Okay.
I think we're about ready to call the meeting to order.
Just a couple of housekeeping announcements this morning
before we get started into the substantive agenda.
I believe that 10th District Assistant Chief Judge
Elizabeth Strand is here attending for Chief
Chief Judge Hilgers.
We got an echo here.
Don't you?
Good to go.
All righty.
As I said,
Judge Strand is here attending for Chief
Judge Hill just and then Assistant Chief Judge
Rodney Hansen is attending for Judge Beckman out of the eighth.
Also, I wanted to let the council know.
We do have with us today for at least part of the meeting,
several members from the Minnesota Contract Interpreters Group with us.
And so we want to welcome you and thank you for your attendance.
With that, the first item on the agenda
is the approval of the draft, January 18th, 2024 minutes.
I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes.
So moved.
All in favor.
Say I. All right.
Well, you opposed.
That motion is carried.
Before we move forward.
One thing I neglected to mention with respect
to the contract interpreters, I also believe they've got a flier.
They want us to distribute to the council, and we will do that
closer to the end of the meeting.
So we will make sure that that occurs.
Second item on our agenda
is a discussion item, the Compensation Council.
Judge Kyle I think is going to be presenting
that on behalf of himself and MTG president Judge Marler.
They're going to be discussing some proposed changes to the compensation
counsel statute.
So, Judge Kyle, I know you're right there and ready to go, so take it away.
I'm ready to go. Thank you.
Good morning.
Chief Justice attended and judicial Council members and staff.
My name is Richard Kiley. I'm a judge in Ramsey County.
I'm the current vice president of the Minnesota District Judges Association.
This morning, I'm here with my colleague, A.J.,
President Judge Mary Moeller from Stearns County.
We're going to discuss changes to the proposed compensation counsel statute.
I'm going to lead the discussion, but Judge Moeller may jump in at any time
and certainly ask her to answer any of your questions.
By way of background.
Last October, Judge Moeller and I met with Chief Justice Hudson,
Justice Anderson and Judge Larson to address the relationship
between the judicial Council and the MDG.
And at the end of the meeting, we raised the topic of the Compensation Council,
which was created under Minnesota Statute
158.08 tools.
This that statute requires the compensation council to provide
salary increases for Supreme Court justices,
Court of Appeals justices or judges and district court judges.
And they're to do it by April one in the odd
numbered years, basically the legislative budget year.
So last year, 2023 was the budget year.
April one is when they made their recommendation.
However, the judicial branch begins planning its legislative budget requests
much earlier the prior summer of the even numbered year in that two year cycle.
And they do you do your preliminary work,
finalize your budget around September
and forward it to the governor in mid-October.
As a result, the compensation council's recommendations
that are required by statute regarding judicial salaries are released
almost six months after the branch sends its budget to the governor
and nearly at the end are presented at the end,
almost near the end of the legislative session,
limiting its impact to both the House and Senate budget negotiations.
So this past year, the Compensation Council members realized
that this was not the most effective way to present their recommendations.
Based on this late report in April of the budget year.
Several members have continued their discussions after the last session,
seeking to modify the statutes timing of their recommendations.
MDA is interested in the proposed changes to the statute
being made by the small group of compensation council members.
And we want to bring this opportunity to the Judicial Council's attention
in the event the Judicial Council wishes to support or influence
the recommended changes at the Legislature this session.
And to assist, you may
get a PowerPoint this morning to assist you all.
And I have four areas to discuss.
Overview of the statute 15182
Some Brief legislative history for context.
The 2002 24 proposed changes and then key items of interest
to both the Association and the Judicial Council.
So when we talk about the CompUSA
statute and it's short, we're all reading statutes all the time.
So if you want to bring it up.
But Subdivisions one and two talks about the membership and again,
it meets odd years, the budget year to make salary recommendations
for judges, constitutional officers and heads of state.
thank you.
The appointment process, there are 24 that are appointed.
The Chief Justice has eight appointments.
No judges, no more than four people from either party.
The governor appoints eight.
Again, if one from each congressional district
can't have more than one more than four from any one party,
they're more minority and majority leader in the House.
Get appoint two members and the Senate
Majority leader and minority leader also appoint to two members.
So we have 24 total.
It's a nonpartisan group by design.
The next subdivision, three of the statute, talks
about their recommendations, submitting their recommendations,
and it has to be on April one, decide numbered year, the budget year.
So 2023 last year, it'll be 2025 next year.
The recommended salaries take effect then on July one of that year
and then the subsequent July one of the next year of the year
and and or whatever intervals the Council recommends, these salary recommendations
take effect if an appropriate amount of money is allocated
by the legislature and council expires.
It's a very short group and they get appointed
between the first two weeks in January
and they're expired when they make the recommendations and in April.
So about a three month effort. The overview,
the criteria for the salary recommendations should comes really no
surprise. The
the amount of compensation would be compared to what
members in the private practice would make big small firms,
county attorneys, public defenders, things like that.
The amount of the compensation needed to attract and retain exceptional
and competent persons, and then the ability of the state, of course, to pay.
I should note here that the MDG aim for many
years has always provided the this Council
with an economic and economists report to assist their efforts.
And we're going to be doing it again this year.
This report outlines the recommendations based on statistics.
Judge Mueller has already enlisted a Dr.
King Banyan from Saint Cloud State using their Department
of Economics, also the dean of the School of Public Affairs.
This is helps us we like usually presented in June of this year
would be June of this year for the budget next year.
It helps with our internal LPGA Association
discussions and then we share OCR each year,
this report with the general counsel and also legislative leaders.
Now a little legislative history and just one slide.
The council has been amended twice in the last ten years in 2000
to 2013, rather, the there was an amendment to basically
take out legislators in their pay.
So used to be that they would recommend salary increases for the legislature.
Now, for the last ten years, there's a separate legislative
salary council to handle that.
So now it's this group does judges and the executive branches.
The in 2023 there were also changes
and this was an attempt was made to give greater authority
to this council's recommendations that are implemented and then shored up.
They wanted to shore up some technical aspects.
And the key, I think the changes that they made
and this was right at the end of the legislative session,
literally an 11th hour, we learned about some of these things
just a day or two before they were voted on.
It would expand the list of members serving from two eight.
