It's 9:00.
Let's go ahead and get started.
Welcome to the June Judicial Council meeting.
Everybody, we have
Judge Fritz here attending for Judge Hennessey.
Do you have prepared remarks
you want to give or a school song to sing or dance to do or.
No, no, no.
Okay. All right. Well, welcome.
Um, the first item on the agenda is to entertain a motion to approve the minutes.
We don't have any additions or corrections that have been submitted.
Any additions or corrections?
Then I'll take a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.
All those in favor signify by saying I opposed.
All right. The minutes are approved.
Item number two is a discussion item.
The Committee for Equality and Justice.
Judge Byers is going to present the S.J.
Work plan report and proposed FY 2425 Work plan.
Thank you, Chief.
Good morning.
As noted, I'm here on behalf of the Committee for Equality
and Justice to cover three in progress.
You're being recorded.
Okay. Should I.
Should I start over?
Okay.
To share our accomplishments over the last biennium.
To talk about our 2425
strategic plan and to seek your support for a racial equity commitment.
So the Committee for Equality and Justice has very active subcommittees.
As you may or may not remember, we have a diversity and inclusion
education committee, community outreach, access in fairness
and the Civil Justice Committee, which is a combined committee by members
appointed by the chief Justice in the Minnesota State Bar Association.
So included in the materials is a report
on our work over the last biennium.
I want to give a
shout out to Kim Larson, who compiled the report, which actually
breathed some life into what we've been doing over the last two years.
And you can see there have been there's been a lot of work
on a variety of issues.
You can see a Juneteenth presentation, some of the community outreach efforts.
The fourth District implemented a pilot project
in the race, data collection and family cases.
There is a portion that talks about the expansion of housing courts.
Last month at the special Topics
meeting, Justice Chew, which reviewed some additional initiatives.
So I'm not going to go over those, so I hope you'll have a chance to to
look at that.
I'll be back next month asking for council
approval of this plan so we can publish it on the branch website.
There will also be a request
for approval at the next meeting for
something that came from the diversity and Inclusion Education Subcommittee,
and that's a voluntary race equity commitment.
It's outlined in Exhibit E.
It is.
It was developed by the subcommittee with some of their own work,
but they also relied on a number of other race equity challenges,
including one from the fourth Judicial District,
the ABA in the YWCA.
So if that's approved, will collaborate
with Esko about how it will be rolled out.
I think it's 14 or 16 weeks.
I think we, I think, contemplate maybe a weekly email
with a list of some materials that may be
interesting to people who want to learn more about the topic.
And then the final
material is our
2425 strategic plan.
We approach this a little differently in in the past.
We have been sort of siloed with our subcommittees,
and we've each brainstormed and come up with a strategic plan
in the interests of better alignment.
I see Katie Sure back there.
Thank you for helping us with our process.
We came together to do the strategic planning work.
We had Justice Chu Rich and myself, the chairs of the subcommittees,
and then volunteers from the committee at large
and the process that we followed is included in the materials.
But the goal that we came up with is
to identify and remove barriers to justice by using an equity lens
to foster a fair, equitable, inclusive
and accessible court system, followed by a very long list of tasks.
So we have an optimistic plan.
So that's what I have.
I'll be back next month to seek approval.
And so I don't know if there are any questions.
I'll do my best to answer them.
If there are.
Thank you.
Judge Byers, any questions from the counsel?
Any questions from the counsel?
A lot of really good work.
And the plan is, I think, attached to to see the plan for next year.
Just to highlight that specifically.
Any, any.
So this will be here for action next month
and we'll identify a few action items.
All right.
Anything else?
Judge Byers from the C.J.,
I'll just give a shout out to Judge
Lawson told me that there's going to be
a 10th anniversary celebration
of marriage equity in Minnesota
on August 1st of 2023.
She told me about the mass marriage ceremony they did ten years ago
this August 1st will be the anniversary.
So you're cordially invited on behalf of Judge Lawson.
I hope I didn't steal your thunder.
I know
she's got a long speech prepared on the topic, so thanks.
All right.
Anything else C.J.
related?
Well, thank you, Judge Byers, for your report and for your leadership.
We are so grateful to all the members of the committee
and to you and Justice to TJ for leading that really important work.
All right.
Item number three or our favorite auditors here.
Summary of audit activities.
So Jamie is going to present a summary of audit activities for FY 23
and propose internal audit plan for FY 24.
Welcome. Thank you.
I'll share my screen.
All right.
So every year I come to Judicial Council, you're my audit committee,
and it's required that I come visit you and give you
a summary of last year's activities and then propose what I would like
to have our internal audit unit do for the next fiscal year.
So I'll go through last year.
Feel free to stop me if you would like.
So for fiscal 23,
we completed the 10th Judicial District, audit the statewide receipts, fines
and fees, and then the storage of court records audit.
That report is in the review review phase right now.
So council has not seen it.
It'll probably come to council in the next month or two.
So for audit staff, 70% of their time
was spent on audit and audit follow up work.
Follow up work consisted of treatment court accounts receivable and sixth
District Treatment Court in sixth District is actually being worked on right now
and should be done by the end of the fiscal year.
And then those results will also come to council next month or August.
And then this also includes our reoccurring audit work.
Minnesota government Access the Auditors once a month review those audit
trail reports to ensure that our partners are using the system appropriately.
And then also twice a year, we look at our bulk data audits as well.
Professional Advice and Consulting Services
Manager, Time myself was 27%
and then the unit as a whole was 15%.
And this consists of various meetings that we attend.
Business rules, County Work Group,
the MRO Project meets US requirements.
We have a men's rights and roles team that we have document
security oversight, etc.
that we participate in.
I also assist with the Casco Financial Manager
Summit planning and presented last year
at the summit on three different topics while I attended that summit.
This also includes any consulting or advice.
The auditors will go out and visit onsite for a day
and just look at controls processes
and provide any advice and recommendations that they may have.
And so that's always open to court
administration and districts if they would like that to happen.
This also includes a district
risk assessment, review and coordination.
Then investigations was 9%.
Overall, audit staff was 11%.
This, unfortunately, was an uptick from last year. Last
year was only eight and a half percent and I had estimated 6% in this area.
So investigations and fraud has increased.
And then the next area, Professional Development Audit Administration
and continuing and this generally stays around the 2% each year.
And this involves updating work papers, continuing and
participating in roundtable, other roundtable
groups in the state of Minnesota and then nationally.
Yes. To stop you for a minute, you mentioned that investigations
and fraud has increased.
Fraud hasn't actually increased.
I mean, you didn't find fraud.
It was just more work for you to do to look to make sure there wasn't any fraud.
There has been fraud.
So this this is what you mean.
So this section is when complaints come in.
So not in a audit. So a scheduled audit.
So complaints of time theft or invoice
theft contract or theft receipts, fines and fees like manual receipts.
Okay, That's helpful.
Thank you.
Do you feel like we've dealt with those? Yes. Okay.
All right.
Sorry to interrupt.
Okay. Fraud word caused me to pause
and then unemployed time.
This is supervisory meetings, general
clerical duties that the auditors are required to do.
And then just sick vacation holiday was 18%.
And then my time specifically because I oversee the units
and including our conservator account review programs.
So mentor time was 5%
and then 42% for overseeing our cap and care programs.
That is a little higher than last year, about 8%.
And that's due also to the grant that we are overseeing our guardianship
improvement grant and the work that is taking place, fair
oversight of these two teams, the grant
participating and leading the business roles, team meetings.
I also co-lead and participate in our Wings organization,
the National Wings, and any Social Security
Administration meetings that take place.
We've been through the grant providing demos and going through
our processes and procedures with other judicial branches and other states.
They've been very interested in seeing our MKG, and I'm a Ms.
M.S. system, so we we provide that as well.
And then also been participating in updating our probate form.
So I'm part of a group there. So that is
where that, that time goes.
So then these two charts just provide a summary for the council
of the number of accounts that the cap and carb teams conducted over the years.
The last fiscal year
cap, they had an increase of roughly 650 cases.
And then our program had an increase of 451 cases from the year prior.
So we've been utilizing some temps, working on our backlogs
and then also just seeing where we can become more efficient
and the work that we do there to work at that backlog
of conservator account cases.
Any questions on last And let me just follow up on the increased investigations.
Are there things, steps, policy changes that you think at the counsel level
we should be thinking about in response to the uptick, uptick
in needed investigations?
I would say
that roughly half or maybe a little more than half
has been time to review investigation.
So a little bit more about what you what what that meaning that
an employee is not working
and they are not taking vacation or sick
or they come to work late, leave early and they're not taking the appropriate
leave time or making up that time,
long lunch hours, those kinds of things.
So I guess from a counsel perspective or a management perspective, it's
just really important
that you're overseeing your employees and making sure that they're working
their 80 hours, if that's what the requirement of the job is.
That's helpful.
Yes, go ahead, Judge.
Justin, thank you for this report.
Just following up on the chief's question, and when you're talking about
the increased use of temps and kind of
to help control this, are there budget
implications to any of this that the council should be aware?
No, I don't believe so.
We were approved for one more temps for the the next two years.
So we only have one temp at this time.
Jeff, do you think that that the increased investigations
is something
that maybe you've talked about it again already, but if there are additional
things that the council needs to engage in, maybe Chad could
think about that and bring forward if there are recommendations that are needed.
Sure.
And in response to Justin's point, I mean, Chad approves these positions.
So we have discussions with Chad about them.
That's where the money comes from.
All right.
Any other questions about the activities for 2023?
Any other questions before Jamie turns to the proposed work for next year?
Any other questions about the past work?
Okay, go ahead.
Thank you.
So the proposed
audit schedule and activities for fiscal 24,
it didn't change a ton from last year.
We have a considerable number of carryover audits
and some of the main purposes for that
are we added the storage for court records
audit and that was a pretty lengthy and time consuming audit.
So that took away from some of the other audits that had
that were planned and approved for last year.
Also the increase in investigations that takes away from the work
and then also the statewide receipts
audit that also took more time
than what we had anticipated.
So all three audits that are listed
here at the top are carryover from last year.
So we want to continue with audits for physical inventory
and fixed asset tracking.
We will do the court payments center, internal Control
and compliance audit and then the seventh and eighth Judicial District.
We are proposing that we add one more audit as time and resources permit.
We have
the I.T.
Security Division's Cybersecurity division has asked
that we conduct a audit over their thousand series policies.
