to it as an area, noting
they were not, but then nothing was added to the standards and their certification.
Is that because you assume a center that's been hired is certified
one of the
my understanding of one of the reasons for that is
for purposes of these policies is we want to keep it
broad and also highlight that these are minimum standards.
And also certain counties
may contract with stenographic reporters that have different
qualifications that might not be consistent across counties.
So that was my understanding of why that certified
was removed from that definition.
Whereas for the other ones
there are certification processes for REOs and
those are done through the state.
Yeah, other policies.
So there seems to be a crossover though between certified
to take the record versus certified to prepare a transcript.
And I didn't know why In this redundant record policy we're changing
the definition to as who is certified to wear a transcript.
So if I down like it is electronic or.
Reporter it was changed from a reporter who is certified to capture the record
to a reporter who captures the record and is approved
just and is certified to prepare and distribute transcripts.
Why are we why are we doing that in this policy
when what we're talking about is redundant record?
My understanding is that when we had the court reporter group come,
you know, we've got representatives from the fourth District
and I believe this has to do with the rare occasion
on which they have to send the transcript out to be produced
through a memorandum of understanding they have with a separate vendor.
So we needed to have more
flexibility to permit them to do that,
to permit
transfer outside of the district to prepare the record, correct?
Well, to prepare the transcript prepared the transcript excuse me.
Right.
Hands out what
this policy is supposed to be doing that
I thought this was just about how we're maintaining
our redundant record.
Well, I mean.
Well, I'd have to go back and try to look at the.
I feel slightly disadvantaged, Deb, here
saying, well, I'll be honest.
So, you know, from what I understand, this was a change
that was recommended through the group as we were reviewing the policy.
So a part of this, I think is about
when we were doing the work previously with the court record work group
and who would be able to produce the record, who owns the record?
You know, there were concerns about that.
So we tried to, I think, stipulate in this policy some of those requirements.
But because the Forth has had some issues
with the number of court reporters, they have to produce the record.
I believe we made the change here so that they would have more flexibility
in those rare instances where.
They needed it.
I guess I'm just a little concerned
that we would eliminate any definition of what we mean
to have somebody who's certified to do a transcript
I understand, needing more flexibility, but
wouldn't it maybe make more sense to have a definition of what we mean by
somebody who can take the transcript with an exception written into the policy?
I think we can explore that further.
Any other thoughts or questions?
If we do that, it sounds like then we would not be prepared to
to go and come back. Come back.
So let's look into that.
Thank you for those comments and we'll look into that and put this back on.
The agenda for what do you think done.
And next month, let's try to do that if there's room.
Yeah.
All right.
We'll put that back on the agenda for
January.
Okay.
Thank you.
The next item on the agenda is number seven, which is also a decision item.
It's the treatment court cannabis work group budget proposal.
And we've got Cecilia Bliss from state court
treatment coordinator and Shelly Ellison.
And they were here last month
to discuss the budget recommendations.
As you'll recall, the legislature appropriated
1.5 million in the FBI, 2425
in FY 2425 and 2.5 million
in 2627 for treatment.
Courts through this adult use cannabis legislation,
and the workgroup is recommending using the funding
to expand access to treatment courts, provide micro
grants to support high need costs, and for training and education.
And so today we need to decide whether to adopt those recommendations or not.
Do you
guys have anything you want to say before we have or the the attachment?
And what Cecilia has on
on the screen is the there's been no changes
from the presentation that was was given last month.
If you want, we can certainly go through real, real quickly for a refresher.
Otherwise, with no changes being made, we're basically asking for
for the council's approval to allocate the funds in the way
we discussed last month and to provide Chad with the ability
to have some flexibility to move money back and forth as needed
to ensure that we're spending the funding that's been given
since.
Speaking with Judge Martel,
I don't think I'm going to get my way with 100% funding at the court.
So with that I would motion for approval.
So we have a motion and a second
all in favor say I, I any opposed
that is approved already.
Thank so much.
Yeah.
The next item on
the agenda is number number eight.
It is also a decision item.
This is the law recommendations.
Judge Knutson is going to lead us through that.
We've got some recommendations again that are here before us.
My thought was we would on each of these
recommendations separately,
although I know a judge cannot.
And where you go, Judge, can I do why I'm always looking people to be coming in.
You're fast.
Guys are fast.
I know you wanted to at some point here,
open it up to discuss some of what what our financial priorities might be.