The legislature would be able to appoint an additional eight people, so it'd be now
32 rather than 24.
We would add a prohibition on any
ex parte communications between the council,
this compensation council and the judiciary.
A.J., anyone in this room couldn't be any communication during the period
that they're working from January to April in that odd numbered year.
And then it also expanded
the list of those that
could not serve judges could not serve now.
So these were amendments that were made right at the end of the last session.
Now, like much of the legislation
that happened last year, that was a lot of work at the Capitol.
And this is not the only bill and the only statute
that people are looking back at thinking maybe we should make some changes in.
So a subgroup of current and former
commission members, council members that have been working
since the session to make changes and they have proposed changes
that they're presenting to the legislature this session.
Those changes are some are affected greatly, the judiciary are,
some are less or less effective or less impactful.
So, for instance, adding new newly created
agency head to the list, the and in fact, the bill
that was presented just a couple of days ago.
So you can add a director of Office of Cannabis Management.
I guess that's an addition for the
this year you're going to provide stronger language
in their recommendations, shortened the number of legislative appointments
and make some technical changes about the
technical changes regarding the cases of vacancies on the Commission.
There are some significant changes, though, that they are proposing,
which I think are relevant to both the Association and this Council.
They would now allow former judges to serve on the Commission, not current,
not senior judges, but former judges would be allowed to serve.
It would remove the ex parte de communication section
so that there could be communication between this body.
The association, as these proposals
are being worked out during the legislative session,
and probably most importantly, and I'll get into this a little bit more.
It separates the reports on salaries so that the judicial judiciary
salary recommendations would come at a different time, not April one,
at the end of the legislative session, six months after you've made your error.
Yeah, the judicial branch has made their recommendations,
but right at the beginning, right
now, the proposed language calls for that to happen in November.
We're going to actually suggest even earlier than that August one.
So those are the changes that the group is making
today.
Just the question really is, should the Mitigate Association and the council
make recommendations on three areas that I think are most important?
The one is this ideal date for the compensation council
to make the recommendations. April one does not work.
It doesn't work for anyone.
Right now the proposal is for November, November one,
that would make recommendations coming out before the session started,
but it still would be a month or two after this group and the
the state court has submitted their budget.
So we're actually going to be suggesting August one.
And that came out of some discussions that Judge Mueller and I had
with Jeff Shaw by his staff a couple of months ago.
After one of your meetings,
we came in and gave him a basically a similar preview as we're doing today,
said we were going to make this a priority at the association and discussed it.
They seem to be receptive.
In fact, they suggested, Why are we with you in November?
Let's do August at least.
Then we'll have a couple of months to consider this the Council
and the state to consider this before we send in our budget.
So we
now we're suggesting August one is the start date.
There is going to be a transition.
This doesn't happen overnight.
This this group that we're talking to, they're not appointed yet.
They won't,
in fact, be appointed until next January, at the start of this next budget.
So during this coming year, it will be basically status quo.
This council will receive information from the association.
We'll give you that already on this report later this summer.
You'll make your suggestions and recommendations and put together
a budget that you'll send to the governor in mid-October.
The council and the commission will get together in January.
And again, they're going to issue their report in April.
It's just to turn to tight, to turn it around.
So in the coming year, it's going to be the same basically status quo.
The proposed changes that they're make would go into effect two years from now.
So in two years
in August one, you'd have recommendations from the
from the council that you can use to then make your decisions about budgeting.
And so it will basically come into effect at that point
is a little delay,
but that is the transition and that's part of the proposal right now.
It would also remove the ex parte language.
It doesn't make any sense right now
to have a period of time where we cannot communicate
with the with the members of that that group to the commission members.
We need to have our association.
Does Mueller and I can't communicate with him
just by his staff daily targets
and they can't do justice, couldn't.
This has never been a hard duty, you know, hard sell,
hard lobbying effort by the association.
We'd really just giving them information that's going to be helpful for them.
And so we would hope it would support that.
So those are basically the proposals,
the key the key areas that that we're at.
And I think at this point, the question is, you know, who
what are we going to propose? What are we going to suggest?
And I want to suggest to the council here that
the association
is going to support these changes
to the Compensation Council legislation.
It's one more tool to advocate for judicial pay,
one more tool of many.
And it is one of the two legislative priorities
that the association has this year.
The other being the judicial safety, Courts, Safety and Privacy Act.
That's going through the legislature right now.
We're here today.
Judge Mueller and I to not only inform the first to inform the judicial Council
and seco of the of our support for the compensation
Council's legislation, especially moving up that date.
Their recommendation from April two to August
and second to see whether Judicial Council
and ASCO wishes to join our efforts
either formally or informally.
And we have and will continue to work.
Our lobbyist Nancy Haas, will be a key part there
and get rid of this ex parte language.
I think element would be the other one from a point person from your end.
But we're going to be supporting it and we'd like your support also.
That's my presentation.
I'm happy to.
Or did Mueller be happy to answer any questions and that you have
any discussion?
Josh Castro.
Thanks, Stephen.
And is probably more for Jeff than anyone else.
I guess I'm wondering if you see any problems
with adopting any of these changes
or supporting the adoption of any of these changes.
Well, when we met with Judge Kyle and Judge Mueller,
it's obvious that the current system isn't working
because we're not really gaining any benefit from the compensation counsel,
you know, whether the compensation counsel is listened to more or less under it's
sort of new organization, but it certainly can't hurt to have the information.
We may not agree with it.
We may make our own decisions.
We may have other priorities, but at least we'll know where they're coming from.
So that's why we suggested the August date
in an even year.
And as to the other proposed changes, I don't have any problem
with those proposed changes.
Other thoughts or comments from folks?
Yes. Judge Justice Anderson Yeah.
Having gone through this process many times,
I, I just I think these changes are well considered, actually.
I think it may have the effect of making the compensation counsel
a more useful tool, not just with regard to
compensation issues, but in terms of just being more effective.
So I think I agree.
Josh Meyers
I, I also agree with it
for not as many years as Justice Anderson, but for a while I've I've read that
compensation report and thought,
why don't they listen to the compensation counsel?
And so now I have a little bit more insight into that.
So I support the changes and supported
a joint effort with MDG
to go forward on this.
Yes, Judge Mueller,
I just want to make clear this is not something that MDG initiated.