So that's an audit that we have added to the list
and then corrective action and follow up.
We just leave document security.
And here is something that we're willing to take a look at as needed.
And when Chad requests that we do a follow up
in that area, mission of applications.
And I believe that that follow up work will fall in nicely with that
thousand series that I'm proposing that we add.
And then we will have to do some follow up work when the timing works.
Well with interpreter examiners and RFPs Audit 10th Judicial District
and then statewide fines and receipts
if the timing works out as well this year.
And then storage for court records.
I don't know if it'll take place this year,
but adding it to the list just so that it's staying on the plan,
we would do that work as as it comes up when it's ready
and then ongoing audit work will continue to do the MGR
audit trail work, as we always do,
monitoring and reviewing the bulk data,
and then any other information technology cybersecurity reviews that are needed.
We will continue with our ongoing consulting
and advisory services as necessary and needed,
continue with the risk assessment, coordination and reviews.
And then as unplanned thefts
or complaints come our way, we will dedicate resources
and training as necessary and then the audit administration,
professional networking and then oversight of our Katherine care programs.
And then the last page of the plan is just the all the audits that have taken place
since I've been here since 2012 with the findings and written observations
as just kind of a goal to be able to go back and take a look.
Okay.
Any questions about the proposed audit
plan for FY 24?
All right.
That will be here for action next month.
Is there anything else under item number three, Jamie, from you
know, any other questions from counsel about item number three, the past
audit plan and the proposed workplan for next year?
Okay.
Item number four is also an audit item.
It involves internal audit policy.
1101 And each year the council needs to review,
make any necessary changes
to the policy and if not, then reaffirm the policy.
The policy really acts as the charter
for the internal audit activities in the branch.
And Jamie doesn't have any suggested edits to the policy, right?
Jamie Correct.
He didn't do any members of the Council have any
edits or suggestions to the policy.
It would be really good if we could act on this today
just for continuity purposes to keep the policy in effect.
Does anybody object to acting on
reaffirming judicial council policy?
1101 today?
Any objection?
All right, then I will take a motion
to reaffirm traditional council policy. 1101
So, all right.
It's been moved and seconded that we affirm reaffirmed judicial Council policy.
1101 Discussion on the motion.
Discussion on the motion.
All those in favor signify by saying I proposed.
All right, motion carries. Thank you, Jamie.
Thank you.
Okay, now we are on item number five,
the budget for 2425 budget.
This is here for decision.
We're going to be making a number of decisions.
And Dan is going to start us off here
and present the proposed Y 2425 budget
and then explain
the stuff we need to make decisions on.
So he'll go through it and we'll have judge john talk about the law clerk h.r.
You would recommendation and then we'll come back and make decisions.
So with that, then you have the floor.
All right, let me get situated here.
Thank you.
Okay,
so as the chief explained, I will walk through the decision
item pages, which is pages six through nine,
and then I will stop at Section D
and have Judge John and Dana Bertolucci come up and go over the district
law clerk salary cost increases discussion
for that item.
I will then resume and explain all the decision items.
Once I go through all the items, then the chief will walk us through
each section by section for discussion, motions and votes.
So let me get to for some reason,
this is on my way here.
So this is pages six.
We'll start on there.
The first is around the trial court's chair.
If I can get this to blow up a little bit more here.
Might be easier for members.
Yeah. To just go to your laptop.
No, it's small print. Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, exactly. It's pretty tough.
First numbers, people like small print.
Okay, so the first is the trial court's JAD
recommended 2425 biennial budget adjustments and reallocations.
So the first is a one is to distribute
the 9% and 6% employee compensation pool wage and insurance increases.
And that's for the central budget.
So that's a one.
And let me just explain.
When I talk about employee compensation pool and the request,
we request the wage increase plus
fire and retirement impacts to the branch.
So I want to be clear about that.
It's just not the 9% increase.
It's also those impacts.
Okay.
So a two is the judge budget eight and 4% wage and insurance increases.
A three is the money for the district and CPC nine and 6%
employee compensation pool, wage increases and the insurance increases.
That also includes the law clerks.
And that part we go to B, which is treatment courts.
And you can see two items there.
The first item is
B, one new treatment courts and then included for treatment courts.
Beltrami Goodhue, the Third District Veterans and St Louis Veterans Courts.
Those are the four.
And then you have B two which this is new to the packet from last month,
and this is around the treatment courts cannabis provision.
So this allocates 1.5 million and 24 and we receive 1.5 million and 25.
That grows to 2.5 million in 26 and 27 per year.
The recommendation we have from Jad is to basically increase
the treatment courts allocation formula in the budget from 89% to 100%.
So fully fund the treatment courts.
That increases the eligible treatment court's total budgets
by $607,000 per year, which leaves
the remainder of $893,000 per year.
The recommendation since this is so new, we don't know all the details about this,
is to come back with a plan in three months
and talk about the remainder of the funding. Okay,
The next is around mandated services.
Yeah, stop you for a minute.
W So this extra 800 and almost $900,000,
the just talk a little bit about what you envision as the planning process.
Like how is that?
Yeah. Jeff, you want to go ahead.
So we did not
ask for this funding, but the idea I think is that
cannabis may increase the number of people in treatment courts,
it may increase the number of cases come into our courts.
We don't know what effect it's going to have on people driving.
And so I think the idea is we need to take a little time and see what impact it has
and see if we need to change staffing, do other kinds of things.
Maybe it'll change our judge need in places we don't know.
Where do you anticipate the planning happening?
Well, Jan is going to have some discussions about and look at the numbers.
I think it's also would be important
as we're thinking about this new money, to think about targeting
areas of the state where treatment court services are not available
and maybe encouraging some multi-county collaborations
to try to make sure we can provide the service across the state of Minnesota.
So if you could just
put that in the planning menu and then this will come back to the council
and we'll course get some input from TCI as that planning process is undergoing
under underway as well.
Okay.
Sorry to get sidetracked.
Great. Ahead, Dan, thank you.
The next section C is are all mandated services.
We were allocated $1.5 million per year.
That is one time money, unfortunately, but it helps.
So that see one
page here,
C two is around and this is around the mandated services
competency restoration for additional required psychological exams.
This allocates $1.5 million in 24
and then goes to 5.04, 2,000,025 for those costs.
C three is the contract interpreter Payment rate continuation
is basically increase the rate for our contract interpreters by 8%.
So that will continue.
And then you have some adjustments C for C five and C six.
C four is allocating money for the Mist Supervisor,
which is the Minnesota interpreter scheduling specialist.
It transfers C five, it transfers
$550,000 from the DHS
budget appropriation to the mandated services
just because of the three year rolling average is increasing by that much.
And then just a sidebar.
Basically, the districts will need to self-fund
any mandated services deficit from their DHS budgets.
We've had that in there before so that C.
D is session changes and adjustments D one.
Like I said, I'm going to have Judge
John and Dana Bertucci come up and explain this.
And why don't you want to just walk through the rest of yours
and then we can come back and do. Sure, I can do that.
Yeah.
Just explain the rest of yours
and then we'll come back and do the law clerk and then we'll.
Yeah, we could do that. Okay. All right.
As I said,
the the districts need
to self-fund any mandated services deficit.
So is that related to this competency restoration?
No. It's just normal that we have to find the money somewhere and it.
Okay.
And then I'll walk through dd1 is district court law clerk salary
cost increases and this is to allocate 2.03 3,000,024
and 25 for those costs and that will be covered later.
D two we received $91,000
and 24 182,025 for extreme risk protection orders.
So we need to implement that then new items to the package.
D three is around the courtroom technology.
One time money, we received $7.4 million in 24.
You can see the allocation on page 16.
So and then same with the court case backlog.
This is one time money and fiscal year 24, a $4.2 million.
And again, you can see the allocation on page 16
D five is just an adjustment.
This is what we've done in the past.
But what the long term allocation
formula this allocates the money out to the districts and CPC,
basically we move 50% of the way towards equalization at 24
and then we go all the way 100% and 20 5d6 are a big budget.
The judge budget, which is on page 14, if you want to look at that,
the judge budget will start out the year
with $147,000 projected deficit
that can be managed within the trial court's appropriation.
The assumptions used in the judge budget, you have a two judge vacancy
per pay period.
It's been running around 3 to 4.
So I think we'll be good with that.
B Senior
judge administrative pool will be funded at $100,000 per year.
That's $10,000 per district.
And then New C and D, I know you had asked
how can we have a plan to cover
increased judicial expenses of $175,000 a year?
This is inflationary item.
So for 24 and 25, this is a temporary fix.
We would not budget for judge disability.
Usually what we do is we budget for disabilities at 1.75 judges.
That has been used twice, I believe, since I've been here ten years.
So what we're doing is we're saying we're we're not going to budget.
We're going to have a zero for that.
If a disability occurs.
What we'll first do is look to statewide
unfunded needs to see if there's money there to cover this expense.
If there's no money there, there then will proportionally
have contributions from the districts.
So that's how we plan to deal with if there is a judge disability issue.
So this just to stop you, Dan, So this councilmembers will remember
we talked last month about there's a deficit in the judicial education
line item.
If we continue with judicial education programs as we have been,
and there'll be 100 and, I don't know, $75,000 deficit.
So we either have to change education programing for next year
or we have to figure out a way to cover the deficit.
And this is the proposed fix to leave education
programing as it was for next year, but cover the deficit
by transferring the funds that were previously used for judge to disability.
And then i think long term we should have h.r.
EOD look at the programing to see if if maybe there needs
to be tweaking in the programing to try to make up for the increased costs.
Judge john, i just want to say how appreciative i am
that we are finding a way to cover the shortfall
because i know judges, we all have different opinions about things,
but if there's one thing we all can agree on is how important our big programs
and small programs are, especially our fall and winter conferences.
So thank you. I'm glad we're doing this.
Okay, So that's just a
clarification about what that's for.
Go ahead then.
Just can I ask. Sorry. Yeah, sorry.
Can I ask a question?
So you said that only twice in the past ten years.
Is that disability fund?
What I recall you have been used
so has actually spent going into unfunded needs, then?
No, we've budgeted for that.
Yes. After you.
Yeah.
It gets rolled in unfunded needs if you don't use it.
Correct? Yeah.
Okay.
So again, D budget $175,000 per year
for increased judicial education expenses.
