>> Good morning everybody.
Welcome to think for Thursday.
That's what they said on the
radio.
They said he was thankful
Thursday. The first item on the
agenda is minutes from the March
meeting.
And we do not have any additions
or corrections.
So I will take a motion to
approve the March 16th minutes
as submitted.
All those in favor please
signify by saying yes.
I motion carries.
Thank you.
Item number two, that's a
discussion item of the state
white audit of and fines.
And Jamie are auditor is going
to present the results.
Welcome.
>> Good morning.
I am going to share my screen so
we have something to follow
along on this morning.
All right. So, the audit -- I'm
sorry, let me move these
floating heads.
So, the audit really recently
completed an audit for the
statewide fines and fees. In the
scope was from 20 July 2020,
from June 21st, there were nine
of the ten districts that were
included in this audit.
The tenth was not included in
the reason for that was that
they just recently received a
district audit.
The areas that the audit looked
at was receipts and their
deposits and my friend and
thinking and high risk
transactions.
The objective was the two
determined that the branch
internal control structure is
adequate to ensure the office
safeguarded assets for reliable
data income died with related
laws and policies.
The overall conclusion, which I
would just add.
If this was a pretty positive
audit.
There was only one true finding,
and then three written
observations.
The finding was more of a
internal control weakness, and
there rather than a major
weakness, where written
observations are considered not
major, and the more of a
training opportunity.
Mostly need for improvement.
Overall, it was a positive
audit.
Finding number one, the branch
did not always implement DAD --
with compliance with the stake
or procedure.
This audit the districts did not
always have internal controls
around daily deposits to protect
those deposits or potential --
or protect them for from from
potential fraud.
They lack documentation showing
the transporter and the deposit
reviewer was separate.
Documentation led of timely
reviews and then also instances
where they've prepared also had
receded into the same day.
It is important that the
districts ensure that they
separate duties and document
them.
We also recommend the SP eight
oh reviews and enhance their
just to clarify some procedures
in the preceding policy.
Written observation number one,
it was in the banking area.
The branch did not always
maintain bank documentation and
complaints which State Court
administrative procedure.
There is a requirement that
districts and court locations
need to keep drinking
documentation on file.
The biggie documentation
includes interest, fees, and
other terms on the checking
account that they maintain.
So some locations were missing
this documentation, we also
found internal control
weaknesses in the account but we
were looking at these areas.
There were staff they were able
to write checks, they have
signature authority, and then
they also are able to complete
month end reconciliation.
So I would say that's a concern.
So audit recommends that baking
documentation is that you obtain
it from your bank and it's kept
on file in there also will
ensure that we have separation
over incompatible duties over
the impressed checking accounts.
Written observation number two
is in the month and
reconciliation area. The branch
did not always have adequate
controls over month and
reconciliations.
My fan should be completed by
the tenth working day of the
month.
That is what the policy had
stated, we found instances where
reconciliation will not perform
timely.
In completing reconciliation
timely insurance they were
finding any errors or mistakes
that potentially could have been
made over the months.
Also the whole thing, they found
instances where they were not
properly using the checklist or
the rare missing checklists,
that helps guide them through
the month and process.
And then also, they were missing
signatures on the checklist to
document who had completed the
month-end.
Audit also found a few instances
in this area where they had
found a prepayment bail and
restitution did not reconcile
the month and to Mencius. So
they recommend that the
month-end conciliation start
completed and properly
documented in the checklist is
followed.
I will note in this area, with
the policy was changed
instantly, they can get to 15
days just to allow courts to get
those reconciliations completed.
And then, the written
observation of a 3D, and is in
the high risk transaction area,
the eighth District did not
always comply with state court
administrative procedures when
reviewing her high-res revenue
reducing transactions.
So these transactions includes
chai dates voids deletes and
things like that.
And there is a monthly review
that is required of districts
and counties.
Audit found instances where
reviews were not properly
documented, or they could not
find evidence of a review taking
place and then will reviews were
not conducted by independent
person. Meaning a person that
had done the transaction the
highest transaction and also
conducted a review of those
transactions.
Such is recommended that the
district ensures the high risk
transactions are being reviewed,
and conducted by independent
reviewer, and improperly
documented.
So, that is it.
Does anyone have any questions?
>> Any questions for Jamie
auditor?
So, we used to have an audit
committee of the Council, and we
did away with the audit
committee because we concluded
that the audit responsibility,
the audit function in the audit
review function review belongs
to the whole counsel.
Because it is significant.
That's why we get these audit
reports for Jamie and I want to
channel our forward judge
Thompson from the from the
third, and asked that they have
any reason any money was
missing?
>> Do you have any no we did
not.
And I appreciate that teeth.
I always enjoy the question.
[Laughter]
Steve Lenox we are dead
especially when the answer is no
we didn't find any.
There's always a moment when
people go gasped.
[Laughter]
>> IN meeting with the few
people in a few weeks.
Soon I'll now let them know.
>> Any other, do you feel like
the responses you got back from
those who responded, with a
sufficient for you issues being
addressed?