It's really the ad hoc compensation counsel from the last session.
And I think they felt like our work is fruitless
and so or thankless because of the timing of it.
And so this isn't really something MDG is pursuing independently,
but we are obviously supporting this ad hoc committee who is doing it.
And and Callie Lehmann and Nancy Hise
have been very key and involved with this group.
They've just been pillars of leading that charge.
And so we
initially came up with the November 1st, and then we were thankful that Mr.
Shaub and his team were willing to join in with us and arrive
at a more meaningful start date.
Right now the bill was introduced already this session
and so they are moving on it very quickly.
It's introduced with the recommendation on date of November 1st.
And so if this is something that we are going to ask Nancy Haase
and Kelly Lehmann to jointly change that, that's something that we need to
kind of have it
on our radar within the next week or two so we can ask that
ad hoc committee to change the report date.
What's any other thoughts?
Just quickly, Chief. Thank you.
I not only support it, but I wanted to thank MJ and Judges
Kayla mueller for bringing this to Judicial Council
and working with us to get this accomplished.
It's very much appreciated.
Right.
Well, Judge Kyle, Judge Mueller, do you want a formal motion?
Sounds like I'm hearing a consensus that you have the Judicial Council support.
Does anyone feel differently about that or want to raise any concerns?
I know you said you wanted either formal or informal approval, but
almost always formal is great, but.
All right. All right.
Fair enough. Yeah. You're now
someone want to make a motion to move?
It was moved by Justice Anderson to support
Indi moving forward with this proposal.
Is there a second, second, second
from Judge Castro All in favor seeking him?
I've seen I,
I really any opposed
None. You got the support.
There you go They all right.
Thank you.
Judge Marler, Judge Kyl, thank you, Justice for letting us present.
Absolutely.
The second item on our agenda is a discussion item.
It's a Ohi update.
And I know Judge Merrick is joining us remotely this morning.
And of course, I see other is here.
There you are. Okay.
So we'll let them get set up here.
Good morning.
Good morning, Judge.
good. It works.
It does. The story of my life.
I think for the
last three years, the first thing I've been saying to people
almost every day is, can you hear me?
Good morning. I'm Kathy. Ms..
Rick and I co-chair the Ohio committee with Heather Kendall,
who is a member of Council and the Second District Court administrator.
And today we're going to give an update
on some of the data we have obtained.
And it's this is just preliminary and summaries.
So we are deeply in the process of analyzing,
trying to figure out what it means and to make reserve of recommendations.
Can I have the next slide, please?
So today's presentation will cover the judicial officer and staff
feedback about remote hearing needs and what makes for an effective hearing
key and key factors contributing to holding a hearing in a particular setting.
Additionally, you will see an overview of what the final months
will look like for the Ohi
group and we will share with you
what we'll be doing and delivering at the next Judicial Council meeting.
Next slide.
So we with the preliminary findings that we're going to discuss today
came from four data collection efforts and you can see these on the screen.
In the interest of time, we're only going to cover this at a very high level
and not get down to specific findings, but give you just a general idea of
of at least what our preliminary view of this is, at least what we're seeing.
This information is available on the Ohio
Communication hub, as well as the data summary report
that was included in your judicial council materials.
And through each of these efforts, we have gathered data and feedback
from judicial officers
and staff in a variety of roles from all ten judicial districts.
We have tried to
cover as much as possible, and this includes the most recent judicial
officer and staff survey, which gathered
nearly 1800 responses.
Although our collection efforts have differed
in the manner in which we have
gathered the data, we are seeing
consistent themes in the feedback from judicial officers
and staff about their share, and they've been sharing their
observations and opportunities for better supporting
these systems through improvements in processes, technology
training and how to effectively manage the use of in-person,
remote and hybrid hearings.
And please keep in mind that what you are going to see
today is not meant to definitively determine
what Ohio's recommendations are going to be.
This is just one set of data points that we are trying to analyze
and figure out what they support and where we go next and what to recommend.
So the final decision maker, which will be all of you,
and we're trying to get sort of a holistic understanding
of how the court system is operating now in this new world where we have remote
technology as part of the part of the menu of options.
And what we're finding is
we're going to have to wrestle with information that some this is fairly
clear and data points very strong in one direction.
But we also have to deal with contradictory. And
Diskin grew into information because it's important
for us to figure out why something works in one setting and not in another.
We are grateful to the judicial officers and staff
who took time to share their ideas and experiences with us.
This work would not have been possible without you folks.
And for those who are not involved with Ohio, this is this is tough stuff
because we understand that we are asking everyone to think really
broadly and
and figure out the best ways to go forward.
Next slide, please.
So next
is the internal perspectives on hearing resource needs.
And this is going to
really just focus on the needs
of office judicial officers and staff
to successfully support in-person, remote and hybrid hearings.
Next slide.
So the resource findings,
we continue to make improvements, but most judicial officers
and staff expressed that they often or always have the resources
they need to support in-person and remote hearings.
However, respondents reported they less often have the resources
to support hybrid hearings and mixed calendars.
Survey respondents more frequently reported having knowledge
and skills and technology resources for remote hearings
that they needed compared
to policies and procedures
for team and staff support so may have the resources.
But do we have do we have a policy?
Do we have a process that is fixed?
We're going to focus
on two of four resource areas today.
All four resources follow the same general trends
across the hearing and calendar approaches
and detailed information on all four can be found in the data summary report.
Next slide.
So hearing technology resources overall,
judicial officers said they always or
often have technology resources they need to support in-person,
remote and hybrid hearings as well as mixed calendars.
However, judicial officers rated technology resource
availability for hearings not held in person lower than staff.
Staff reported almost equal availability of resources
for remote and in-person hearings and perceived variation of technology.
Resources by district does not appear to be related to the percentage
of remote or in-person hearings in the district.
Respondents identified technology several technology needs.
They requested additional local I.T.
support.
Judicial officers and staff also sought
user friendly and reliable technology.
Technology and software disruptions made it more difficult
to support in-person, remote and hybrid hearings.
Similarly, respondents hoped
that software used to support hearings was more integrated
so they did not have to toggle between multiple applications during a hearing.
And hearing information could be more easily flow
between the the various applications.