E Senior judge vacancy reimbursement be funded at 75% of the per diem rate.
That rate is $633.
And then f judicial equalization be funded
at $300,000 of additional resources per year, which brings all the districts
up to a minimum of 106.1% of judicial weight of caseload need.
So D seven is around our for defunding,
we will have actual reimbursements
of a little over 6 million in 24.
We're projecting that for 25 just a straight flat rate.
And you can see below how the money gets allocated.
The districts e Court, Minnesota cap program additional Tyler maintenance.
So with this allocation, the budget would have a deficit
of about $1.2 million in 24 and about 1.3 million and 25.
And that will have to be covered through carry forward funding for D.
So that is what Jad recommends for the allocation.
So the allocated amounts for the districts
will be proportional based on their actual 24 reimbursement amount.
The districts will also cover the small county solution
to fund expedited child support processing in the eighth District,
and then any four d carry
forward from 23 to 24 to be used for project
staffing and operational need above the deficit needed money needed
so that is with the trial courts.
So on page nine, I will get to the Court of Appeals.
Pretty simple.
Two things there A is to disperse the nine and 6% employee
compensation pool and the 8.4% judge wage and insurance increases.
B is the Court of appeals recommends
per policy reimburse any court of appeals judge whose permanent place of residence
is more than 50 miles from the judge's permanent chambers and Saint Paul
for housing expenses or mileage for travel from the judge's permanent chambers.
This needs approval for 24 and 25.
That's what we said the last time we did the budget and will be reevaluated,
reevaluated in 26 and 27.
So that's the court of appeals, Supreme Court
dispersed the nine and 6% employee
compensation pool in the eight and 4% for the justice wage.
And then the insurance increases.
And then there are a couple new items from the packet last time.
One is around the cannabis expungement provisions that allocates
$545,000 per year in 24 and 25.
And then there's a small amount for paid family
and medical leave interest change.
It's $15,000 per year for 24 and 25.
So that what do we anticipate the under item B three, B one?
What is that money going to be used for the expungement provision?
Is that staff, Is that what is that?
Yeah, it's 2.5 staff, if I recall correctly.
Yeah, for contractors.
Go ahead, Janet.
Yeah.
A lot of the money will be used for contractors
to work on the interface with CCR to create the expungement records.
Okay.
And then 2.5 temporary staff if needed.
Right. Thank you. That's helpful.
All right. Sorry, Deanna interrupted. Oh, that's okay.
That's all I have. As far as
going over the decision items.
Okay. So let's let me just pause.
We'll go to the law clerk issue, but let me just pause and see
if there are any other questions.
Based on anything Dan has presented so far.
I'll ask again before we start making motions on all of that stuff.
But are there any other questions about the information Dan has presented
so far?
Okay.
All right.
Then we'll go back to the EOD proposal dealing with law clerk salaries.
And let me just start by saying, I'm sure you all saw
the letter that came from legislators yesterday.
And in response to that letter,
I want to state for the record that the proposal from H.R.
EOD fully comports with the plain language of the statute and with the legislative
intent expressed at the meeting that is referenced in the letter.
This is so because the H.R.
EOD proposal uses the $2.033 million each year
to increase district court law clerk salaries.
And in addition to those funds, the proposal provides that every law clerk
is also eligible for the additional nine and six salary increases.
All right, John, I turned it over to you to present the proposal.
All right. Thank you, Chief.
So my name is Tamara Yun.
I'm the chair of H.R. EOD.
And we're going to just recap our proposed law clerk
salary plan that was recommended from our committee.
So if we go to the second slide,
what I like to do is just talk about
kind of how we got here with this recommendation.
So over a year ago, in April of 2022, our committee was given the task
of studying law clerk recruitment, retention and utilization. And
up in our ninth District, we know very well
how hard it is to get law clerks.
So we certainly understood this issue.
We also, I think every judge can agree how important law clerks are.
They're vital to judges being able to do their work.
And we need really quality law clerks to do that.
In our ninth District, we've had a problem
with recruiting and retaining law clerks for a long time.
And so it isn't anything new for us.
So after some consideration,
our committee came up with a pay range model.
This was something that was presented to Judicial Council in September,
so about nine months ago, and there were no objections
it was passed or I don't think there was maybe that much discussion on it.
And the reason that
we adopted or or proposed this pay range model that was adopted
is because if you think about how law clerks are paid right now,
they get their entry level salary and then they get one,
you know, increase after that and then it stops.
And if there are legislative allocations, law clerks will get paid more,
but it stops.
So if a judge finds a really good candidate,
maybe who even has some experience and would like to bring
that person in at a higher level, sorry, you can't
you get this entry level and then it stops.
So that is a model we felt was a little bit outdated.
And because I think there's maybe some judges who still feel this
way, too, I want to hire
law clerk for one or two years and then they're going to move on.
And this is a service to the legal system to bring people in.
Then they're going to move on to their careers.
But one of the things that we studied when we put this pay
range model together is that that's changing right now
out of all of our law clerks in the district branch,
138 of them have over 202 years of experience.
And if you average out their length service, it's close to nine years.
And so with a pay range,
you have the ability to pay law clerks more.
The longer they are there and hopefully retain good law clerks.
Is everybody going to want to be a law clerk forever?
No. Some people want to move on.
But we have found that someone to stay in the numbers bear that out.
It also provides the ability to hire somebody
in at a higher level of pay if they've got some prior experience.
So that's what we proposed.
But you might remember that when we made this proposal,
we also very much supported the nine and six because it costs money
to have a pay range to get it started, to get it going in.
If, say, the legislature had given us a 2%, 2%, we couldn't
do a pay range because it costs a lot of money to do that.
So with that, just some of the background,
I guess, as to why we really thought a pay range would be a good idea.
I will say this too.
I before I came on to Judicial Council,
I was on my way for quite a bit of time and my big thing was always
make sure the judges are fairly paid and make sure we ask for what we need.
And we always seem to get recommendations that would tie judges and staff together.
And when I was on MD, I always thought that's a bad idea
because staff gets paid more.
When judges get a two and 3% increase.
Okay, we get that. That's all we get.
But we knew that a large part of our staff
would get more than that because they have this pay range.
They have a paper pay for performance model.
So is it really fair to always tie judges and staff together?
So that's just my own personal thinking about
why a pay range can be a good thing.
I mean, there's a reason employers do it
so law clerks aren't paid that way right now.
Of course, they get their entry level and they get one more bump
and then they stop putting them in a pay range is
something that would allow them to earn more as they go on.
All right.
So let's go to the next slide.
Now we know now what the dollars are from the legislature.
We didn't know that in September when the Judicial Council adopted this model.
But what we have with our legislative
allocation now is a really nice chunk of money.
And when you think about it,
this is a good problem to have to talk about how to apply money.
But under the proposal, we have 2
million designee needed for district law clerks in the next two fiscal years.
So the proposal under this H.R.
body recommendation is that 2 million goes to bump up
the entry level salaries for law clerks.
So under that first allocation, that brings them up to that 63,006 four figure,
and then take the nine, take the six,
put it all in the district court
law clerk pay range, use it to have this pay range set up.
That's what the 9% would be for.
And then the 6% would be towards a pool.
Once you get the range going, then it goes to
what's called a pay per pit pay for performance model.
There's enough dollars here to get it going.
So I'm where the chief mentioned and of course,
all of us judicial council members, we've been getting a lot of communications
about pay ranges and even a communication from legislature saying,
Hey, you guys remember this was our legislative intent.
Well, I'm not sure why they think that this proposal doesn't
do that, because We are I mean, this is what we're proposing.
Take all that money, put it towards district court law clerk pay.
So that's what this proposal would be doing.
Why don't we go to
the next slide and let's talk about pay ranges.
And I've learned pay ranges are complicated.
In fact, pretty much everything about H.R.
is complicated.
And I'm glad that I don't do H.R., But,
you know, there's questions about, well, how does a pay range work?
Well. We'll keep talking about that more.
But first, you look at what do you get from the legislature
because we can't tell them what to give us.
They give us what they're going to give us.
Then you look at the market.
What what are people making in similar positions?
What is the market there?
And then you look at budget and when when I saw this word budget,
I had to look into a deeper implementation budget.
So when you're putting a range together, you see the what money you have,
you see what the market does, and then you say, all right, how many law
clerks do we actually have right now in the district branch?
Where are they in terms of years of service?
Because that's what we're proposing.
How you get this range going.
And then when you figure out what you have,
you can allocate your dollars accordingly to figure out how to set up the range.
So that's what we mean when we say this
proposed range is based upon those three different things.
Now let's go to our specific proposal when it comes to
when it comes to law clerks.
So on the left, you can see our current pay plan.
This is what's going on right now.
This is what law clerks make.
I think we all agree.
Wow, 57,000.
That is really low.
Everybody agrees on that.
And then when you when you've had your first year and you bump it
up to 59 195, that's awfully, really low, too.
So what we're proposing under this pay range is, again,
all the money's going towards district law clerks.
But you you take the 2 million in each year and as you saw in a prior
slide, that brings us up to 63
and then with the 9% to get this started,
the most frontloaded range that we could do as we studied in our
committee were to end up with
an entry level range of 65000 to 17 to get this started.
Fiscal year 2024.
This is a 30% increase
for law clerks if this is adopted.
And then looking at how it would spread out,
when you look at where law clerks are, where they are in the range
in terms of how long they've worked, the midpoint
would be 71,007 39 and then the maximum up to 78,000.
So that's what it would look like
under this proposed pay range.
When we had our h.r.
EOD committee when we studied this issue, when we knew what the dollars were,
we initially looked at an option that didn't frontloaded as much and
there was a really good discussion about you know, recruitment is such a big deal.
And we hear that from so many judges and recruitment is a big deal.
Can we frontload it more?
Can we throw more dollars in the 9% to raise it even higher?
And when you do the math
and I'm not the one who did the math and I won't pretend to have done the math,
but when you do it, the most frontloaded option gets us to the 65,000 217.
Now there's proposals that say, why don't we bring them up to 69,000?
Okay, but then there's no money to do a range.
You can't do a range if you add more dollars.
This is the most frontloaded we can do to get this started.
Now, let's go to the next slide,
because I want to talk about if this is adopted, how would it work?
How would it get started and the way that it would get started
is based upon a law clerks years of service.
That is a number nobody can argue about.
How long have you actually worked here?