>> Yes. A lot of them have
really been addressed.
>> Are any other questions or
comments for Jamie in the audit.
I thank you.
Okay, item number three, Jan is
here to present the months of
the COVID reports.
Not to steal her thunder but
hopefully this will likely be
the last one.
[Laughter]
Go ahead Jen.
>> Good morning, yes I'm here
likely to share the last
COVID-19 monthly update.
I see you all every month since
I have started, so it will be
quite a change can be as well.
So, just a reminder, we have
three indicators that we have
been looking at the CDC
community levels, the judicial
office theory and case rates,
and the COVID-19 team post
rates.
These are our numbers as of last
Thursday.
And the state was green.
And then, we see that the
majority of the United States
have like 97% in the United
States is green as well.
In not expecting any significant
changes this week.
For a judicial officer and
employee reported cases, we had
just six last week, and one so
far this week. So were down
below an average of one per day
for the last month.
And then come up with our
postponement rate for our
jurors, again fairly, it was
fairly consistent this week. We
saw a little bit higher number
in the survey of more jurors, we
had ten of them that reported
postponement.
And that is all that I have for
this one.
>> Any questions about the
monthly report?
Okay.
Thank you Jen.
What else do you have?
>> That brings me to a request
to really look to the future.
So, I would just switch the
PowerPoint presentation for you
quickly.
And we will all look at moving
to the end of our pandemic
response.
Okay.
So, we put some steps in place.
So I just want to walk through
those with you all.
Quickly, the federal public
health emergency, that is what
we hear and heard a lot about
the last few years.
It is declared by the secretary
for the Department of Health and
Human Services.
So it is not necessarily the
precedents that is making the
decision.
In the first one is January of
2020, when COVID started to come
up to our radar screen and
globally.
So, the public health emergency
lasted for 90 days and then they
renewed.
And that is every 90 days.
So they've gotten through this
process every three months.
The federal government told the
states if they would get at
least a two month notice of one
they planted in the public
health emergency and so they
actually notified states that
the end of January that they
would be renewing it for 90 days
on February 11th, but that their
intention that it will expire on
May 11th.
And we have heard nothing since
then, so we are moving forward
with an expiration of May 11th.
>> So there are a few other
COVID-19 declarations out there,
that's so, for your information,
there is a national emergency
declaration.
So this was from the president,
and this is something that is
hugely impactful to a large
number of Americans.
We see these national emergency
declarations like with
hurricanes and things like that.
And, President Biden has said
that he will expire at this
declaration on May 11th as well.
Intense example of funding to
this day, and some things like
that.
We have one other emergency
declaration that is also out
there and Health and Human
Services declaration and that's
about the emergency
authorization.
And if you all remember you talk
about fast tracking some of the
vaccine and fast tracking the
testing, and fast tracking a lot
of those things because he put
them under AE you.
So if they let that expire then
all of those will go away.
So they gonna let this emergency
declaration continue one, so
that they can transition the
vaccines and test some things
that they developed under you
and the EUA, into a permanent.
And go through that permanent
authorization process.
>> Could you repeat that please?
>> The emergency use
authorization.
So, just a few impacts, for the
multiple use you know our
regular employee provided health
care, we're going to COVID
testing and access to vaccines.
An access to the medications.
They're going to move to a
health care over function.
Where right now, we do not get
an explanation of benefits
usually willing to go in
related -- so all of that will
change and we will go through
insurance.
We see significant cuts to the
Medicare set coverage, and
federal metrics, and the
government has both been working
Stephen forever to how to
minimize those effects and
mediate them.
A big impact is the telehealth
that they offer telehealth to
those unmedicated, and they
found that they used it a lot
and it was really effective. And
you really reduce costs.
So, they've been exploring how
they continue to offer
telehealth through Medicaid.
So, some of the flexibilities
coverage and things like that
have changed.
So, on May 11th, when the
federal public health emergency
declaration ends, I am proposing
that we sunset the Minnesota
judicial branch post-pandemic
mitigation strategies.
So those with a three indicators
that we looked at earlier, as
well as sunset the continue
operations guidance document.
That was a document that told us
how we were continuing to do our
operations within our court
facilities.
And then to end a Supreme Court
order filed on March 2nd 2022,
which governs the face
coverings, which allowed the
chief judges to issue the local
orders for face covering.
So, just a little bit of a
reminder in the post-pandemic
mitigation strategies, those
three indicators that will
affect every month were part of
that document.
And then we have a hierarchy of
structures and that if we saw
increases in those indicators,
what steps we could consider
taking.
The continue operations guidance
documents, that included
encouraging employees and
judicial officers to report
their cases of COVID-19.
Two encouragements of wearing
face coverings and signage of a
lot of jury practices. As well
as, we also have maintained the
vaccine standards verification
program.
When employees and judicial
officers will submit their
updated on the dates that they
received vaccines and boosters.
And so, the proposal would be
that all of these key activities
would sunset.
So, jury practices is kind of a
large bullet.