Some judicial officers and staff asked for greater
consistency in the technology and equipment used in courtrooms,
judicial officers and staff that supported hearings
in multiple counties and districts expressed frustration
in having to learn how to use new systems when they switched courtrooms.
Additionally, inconsistent
technology made it harder for its support
to support those systems and resulted in courtrooms having
very different capacities to support in-person,
remote and hybrid hearings.
Next slide, please.
Hearing and Team Staff Support.
Overall, most respondents felt
supported by their hearing teams and feeling supported
was reduced slightly for hybrid hearings and mixed calendars.
Perception of district team and staff support varied
the most for hybrid hearings among all of the hearings settings.
Next slide, please.
no, we're still on this.
I apologize.
Go back to the last.
Thanks.
So in focus groups and survey responses,
judicial officers and staffs,
advance advocates identified several opportunities
to better support in-person, remote and hybrid hearings.
Many respondents felt that more staff are needed to provide better support for
hearings, given the multitude of tasks required to manage and follow up on them.
Respondents sought better processes and technology
to manage language and interpretation in hearings so that those services
could be more timely and more efficient.
Judicial officers and staff stressed the importance of fostering
an environment of clear communication among their hearing teams,
so expectations are known and challenges that arise can be addressed.
In the same vein, some respondents
wanted more staff role specialization to provide
greater clarity within their teams about who should be supported.
What aspects of a hearing.
Judicial officers and staff also thought
that there were opportunities to better support parties and understanding
expectations and addressing questions and technology prior to the hearing.
Some respondents thought remote hearing facilitator could make
it could help address these issues prior to a customer's hearing,
which would make for an easier and smoother hearing experience.
Can I turn it over to Heather now
for the internal perspectives on effective hearings?
Thank you, Judge Manzarek.
As you recall, Ohio's vision is to offer accessible and timely hearings.
But another key component for us is effective hearings.
And that's what we want to talk with you about here for the next couple of minutes.
So to really get a handle on what
a effective hearing entails,
we asked you to identify what the key aspects of an effective hearing are.
And here's what you said back to us.
You talked about
parties
feeling heard that they understood what happened,
that an effective hearing should accomplish what it was intended to,
and that it moves the case forward towards disposition.
So with that definition in mind,
most judicial officers and staff believe that both remote
and in-person hearings could effectively accomplish these goals.
Respondents had different views
on which types of hearings were most effective,
whether that would be remote or in-person.
We did see a theme of hybrid hearings and not the flexible courtroom concept.
We'll talk about that with you at the next Judicial Council meeting.
But true hybrid hearings were consistently
viewed as the least effective option.
We also noticed a theme, and you'll see it here in the next couple of slides, that
a person's role in the organization impacts what they perceive as effective.
That's common sense, but that is what we didn't notice.
And of course, judicial officers were more likely
to respond that in-person is more effective.
Again, you're coming at it from a different viewpoint, a different role.
So some of that makes a lot of sense.
And we did hear quite a bit, of course, about
judicial officer discretion and flexibility,
really needing to
look at things on a case by case basis,
needing to do what's best for that particular case.
So let's start with
uncontested hearings.
So these next few slides, just a level said we have them broken down.
You'll see the question on the left in this case of uncontested hearings,
you'll see a slide with the Dudek judge feedback,
and then the following slide will be kind of court staff, non judge feedback.
So that might be court admin.
It could be a CEO, it could be referees
and other judicial officers.
But the first slide is always going to be our district Court judges.
So as it relates to uncontested hearings,
you can see the trend lines here,
purple remote,
yellow, in-person and there is a good amount of support
for remote all the way through conciliation
to about
the juvenile delinquency and adult criminal.
I'm not going to talk about each bar slide.
We have like six slides to get through here,
but instead we're going to talk about everything at a high level.
So we just want to show
you kind of the trend lines and the themes that we're seeing.
So you see that here.
Also on the left, I want to point out,
you can see the data as it relates to hybrid hearings.
So again, pretty low effectiveness, 16
to 21% of respondents felt that hybrid hearings were effective.
And then again, you can see
the breakdown beyond that.
So when we move over to our other
district court respondents as it relates to uncontested hearings,
very similar trend lines, but overall kind of more support for remote
across the board all the way down even in juvenile and adult
criminal.
So next,
we took a look at contested hearings.
And remember, we asked folks, do you think remote is in person?
Do you think
our remote is effective, in-person is effective hybrid.
And you could take all three.
You can pick one.
So that was the setup of the questions.
So you can see here we start with a very close split
and conciliation court housing,
guardianship, ex pro probate.
As you move down, though, you start to see a trend line
towards effectiveness being in-person
and then
to the left is the hybrid that runs about the same
throughout all of our questions.
Now interesting here, when you asked district court respondents
the same question,
you do see a lot more support
for remote but the same trend line.
It relates to adult criminal chips, juvenile delinquency.
So we've we seem to have some consensus there
that those are most effective, in-person.
We next asked about court trials,
very similar feedback to contested probably for some obvious reasons there.
So you see a very close split
for these first five or so case types.
But from civil other on OSP
family, criminal juvenile chips,
you see a very heavy lead here
for in-person.
All right.
And then lastly, we have our other district court responses,
same trends that we've seen in the last couple of slides.
You see a lot more support for remote
overall, but
you do see the same kind of splits
in middle case types and then adult criminal juvenile in chips.
Of course, the lean is towards in-person.
All right.
So next we want to talk to you
about some other information we've gathered.
We talked quite a bit with our DART judges
and we also held judicial officer focus groups.
So we wanted to kind of summarize some of the feedback that we received
from those respective of groups.
So let's talk through that.
So we talked to everyone about the benefits of in-person
the benefits of remote and the benefits of hybrid.
And then we're going to supplement in some data we polled as well.
So as it relates to
in-person, here were some of the key findings
and themes that we heard from all of you
as it relates to in-person.
We heard a lot from judicial officers.
That is much easier to reinforce the seriousness of a hearing
when they occur in-person.
That sometimes has to do with a bailiff in a physical courtroom environment.
It made decorum easier to maintain.
Some judges and staff found it easier to kind of engage
with the hearing participants and the justice partners
and for them to engage with each other
also noted that in-person
hearings can be helpful
and with overcoming technology issues and challenges and people's
comfort level or discomfort level with remote technology.