And then under this range, law clerks would be based on,
you know, initially started based upon their years of service.
And then if a law clerk had prior legal experience,
maybe they had a career
doing something in the legal system before they became a law clerk,
that law clerk could communicate that and go even higher on the range.
So that is how it gets started.
I visualize, you know, think of a top, a spinning top.
This is how we do to get that top spinning put everybody in the range
based upon their prior legal experience.
But then let's go to new law clerks.
What about new law clerks?
Because this is something that's fluid.
You have law clerks that come and go.
So once you get the range started with our existing law clerks,
then it's going to shift
because you're going to look at what type of experience
a law clerk might have If you have somebody coming in
fresh out of law school, they're going to come in at the entry level.
But maybe you get somebody who's got some years of experience.
It happens.
It's in the ninth District.
I mean, you get somebody who's coming from somewhere else, like a lateral hire.
If you have someone with a lateral hire.
A judge would have some input on that and you can bring them in at the midpoint.
If you have somebody who says, Well,
I've got somebody, I want to bring them in at the very top of the range.
Well, just like we do with the branch,
with other employees who are in a range where this range is done
all the time, there's a process that you have to follow.
There's a form you have to fill out.
And it isn't just the the judge who's the appointing authority.
You can say, Well, this is what I want.
So I get it doesn't work that way in the branch.
We're not private lawyers who have a law firm who can do that.
But there is a process that's followed.
It's been used for other court administration employees.
And so that's that's what we would follow, too.
And if you have judges who say, well,
but I want to have all the say, I want to have input on this.
Well, you have input under a range.
You have zero input under what we do right now.
Right now you want to hire somebody.
They're all entry level and they go up one step and that's it.
Now, there's also a question about criteria.
Well, what criteria do we look at
when we want to bring somebody in maybe at a higher than entry level?
Well, I'm sure you all paid close attention in December,
whether winter conference when I gave a presentation. Right.
You took notes.
This is something we talked about that.
Guess what? Judges under a pay range.
We have work to do, and we want your input.
Everybody got a survey.
Please tell us, judges, what is important when you bring somebody in.
What is valuable? You.
Because we want this to be something that's created based upon judicial input.
We got that survey information and, you know, there was criteria
that can be developed if this is something we can do.
So let's keep walking through these slides
and let's talk about next year or fiscal year 2025.
So after you get the range going, you get this top and it's spinning
because you were able to throw all this 9% money at it to actually get it going,
then rather than moving up based upon years of service
a way a law clerk progresses through the range is based upon performance.
How well are you performing?
This is something that is not unique to the branch's H.R.
department because they do it with so many other employees,
but does mean that judges have work to do.
And they also talked about that in December, that there is a meaningful
performance evaluation that would need to be done.
And the better a law clerk does, the more they're going to score higher
and the more they're going to get under a pay range.
So there's a performance evaluation each year.
This is something we would do.
Now, let's talk let's go to the next slide.
This breaks it down a little bit more, that
there is a rating system one, two and three.
There's questions that would
that we'd have to answer about our law clerks and, you know, five competencies.
So a law clerk who gets perfect marks would get 15 and midrange
probably ten and needs, you know, needs work would get five. Now,
I guess the next slide I think is kind of helpful
because it gets back to my point about how you can look at judges
and right now law clerks only getting what we get when the legislature
gives us money for compensation.
But this is an example or sample of how you can see
an unrepresented employee group getting higher increases.
And this is looking at these performance evaluations.
If they get a 15, if you got 2.5 from the legislature
in fiscal year 2022, they got more than that, you know, 3.9.
And you can see on the left, those are the scores
that were looked at from the evals.
And then what the percentage was for those employees.
So I thought that was kind of helpful just to just to show h.r.
Knows how to do this. They've done it.
And that just is an illustration
of how under a pay for performance, you can you can pay these employees more
than what the judicial allocation might be.
Now, let's go to the next slide.
And, you know, the issue that we have is does judicial council
approve this legislative use of of the funds of the from the legislature?
I'll just say this.
I, I think we all understand
that the salaries are too low.
My point is
this is a big deal to put a pay range in place.
It costs a lot of money.
I have no crystal ball, nobody does.
But are we ever going to get nine and six again?
Ever?
Who knows?
I mean, this was really a unique year to get that.
It costs money to set up a pool.
If we walk away from it, we might never have the money to do it.
And so
I just I want everybody think about that.
And again, the proposal that we have
is the most frontloaded out of all of the options.
I just I think it will help with recruitment and retention.
Maybe you have law clerks.
They only want the really high salaries
and they're going to be gone after two years.
But the numbers are not bearing that out.
I think that it would allow for bringing in lateral hires
and we'd have some input.
We have no input right now other than who we want to hire.
Assuming we can find somebody,
we would have some input under a pay range.
Once we do the performance evaluations
and you find a candidate you want to bring in at a higher salary.
And it may also keep existing law clerks who are performing well,
who are thinking about leaving, and maybe they'd stay if there's a range. So
that's that's just kind of my presentation.
I will say to I like I said, I've learned that H.R.
is very hard. It is hard to do the math.
It is hard to sometimes comprehend these concepts.
I really had to dive into it.
But I also think, too, that with the
the legislature, they were very clear we want this 2 million to go towards
entry level salaries, I think is what they said
or at least some of the comments, entry level salaries,
if you do just this straight,
2 million only for entry level year one and year two,
and then you allocate the 9% and the 6%,
there's a possibility you could end up with an absurd result that nobody intends.
Where when you get to the second year of the biennium, when you take that
2 million and you only throw it to the new law clerks coming in,
it could get paid more than the person who is on year two.
I mean it that's just running the numbers.
It's more difficult than maybe it appears when you're putting together
numbers from the legislature and trying to figure out salaries.
So I, I just hope everybody recognizes that.
And I expect we'll have a robust discussion.
And I guess with that,
I would move to approve that we adopt this proposal from H.R..
You would?
Right.
It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the Are you D recommendation.
Maybe you should put the proposed pay plan up on the slide
just so that everybody can see what the
what the numbers are.
And then while you're doing that, I will ask if there's just the slide
that's that actually has the, you know, the one I mean,
oops.
Well, let's just and let me ask if there's it's been moved and seconded
that we approve of the recommendation discussion on the motion.
Any discussion on the motion?
Judge Castro.
I have a few questions, but it
the criteria that we're developing for what I'm calling,
I think what the slate calls post law school
legal work
is H How are you going to
develop specific criteria?
What exactly that means?
Because that that clearly would be my preference.
What you know, one of the concerns that I have
and this also ties into what
exactly the use of service in the branch mean.
For example, if we had someone who was a court clerk who was going to law school
and had been in the branch for five years and then went to law school
and became a law clerk, do those years of service count?
When we talk about years of service, I have some questions about
specifically what that means and in what I'm I'd like to avoid
some of the issues that we've had as it relates to court reporters
and I like to avoid bidding wars again.
What would you get in Cook County should be the same thing
you get in Houston County or in Rock County or in Marshall County,
and everything else in between. So
those are the questions I have.
And then what gets you to the midpoint?
I think there's a lot of questions about
how you get to the midpoint, how you get to the high point,
because there isn't specifically a number of years.
If you have five years of service,
does that get you to the midpoint or do you need more than that?
So I think there's some there's there's questions
as as to how we get folks on the range.
That aside, I support the range.
It was a decision that was made as a statewide decision that not only,
you know, that impacts everyone and there are law clerks out there.
When I keep on hearings, 38%
of them have more than two years.
You know, in the in the second District, that that may be true.
Right. But statewide it is.
And so I think those law clerks should be awarded
for the work that they've done, not only that, for the knowledge
that they bring, because we all know when you have,
if you will, a senior law clerk in your district,
they're the person who gets a lot of questions from all the other local folks
about what to do.
So, Dana, do you want to.
Sure.
I can start with the criteria.
The criteria? h.R.
Jodi has already looked at a couple times.
h.R. Managers have looked at it based on the feedback that was given
early winter to them and from the judges and have created some drafts.
That's the code committee meeting next week.
We'll be discussing it
again.
We have guidelines for all of our unrepresented employees
in a similar manner, but these have structure.
What does it take to get to the midpoint is another question.
There are there's two answers.
First is, are current employees where they're going? And,
you know, if you have about four years experience
as a clerk right now, that would be about midpoint.
We've got to finalize the numbers typically for midpoint.
And what the guide will share is 4 to 6 years.
When a new employee comes in, they should have at least
4 to 6 years of experience if you're giving them midpoint
and go up from there.
So what does it take to get to midpoint is a more complex question
because we don't know what the legislature's going to allocate.
This isn't steps purposely because you have pay for performance.
So there are variables.
One is what the legislature gives us.
If they give us a lot, you get to midpoint faster.
If they don't give us as much, you get to midpoint slower performance
as the other variable.
If somebody is a rock star
and we have enough money in the pool to give rock stars more,
they might get more with correspond adding to their score.
If somebody has an off year, they might get less.
So that is the variable.
The final variable is market.
As we do market studies, every, you know, on a consistent basis
and ranges sometimes can be allocated higher if market
indicates so then the target moves if that happens.
So it's a little bit more of a complex question,
but the bigger question is are people going to progress?
Yes, that's the point of having a range that you can see progression
with your years of service and reach the top.
And sometimes the top is the ultimate goal.
But if that number needs to change because it's out of market,
the top might move so that we can keep progressing after that.
So there's a variety of different things.
I think I got all the questions you asked.
Judge Castro let you know if you didn't.
Yeah, no, I think I think you do.
I think what we need to do is perhaps after each
meeting is once we've solidified what that information
is, that we distributed clearly to all our judges.
Absolutely.
I did want to make one other comment about bidding wars.
That's why that is so important, that our EOD puts that out
and that there is a above mid-point,
a a way to request
that and have criteria that it's based on so that we don't have a bidding war
and that we do have equitable pay for equitable work.
Thank you.
Other questions, other discussion on the motion.
Are there discussion on the motion?
Yes. Judge Conroy,
Chief Justice and members of the Judicial Council.
I speak today on behalf
of approximately 300 active, senior
and active judges that are
members of the Minnesota District Judges Association.
First, MDG has been very grateful
to have worked side by side with the Chief Justice,
Geoff Shaw, by Janet Marshall
and all of you during this legislative session
on important issues such as Judge pay,
judge and staff, safety.
We have had a positive working relationship.