So I'll let you handle that as you see fit.
But go ahead, Judge Knutson, I think you just filed in your packet.
We of course, we have a again, policy 900
that hopefully guides and structures our conversation
as to why we would include things in a legislative package, why you would.
That's basically what the Law Committee
did in order to meetings
month.
And remember, we went through 12 recommendations
that they
recommended to council and they would like to do
yeah, very shortly.
And then you guys have
questions and you might have problem
with how we organize
some of
I'm sorry and start with
the financial recommendations.
So the, the first one and then so what I like to do is do is just briefly
touch on each one of the recommendations and then hopefully
entertain any motion.
So the first one is that 2020 for safe and secure courthouse
initiative, as you remember, this is a one time request for $500,000,
which is kind of the grant program to remodel or to institute
security measures in courthouses around the state.
Many courthouses and, counties have been the recipients of this.
We felt that this was appropriate to seek
further funding on this, as we have in the past.
The questions are discussion
on that initiative.
And I just say again, as we're going to get
and I'd like to get through these
funding ones and then and then talk about prioritization
after we've figured out what we're going to go through
or recommend with the
additional requests we want to motion.
Yeah, any any motion
high circuit
proposal is the is what we heard from this morning,
and that's the expanded access to forensic examiners.
There's two parts to this proposal.
One is a $14.575 million
per year appropriation to increase the rates
and address the debt, the deficit due to the increased demand for services.
The second part of this is to expand
and the roster and the
the folks that are capable and qualified to do the examinations
we propose are.
The discussion this morning touched a little bit on both of these
and would help with our
deficit and our access
to those examiners
that can answer
yes we include screeners as a potential part
of this
line item
itself.
You know we go through I should also tell you that
since our last meeting,
we've received new two new proposals.
The proposals just keep coming.
I'm not suggesting a new proposal.
I'm suggesting slip into something in your slide.
It is maybe.
And then we got to go over to the legislature and explain
how this is all going to go down.
How much is that going to cost
and whether these they actually going to do
and how is it going to be implemented statewide and all the rest.
And that's why we do all of this lead up with law and then the two meetings
with Judicial Council and then our presentation of the budget
to the executive branch in the legislature. I'm ready.
Go, because we got it.
Well,
it's helpful to us understand the
the whole process.
The other thing that's changed between our last meeting
and this meeting is we have a new budget forecast that sort of
has a tail, like a positive in the immediate future
and a potential negative and a more long term outlook.
And I think it might worthwhile for us
to talk about that before we start going through all of the well.
And that's why I said let's just get through these
these five, four
and, and, and,
and then we can talk about priorities if you'd like,
unless we want you want to just
eliminate some of these proposals upfront.
I mean, my concern is that we're we're talking
approving appropriation based
proposals.
And I would just like to hear about
what the what the
potential viability of that is or how we might be perceived
at the legislature, given given the long term outlook, if anybody's had discussions
with folks across the street about that, I think it might be held.
Last meeting, Jeff talked about his discussions with me
and with the governor's office.
The chief has met with speaker and majority leader.
And so that's all being done.
And and I guess I would suggest that
as once we get over there, if things change, everything changes.
I mean, we don't know what the legislature's going to bite into
and what they're going to be more likely to do than not.
But at least from our branch
law and the proposals
that are coming from within the branch say that we've got these needs
and should we include this in our legislative package and or not,
is that a need?
And then that's why I, I think there was a recommendation.
I think I judge you.
You talked about it last meeting.
Let's talk about priorities.
And so I'd like to talk about those priorities and and give the chief
of the benefit of the thoughts of the Judicial Council.
So when we get over there, we got to say, you know, we just can't do that.
There is no money, but we do want to fight for
just this one thing or top priority or whatever.
And those are decisions that are kind of spur of the moment that the chief and Jeff
sort of make when they're in that moment of either they agree or they don't.
We don't get any money or whatever it is.
So I hear your
I hear your concern and I share it and, but I think we'll be able to pull that in.
I think it might be best if we can do to the suggesting
just sort of get the the the council's approval on the each individual item.
And then when we get to the end, we know, okay, these are the things we
we agreed we want to do and then we can talk about
well what's number one and what's number two?
Because in light of that budget projection
and then we can kind of have that more global discussion.
So I love this question because of course we need to be thinking about this
and we have money on the bottom line for this biennium and a projected deficit.
We've also got a long way to go.