And of course, we have heard throughout
Ohi that anytime there's
submitted an in-person hearing is preferred.
So here are some of the reasons
judicial officers said it's best to hold in-person hearings,
best interest of the case, complexity, evidence.
All the parties agree and there's a final judgment of committee.
And so those were the key factors that people gave to us.
And then next, we talked about remote hearings.
So we also received a lot of great feedback
about remote hearings that it is a good tool in our tool kit.
It includes approved access, hearing barriers,
lots of flexibility, especially when emergencies occur,
lots of conversation about when people are in custody or in treatment facilities
and how adaptable we're able to be in those situations.
And really, we've heard a lot about how
through remote hearings we can spread all of our research
resources further, whether that be our internal judicial
officer resource and staff resources and justice partner resources.
All right.
And we asked the same question then what are the key top reasons
you'd be holding remote hearings at best interest of the case?
All parties agreed that whether
it's an uncontested matter and it's a short
hearing, 15 minutes or less.
And then we asked about hybrid, so
similar to some of the feedback we received about remote,
we did hear some some support for hybrid
in limited, more limited situations.
All of those centered around flexibility.
Again whether in custody,
other hearing access barriers, unexpected emergencies.
But overall, as you noticed in the earlier slides, we didn't get a lot of support
in terms of feeling of effectiveness as it relates to hybrid hearings.
There's a lot of conversation about
distractions and difficult to manage and things like that.
So those are the things
we heard about hybrid.
Here's a summary of kind of what I just went over.
The reason, key reasons why hybrid can be a really great option,
and that's all of the things we just talked about.
All right.
So on the horizon, here's what you can expect from us
over the next five months or so.
So we're working feverishly right now
to pull all of this data that we've been providing to you
every few months, pulling that all together.
The key thing we want you to see here is that there is an end in sight.
We are going to bring you recommendations on June.
So keep that in mind.
We're currently conducting data dialogs.
Many of you a couple of you are actually sitting at those tables.
This is where we're pulling all of the information together.
We have representation from DART judges from the districts,
and then, of
course, our Ohio steering committee, committee members.
And we've had really good discussions,
some of them tougher than others, somewhat, really smoothly.
So we're working through it.
And what we'll do is we'll take those that input and those recommendations.
The steering committee will sit with those
and eventually will come up with some recommendations.
But we want you to know that June timeline for sure.
All right.
Here's what you can expect at the at next month's meeting.
We are finally going to wrap up all of the information that we have
and that we are able to share with you.
So you're going to hear some about our resources and practices.
Time study.
Again, this was about practices.
This is not a timing study.
This is not a staff way to caseload or a graduated caseload.
It's simply about what we're doing and how it impacts timing.
And then we are going to talk through outcome indicators.
And so scale to a peer resolution
rates, time to disposition, those types of things.
So we're going to learn more about that
and then we're going to give you some more information
on those data dialogs and kind of how we're going to frame up
some things to use so you know what to expect.
And then we're going to hear about the flexible courtroom concept.
You remember we've been piloting that for a while now.
And we want to bring you some data and kind of our takeaways from that pilot.
So that really sums up what we have for you today.
We really appreciate all of you and your leadership.
I know a lot of you worked hard to get those DART members
to the table.
Those are big, long meetings and people are coming from far and wide
and just know that we appreciate that support
from all of you and all the district reps as well.
I think that
makes for more productive conversations to have more perspectives at the table.
So thank you for your leadership and all that you've done to support us
and we won't be going away for a while, so expect to see us again
next month.
Thank you, Judge Merrick and Heather.
And before I open it up, I just want to express my thanks.
I mean, thanks. Just seemed so
ineffective in many ways.
You've put in just a Herculean effort over the last few years
pulling this data together and and conduct in the various studies
and giving up so much of your personal and professional lives to to this effort.
But it is a tremendous effort.
It is an important effort
because we're going through a fundamental transformation
of our of our justice system, our judicial system, and how we do that
and where we end up at the end, obviously, is going to be key.
And so we need this kind of detailed work that you've been doing.
You and, the entire OHI committee, have been doing over the last few years.
So thank you seem so insufficient, but we'll keep thanking you for that
and we look forward to this March Update and it is good to see that there's an end.
We're coming to an end to some recommendations, but I cannot
thank you enough on behalf of the branch for the work
that you guys have been doing.
So with that,
any questions or comments for Judge Merrick or Heather
about what you've seen here today
and where we're going?
It's smaller.
This isn't so much a question, but I'm also a member of the Minnesota
State Bar Association, Civil Litigation section counsel,
and at our meeting last Friday morning, there was extensive discussion
and I am anti-ISIL painting a strong movement
from that group on the MSP with regard to civil litigation
files to have more in-person hearings, especially in Hennepin County.
And I caution them that we want to have uniformity across the state.
And so if you want to get in your car and drive to Hennepin County, be expected
to get in your car and drive up to Otter Tail or somewhere else.
So if you hear from them in the next 30 to 60
days, I just want you to be aware that this may be coming.
Thank you so much.
I'm interested in exactly are there specific types
of civil proceedings that are were of concern at that meeting?
Nothing in specifics, but I would say the vast
majority of the lawyers who are part of that group and the judges
seem to support returning to as much in-person as possible.
And I recognize I think there's a distinction between
what the lawyers want and what the litigants want.
Many litigants do not want to come back to court
and the inconvenience of driving and parking and things like that.
But I think a lot of lawyers and many judges, although I can't speak
for others, feel that there is a loss of professionalism
or seriousness in the process as a result of remote hearings.
And I think that is continuing.
And I recognize the branch's efforts to put up videos
on appropriate attire and and things of that nature. But
for example, one of my colleagues emailed Judge
Hennessy and I and the other female judges just yesterday
and said I had a litigant appear in zoom in a corset and
a robe.
And and I don't think that would happen with an in-person hearing.
And as a male judge, he was looking for some guidance from his female colleagues.
Do I say something? Do I not say something?
What do I do?
And so I think the seriousness of the proceedings
at the trial court level, not appellate and levels,
but the trial court level, we're still not seeing a lot of professionalism.
From my perspective
and deal
with all of these issues as we get towards that final recommendation.
But thank you for that, Judge Mohler.
Okay.
Well, thank you, Heather.