I believe that we also share a common goal
to make our judicial branch better
for all Minnesotans
in doing better for Minnesotans.
We need to do better on law clerk pay.
We are in a law clerk crisis.
We have difficulty
hiring qualified law clerks.
This threatens our ability
to deliver quality
and timely justice.
We know $57,000 a year is not competitive.
Pay for an attorney.
In our MDG survey,
99% of judges across this state stated
that they supported paying them consistent
with other entry level public lawyers.
MDG did a market analysis
that states that we are more than $25,000
outside of the public law corridor.
However, we don't need a study
to know what we already know.
We can't hire clerks.
Our clerk pay is too low.
And when clerks are leaving for jobs
like the clerk who left for the local SYNNEX station
in Greater Minnesota, it was quite evident
that a lot of
that is not enough pay.
I will ask not to be interrupted.
Thanks to the good leadership
of Governor Walz,
the Senate
and the House of Representatives,
we have been provided the largest appropriation
for salary increases to the judicial branch in a generation.
This includes a specific
appropriation for FY 2425
and for a one time district court law clerk
base pay
market adjustment of $2,033,000
in addition to 9% staff pay to increase
and fix our hiring crisis.
This offers us a historic opportunity
to raise our law clerks pay to a starting pay of $69,415.
The intent of the legislature's appropriation
is now threatened by possible action
of the Judicial Council here today.
As you know, and as you just heard,
Human Resources is recommending raising bottom
pay to $65,217.
This constitutes only a 2.4% of.
The 9% increase for base pay.
We can
and must do better.
The human resources
proposal does not take into account legislative action.
This session
on May 10th,
2023, during the conference committee.
The record was made that the intent was that this appropriation
be for a market adjustment, plus
the nine and six
adding confirmation of this position.
The ten members of the House and Senate Judiciary Public Safety conferees
wrote this body yesterday stating,
quote,
The law clerk base pay increase was intended to be in addition
to the nine and six
members of this council.
We urge you to honor the legislative intent
and do your absolute best to achieve
the highest starting pay for our law clerks
so that we can adequately address this hiring crisis we are in
and make necessary and substantial immediately.
On January 1st, 20, 23.
MDA takes position
only on the issue of base pay.
MDA does not take a position
on the whole host of other law clerk issues.
That is a moving target.
The proposal in September of 2022
is different than the H.R.
proposal on May 25th and has even different
than the proposal here today.
We are frankly left with more questions
than we have answers.
MDA still waits for answers to questions
we submitted to Human Resources on June 2nd.
These questions are likely to those
many of the chiefs around the state have received in recent
days.
We appreciate that the conversations
are happening around doing better for long
term clerks,
and we have time to do that work
collaboratively
and transparently.
Failure to deliver,
failure
to distribute our legislative funds as intended
will not only hurt our ability to hire,
it will hurt our reputation
with the legislature.
Also,
law clerks are public law attorneys,
and they deserve public law attorney pay.
And most importantly,
failure to establish a competitive base pay creates
an existential crisis
to the judiciary
without the ability
to hire quality law clerks.
We cannot deliver justice for Minnesotans.
2.4% of 9%
is just not good enough to meet the crisis
we are in.
We urge you to take this vote seriously.
Take the responsibility to safeguard
the legislative funds as intended,
and most importantly,
show our clerks that they are valued
and we intend to do right by them.
Just pausing to make sure,
because I don't want to be accused of interrupting.
Judge John,
you had a point that you were going to make
about the person who left the branch, right?
That was somebody in my county, actually, but it was a court admin person.
It wasn't a law clerk
and somebody who is newer to the branch.
And she left to go to Centex.
And that's a point that I made to legislators when we had our Dave,
you know, over at the over the Capitol.
But thank you.
Thank you.
Other discussion on the motion
there.
Discussion, Judge Jamie Anderson.
I've got just a couple of follow up
questions that I wasn't following in your argument.
You said 2.4.
The base proposal of H.R.
is from 57,000 to about 65,000.
And you say that's 2.4%.
I'm not following that calculation.
Would you be able to spell that out for me?
And then the second question that I have in follow up is how is the September 22
proposal different from what we're proposing today,
other than the specific numbers now that we know dollar amounts?
Judge Conroy,
The $2,000,000.33 thousand
brings law clerk pay to 63,770
and $730.
If we apply the 9%, as the legislature intended,
that brings us
to the allocation of $69,415,
unless you only use 2.4% of it,
which gets us to the proposal here today,
each and every response.
On the other question
about how the pay range implementation proposed today is somehow inconsistent
with the Judicial Council's decision from September of 2022.
Now, the proposals keep changing
in September of 2022.
If you go back and listen our Judicial Council record,
I spoke in support on behalf of my A
for a proposal to increase steps.
The nature of steps is dramatically different
in paper proportions or a pay range.
At the time
there was discussion of approximately seven steps.
There were extensive discussions between our H.R.
committee,
Judge Moore,
Judge Yon, about expanding from two steps
in which the second step only had a 50%
50 cent per hour raise
so little that it was almost a meaningless step
to expanding steps to approximately seven steps.
If you go back and listen to the recording from Judicial Council in September,
you will hear specifically that MDA supported
the concept of steps.
Here today, we're talking about a range
in which there is no guarantee on
attorneys second anniversary,
third anniversary, fourth anniversary
that they will receive a specific increase.
In fact, today, we don't know because the criteria is yet
to be developed to know precisely
where a law clerk falls.
This also goes to the Judge
Castro issue of all of the issues that Judge Castro
outlined today in the meeting, but also did during our H.R.
Yadi meeting. How does this work? Who falls?
How do we create consistency?
How do we know what's happening in yellow Medicine?
County is the same thing that's happening in Anoka County and in Hennepin.
M.D. J.A.
is delighted to sit down and discuss the issues
about how this gets applied.
We're willing to have greater conversation.
We still wait for information that we have
never actually received.
We'd be delighted to discuss this openly in transparency.
Apparently, our issue here today
is one of a very singular purpose and is consistent
with the legislative agenda that we passed
in January of 2023,
that our single purpose was to raise the base
pay of our law clerks,
judges across this state worked tirelessly
to obtain and receive the support
for increase base pay,
which came in two pots of money.
First, the 2.33 million.
And second, the 9%
legislature has heard over
and over again about our struggle with base pay.
Their letter even yesterday referenced base pay.
And here we are today not raising base pay to the amount that was intended.
Just making sure you're finished.
So MDA may have spoken in favor of steps at the September 20 and 22 meeting, but
I'm just reading from the meeting minutes because facts are stubborn things.
The meeting minutes say, quote, The Judicial Council approved implementation
of a district court and Court of appeals law clerk salary range
effective S.Y. 24.
Thank you, Chief.
Just at a higher level, a couple of things I just wanted to say.
You know, one, I do agree with the chief justice.
When she started this conversation saying I believe the plan put forward by EOD
and I'm a member of that committee comports
with the plain language of the legislation.
You know, we wouldn't be making this if we members of that committee
didn't believe that.
And I also believe, just based on my recollection.
So thank you both.
Thank you for the minutes that comprise.
I was following this pretty clearly carefully as a member of the committee
that it comports with the council's adoption of the approach of a range.
But I agree with Judge Conroy because I've heard it from so district
judges all across our state that we do have a crisis with law clerks
in the district courts.
I do agree with that, but that's one of the reasons
I think we can't just deal with the entry level hiring problem we have.
We also have to deal with the retention issues and and
we have to look this holistically.
And I because I've heard people say to me, you know, well, look,
let's just deal with entry level now.
We'll deal with the range and the retention issues later.
I think if we do that, this crisis continues
and I don't think we can wait till every single question is answered.
We all have questions.
But I think if we wait
till every question is answered, that crisis gets worse and worse.
And one thing and I know I'm in my last few months on the council,
which is and one of the things I've admired about this body
is our ability when to try new things, but to also monitor
and follow them closely, often through our committee process.
And I know that we would.
I know we would do that
because we do need some of these questions, like the ones
Judge Castro answer
raised, answered, and we need to follow and see if it's working.
But I encourage us to do that and to
vote yes and Judge Jon's motion.
Thank you.
Judge SIEGEL, you had your hand up
and we got we got more.
All right.
Thank you, Chief Justice.
And I know I'm on the Court of Appeals, but we're debating the very same issue
because H.R.
has put together a recommendation for us based on the Judicial Council,
and we're all driving in the same direction here.
I absolutely want the district court judges to have
fully staffed law clerks.
You guys need it.
It's important to the work of the court.
It's important to the work of of
obtaining justice and coming to the right conclusion.
But that being said
I don't know.
I mean, I don't know that there's any date or anybody has done any study
to say that a 4000, it would mean $4,000
a year difference is going to solve the district court's problem.
What I think is more likely and I was talking to some of our judges
who come from Greater Minnesota on our court is that range.
You can offer a job given the range.
Somebody who, you know, who's maybe been out for a bit,
maybe they've taken some time off from their career.
Maybe they've decided they want to move from the cities north.
And this is a good way for them to get introduced.
Or maybe they want to be career law clerks.
I mean, that ability to offer
at a higher
rate, I, I just think is valuable.
And I don't know what data or studies have been done
to say that Jesus $4,000
difference in base pay without giving them a bump
after the second year is going to really help very much.
I don't think it is because I think law clerks who are there
for the one or two year experience know they're not going to get as much
as starting lawyers, as public defenders, as,
you know, prosecutors, whatever public sector lawyers.
And they accept that for the experience an area that so.
So that's one thing.
And I also
you know this survey
that went out from the MDG, I'm an MD AA member.
I haven't been asked a single question about what I think.
And I bet
I mean, I don't know what you've done with the others, but
I think saving to that survey that had very general questions,
I responded to it, yeah, I'm in favor of paying law clerks a lot more money.
They work hard, we need them.
But, but I don't know that, you know, that's some
whatever those responses were, you know, I don't know.
I would like to see some data on really what's the best way
to get qualified, high
quality law clerks for all of us.
We all we all need them.
We all rely on them.
Judge Greg Anderson
that answers some of the issues I was going to discuss.
I just want to touch on a couple of things.
First of all, this is a pay range
opens up the possibility for judges to bring in somebody at a higher level.
And I'm and that's obvious.
And Judge yon address that.
But I want to talk a little bit about the kind of market that we can now look at
for possible law clerks.