So I wanted to break that down
for you quickly.
And that is to share the jury
practices actually include
discontinuing the COVID-19
health assessment questionnaire.
Discontinuing the jury
postponement and put overcoats.
To which they would go back to
codes that they use previously
before the pandemic for those
jurors that were ill or needed a
postponement.
It would also go back to jury
duty reporting in large groups,
and it will be conducted back in
a group setting.
And microphone being passed
around the courthouse layout
will be back to normal distances
for those who had narrowly
already returned to those
layouts.
And then bringing food and drink
being offered back to the jurors
and deliberation back in space
they don't offer social
distancing.
So, that is my proposal, and my
request to you all.
The consideration of can sunset
in those two documents and then
the order.
>> Can you go back to the slide?
>> Absolutely.
>> There we go.
All right, any questions for
Jen?
It seems to be that this is
logical next step for us, we've
been furthering federal
guidelines and guidance
throughout the pandemic, and
other going to sunset the
federal public health emergency
declaration.
So, these recommendations seem
to need to be the logical next
step for us.
But anybody have any questions?
So this is here for discussion
today, but I'm wondering if
there's any objection to acting
on the recommendations today?
Any objections to acting on the
recommendation today?
And those are the things on the
slide out the front of you right
now.
I, is their motion to to approve
the recommendation then? Is
there a second?
It is been moved and seconded
that we adopt the
recommendations second on the
slide there.
Any discussion? Yes Judge Yon?
>> I just have one question.
So we would discontinue the
vaccine reporting and what now?
I remember when that was enacted
people were kind of leery, some
people reasonably are submitting
vaccine restriction.
So with all of that, would it
all just be thrown away?
And not retained anywhere? I'm
just curious about that.
>> I'm gonna put Dana on the
spot, and if I can, that's
really an HR function.
And so, they have been
discussing how they will handle
that.
And yes, we would not retain any
of that information.
>> Any other questions?
any of the discussion on the
motion?
All right, it is been moved and
seconded that we adopted
recommendations they are the
slide.
although since a very say Aye >>
Everybody: Aye >> All right the
motion carries I know you have
another item, but before you do
I want you to know that we
appreciate all the guidance and
support then help that you've
given us to this really I don't
know, obnoxiously difficult Lee
tough terrible time. They are
incredibly brief also think you
think very much.
All right, moving on.
Number four.
We are going to change
directions now, and talk about
emergency management.
In Jen they are going to present
some post amendments to Judicial
Council policy six oh five.
He is amendments are really
meant to bring the policy
up-to-date with our current
practice in our expanded efforts
toward safe safer court
facilities.
So that introduction or turn it
you.
>> Thank you.
I believe you all have received
a copy of the proposed
amendments.
And I can pull them up on the
screen for you all.
And I will make -- bigger.
Okay.
So, and a year and a half plus
that have been here, I have seen
an opportunity to go beyond what
was initially in the policy for
emergency management.
And I think that's probably
going to be the second person in
this position, and having an
opportunity not facing a going
into the pandemic but coming out
of a pandemic and being able to
look to the future and know that
if teacher is in front of us.
And so, yes, I have added some
additional goals and
responsibilities.
It really is about creating a
safe environment and our
buildings and our facilities.
And for our employees and a
judicial officers as well as our
customers and justice partners.
It is expanding the policy to
also include personal safety and
physical security and emergency
preparedness.
Because those three entities
really all work together to have
one final product.
If you are missing any one of
those components, you do not
have a whole plan.
And so, my proposal is to expand
it to beyond emergency
management.
Do you have any questions I
guess I could start there?
Any questions for Jen about the
proposed amendments to the
policy?
Stay what I Jen if you could
please talk about the personal
safety training program and what
you anticipate what that
encompasses.
>> It's so there really was
work, and for my understanding
that a study prior to my arrival
in HR EOD. And it was a
conversation around personal
personals safety training and
education for employees.
And so with them a lot for
getting this program started,
either run fight high, over
which ever way that will go.
Run fight.
>> I did have the training I
just didn't remember the order.
I should probably remember the
order it's important.
[Laughter]
>> Yes.
That's training along with a
handful of others in working
with the HR education team that
we continue to add classes and
topics. Into that program.
>> Any other questions?
Shelley?
No.
You're just waving at me.
Okay.
All right, and I will stop
sharing.
So, this is here for discussion,
and I feel like this is the kind
of thing where we want to let it
sit with us.
And bring it back for this
season decisions next month,
then nobody had asked any
concerns about this we want to
make sure of that, and it think
it's also important that we
enhance our efforts to keep
perfect make our people safer.
And to give them the tools that
they need.
So I think this is a great step,
but I want to make sure that
everybody has a change to
release it with these changes
and be comfortable with them.
So we will bring it back to
decision next month.
Anybody have any other questions
or comments?
For Jen at this point?
All right.
Thank you so much done, we will
see you next month.
Weight -- do you have more?
Okay go ahead.