Thank you, Judge Mazurek.
We'll just do a wait till the March
presentation.
Next thing on our agenda
is a discussion item dealing with artificial intelligence.
This is a continuation from our February meeting
and I,
Jason
Betts is going to come and talk with us about A.I.
part two.
Good morning.
Thank you, Chief Justice.
I'm joined today by two members of our planning group.
And so you'll hear from from a variety of us this morning.
And on artificial intelligence.
We're continuing the conversation from where we started in January.
The conversation this month will take a slightly different
vein of discussion, and we're going to be looking more at
how the Minnesota judicial branch has reacted
and some of the things that the Minnesota
judicial branch should be doing as it pertains artificial intelligence.
So it'd be less of a of a discussion in general about artificial intelligence
and more specific to our mission and goals.
The agenda this morning will
be to look at the presentation or summarize the presentation from January
and then to talk about what some of the next steps be
specifically for the Minnesota branch.
So the purpose is, is to really investigate
the topic and make recommendations for Judicial Council
on how we should be utilizing artificial intelligence.
This group, again represents a cross-section
of a variety of disciplines here at the branch.
Judge Elias is not able to join us,
but he was very instrumental in the conversations around this topic.
So thank you to him, thank you to the other members of the
of the planning group.
We're going to start by recapping the presentation
here from Jan in a minute,
but I just wanted to talk about a few objectives
that I hope everyone keeps in mind as we go through this presentation.
One is governance.
Governance is going to be key as we look
at what we should be doing and how we can accomplish that using.
I am I do understand and appreciate that governance
is also somewhat of a taboo topic in some people's minds.
It can can weigh down efforts that can slow things down.
And we certainly don't want that to be the case.
So we're going to focus on on how the governance can look
and and not fall into some of those traps.
We're also
going to look at how we are using AI currently at the branch.
So AI is not something that is new in some areas of the branch.
We do have experience in it.
We're going to highlight
what those experiences are and how the branch is currently using it.
And then lastly, we're going to look at the future decision making of A.I..
I'm going to have Katie kind of summarize
our January conversation before we continue forward.
Thanks, Jason.
So, you know, as a summary, last month we heard from two experts
on the growth of AI and how it's impacting courts
and our branch as an organization and employer.
And they provided additional information on how we can define
and understand the different types of artificial intelligence
and really shifting our focus on generative AI and machine learning.
We learned about the rapid pace of the adoption
of these tools and technologies such as GPT three
and how quickly these technologies, an integration of these tools
is happening in organization, runs across across industries.
We learned about the opportunities that these technologies
present, the efficiencies and components of many of our jobs
and a lot of different work in our society.
We also heard about the challenges in accuracy, the need for swift movement
to set up protocols or policies to even be able to try to keep up
with that pace of how technology and innovation is moving forward.
We also talked about the importance of testing
and refining these tools to mitigate some of those challenges.
And we heard about we heard advice from some types of strategies to employ
in achieving the benefits while mitigating some of those challenges.
And we got to hear about how former Chief Justice
McCormick is doing that in her current organization.
We also heard briefly a few different ways this technology is being used in courts
across the country, and you'll see more examples of that today.
As Jason mentioned.
Hello, everyone.
My name is Sierra Taylor.
I'm a district administrator in the six and I want to thank Jason and Katie
for letting me present today and giving me the fun part of this presentation.
So the first slide that you see is kind of just overview
of artificial intelligence that is used by courts across the country.
I think many of these things,
if you look at what they are, this group can understand
because you see them in your daily lives, you know, chat boxes, customer service
chat boxes that you see on websites, document processing and maybe
some redaction tools are currently being used across the country.
I want to focus in on a particular county,
and I want to frame this up for you before we see this video.
Palm Beach County is providing a document processing capacity for their staff.
So when you watch this, couple of things to think about.
One, artificial intelligence really should be
and is just a tool in the toolbox to support our staff.
Right. So think about this as you watch this.
And this is something that as a support, particularly
for a significant group of staff within the Minnesota judicial branch,
which is court administration.
Right. The backbone of what we do.
What you're going to see in this video, it's about four and a half minute video.
There's not any sound.
There are some captions.
So I want to kind of frame out for you what this is going to look like
in the initial part of the video.
What you're going to see is really an E file or an attorney
who's coming in to their e-filing system filing a document.
Artificial intelligence will then come in and around
the computer screen, you will see an orange highlighted box.
And I believe it's a smart lot at the top of it.
That's artificial.
Taking over the document once the filer has has submitted it
and doing what court administration would normally do
when the orange box is gone, it is then an actual person
coming back and showing us the audit trail that the smart bot engaged in
in order to get the work done right.
When we get done watching the video, I just want to give you a couple of pieces
of information so that we can really get a grasp of how exciting this truly is.
So go ahead.
All right.
So a couple of key distinctions here.
When the orange box was around the screen and it said smart
bot or whatever it was,
it really looks as you're watching it, as if there is a person that's there
typing all of that in right there, It's not That's the automated process, that's
artificial intelligence, doing the work as if it was a member of our staff.
The other neat part is that, as you saw,
there was a credential login, right?
And that credential login was the artificial intelligence moving
from the e-filing system into their case management system and using a username
and password just like a member of staff would to access that system.
So under their system they don't have integrations
between their artificial intelligence and their case management system,
which ultimately I believe saved them
quite a bit of money by training artificial intelligence
to log into the system as if it was a member of staff.
So as you can see, the interesting part about this
is that if you think about from a perspective of
they do the work within the systems that we already have,
then really what you're looking at is what does that mean for the folks
that are doing that work?
For me,
as somebody who works with court administration
all the time, the exciting part is having the opportunity to tap
into a knowledge base that we simply can't get to with them.
Creative calendaring, all sorts of things
that we know those staff are specifically trained to do.
But because they have a lot of pieces of, you know,
accepting filings and sending out notices and those sorts of things,
we can't get to that real key piece because they're so busy.
So a couple of interesting facts about Palm Beach County
so you can understand the gravity of this work
is that in this county, their total E filings is about
$37,000 are artificial intelligence handles,
about 32% of that completely by itself.
And what that translates out to is that one of their and they call them
robots, they're not really robots, but it's kind of fun that they do
one of their artificial intelligence robots as the equivalent
and does the same amount of work as three and a half employees.