Retired lawyers may want to work another year two.
We have remote
function now that we can have
remote law clerks that opens it up and a pay
range will help in the recruitment as far as lateral hires are concerned.
I just wanted to point out this is anecdotal.
This is based on one county, but of the five judges in Mankato, it'll
all five of us either have at this time or the law clerk immediately
prior to the ones we have now, was a lateral hire.
Three came from private law firms.
One was a former public defender and one was a prosecutor.
Some now have left and gone on to other jobs and those
we have new law clerks.
But this is something that is a reality.
The opportunity to hire somebody laterally at a somewhat higher base pay.
And I know they're still underpaid and they will be. But
this is something that gives us opportunities
for hiring that is the recruitment as well.
I realize that the it's not what some people would like to have
as far as a starting salary, but it is something that does open up
some I'm going to call it a market for employees that we don't have now.
Thank you.
Thank you, Judge.
Anderson, Any other on the motion?
Judge Beutel?
Well, just for clear to the record, in the past, when this law, Kirk
salary plan has been discussed, I recuse myself for personal reasons.
I will continue to do so on this vote here.
Thank you, Judge Beutel.
Other discussion on the motion, Shelly and then Judge Byers.
I guess I just have a question, Judge Conroy,
something Dan said earlier when he was presenting,
he talked about fire and other payroll are included in
in the calculations.
I believe that means they're included in the the range calculations.
Do you know if the figure and those other personnel related
costs are included in the MDA numbers
or would the branch have to
find the money to pay for
those additional costs?
Dan Dan, Aztec defer to you.
Yeah.
Based on the memo from MDA, that was not in the calculation,
so it did not consider those.
So if you were to allocate all that money, the 2.033
million owe to the law clerks on a flat rate
that the judicial branch would have to find the money to absorb it.
So that was not considered.
So that's why your calculation
is a lot different from the branch, because that was not considered.
How much money are we talking about?
Dan It's $248,000 per year, so you're talking
almost a half million dollars for the biennium.
Mr.. Ask, what is the percentage something?
930 well, 13.9% and 9%.
What percentage of the 9%
covers that percentage of the figure?
I'm not following your question.
If you have if you increase
by the 9%, what percent is that?
13.9%? I don't think so.
Well, Vickers, 7.65,
if you understand the question right now,
the proposal is 2.4%
of the 9% based on your numbers.
Yes. Yeah.
And Yours are an accurate remainder
is payroll taxes
when you take 2,000,033.
Right. And You just give it out.
You're going to have impacts to the branch at 13.9% of that money,
it's $248,000.
Okay.
I just want to finish answering the question, Justice Gilday.
The idea that we account for every penny
within an allocation within the percentage and let me give you an example.
I think
this Olofsson is part of what is part of the allocation
and what is sort of unfunded, what comes from the budget.
We just here minutes ago heard a proposal to use unfunded money
for shortfalls as it falls related to confidence in education.
Last year, this body found 6%
for every employee that was not part of legislative funding.
Is that right, Dan?
Yeah.
One time big, one time vacancies, one time for government.
So you're talking permanent versus one time, right?
The idea that there is not room within a budget
to bring our law clerk pay to 69,
particularly as everyone has pointed out repeatedly,
this is a pool of money
I don't think has fidele to how this group
has operated in the past, nor fidelity to the budget as a whole.
Judge Shelly, did you have any
follow up?
All right, Judge Bias, I had you next on the list.
I support this.
I think as a matter of policy, we've decided that both recruitment
and retention are important, that we want to take care of all of our law clerks.
When I hear
and as you know, math is not my my strong suit, but when Judge John says
that 38% of our people have been here for more than two with an average
of nine years, that's going to put almost 40% of our workers above 69,000.
So, I mean, and that's it.
Dan, feel free to jump in if I'm if I'm not understanding that correctly.
But I just I agree with comments that have been made about greater Minnesota.
I've had
the opportunity to make lateral hires that have been incredibly helpful.
And I think that our long term law clerks,
they bring a lot of value
to newer law clerks because they take on additional responsibilities.
Just they train our law clerks, at least in the six
they train our law clerks in chips.
They I mean, they just bring a lot of added value.
And I think we have to take care of all of our people
and recognize
that retention and recruitment are both important.
And I think that this proposal meets that.
Thank you.
Q Other discussion?
Any other discussion?
Judge Judge Lawson Then Judge
I'm supporting the trio recommendation.
Obviously, I seconded the motion, but I recruitment is so important.
But retention is right along it, and I actually think the range as proposed
helps with recruitment as well, because when I'm interviewing a law clerk
for me to say, Yeah, well you'll get started at this
and then next year you'll get this and then you're done, you know,
what kind of future endeavor does that provide to a proposed applicant?
But if we have a range and you have the ability to hire laterals
within that range and they know when they come on board
that they have the ability to get up to the top of that range.
There's growth available, there's promotion, there's more money
that I can earn if I choose to stay in this position longer.
And that is so important is someone that's hired a new law clerk
every probably two years in my tenure as a judge, it's hard
to train in a law clerk in,
especially now with all of our law clerks or many of our law clerks being remote.
They're not training each other as much.
But those
experience law clerks are so valuable.
They're so valuable to the branch, they're so valuable to other law clerks.
And I just really think that this proposal
both recognizes how important and how critical our law clerks
are, both in the traditional sense, where they work for a year or two.
But in this kind of newer, nontraditional approach to law clerk
positions as career positions, and we have many career law
clerks in the branch, and it would be nice to retain them and reward them.
So that's my $0.02.
But yes.
Thank you, Chief.
You know,
I want to start by just saying in the
in light of this conversation,
I view this
budgetary process as probably the most successful
that has happened in the branch in a long, long time.
If Not ever.
We got almost everything we asked for.
There's some frustration that judicial pay was less than staff.
Staff pay increases from the legislature.
There was a lot of heartache, heartburn and anger about some of the comments
that were made during the conference committee session.
I listened to it.
I listened to some of the comments being made
by legislators during that process, and it was frustrating.
But I don't think we can lose sight of the fact that,
you know, we went to the legislature in unprecedented times
with an $18 billion state surplus
with control of the state government in two branches of the state government
by one party who seemed to be somewhat on the same page.
But for this particular issue,
I don't want to lose sight of the fact that when we unanimously approved
a budget request at nine and six with the idea that once
we got nine and six we were going to create a new way of paying
law clerks that that unanimous decision, we all went across the street
and fight as hard as I've ever seen a judicial council fight for.
And when I've talked to the governor's office,
as they have been recruiting new, new judges
and I've talked to the staff there,
they've confirmed that they've never seen an effort like this,
including one from the chief justice, about trying to get the budget
branch's full budget passed without.
And I don't think we can lose sight of that.
I also don't think we can lose sight of the fact that if the legislature
didn't give us this 2,000,000.033
2.033 million per year
of the biennium, that we would not be in a position right now
where we could increase that base pay even within the range to 65,000.
So all the efforts to that to going toward that
significantly from MDG eight cannot be ignored
because I don't think that was likely to happen without their efforts.
That being said, I think the
difference between 65,060 9000 when it comes to base pay
is is not going to be a big issue to most starting law clerks.
Mine came in just recently at 50.
None of the conversations I had during that interview process were
potential law clerks asking me, Is there any way I can get more?
I think the value of a law clerk position is not only in that pay,
it is in what it means to a new lawyer to learn from behind the scenes
what it looks like in in the judicial branch.
There are lots of non compensation type of benefits
to being a law clerk that aren't reflected in that.
My new law clerk on July one,
if this passes, is going to be making 65,000.
She never anticipated that or even knew it was going to happen.
But we're going to have a significant number of law clerks
if this passes who are going to bump
to midrange, at least at 71,000.
And I don't think we lose sight of the fact that we have always complained
about low law clerk pay and the fact that it's only a two step process.
And the difference between step one and two is minimal at best.
It really makes no difference to law clerks if they get an extra
thousand dollars.
Once you divide that over 26 paychecks.
And so,
you know, if if there isn't the time to create
a pay range or a pay scale, a step system, if
other than now, it may never happen again.
And so, you know, if that thought and concept
is that we need to create a new way of paying law clerks,
then we need to move beyond that two step process.
I'm not
convinced that even if all the money goes to that base pay,
that we won't be in the same position five years for not from now.
When the legislature is giving us two and 3%
per year over the next ten years, where we start to realize again
that our law clerks are disappearing on us
right now, that same thing is happening in, you know, we
think about the market analysis that went on
and comparing our market to entry level county attorneys
and entry level public defenders, entry level legal aid
organizations.
And when I talk to those organizations in the area where I am chambered,
they are all struggling to get entry level attorneys right now.
It's not like our law clerks are leaving for them.
They're going somewhere else they can't hire.
The county where I work as a one judge county, they had to re post an entry
level county attorney position three times to get two applicants who qualified.
There's something
else going on in the market than just compensation.
And you know, until we can convince new lawyers
that there is true value outside of compensation
and being a law clerk, then we're losing the game.
And so, again, I don't want to lose sight of the fact
that we should all celebrate what happened with our budget this year.
This is a difficult issue.
It was very I was very angry and frustrated last night
when I saw the letter come in once I got a chance to look at it.
There have been a ton of questions from judges about how does this pay range work?
When will my law clerk hit the midpoint?
And quite frankly, a little bit frustrating as the chief judge
to try to explain to them.
I don't know those answers.
That's something being developed and something that Human Resources is working on.
I get for some that
when the original presentation
came in September of last year
that we were presented with the pay range and what it looked like.
And when I told my bench about it, there were questions about it
and I said, Well, I don't know, I'll just pull up the agenda
and I'll look at it and try and try and explain it to you.
Well, it wasn't in the agenda.
It was a confidential document.
And that started to feed into what's kind of a tired rhetoric
about all the balls that are being hidden down Saint Paul.
And so, you know, and I get
the explanation has been that
the information is confidential.
It has to do with labor relations.
But my concern is that, you know, we don't know a lot of those answers.
And I can't go back to my bench on July six and explain to them
this is how this is going to work.
This is what you can expect for your law clerks.
I mean, that's frustrating.
And so,
you know, in the end, whether paper or performance
is the right move or whether it's a step structure, I don't know.
But I do know that, you know, human resources
and our non-judicial staff have experience with a pay for performance model.
It seems to work.