We don't know what the governor's going to do at that press conference.
He and the leadership in my mind did not seem that concerned about this deficit.
So are they going to leave
billions of dollars on the bottom line and not spend it?
They seem to think it's going to grow the economy by spending all this money.
So I don't want to sacrifice our proposals not knowing what the governor's
going to do and what leadership is going to do at this point.
Also, we got a February forecast, stock markets up.
We could see who knows what kind of change we're going to see by then.
So I do think we need to leave a little bit of flexibility.
But I'm very conservative. I agree with you.
I would probably not be spending all that money. But
the party in charge are going to not spend it.
I don't know.
That's my $0.02.
So absolutely the most important point.
Absolutely.
But what what are we going
to have that discussion about
is what I'm asking now.
So we've approved the safe and secure
courthouse, at least
preliminarily here.
So the expanded access rate increase for the forensic examiners
and then the statutory change to look at out of state practitioners
and then but of course, that's going to have to be followed up with the rules
and some other considerations that that the committee
brought before judicial counsel this morning.
Any motion
moved and seconded, all in favor
saying I would be opposed.
Okay.
Next one is the interpreter rates.
This is a request for 1.5 million that ongoing funding to
increase the rates and to
address deficit.
Any further questions or discussion?
An interpreter again, as part of the mandate
mandated services that Dan talked about earlier
this morning as well
the questions that are saying
that their job has gotten easier by way of they've been able to appear remotely.
I'm I'm not sure I think it's a priority to raise their rates.
It may not be a priority.
Do you want to include it at all in as a possibility in our package
or eliminate that from our legislative package?
So I don't know if I would characterize
being able to do it remotely as making the job easier.
I think some of the I think some of it could could actually make it right.
You know, and and we do have a new payment policy
that is going into effect on the eighth and there are
there are some
potential challenges with the new payment policy.
And and I think we aren't going to know whether those challenges are recognized.
And until we get there or not,
we have not been able to make
a substantial interpreter rate increase for some time.
And so I also think about market value and market rate.
And, you know, are we going to be able to secure interpreters
to provide coverage in our courtroom?
So I guess from an administrative standpoint, I would
I would support this particular item.
That's a motion
at some time voting.
Okay, You get a motion, a
moved and seconded all in favor say I,
I opposed
the next year the juror experience.
This was the discussion and the recommendation from law
was to increase the jury per diem from $20 per day to $100 a day,
increase the mileage from $0.54 a mile to 65.5 cents a mile,
and to provide various trauma services to jurors when necessary and needed.
And that's estimated to
be about 10 million a year
And this came from court services,
and it's kind of been hanging around for a while
as a proposal.
This is crucially important
that we pass this and that we this and that it be one of our priorities.
It's of what I've heard from state court, administration
research, people who've been helping us figure out how to get people
to come to our juries and to be represented.
This is one of the number one things we can get,
and that's emotion
seconded.
All in favor.
Say I, I
look at
law did not recommend that we deal with that
because it deals with interpreters and we we didn't
it wasn't clear to us what the pay differential would be between
they would they would get a higher rate of pay at trials.
And so that's not a good
laws.
And that was that that was the part of number four of the original proposal.
We didn't think it was appropriate that it was part of the juror experience.
We've got interpreters at your door for jury trials
and that interpreter issue should be dealt
with in the interpreter package.
And clarify,
I was the motion to approve Tennessee
or was the motion to approve and make that a priority the juror experience?
It was just a motion.
Thank you.
All right.
I think we had a second. And did we vote?
We did. Okay. Thank you.
I think it was the and then the the fifth proposal
came in a little late, but it was part of our discussion
last month, which was to enhance cybersecurity,
was originally number 13 in your materials.
This is an ongoing request for funding 1.75
million year
specifically to subscribe
to 24 seven 365 days security operations, monitoring threats to the Minnesota
judicial branch in real time
to purchase enhanced Microsoft security monitoring, licensing for all branch
employees, revamp the identity management solution
to better safeguard and extend the services offered to branch customers.
This came to light,
of course through numerous news articles and issues that showing
the tremendous increase in cyber crime
and hacking and then the state of Kansas
judicial branch experienced a cybersecurity event that shut down
much of the court operations.
So to be prepared to make sure we're
fully functioning at all times and can defend against those attacks.
This is what came forward from our I.T.
group,
and this is ongoing funding
me discussion or questions
and emotion
moved in second it all in favor say I.