So it's pretty miraculous.
If I remember when they came and talked to Jad, I remember watching this
and we had members of court administration leadership watching it too,
and they just couldn't even believe what they were seeing.
They were so excited. I thought for sure I was going to see this.
And when we talked cost, it was just going to be millions
and millions and millions of dollars and it was not.
And I don't have the financials on what it was,
but when they talked about it at Jot, I was significantly surprised.
So can I ask a question?
There wasn't one on this video indicated that
some data may be removed from
the filing or there was some 4 to 4 human error.
I mean, I know that when
filings are submitted that contain information
that is improper, it will be rejected.
I don't know of are people removing
things are changing the integrity of a file document.
So what is that exactly?
The removal of information.
So I think what they're talking about in Jason and Katie and Don,
if you remember from this conversation, is what happens
is that the artificial intelligence looks at the document.
It makes sure that it's matched matching up and based on a percentage
of accuracy, and it's required to have if the document
looks like it falls within the parameters it's supposed to,
then artificial intelligence continues with its work.
If it doesn't and there is a problem with the data in the document,
maybe something that
the artificial intelligence hasn't been trained to handle, it
then takes that document and pushes it to human staff.
So as
we talked about last month, this is one example of
of what would be called a robot robotic process automation.
So there's different flavors of artificial intelligence.
A lot of people think of the generative AI.
We're going to talk about that in a few minutes here about our response.
And it was specifically a degenerative AI.
This is an example of robotic process automation and how that technology
can actually leverage
AI to improve outcomes.
So we go back to April 20th of last year.
That was the first time we really discussed artificial intelligence
at the Judicial Council.
At that time, we were asked come back
in May and provide a recommendation
on what the branch should be doing as it pertains artificial intelligence.
And we did.
And you can see the policy that was adopted in September.
It was really based on what many people refer to as the precautionary principle.
So in lieu of having
all of the substantive information to make a definitive choice,
the precautionary
principle says you should proceed with with extreme caution.
And really that's what we've done up to this point
as it pertains to A.I..
But that wasn't the approach necessarily that Judicial Council
thought was the best approach that we should be.
We should more broadly assess AI and come back with a better recommendation.
And since that time, that's what we've been doing
and the landscape has changed greatly
since September when the policy took effect.
One example of how the landscape has changed
is if you look at the original guidelines and expectations that we published,
you can see firmly in the category of not recommended use as legal research.
You're going to hear later in the agenda this morning about an example of
legal research
uses AI and is both very accurate and very safe.
And so even in the context of the last several months,
some of the recommendations and guidelines were adopted and published have changed.
And that's just simply because of the fact that the landscape changes
so quickly.
Currently, we use AI in a number of places at the
at the judicial branch,
primarily A.I.
is involved and used in some of our amended products.
An example of that would be brief.
Catch the appellate courts whose catch in have been
for several months now,
and that has AI technology built in.
We use artificial intelligence and document
scanning for optical character recognition
so that we don't have to manually retype documents.
That's something we've been doing for quite a long time.
We use it for template generation
to draft some templates within the case management system,
and we even use it in
the latest versions of Microsoft Office.
If you watch the Super Bowl ads,
you probably saw an ad for Microsoft copilot,
and that's the Microsoft implemented branded solution for A.I.
in their office tools. It's called copilot,
and that's available today in the office tools you use on a daily basis.
It's suggesting grammar for you.
For example, when you're typing a document and word and the grammar.
So it's used in the branch today,
a quick demo here that I wanted to show is something that the judicial branch
is looking at implementing as far as with the service desk.
So the service desk uses a vending system
and that vendor service now
has the ability to add custom chat bots.
And so the team is looking at creating a chat bot to speed up
and simplify, creating a service desk ticket.
In this example, this video shows how that could
that would work.
Jason, before you move
on, tell me what brief sketches explain a little bit more.
Certainly, Chief.
So brief catches and the is a software tool
that will look at a written document and then
suggest ways the document could be reworded,
refactored, changed to make it more effective.
And the appellate courts have been using that.
We have to see not yet clear.
I mean you very clearly now clearly not to to make comments and suggestions.
It's not it's a tool.
It's not a something that's required
so people can use it or as a suggestion, basically.
Okay. Okay.
Thank you. Go, go ahead.
It's only
as you can
see here, the chat bot is just asking why?
What do you need help with today the respondent typed in mince.
It's a spinning
something that's near and dear to all of our hearts.
You can see the chat bot opposite real fast here so you can read it
but you can see the chat bot said it sounds like you're reporting.
There's a problem with this
and the chap says, If you like, we can open a ticket for you.
And how would you like the, how would you like to be contacted on this incident?
And the respondent said email and the chat bot
then said Great, a ticket has been created already for you.
Here's the incident number and you'll be hearing more
once that issue has been resolved.
So that's just a quick
demo of of something that we're looking at doing
with the service desk to make it easier to to interact us.
When you have a problem,
if you go
another another place that the branch
is looking at using AI and you'll hear about this more
with the next agenda item
is within the Westlaw precision product.
This is the tool that the branch has recently licensed.
It's the next version of the Westlaw Research Suite
and it uses AI to facilitate legal research.
This is a quick demo that just shows how AI is used to speed up
legal research and provide faster and better
results.
This does have sound, but
because of that the presentation on Zoom,
you won't hear the audio
just to give a brief narration.
The user is typing in their search query.
They're getting back cases that happen to match.
There are smart filters so they can narrow in on their response
and get their research completed
much faster and more accurately.
So we'll go more.
We'll go into much more depth about the Westlaw precision
in the next agenda item.
But another key way that the branch has addressed and tackled
the topic of AI is through judicial officer and staff training.
Last fall we presented
a a breakout session at Markham that focused
on artificial intelligence and that was very well received.
Also at the annual Conference of Judges in December,
we had Professor Marchant came
and presented it on an AI, and in both of those forums gave
good opportunities to present some foundational information on
on artificial intelligence and how it could be
impacting the courts.
That's just what we've done to date.
But there's more that we need to do to be able
to prepare the judicial branch to keep up with AI
in those key
areas that we need to be considering our governance, knowledge,
skills and abilities, including training
and upskilling in some situations,
the tools we use, and then most importantly,
the data that we're we're using as part of our A.I..