>> Yes, this one is more than
informational -- this is a state
court administration policy. So,
this is a run incident
reporting, and, as you won't no,
we rolled out as SharePoint
workflow process.
And that was in the beginning of
April that talked about incident
reporting so that we have a
central repository of the
incidents that is happening both
in our courthouses as well as to
our employees and judicial
officers of the scope of the
work.
And that's where ours is a bit
unique, we want to know about
what is happening to you while
in the scope of your work. And I
thought that is your four walls.
Because through many a fan, they
maybe don't come to the office
very often, and I don't ever
want to not know that they
receive the threat over email
and they read it at home.
And they felt like they
shouldn't report that because it
was at home.
Because the vehicle was damaged,
and it wasn't outside of the
building.
So it's really been about the
scope of their work.
So it is a SharePoint workflow,
and we have communicated with
the chief judges, and I know and
are HR managers, our district
administrators are making them
aware of this.
And also it streamlining the
reporting process, and that you
will become group beware of the
incidents that it becomes
reported as soon as they report
the incident. And so, so, I am
very pleased and thankful for
the report I received from your
deputy district administrators
as well as the safety committee
here, and other groups that
looked at this and invented
this, and with Karen and the
legal counsel who have to be
work on all of this, because
what I have learned after the
fact is that Minnesota is now in
the minority in a good way that
we have a centralized reporting
system that we could not our
statistics.
And be able to report back on
that and improve their safe
working environment as much as
we can and provide the services
to our judicial officers and
employees.
So, I just bring this to your
attention and I strongly
encourage you to check that out
into using and the firm is also
accessible on the policy
procedure page.
So if you go to 605, you can see
the direct link and Janet works
with the I.T. folks.
So, we can have a direct link.
You can also get some reporting
back from me on a regular basis
as far as work on the incidences
you were seeing in your district
and in your court houses.
>> Judge Leonard?
>> How are we incorporating our
sheriff's offices. So the
incidents that occurred in our
district was to report to
report, and they went to the
Sheriff office and never came
back to the judge who is the
subject of the threat.
And so, the Sheriff's office had
their own process and we didn't
realize that we would not in the
loop because it was accounting
based process.
>> Yes. And so, this is it a
maternal reporting process.
So in that case, we would
encourage the judge to fire up
the report with the Sheriff's
office, as well as Philip the
branch incident report.
Then, they can attach a copy
either direction as well, but
right now, it is not set up for
the Sheriff's offices didn't
share that information with my
position or with the Chief Judge
district.
Certainly there are things we
can explore the communication
level, but yes, right now it
comes down to those focal
relationships.
>> Do you think there is value
in having these conversations
with the Sheriff about having
him more automatic?
>> I think there is, especially
at the local level, the share
sharing that information with
the Chief Judge of the county or
with the court administrator.
you really want to work on those
collaborative relationships that
information sharing both ways.
Not only that, but if we receive
an antenna report, that it is a
crime or tissue steps they
should be aware of that threat.
And there were also sharing that
information with them.
>> Yes, I think that's a good
idea to explore. Maybe talk
about how to best facilitate
that. But if that's what your
point is right --
>> Yes in a situation the threat
was made in the hallway, the
Sheriff's over her dated nobody
actual judge is being
threatened. And he went through
that process and then she heard
her third handbook
uncomfortable.
>> Yes don, then go to Judge
Castro.
And being yes.
Consumer.
>> I just want to mention that
they would do get reported in
January Jan does a great job to
reaching out to see if there's
anything she can do to provide
assistance. So usually, there is
some communicating. So some of
that, if it is separate,
something reported locally, some
are distinct to reported
internally, they try to close
that loop.
You may want to make sure the
folks are aware of them and they
should reach out to the local
sheriff offices to make sure
that judges away before this is
occurring.
In thankfully retrained that is
not as technological, but I
appreciate that she takes her
responsibility >> That's a great
point. Judge Castro?
>> To enough this information
will be discoverable.
For instance, could they asked
for a copy of this report?
They being a defense lawyer?
Looking for discovery? And being
inconsistent with the police
report?
>> Let us get some -- maybe get
some advice from Carla, I don't
know she's on this soon -- maybe
we can get some advice from
Carla and share on that point.
Because that is a good question.
Karen is here, you annoying?
Not to put too much pressure on
you, >> Dexter Wright, we have
talked about it. So yes.
Potentially.
And then this is the issue with
all of the discussions that we
have five accountings on this
issue.
Because we have the rules of
public access to governors in
her hand, they capture after 13
the covenants in their hands
with for the most part they
sharing for this this person's
and we trust that births are
treating it in same way but but
absolutely, something got to the
point where was going to be
tried.
I think there is a chance.
And are you thinking of a
specific incident?
Because I believe there were
some concerns that the shares
were trying to control the
narrative.
And that is a difficult
discussion because I think we
have said they would want the
impressions observations of our
staff and our judges through our
process.
If we also talked about
enforcement ended get questions
and there might be consents and
entities that happen.