I don't hear a lot of complaints about it, but we have supervisors
within that model who are supervising more than just one person.
And so they've got the ability to compare one employee
to another to decide whether someone is meeting expectations,
exceeding expectations or they need improvement.
One of my concerns really is that judges only have one
or one law clerk with nothing to really compare to.
And I do have a concern that my expectations of a law clerk
are different than Judge John's, and they're different than Judge Byers.
And I might describe someone as being as exceeding expectations.
The judge, John, might say, as it is successful, and I don't know
how to account for that within this pay for performance model in the criteria.
And those are questions in my mind that I don't know the answer to.
In the end, I'm concerned about what
Dan is talking about with the math.
And it sounds to me like
when we proposed nine and six for all staff and judges,
in addition to the nine and six we proposed to the legislature,
we also need we also need tax impacts, spike, etc.
We need to know what that means for the retirement accounts.
And so that was in addition.
And so it seems to make sense that we can't just allocate
$2.033 million to base pay
and then somehow eat the other 13.9%, if that's the number
and take it from something else, might it might be spent on.
And so, you know,
it the whole situation has gotten a bit out of hand.
I think we need do what makes sense and what makes sense for our law
clerks in the future.
And again, I'm not so sure that
there's a big difference between 65
and 69 that at this point justifies
not moving to some type of pay structure
that incentivizes longer term law clerks, if that's what we're looking for.
Thank you. Judge Healey.
Dana, did you want to respond to some of those questions?
Sure. Answers to all the questions.
After today's decision will be h.r. EOD.
They're brilliant,
so they will be providing a lot of those things with communication
coming up because communication is the key to make this successful.
So you are absolutely right.
The communication, all of the house wise will be coming
as far
as pay for performance model that will be in the fall.
A lot more information about things that we do that our our h.r.
Divisions in our our localities all know about.
We have something called competencies where you a list of things.
Do they do this or do do they do that?
And so that will be provided.
We'll have training sessions on how to evaluate calibration
that your benches can choose to do to talk about this together
during a bench meeting to say, what does this mean to you?
So those are all things that are very important to a pay for performance model.
So I'm glad you recognize that that will be a need in the future.
Thank you.
Any other discussion on the motion?
Other discussion on the motion.
Judge Hilliard, follow up.
And it's just a question and I'm trying
to just kind of read the room because it looks like it's going to pass.
Is it
true then, that with my brand new law clerk as of July one, if this passes,
the salary will go to 65,000 for a new law clerk. Yes.
And then it's a follow up.
But it's also true then, that we have a significant
number of law clerks who are going to be placed in the range
above, 70,000, even some approaching 78,000.
Correct.
Any other discussion on the motion?
Other discussion on the motion.
All right.
The record should reflect just Judge Patel's recusal.
Otherwise, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying I.
I almost opposed motion prevail.
I just want a vision.
I'd like to see a show of hands.
We don't do that under our bylaws.
According to the rules, Robert's.
You know what? We can do it. All those in favor, raise your hand.
Got it.
All those opposed.
Okay.
Abstentions.
Thank you, Chief Justice.
All right.
I just want to thank Judge Yan for her tremendous leadership on this.
And, Dana,
you have been so professional and so patient,
and I just want you to know that we really appreciate
the leadership from both of you and all the members of the committee.
Thank you so much.
Why don't we take a ten minute break
and then we'll come back with the rest of the decision items. Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
That's
we should get going.
Yeah.
Everybody. Sam, we're having so much fun.
We need to get back together.
Hey, look,
no one
likes the gavel.
Cup works.
I'm not going to
know what this.
All right, We are going to get back at it here.
We're going to go back to the other budget related decision items that the council
needs to make.
And So let me just before we start walking through these,
let me just see if anybody has any questions about any of the other items
that Dan covered earlier that are here for decision.
Any other questions?
We're going to go through them
in groups.
And so if you have questions about anything in the group,
you can you can I can pause and ask you about that then, too.
But so the first if you just have page six up
from your materials, that would be helpful because we're going to walk through them
in order here.
And so the proposal would be to
group them by letter.
So we would take the we're at the trial court.
Jad recommended biennial budget adjustments and reallocation days,
and we're going to do those items a through a one,
a two and a three as a group.
And that's how we'll proceed here.
So if everybody's got that together,
I will take a motion to approve
the recommendations identified as a excuse me, one,
a one, a two and a
three on page six of the materials.
Is there a second?
Second. Right.
Is there any discussion that's been moved and seconded that we approve
of the recommendations identified in the materials on page six,
identified as items 1a11a2
and 1a3,
Any discussion,
any discussion.
All those in favor signify by saying I,
I oppose all motion carries.
Then we're on one B
and there's B one and B to.
This relates to treatment courts.
I will take a motion to approve the recommendations
identified on page six of the materials, one
B, one and one B to zero.
Second second discussion on the motion.
It's been moved and seconded that we approve
of the recommendations identified as 1b1 and 1b2 discussion.
Judge Patel Chief Justice I just want to thank the Legislature for doing this.
Was I think overall going to be super good for for drug
courts across the state. And
I have the AG printed out the 155 page
plus cannabis law and there's and there's a lot in there.
Right.
We'll expect a report next month from you about.
So I just think,
you know, they thought about drug courts and how integral there are
and there are changes in the drug laws and how that's going to play out is
is somewhat of an
unforeseen and we'll just see how it all plays out.
But I totally appreciate the allocation and we're going to put good
use to the money.
Thank you.
Judge Patel, any other discussion on the motion?
The motion is to approve the recommendations identified on page
six as one B, one and one B to any other discussion.
All those in favor signify by saying I, I opposed.
All right. Motion carries.
Now we are on one C, which is page six and page carries over to page seven.
So there c1c to see three, four, five and see six.
This all has to do with mandated services.
Is there a motion to approve C one through C six
so moved their second.
All right.
It's been moved and seconded
that we approve of the recommendations identified as 1c1
through C six on pages six and seven
on the materials discussion on the motion,
discussion on the motion.
All those in favor signify by saying I
opposed.
All right, motion carries.
Now we're on page seven and we've already done D one
So the motion then would be to approve
the recommendations identified as 1d2345, six.
It carries over on to page eight.
So is there a motion to approve the recommendations D two through six
and seven. Sorry.
D Through two. Through seven?
Yes, to 3 to 7. Sorry.
Oh, all right.
It's been moved and seconded that we approve of the recommendations identified
as D two through
seven on pages seven and eight of the materials
discussion on, the motion,
any discussion on the motion.
All right.
All those in favor signify by saying I opposed motion carries.
All right, now we are on page nine,
item number two to A and B.
This relates to the Court of Appeals.
Is there a motion to approve the recommendations identified
as to A and B,
you are
there a second?
All right.
It's been moved and seconded that we approve
of the recommendations identified as two A and B on page
80 of the materials discussion on the motion,
discussion on the motion.
All those in favor signify by saying I
opposed
motion carries.
Let's see now we are at the bottom on page nine, the recommendations
under number three A and B, I'm going to do them together A and B,
unless you think I should do them separately.
Okay. All right.
So I'll take a motion to approve the items identified on page
nine is three A and B, is there a motion
so moved?
Right. Is there a second?
It's been moved and seconded that we approve of the items identified
on page nine.
Items three A and three B
discussion on the motion.
Discussion on the motion.
All those in favor signify by saying I, I opposed.
All right, motion carries.
Did we do it then? You did it.
Let me just pause and thank you for all your good work and thoughtful work.
You are my favorite finance guy today and always and seriously, thank your staff.
It's a tremendous amount
of work and detail and you're always ready to provide the information
when we need it.
Even when our requests, mine particular are unreasonable.
So I just want to thank you, Dan.
Really appreciate it.
All right.
What's left here?
We are now on item number six.
This is our
strategic plan for the next biennium.
Last month, we reviewed the proposed FY 2425
strategic plan and the FBI 24 operational plan.
The plan was first presented to us in July of 2022,
and now it's for action.
In October.
We received modifications
of the descriptions of three strategic goals and
the DCI and public service values added.
Let's see, Katy, or do you have some I have some updates.
And then Judge Lawson is also here to provide her expertise as chair of the
Strategic Planning Committee.
Go ahead, Katy. Yes.
So the first document that I have up on the screen is that those
strategic language
recommendations from the Strategic Planning Committee.
So these were presented in October
that also led to the special session that we had.
And now we are back with the recommendations for a decision.
So just to be clear, there are no changes to the mission or vision language,
no change to the the strategic goals themselves, the access to justice,
effective administration of justice and public trust and accountability
simply, the descriptions that we have for those strategic goals easier.
You can see it in the materials.
Six I think it's attachment six a
Right.
So then, Judge Lawson, any thing you want to add,
nothing really to add today, just to say many
thanks to all of the members of the strategic planning group.
We met at 7 a.m.
in the morning hours every time we met.
So that was above and beyond.
We're here to answer any questions you might have as we ask
to approve the modifications as reflected on
any questions.
All right, so then I will take a motion
to approve the f y 2425
strategic plan as it has been amended
and the operational plan
the emotion so moved for second.
Any discussion,
Judge Castro.
Thank you, Chief.
As as it relates to the operational plan,
I have a question about
under public trust and accountability three B
.03 it appears to be
in addition and it reads based on direction from judicial counsel
after a judicial resource allocation, special
presentation, develop plans for next steps.
Two things.
First of all, I have no idea what that means
and second of all, I'm not exactly sure how it got there
because I don't think that came out of the committee report.
So I can talk a little bit about what what it means.
This is something judicial resource allocation.
This is something that we talked about doing
before COVID and just really looking at
how our judicial officers are allocated around the state and thinking about
whether we need to think further about how they are, how they're allocated.
It was very preliminary and really we haven't looked at this question
since the 1950s in terms of where our judicial officers are located.
So I don't know how far down the road
we'd even get in one fiscal year, but it was something that we had
on our plan before.
And then because of COVID, it just, you know, didn't go anywhere.
So it's just a question of getting it back on the radar, I guess.
I don't know. Katy, what else you want to add to that?
But you're right, Judge Castro, it is it is it is a new thing
for this council, the people in this room, council.
And that's also why these are these changes are here.
So you can see the additions from the last month's version.
This is actually that exact same language has been on,
I think our last three operational plans
because we haven't actually gotten to the work.
So the the current operational plan is on that list and the direction
was not going to address this until we work on the backlog, etc..