I closed
hearing none in those
five financial proposals.
So let me just
look at it this way.
We've got courthouse security.
We've done those before.
That's half a million one time funding.
We've got the forensic examiners at 14.5.
We had that presentation this morning.
We have interpreters at 1.5 million.
We have the juror experience at 10 million,
which again, is an issue that's been around and is a concern of
how do we keep jurors happy and come in and responding to summonses
and then cybersecurity at 1.75.
So the total package is about 28.25 million
a year.
But we're asking for that, that that would be part of our base and continue.
So it's about a 6.2% increase to our budget.
And as Judge Chris points out, it's
could be a lift depending on
how the legislature views the February forecast.
So to provide
the chief and Jeff
some guidance, where where do we stand? And
I don't know that we necessarily
are going to vote on this, but I think we should have the discussion.
And I would suggest for a discussion perspective
or to start the discussion.
Let me just throw out that
talking with a few folks
of forensic examiners,
number one,
cybersecurity two
juror experience
number three,
interpreter number four,
courthouse security grant number five.
But since that's only one time money that might be able to
we might be able to move that up and get that without
too much of a push since it's only half a million.
But again, this this is again in negotiations and discussions
that do we have a champion over there do on any of these issues?
Do we is it gone through? It passes.
It's supported by leadership.
Is the governor's office supporting that proposal or this proposal and
and instantaneous decisions?
Maybe after targets come out and the chairs are wrestling with
how much money they have, What what is the chief and Jeff
going to tell the chairs of the committee and what guidance
can we give them on these financial
requests?
So discussion
start.
And so we just voted to put together a statewide group
to talk about mental health services, and that will help with
some of that funding and be able to support our request.
But we're working on it.
The jury thing is huge.
In my district, our per diem is less than the cost to park in the building.
It is our numbers are percentage of people showing up for summonses
has gone down dramatically since the beginning of the pandemic.
We did a lot of extensions, but now they just don't come
and we've got to do something for them.
And that last piece, which I know this is a financial, but the last piece of it
about having services for them when they have a very traumatic trial,
I don't know that that has a direct cost, but it's very, very important for us.
I think for any of us who have had difficult trials,
we have jurors who really suffer after to be able
to offer that, even if they don't take us up on it, is huge. So
personally, that's extreme.
It's more important than number three or four on a list.
To me, the juror piece, of course, cybersecurity is very important.
It feels, though, like it's always something we're working on
and that we make a step forward in the the hackers make a bigger step forward.
I don't know how we actually make progress on that,
but I personally think the pieces most important to my district
would rank that number one
personally. Yes.
Just to supplement Judge Myers comments, the
the impact of jurors not being able to afford
to come to come to jury duty impacts,
of course, those that are
the poorest,
which also, frankly, impacts the diversity of our jury pools.
So I support Judge Meier
in this increase in order to help
everything that she mentioned and also diversify
our jury pools.
I was the first chair of the statewide cybersecurity committee
that was established by the chief, former chief justice.
And I saw some things that I hope that I would never see.
And I think that the state of Kansas saw that earlier this summer,
where their entire system from the district court
all the way up was completely shut down for a pretty significant period of time.
And I,
I it's
imperative for all of our services that we provide
to stay ahead of the next thing that's coming.
And the only way to do that is to invest in cybersecurity.
We can't have trials, we can't have appeals,
we can't have anything unless our systems are operational.
And so it's also a huge it was a hugely embarrassing
for the judicial branch, Kansas, to have to shut down because of the attack.
So I don't I don't want that to happen to us.
So I would suggest that we prioritize
I think a relatively small ask over at the legislature for cybersecurity.
I really agree with Judge Frisch on that,
because if our system is shut down, if we end up like Kansas,
we can't reach out to jurors, we can't contact our forensic navigators.
Well, I mean, we'll be completely paralyzed.
So I think that in my mind rings high.
I certainly
the issues are all important from my perspective.
It goes back to jurors again to.
We are disenfranchizing
for and
even above just basic poor with the current $10.
I have people,
if they miss work, they are not paid, they don't have money for rent.
I get these many, many excuse requests all the time
that they simply cannot afford to and it's going to destroy their family
and their and their stability.
And it just seems very unreasonable
if we are going to have a jury system to not make it so that people can't serve
those basic expenses that are we stop with the jury system.
Just some
information to consider.