So yes if there's any concern
that this happened -- those
short answers presumptively
boats site are treated of both
nonpublic but we have to be
prepared for the fact that these
facts make have to come out.
>> That's why I think Judge
Lemmons points about
communicating with the law
enforcement is really were
important and were on the same
page.
Anyway I will leave it at that.
>> Yes good point >> Thank you.
I really appreciate this.
I think is valuable to collect
this information.
And it's all in one place.
And the question is about
sharing information about across
the district.
I think we've all seen, over the
past few years, people's
behavior they have been
escalating.
And people have much shorter
futures, there are much more
free to really be hard on our
staff and judges.
And so, sometimes, those people
are frequent customers in
multiple districts.
So, will you be looking for
those trends and saying okay
this person is in the tenth and
the first, and they showed a
shame that information? With the
DAs order, have you thought
about that?
It could be very valuable
information.
>> Yes, I think then Denton and
Don also received the incident
report as my backup.
So that if I am gone, and they
do see that this person is
showing up an incident report,
especially multiple times in
districts, can you reach out?
So there's a back up to me
looking to that, and there is a
human element in connecting some
of those that.
And God has always asked with
this process is a been a
quarterly report on incidences
that are reporting across the
state as well.
So, I think some of it is a
human connection in recognizing
those threats enough to make
that information much more
available.
And transparent to you.
>> Okay thank you.
>> Any other questions?
And this will be about the
policy or procedures regarding
incident reporting?
This is not something we are
taking action on this is just
purely informational.
Any other questions or comments
or concerns?
Anything else and you Jen
question Mike >> I am down.
>> Thank you so much.
It is going great to see you.
All rights, number five and that
is the discussion item the 2023
axis and fairness of a planning
questionnaire. Ellen?
Welcome, she is going to present
plan and proposed
questionnaires.
>> Propulsive policy 505, the
key results that measure process
towards meeting our six core
goals, the axis and fairness
survey is regularly conducted
across all core houses
statewide.
They are used to measure
performance related to the core
of access to justice excellence
and fairness and equity.
I will provide a brief
background and some of the
planning done so far for the
survey.
As well as the proposed approach
resulting in that planning
process.
So, the axis of fairness survey
is a performance measure
developed by the National Center
for State courts.
And it's actually used by many
jurisdictions around the
country.
the survey tool is designed to
measure core customer
perceptions on a range of issues
and that includes the quality of
customer service that they
received.
An access to the courts, and
whether parties feel like
they're being treated fairly
during their hearings.
For policy five oh 5.2, we
conduct this survey every four
years 505, and we alternated
every two years with the quality
court workplace survey.
And the lax access and fairness
survey, that was conducted in
2018-tonight 2019.
Still conducting a survey in
2023, this year, is consistent
with that timing requirement.
And then, in addition, the
evaluation of the one court
Minnesota hearing initiative,
will leverage the results in
this axis and fairness survey.
The research office has been
engaged in planning for the axis
and fairness survey, as a task
on the current FY23 operational
plan.
And we presented a consideration
to February, and from that
meeting, and work group that was
formed to make some
recommendations on various
aspects of our survey
methodology.
These are recommendations were
risks presented to them approved
by them in March, and they will
what I will cover today.
And before I discuss specific
recommendations, I will know a
few key areas of focus that the
research office and a workgroup
brought to this planning
process.
So, most importantly the survey
has to accommodate remote
hearing participants.
Which is a significant
development since the last
survey round in 2019.
The National Center revised the
axis and fairness survey to to
accommodate remote hearings, and
we have used that as a guide
post to this process so far.
We also recognize that the
survey has use a significant
amount of court staff resources,
and due to staffing challenges
and court houses on the state,
additional flexibility and
survey collection methods would
be necessary.
And finally enhancing the
training support is intended to
help serve provide clarity and
some of the changes.
And also to maintain a good
level of the statewide
consistency effort.
So, the rest of my slides will
cover the specific proposals
that have come from this
planning process.
This slide outlines the proposed
customer touch points, and that
is to be included in the 2023
survey, and they indicate which
touch points would be new with
the survey round.
So, courthouse visitors and
remote hearing participants are
the key touch points with the
survey, and the ones that would
involve local court involvement.
In addition to those, we have a
variety of customer touch points
which should be administered
essentially by SEA oh, and the
last survey in 2019 included the
quote payments of wrecked
customers as well as online
visitors to the public website.
And it is recommended that we
added the statewide stop
self-help customers, and the
external application with the
customers, and the using similar
customers and questions and
methods is what was used for the
quick payment center. So
broadening the scope.
So this slide shows the proposed
timeline, and that sets aside
Congress to November of this
year.
For survey deployment across all
customer touch point.
So each court location would
select their own survey days,
and that was within this broad
window.
in essence practice act and
survey rounds in its focus is on
a short.
Of concerted cervical collection
in each courthouse.
So, having a broad search for --
has worked well in the past to
allow for districts to
coordinate staffing and any
supplies as necessary across all
of the locations.
So that locations are not all
conducting the survey in the
same days.