So the language that was originally the first time
this was put on an operational plan was very specific to say that
the Judicial Council would give direction after a special topic.
So no actions work would happen outside
of a special topic, just like the DNI, special topic that we had
and then any direction to take any action or do additional analysis
be a judicial council decision and the direction might be do nothing.
Judge Beckman.
So I can appreciate the special topic piece,
because I think that might be why this moved as an addition.
Would it be prudent to wait
until the backlog issue is
completed since we're still there
and start placing it on there this year?
Just something to consider.
Yeah, I mean, that's not
what I worry about is I don't want it to fall off the radar.
And as Katie suggests, you know, it's been on the operational plan for the past.
What did you say, three years and we haven't gotten to it.
So I just worry that if we don't leave it on the operational plan,
we're never going to get to it.
And getting to it might be simply we're going to have a special topic
about this topic and that's all we're going to do.
So I just worry a little bit about it.
Just us never getting to it, candidly.
Justice Anderson
It's right there.
So I have some history with this because it goes back,
what, 15 years maybe, or something on that order.
It I would
I don't have a strong opinion about this,
but I do think it something that,
you know, going forward, three, five years, the Judicial Council has to be
thinking about this question before somebody else thinks about it for us.
And that's always been my concern. And
as a practical matter, I think leaving it here
at least keeps it on the tick list of
matters.
And as much as I've expressed some concern about it, I 100% agree
now is not the time to deal with this.
We got lots of other problems that we've got to that are more immediate.
This thing is it eventually is going to
we're either going to deal with it or somebody is going to deal with it for us.
Other discussion.
Judge He'll use.
Justice Sanderson I'm glad you said it, because I do agree with you
that this is not the time to deal with that.
I think if my memory serves me,
the special topic came up kind of after we had completed our weighted caseload
study and before the pandemic hit, and now we're technically post-pandemic
and we're dealing with, you know, settling into this kind of new
way of of handling court with remote proceedings. And,
you know, my my concern is that if we don't have a way
to caseload study to figure out exactly how we're doing our work
and how long it's taking, then this particular topic is premature.
So I'm fine if it sits there, but I have a feeling it's
going to be sitting there for a long time before we get to it.
It would not be a new development.
Other other discussion on the motion.
Are there discussion on the motion?
Judge Castro
I would move to amend the operational plan
to exclude
that provision. I
so we have just the original
just remind me how we do this.
We just
this isn't a motion to amend.
So I think we can just take we just take it right here.
Okay.
So the so the motion is to delete.
It's on page four of the plan.
I think the operational plan to delete the number three
based on direction from judicial counsel after that language right there.
Right. Judge Castro, that's what you're proposing.
Be deleted.
It's my proposal. Okay.
And there was a second
discussion on the motion.
Judge Lawson,
I agree with the timing and the fact that this is here,
but what concerns me about taking it out is if we're going to lose it.
So is there some kind of, like meaningful parking lot,
we can put it in somewhere that's not like dependent
on a specific person being in a specific position to go, Oh, yeah,
So I would support it.
So as there's a good parking lot to put it in so it doesn't get forgotten,
what do you think? I do have a good parking lot.
I do.
I have a list of ideas for different operational plans.
Years so I can talk about there. Okay.
All right.
Other discussion on the motion.
All right, So the motion is to delete number three
on four of the operational plan.
All those in favor signify by saying I post no.
All right, Motion prevails.
So now we're back to the right.
We're back to the main motion, which was to approve the strategic plan,
and we'd be approving the operational plan as it has been amended.
So that we're procedurally justice.
Anderson Okay.
Discussion on the main motion.
Any discussion on the main motion to approve the strategic plan is,
as it has been amended in the operational plan, as it has been amended.
All those in favor
signify by saying I, I opposed.
All right. Motion carries.
Good deal. Thank you, Katie.
And put that in the appropriate parking lot, please.
All right. Item number five.
Excuse me.
Number seven is another decision item
treatment court initiative.
Last month, Judge Beutel presented the proposed treatment court initiative,
their proposed FY 24 work plan
and this is here for action today.
I don't know Judge Patel or our Cecilia.
Cecilia here.
Ms.. Visible, this is not she's not here.
All right.
Do you have any, you know, nothing besides
a lot of the issues that we anticipate are tied
to the passage of the strategic plan and the operational plan.
So some of those concepts were incorporated in there,
and that's kind of some of our work that we have to do in the future
to prioritize equitable access to treatment courts across the state,
develop state statewide strategic plan for treatment courts,
develop performance measures,
and then per the road map
in our ten year strategic plan, promote access
to treatment courts across the state of Minnesota.
Great.
Any question for Judge Beutel?
All right.
I will take a motion to approve the proposed FAA 24 work plan.
Your second
discussion on the motion
and any discussion on the proposed
FY 24 work plan for the treatment court initiative.
All those in favor signify by saying, I post.
All right, motion carries.
Thank you, Judge Patel.
Uh, let's see. Item number eight.
So Judge Hilliard is ready for this, right?
So each year we need
we being the branch needs to produce a new payables list, and that process
starts by the counsel referring this issue to the COPS committee.
The COPS committee looks at last year's payables list and
determines whether
to make any changes to it.
And and then we get we put it out for public comment, etc..
So the draft payables list comes back to the council
for preliminary review in September, and then we put it out for public comment.
And then in November it comes back for action.
So to get that really fascinating process started, we just need today
to have a motion to approve or excuse me,
a motion to refer the payables list to the COPS committee.
All right. Is there a second?
Okay. All right.
Any discussion on the motion to refer the payables list to the COPS committee?
All those in favor signify by saying I
opposed.
All right, Motion carries.
Good luck, Cops. I'm
o number nine. Okay.
This is also a decision item.
The omnibus
and public safety appropriations bill contains language
which changes the appointing authority for the member of the Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines Commission from the district court bench.
And it changes it from the Chief Justice, making the appointment
to the Judicial Council, making the appointment
upon the recommendation of the Minnesota District Judges Association.
So I will call on Judge Conroy to present the MDG recommendation.
Judge Conroy
would proudly like
to nominate Judge David Knutson
to the Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
Judge Knutson previously served on this Commission
through the recommendation of the Chief Justice and this body.
He has served in that mission in a really noble fashion.
This is a commission that has had a history
of recent times of not being the easiest place to serve.
That's the way I would characterize it.
And he has been
a really good voice of reason
and has represented us well.
He comes with a wealth of legislative experience
as well as experience in the judicial branch.
I would characterize Judge David Knudsen
as the very best of public servants.
And when I asked the Chief
Justice and Justice Moore if they had recommendations for me
on our recommendation, Justice Moore
probably spent about 30 minutes
telling me how amazing Judge Knutson was. And
and I couldn't more we couldn't agree more.
MDG unanimously is making this recommendation.
What I was more worried about in
making this recommendation is he might not say yes.
And so he's already had a long haul,
but he has graciously accepted serving another term.
It is
not a flashy or over
appreciated, but such critical work and so I therefore very proudly
nominate him to the Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
Thank you, Judge Conroy.
So I will take a motion to approve Judge Knudsen
as the District Court representative to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines
Commission, understanding
that Judge Knutson is going to recuse from voting on the motion.
But all right, it's been moved and seconded that Judge Knudsen
be the District Court representative
to the guidelines commission discussion on the motion.
All those in favor signify by saying, I, I almost.
All right. Motion carries.
Thank you, Judge Conroy,
and thank you, Judge Knudsen, for being willing to continue in that role.
Now we are on to other.
And the first item I want to have us act on.
As I noted at the May meeting, Judge Lawson's term as vice
chair of the council expires at the end of the month.
She has agreed to serve another term if elected.
Are there any other nominations for the vice chair position?
Any other nominations?
You got your campaign speech ready.
I make good scones.
All right.
Is there
is there?
Oh, wow. Oh,
I will entertain a motion
to reelect Judge Lawson as Judicial Council Vice-Chair.
So for a second.
All right.
Any discussion on the motion on Wednesday?
Soon, apparently.
All right.
All those in favor signify by saying I.
I opposed. All right, Motion carries.
Thank you, Judge Lawson.
Appreciate your leadership.
Let's other business.
So Judge Cunningham has graciously agreed to serve another term on the council.
So thank you, Judge Cunningham, for that.
Judge greg anderson will assume the position of h.r.
EOD chair with the departure of judge yon and judge jessen
thought that this was her last judicial council meeting, but it's actually not.
But when she does
leave, i will be appointing judge jennifer
fresh from the court of appeals to take her spot here at the counsel
and then
the july agenda is going around it's not super long
so you know
we probably can get it done in a morning.
And then we need to recognize
our departing member, Judge John.
This was her last Judicial council meeting.
And I know she's really happy about that.
But I just want to take a moment
and thank you for your leadership, particularly of the h.r.
EOD committee.
We've so appreciated your calm and patient leadership style and your willingness
to really dig in on issues and help steer the ship.
It's been so remarkable, the work that you've done
and the willingness to really dig in on complicated issues.
We just so appreciate it, john,
and we will miss you and come and visit any time.
So thank you, Judge John.
We're not going to take the steel off
because we don't want it to break things
that they very much
so to make a speech or not,
that was like a reference.
I'll thank you, Chief.
And thank you, everyone.
And I'm just going to say this has been a really interesting four years
and I really want to salute my district administrator, Bob Somerville.
We talk all the time on the phone calls.
It was crazy. He's fabulous.
Sitting next to Bob back there, we have Jana Austin, my assistant chief.
She will be wonderful.
And so I'm so glad she could come here today.
I've also really
appreciated getting to know our my fellow chief judges.
We've really I don't want to say bonded and sound like Kumbaya,
but I mean, I just really appreciate all of you and I feel like
even when we have disagreements, we can have really open conversations
with with each other.
And then this whole group, everyone is so smart.
And I remember my first meeting thinking,
this group does not let grass grow under its feet.
I mean, I think I've heard the phrase we do hard things, we do hard things.
So I really just appreciate everybody here and and all the work that goes into it.
It's it's a lot of a lot of work.
So thank you, everyone.
And I'm looking forward to civilian life.
All right.
Now we need to go into executive session for a personnel matters.
So I'll take a motion to go into executive session
for a second.
All those in favor of the motion to go into executive session
signify saying I have proposed.
All right, motion carry.
So I need to ask
stopped all audience members, if you're not a member of the council.