And I don't disagree with the jury thing.
Maybe there's a negotiable rate that maybe it's not $100.
We could probably negotiate that in the end here.
I think it's probably going to be the easiest sell, at least in the house.
But I don't need to point out to the council,
if we do not get new money for psych exams, it's coming out of your DHS budget.
We can't not pay it.
So it's going to come out of your staff.
It's going to come out of every other place in the district court budget.
If we do not get new money to raise their rate, we might not have any takers.
Amina's DHS is paying $250 a day.
We're paying 125.
Where would you go?
So again, those may not be as flashy, but they are essential.
And the same thing with cybersecurity.
We are trying to use unfunded needs to pay for the cybersecurity
that think we absolutely have to have because the legislature
didn't give us the money last time.
All Where does unfunded needs money come from?
Comes from all of your DHS budgets.
So we can't ignore that those costs are not going to go away
and we're going to compete with something that probably has a lot of merit.
But maybe seems like a much easier political sell with jury.
So I'm not arguing one or the other, but I do think we need to be clear.
Psych will will be paid from somewhere.
It's we don't get the new money.
You still have to pay them.
Yeah.
So to piggyback on what Jeff said, you know, in our defense budgets,
you know, we're all budgeting to cover our mandated services deficits.
And because we're using our money to cover mandated services deficits,
there's not as much money left over to go towards unfunded needs.
And so I do have some level of concern that if we're relying on unfunded
needs, money, which is donations from all of our budgets
that we may really come short with being able to do anything
with cybersecurity money
because we don't necessarily have the money to cover those costs.
So there's there's a lot of detail behind the scenes,
but it's a scary thought, you know, on both side.
Yeah,
yeah.
I was just going to say with all the moving pieces
that it seems like those five have risen to the top
and that we trust our Chief Justice
and our state leadership and lobbyists
to figure it out on the fly because we can prioritize whatever.
But if that doesn't fit with priorities
of legislators, we're not going to make progress on it.
So I think
I pretty much I agree with that.
But we wanted to have this discussion to elicit
exactly what everyone has been saying.
Can we say that we've got three top priorities
and the other two are right behind
and there are some and that would be or
your input from the Judicial Council
as to what negotiations happen over there.
I think that's a fair summary.
The other thing, Jeff, maybe I'd ask you to summary, I mean, Jeff,
and I've already had some preliminary meetings with leadership
and we've talked about each of these some of these issues.
We certainly talked about cybersecurity, We've talked
about mandated psych services and we've talked about jury services.
And all three of those have been, I would say, well-received.
But I don't know, Jeff, if you want to talk more about
because I think you've had even further conversations.
No, I think they're well received.
And we were asked by members to come with the jury proposal.
So I already know that's going to be well received.
But as Judge First so aptly points out,
those meetings were before the forecast and they're always nice now.
Yeah,
that's true.
I don't have to make any hard decisions yet.
They love us. these are great. Keep coming.
But it's not hard yet.
So I do think these five are very, very sellable to the legislature.
And if those are the top three,
I think we can focus mostly on that.
If they want to throw in some one
time money for the grants, that's not going to take away from ongoing costs.
I was going to say I think this discussion was really helpful for for me to hear,
too. So I know kind of where where your heads are out and about
and what the difficulties are that you're facing in the in the district courts.
And so this was a helpful discussion for Jeff and I and to hear so
what you do.
All right, those cover the financial requests we've got
and we've got kind of a package we titled the Court Operations Initiative.
And again, we've discussed all of these at the last
Judicial Council meeting.
The next one is service requirements for all of our orders
allowing
those orders to be served electronically or by first class mail.
If the respondent appears remotely
and is notified at the hearing that there will be an order issued.
And again, this was approved by law last year
and recommended for inclusion in our package this year.
Any discussion, any motions,
probes,
all in favor.
Thank you.
Then next is the interest bearing trust accounts.
This is dealing with condemnation proceedings.
The current law says that if you get five grand A is going to be deposited
within within a day or within within a day or so.
So we extend it out.
And to
change the statute to say the minimum of is 10,000 and
we've got five days receipt of the proceeds to put it in
interest bearing account to self administration
of these funds
Law recommends.
This is also a proposal from last year as well.
Any discussion
in the second all in favor.
I mean those and I have it
next is revenue recapture.
No this is there's a conflicting statutes
in the judicial branch.