In addition, the SC AL, the
touch point surveys would be
deployed consecutively within
this August window as well.
And then, with a survey window
we would expect to start working
with district liaisons as soon
as next month so they can kick
off their local process and then
after that survey window has
been concluded we expect to
provide survey results back to
Judicial Council in the early
spring of next year.
Afterwards, we will have a.
Of strategic follow-up
activities and it's coordinated
by the strategic planning and
projects office.
And I will note that our
strategic follow-up to the last
survey in 2019 was constrained
by the pandemic.
But, the FY21 operational plan
still has multiple activities
aimed at addressing the survey
results.
That is including websites
improvements, and expanded
online payment options.
The proposed survey employment
methods are updated from past
surveys as I mentioned to
provide some flexibility in
increasing survey collections,
and also to account for remote
hearing participants.
So each court location with
eating set up a traditional
staff survey table, or set up
of.
Back survey collection station
at the front counter which will
not require a dedicated staff
person.
In both methods would give
customer the actions on the
paper form, or to use the QR
code to take the survey with
their own mobile device. And
then, both lancets also rely on
corrective staff and judicial
officer encouragement to take
the survey during interactions
with current customers on those
local survey days.
And then, for remote hearings,
assumed to redirect will be
turned on statewide.
And in addition, locations would
choose to choose between putting
the survey link and there's some
cat during hearings, and sending
emails invitation after hearings
have occurred, including an
invitation was also hearing
notices.
And just like in person methods,
is remote methods that do
involve staff for quite staff
resources would also then only
have to be deployed for a
limited amount of time. So, the
coal of 30 in person and 30
remote responses is intended to
ensure that even lower volume
locations obtain usable
information out of the survey
effort. Higher volume court
locations have been focused on
getting responses from a broad
set of customers rather than
needing this minimum goal of 30.
And, as I mentioned, the
National Center updated
questioning last year to account
for remote hearings, they also
made some -- including updating
the race and response in
rewriting the wish for clarity.
In the proposed courthouse and
remote hearing questionnaires
incorporate many of those
updates from the national
center, but also retain plain
language edits, and customer
experience questions very added
to my last fairness and survey
in 2019.
The propose questionnaires also
had a question asking whether
litigants have been attorney
representing them in their case.
Which came up as a wish list
item from last time.
And then I will note that the
draft markups for both of these
survey tools are attached to
today's agenda, as a reference.
So, there were also discussions
about the need for ongoing
customer feedback, and whether
the foyer cadences axis and
fairness has been revised.
And, the ultimate proposal here
is to keep the cadence of axis
and fairness as it is to develop
a coordinated way for local or
court locations locally to get
ongoing.
Or more frequent customer
feedback.
So, this plan could be develop
develop and that she strategic
follow-up phase next year.
And also discussed was the need
for customer feedback after the
implementation of the Ojai
recommendations to understand
their longer-term impacts on a
broad base of court customers.
This too can be incorporated in
the strategic follow-up to this
access and fairness survey.
And lastly, as I mentioned, SEAO
training supports was one of the
priorities they can mentor this
planning process to date. And
it's proposed that we develop a
short training video for staff
involved in civic collection and
also develop a one plate chair
for the judges.
In this training will really
focus on welded branch conducts
the survey, and its strategic
importance, not just the
nontechnical guidance, and the
goal of this is really to
maintain a high level of
integrity in the results,
especially as we navigate the
impact of remote hearings on the
survey effort.
And finally, in discussing
survey deployment, Jan is
proposing that the explore
the -- to send out survey
invitations to using the
broadest possible methods.
And to reach the broadest
possible customer base.
This will require revision to
the optic language into the
criers and technical
enhancements which will still
have to be explored and that's
why this is why it's not a
proposal for this year survey
but for future survey effort.
And with that, I am happy to
take any questions about the
planning process or these
proposals.
>> Thank you, let me just the
others on the workgroup on the
consul have anything that I had
shut her, Haley or Don?
Anything?
So this is not an action item
for the dash this is to get your
guidance of your input on the
premises, and the axis and
fairness survey is obviously
very, very important to us to
get brief back on our court
users.
We want to enhance the people's
trust and confidence in us, in
one way they begin work towards
that trust is to ask people what
they think about the service at
ABC this is really important.
We continue to conduct these
kinds of surveys. I was
concerned and maybe with a high
staff turnover rates, and with
the crush of work with the
criminal backlog that the timing
might be delayed a bit too much
for staff, but I understand that
Jed, there is more flexibility
built into the survey process
and I think Chad, was
comfortable that the timing
would work and they have
satisfied at that.
But I did what the consul to
know that they sent satisfied
with it.
With anything at the balance.
And it seems like this is
important enough, we have
streamlined the gate, and put in
more flexibility.
So it seems like this is the
proper time to do it.
But, other questions or comments
or thoughts from the consul on
this?
Okay.
Looks good.
Thank you.
And thank you to everybody
involved in putting this
together.
Okay, let's see, who do have
next?
I think Karen is coming back
right?
Yes, the static condition of
probation.