We've got a statute that allows us to collect in revenue
when we send our debts to revenue, recapture.
And there's a strange notice that really doesn't apply.
But the statute says we have to send it, but they're not entitled to go
to administrative law judge to seek redress or to determine that debt.
So we want to eliminate that additional notice.
And we've talked with the Department of Revenue with about that. And
they're
they they didn't think we need to make make it statutory change.
But in the judicial branch, we like following the statutes,
any further discussion, questions
and emotion
seconded all in favor say I,
I supposed the motion carries
next year driver's license, suspension
and notification to the Department of Vehicle Services.
We want to be able to do it electronically.
It's the same.
We want to be able to use the same current process
that we use to suspend driver's license in criminal cases.
So this would now be applicable
to unsatisfied civil judgments
which require
certified mail
to the Department of Vehicle Services.
So it's just a more much more cumbersome, slow process.
We'd like to do it the same as how we suspend criminal
drivers like
driver's license in criminal cases.
Any discussion or questions
about that proposal
and emotion.
So all in favor, say I,
I chose most
carries.
Next matter is a security initiative.
This is the kind of the joint MDG
effort
I joined Judge Gusman,
who was leading that effort I think for through MDG,
they've had committees, a committee working on this.
Between our meetings, the committee has continued to meet with,
ironed out some issues with data practices folks, newspaper association,
broadcasters association, other individuals concerned about data privacy
to allow a
judge, judicial staff, personal information
deemed private, and to ask that it be
or removed from the public record in many instances
and creates a misdemeanor for knowingly publishing a judge's
address
with the intent to intimidate, harass or physically injure.
This, again, was approved by law last year,
but they've improved
the proposal over last year and have responded to
some of the concerns that were raised in the legislature last year,
as well as conform to a similar provision
in federal law.
Any further questions or discussion
on that proposal,
including seconded
all in favor, say I, I proposed
hearings
and the next is jury protection initiative.
This comes out of the fourth and concerns differential shifts and employers.
This would prohibit employers from requiring employees to work
the night shift or an alternate shift and to make up for the lost time
while they're serving on jury duty.
You make sure they're available to give their full attention to the trial
that's before them.
Any discussion questions on that proposal?
Why wasn't this included with the funding part
of the juror experience, whatever we call that first part,
the jury experience, just because this one doesn't cost money.
And that's why no.
Yeah, there's no money attached to this.
And so we keep the
money so they don't have to keep going in through different, different committees
and getting hijacked other issues that we can't predict.
Got it.
Thank you.
I'm of approval.
If everybody else has done more, that emotion
that can
second it all in favor say I.
I was
watching carries
right then next is a courthouse or a court notice initiative.
This comes out of the second judicial district
and out of a lot of discussion about
use of newspaper papers
the cost in order to provide notice alternative service
to parties.
So does you know does that really serve the purpose of notice?
Can is there another way to do it?
And we're recommending they're recommending that
there be a
a website that provides
public notice of these required notices
when we're attempting alternatively serve people
would save the branch
approximately 244,000 a year
and we expect opposition from the newspapers association.
But I think this is time to modernize and provide better notice
through a website than
notice through
financial papers where people don't even subscribe to it.
So any further discussion
or questions on this initiative,
good luck.
Thank you.
This appellate
move,
including seconded, all in favor, say I.
I was.
And lastly, is the Law Library initiative.
This is to create a task force to look at law
library services across the state and specifically on
some level of uniformity,
some financial
review of how these law libraries are funded
and what other needs they might have to provide more robust
legal resources for all citizens throughout states.
And the question we had a draft
legislative bill or language and
concerning the membership
and somebody had made a request that there be a
a county administrator of
we had listed
somehow with the proposal came with a member
that would be a county commissioner and it makes more sense
to have a county administrator.
And so they're going to change change that
and that that's the bill like that.
If we approve the concept, we can add other members or other appropriate members
is that as the bill's going through the process. So
any further discussion on law library initiative,
task force
and emotions
and mood and seconded all those in favor say I,
I also
there is as well
we well Chief that's our legislative package
for the 2024 session.
Thank you everyone, for your patience and your support for this judge
and for all the hard work.
And thanks to everyone who worked with him.
The next
item is we're into other business.
And this is a topic that, as I understand, has come up a few times over the years.
This is judicial council holding judicial council meetings
at either new or remodeled.
And we just thought we'd kind of take the temperature of people here
prior to the pandemic.