So, what the legislative changes
on voting, we needed to change
the standard condition of
probation, and last month, we
adopted a temporary change and
we agreed to come back this much
to discuss permanent changes.
Jane will take us to that.
Karen?
>> Will again.
And this might be the shortest
policy presentation ever,
because they suggested last time
was just to strike it.
And I think that makes
absolutely the most sense
because these are the conditions
added for publishing a sentence
and that does not impact the
voting rights effective July
1st.
So I don't know Janet, do we
want to pull up the...
I am not hooked up yet. Well,
all I did was strike the last
condition.
So, I'm just throwing this out
there unless anyone disagrees.
That is what we will do
effective July 1st, and we would
scour all of our documentation
and make corresponding changes
on that day.
On the events of that they.
>> All right let's have the
motion to approve the
recommendation but is there any
questions first before we go
ahead?
>> I just wonder if there's been
a discussion about having
language you should not vote if
you are incarcerated?
Because we do have probationers
who are incarcerated on a local
jail sentence.
But, that was my only thought we
were having this conversation
last time.
>> Karen?
>> That was the other except
suggestion, and I went with this
one because it gets cleaner.
I think it might've been your
suggestion that, that the law
does put a lot of onus on those
who have persons incarcerated to
provide them notice and give
them information.
So, the thought was that if the
court is sensing seeing so much
of a probationary sentence
there's nothing about that
sentence that prevents them from
voting.
They were to be incarcerated it
will be the dealer see
responsibility to monitor that
and to notify about that.
It is certainly possible though
if we want a hybrid message.
And that is completely up to you
all.
>> Hang on one second should we
have a follow up on that?
>> Just because you get a
probationary sentence doesn't
mean you are not incarcerated
and mean we do that all the time
we order local time and we
placed on probation for three
years.
And you're going to say a year
at the local facility, and that
remains my concern.
Feeling Judge?
>> yet, on that same vein,
someone is on local release that
was the question I was raised by
her probationary folks.
>> Can you please repeat that I
was just reading the sentence.
>> So, somebody somebody is
place a number of they're doing
local jail time but their work
release, can they vote even
though they are incarcerated?
Especially during that time?
>> That's the part I would like
like to get into I find a lot to
be kind of confusing in that
regard and I do not know how
someone could vote if they are
incarcerated less they smuggle
out of absentee ballots.
>> And mean, I do not know --
it'll be up to you all to say or
define what it means to be
incarcerated on the day?
>> Yes?
>> Actually had that happen.
This left voting seating, had
surveillance charge because,
they were both on work release.
And they went out and voted.
And that's exactly what
happened. And so, that is
probably going to occur with
this. So I'm concerned about it.
>> Sorry, I was just an essay,
what you do not have
unfortunately in materials is
not only agreed to last month.
Because a modification of that,
if you're leading towards
keeping something, it would
probably just to be to keep the
second half case because right
now we've been telling them to
not register to vote, or vote
until July 1st 2023, but on that
day, you need to get rid of all
of that and keep the rest which
says, you have the right to
register to vote and to vote
during any time you are not
incarcerated for this offense.
So, we would keep what we have
at the end, and just get rid of
the date parameter.
>> Say one more time so everyone
can hear it?
>> You have the right to
register to vote and to vote at
any time you're not incarcerated
for this offense.
>> So what with the pole
paragraph read then?
>> That would be the new
condition.
I don't know how to say and in
the negative --
>> Okay.
And that's a direct quote from
the statutory language correct
>> Yes I think so.
>> Judge did you have a
question?
>> I just want to express my
support to the original
recommendation that we are
silent on it.
I think it's really muddy really
quick and I think we are going
to flip into an advising rule
and, I don't want to be in that
role, so I can support the
original language, so case by
case, we just need to leave it
out.
>> Judge Hiljus? And then Judge
Castro.
>> I also prefer to not having
it as a standard condition, I
think that's an answer that
ultimately the legislature's
gonna have to answer if you get
the situation where someone is
on work release and they get
charged and I think it gives us
an opportunity look at the
registration may be till the
legislation to maybe clarify the
situation. I do not know if it
is immediately up to us to try
and figure that out.
>> Judge Castro?
>> I was just going to say the
same thing, certainly not as
eloquently as cut Sheila?
>> I don't hit a lasting.
>> I was going to see thing.
>> None of us are ever -- all
right.
Any other discussions or
questions?
So, I think we should have a
motion then, and I guess I will
ask for a motion to approve the
recommendation to eliminate
number ten.
All right?
It is been moved and seconded
that we adopt a recommendation
to to eliminate standard
condition.
Discussion on the motion?
All those in favor signify by
saying Aye.
>> Everybody: Aye >> Opposed?
Okay motion carries thank you
Karen.
Okay, we are now on to other
business, we have the main
agenda agenda? To pass around?
So, we have a few things on the
main agenda, one thing and then
add to the agenda is a really
preliminary conversation about
the branch use of artificial
intelligence.