My understanding is the Judicial Council would sometimes visit judicial districts,
hold our council meetings when there was a significant remodel to a courthouse,
or there was the development of or a brand new courthouse was built.
Seems like the last time it occurred, to
our knowledge, is back in September of 2019,
and that was at the Sherburne County Judicial Services Building.
So I asked Jeff to talk about that a little bit
to see if there's any interest in revitalizing that effort.
Probably in the spring if we were to do it.
But Jeff, maybe you can talk about what the history has been there.
Yeah, so we've done this multiple times.
It's really an appreciation for the county in providing the new
or updated courthouse facility.
We usually try to have a lunch
with the county commissioners, present them with a plaque.
We did this up until COVID
and then COVID hit and sort of put it on the backburner.
The other reason why we sort of put it on the back burner is it's hard
to get the technology to live stream from a visiting courthouse.
So if we're going to do this and there's pros and cons,
I think it's a very good outreach effort to support
those counties that have invested in our courthouses.
But we may need to figure out a different way
or give up live of that meeting.
And so that's a downside if we're going to go this way.
So we wanted to get some input.
We can try to explore more technology since we probably won't do this
until the spring.
I know the sewer has a new courthouse and there's others that have called
making changes.
We just heard Carlton's getting a new courthouse.
What is the sense of the council in terms of
pursuing this?
As someone who is anticipating
a new justice center, I would really support us doing that.
I think it would be very much appreciated.
The county is spending millions and millions of dollars to this,
and I think it would mean a lot to them to to see us there.
To Sanderson.
I've been on multiple visits like that over
my two sets of terms on the court, and I have to say that
they're the,
the reaction from
county commissioners in particular
to having these visits is very positive
and without outing anybody in particular,
I can recall getting positive
comments from county commissioners who later I was informed, voted
against the proposals to do the remodel or build or whatever. So.
So yeah, and of course we're perfectly happy
to pass out the thanks to anybody to get these deals done.
So I think it's an idea very much worth pursuing.
And if we have to sacrifice one of ten
live streams over the course of a year,
I am confident Western civilization will not collapse.
Any other thoughts?
I like the idea as well of doing it.
I think it's it's really a wonderful opportunity to just to celebrate
what the counties have been able to do and for all the reasons that
Justice Anderson and Judge Byers have talked about, I think it's we can do it.
Be nice to do so.
I'd not say anything people want to add.
Sounds like something to explore.
Okay, Well, we'll explore.
All righty. Thank you.
At this time, we've got a couple of other matters
that we need to go into executive session.
I'm sorry.
I skipped right over strategic planning.
Thank you, Jeff.
I did want to provide an update that I would point to Judge Lawson
as chair of our Strategic planning committee.
And there's a group of committee members
and I had the list in front of me, I don't have it.
Now, do you happen to have a Judge Lawson?
Do you remember that group?
I have it in my brain. Okay.
Your brain is good.
Maybe you could list off those folks.
Boy I sure hope I'm not going to miss anybody.
You know, if you give me one
second, I can actually pull it out because I am going to miss someone.
And I would feel terrible slighting anybody.
They're going to begin meeting in January.
And I apologize.
I thought I had that list with me.
No, that's okay.
So it is
right.
I need just one other second here.
I just sent out the invitations.
That's right. Okay.
So it's myself. It's.
It's Judge Paul Harris, Judge Mark Campbell, Half Judge
Sarah Hennessey, Judge Greg Anderson, Judge Carolyn Lennon.
Hans Holland. Sarah Gonzalez.
Bob Somerville.
Jeff Sorba and Judge Brianne Guccione.
Thank you.
I knew I saved that one for last because I knew I was going to slaughter.
And I'm sorry, Judge.
So, yeah, their first meeting is in January.
And did you want to say anything else about that?
Just no, it's just it's going to be a great process we're going into it
this year with both a ten year roadmap and a two year strategic plan.
We have not gone into the strategic planning process
with both of those in place in the past.
So it's going to be real exciting.
Wonderful.
Thank you.
And now we do need to break
into executive session to discuss the next two items.
Justice Anderson Or we need to do anything in particular to do that, to go
into executive session or motion to move to an executive session
some seconds
favor that We move into executive session to discuss
the legal matters.
See, I, i, i in the opposed
none. All righty.
Well, anybody who's not supposed to be here, yes,
I would have said that differently, but.
Okay. And stop the live stream.