We've all been hearing and
reading about this new thing
that already forgotten the name
of it.
So, there are some not
insignificant security concerns
with using branch devices and
engaged in the artificial
intelligence to on branch
devices, and so, I want the
concerts us to have a
conversation about that.
And we will have a very
preliminary conversation in
Maine, and then we will dig a
little more into it and come
back and have similar
discussions over the coming
months.
So that's not -- actually it is,
look Janet's already got it on
there.
Yes, then we have a special
topic on diversity, equity, and
inclusion as well.
So it should be a good eating.
Or maybe it will have a bunch of
plaything, which segues me
into -- yes go ahead. --
>> Does I.T. that I.T. must give
us the interim to share?
>> Go ahead Jason yes.
>> Yes, the prudent direction
would be to temporarily reframe
from using branch devices to
engage in a specific type of
activities.
And we will have more details as
the Chief Justice mentioned, and
in Maine around the rationale
for that, that guidance and
advice.
Spain went okay, so that's the
invites from I.T. It is just
cause, make sure you tell your
law clerks paused, do not meet
off the shirt the artificial
intelligence who judge
Hennessey?
>> Would you like us to send us
out on our messages to our
judges Christmas we went I think
it would be good.
It's just a temporary thing
while we explore this more.
But, there are some security
concerns in the risk is that our
data will be compromised and we
do no one but ourselves in that
position.
>> Do you have examples?
I mean I'm like an applicant to
be the tech expert but what
would be some examples of what
not to do.
I've heard about this ChatGPT.
>> That's when I can ever
remember.
>> Yes but is there other things
that someone advise our judges
to say for example not this this
or this question makes me when
yes, ChatGPT is obviously very
popular example right now.
But, I think, to be clear, I
would extend the recommendation
to any publicly available AI
service.
So, that is the most, one as of
right now.
And, that would be my
recommendation.
>> Went okay.
All right. So, more to come on
that in Maine.
In later.
So, let us see other business,
so legislation is in session.
And the legislative sessions are
always interested in challenging
and this one is proving to be so
as well.
And, I met recently with Justin
T sending the speaker, and also
had a chance to go back and meet
with the chair of a funny
committee in the house.
And chair back within, they were
happy to have Justin T's in
there as well as Judge Barnette
and Judge Castro.
So, we really appreciated the
support, and we continue to do
everything we can to get up at
your request the goal line.
And, we expect that our bill
will be heard in the house Ways
and Means Committee today, and
then, go to the floor next week
in the end of the conference
committees after that.
Of course the Senate in the
house will have to figure out
how to come to a resolution.
So, that is the process.
And, we are and we are doing
everything we can to do
everything the budget request to
do everything for the concert to
get this into law.
So we wanted to give you that
brief update.
Okay, it is only 10:00, and
lunch as I was away -- I don't
need to know if we ordered lunch
today.
Have we ordered lunch?
Okay.
So people can hang out.
So they're the things question
much judge Jamie Anderson
question McStay went on this
other agenda, is that a
training?
Or what is this?
I may have missed it?
>> So, we used to have, back in
the day, special topics.
And, E Court comes to mind. So
before the branch moved into the
world of electronic records.
We had a three-hour for
discussion, I don't remember how
long, but the multi-hour
discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages that we've heard
from other states about what
they are doing, and then, with
five other special topics.
In special topics just means
that we're going to talk for
some sustained.
Of time about this.
Until, diversity, equity, and
inclusion can modify discussion
of the strategic plan, and there
is some language propose in this
plan of the round diversity,
equity, and inclusion.
And I thought we should have a
more muscle treatment muscular
conversation about what that
phrase means in our own context.
And so, that is what we're going
to try and do with the special
topic next month.
I do not know if that answers
your question or not.
I don't not know if others who
are involved in putting this
together?
Were you involved Judge Larsen
question makes me when I am
coming you have talked a little
bit about it.
>> Yes, I did see them walking.
Sorry, good morning.
But yes, we do have a group,
Shelley is part of that group,
Paul, and Judge Harris.
>> And we also have several of
our DER specialist from around
the state.
Both in the court district, and
Ed Rendell who is the director
of the equity and inclusion
International state court is
going to participate in that.
So we will talk about what we
have been doing here, what the
sessional trends are and what do
we want to languish to be and
what is the strategic plan and
that will be the high-level
overview that I'm happy to
answer any questions that might
people I have.
>> It's a great program, the
groups are working hard to live
a couple more meetings coming
up, and just the folks that are
involved in the presentation.
That is going to be fantastic.
>> It's wow, you set the
expectation.
>> I am just telling you.
>> All right.
Any other business?
Anything else that anything
wants to bring up? Or talk
about?
I know you're anxious to get
back to work in your court
houses, you're welcome to stay
here and work and take a look
which when comes.
But otherwise, unless there is
any other -- anything to come
before the council.
I think we've done everything?
Then I would take a motion to
adjourn to.
>> So moved exhalation point >>
I think everybody is nice to see
you and it's nice to be
together. Thank you all.
[Laughter]