I mentioned A.I.
Governance is key.
If you remember in January, a Professor Lederer
referenced in upcoming conference that that he was going
to be hosting around problematic A.I.
and that that conference was last week.
Some members of the judicial branch were able to attend that conference,
and governance was a key aspect of
of their discussions.
One of the takeaways from that conversation
that they highlighted is that
governance, it's very common
in the in the industry that organizations refine governance as they go.
So it's not a one and done scenario so that as the technology
is evolving, the governance model has to evolve as well.
And so it's common for organizations
have multiple iterations of governance as they figure it out.
Another key message that came out of that,
that seminar is that when it comes to A.I.,
the theme should be ethics, governance and guardrails.
So as an organization,
artificial intelligence, those key points need
to be the foundation of all that is being considered.
In addition to governance, we need to continue to educate
and foster knowledge among our judicial officers and our staff.
The technology is ever changing, and so the education needs to be ongoing
to to meet that demand.
This will also help to improve,
help to ensure that we are providing consistent information
to our staff on acceptable uses and
and provide the guardrails
that are necessary for responsible artificial intelligence.
And then lastly,
we need to look for opportunities
that exists to support our business
administration and court operations as well as our judicial officers.
Things like the lights out processing that we saw in Palm
Beach County, ways that we can leverage A.I.
that are going to improve what we're doing
and with greater efficiency and accuracy.
So as we talk about what creating tools
we need to look at opportunities that exist today, and one such opportunity
with the Guardians and Sarah is going to talk about
some of that that opportunity.
So I had the pleasure the other day to meet with some leadership
and the guardian ad litem program specifically within their equity division.
For those of you who don't know, a few years ago,
the Guardian ad litem program kind of split its divisions.
They had a general GIPS division,
they have a family division, and now they have an equal division.
And one of the things that I learned from their leadership when I met with them
was that they are currently tracking some data.
And I think that artificial intelligence this is a great example
of how artificial intelligence can help at this point in time.
Their staffs are tracking data literally manually on a spreadsheet
because their case management system cannot handle it.
Right. So we all know about that.
The the data
that they're tracking is trying to determine whether not the guardian
ad litem that is assigned to a particular case has an impact
to meeting some of the
really, in essence, the directives of equa and misbah.
And so, you know, really what they're looking at
is that the guardian ad litem program through their Aqua Division has
and trained staff who basically, in essence, specialize in equal cases.
And that specialization comes through training
and it comes through a variety of different approaches, as well
as some of those folks come directly from the communities in which they serve.
So one of the things that they're looking at
is when a specialized guardian ad litem is assigned to a case,
does that influence an impact and decrease the amount of time
that Native American children are spending in out-of-home placement?
And does it increase the rates of reunification?
You know, artificial intelligence could in theory,
be collecting that data for them and could analyze that.
And I look at that like, what an amazing tool for us
to be able to take a resource, a very specified resource, and say
we can change, you know entire communities by doing by taking these steps.
I think from a judicial perspective, I would assume that
if this data comes back to says that there are significant impacts
like this, you know, that the branch would want to ensure
that we had these specialized guardians on all cases.
And so it's kind of a unique look at how artificial intelligence can help
all of you to do your jobs,
you know, a little bit easier and better.
And then on top of that, really
have some significant impacts for the communities that we serve.
And as you've
heard both in January and today, it all comes down to data
and the data use when you develop your models.
So it's going to be key for the judicial branch
to make sure we're using the best data possible,
much of which we already have, some of which may require augmentation
with other data sources, so that where responsibly
creating a models that present
the best outcomes.
So in closing,
I'm going to have I'm going to ask Katie to kind of summarize
both the conversation this morning and then start to talk
about some of the next steps that we're going to ask counsel.
So as we talked about last month
and kind of summarizing, we have opportunities and challenges here.
We have peers across the country that are that are already leveraging
this, have tried some things, certainly, you know, areas we can learn from.
And we have some ideas, as you can see, already lists and list of ideas.
We talked about as a planning committee that we've heard
for ideas of how to use different types of AI in our system.
And as
Jason talked about, you know, we really have acknowledged
as a planning committee that there is some work that we need to do.
And we've also
heard from this judicial council that we want to move forward in that work.
And so on the next slide, we have a recommendation for your consideration.
So what we're seeking is some endorsement to draft a proposed policy.
So building on the policy that we have already,
but looking at what are some of those,
you know, those considerations that Jason talked about, I attended that
webinar last Friday as well.
There were a lot of really good resources, governance frameworks and protocols
already set up for organizations, including governmental organizations.
So the recommendation really is to to have the planning committee
go back and develop and propose some of this framework.
This also would be something that would help us start to think
about how to prioritize resources.
And really the focus is to move know, we understand to move quickly in this,
that we understand that this is moving so rapidly
that we need to get some of these policies, protocols
and prioritization in place so that we can continue to
to do this, to do this work and continue to evolve those policies.
So the idea here is that it's, you know, maybe maybe one way to think of it is like
the other side work group for a little bit to get some initial ideas together.
And part of that governance
framework would be what is the long term support structure?
So it would not likely be the planning team, but
to have some recommendations around that, who would kind of continue that work?
And one of the questions
really is what additional information do you need either
you know, on that recommendation or, you know, otherwise in terms
of artificial intelligence and our next steps.
So with that, I think that's great.
Well, thank you all.
This was very, very helpful
and I am certainly supportive of and will hear from others as well.
Obviously, we we need to put some kind of
committee in place to develop, as you say, a governance
framework.
And I like is music to my ears to hear you say
we need to move quickly because we do.
And you know, the field is is ever changing.
I am particularly concerned.
And then I hear you saying you will address these things, the ethics
piece of it, because I think as a branch, we need to make sure
that that
we're abiding by ethical obligations, but also the guardrails.
What guardrails do we put around
the use of these of this this technology?
So let's hear from others.
But I am certainly supportive of this.
And it sounds like you would be coming back in March with with a proposal
so you could
other thoughts, comments, concerns, particularly
if there's something in particular you want them to be looking at. Yes.
So Tennessee is definitely supportive of this.
I like this recommendation.
I'm you've probably looked at governance models in other states
that are have been more aggressive in their approach to AI.
And I'm wondering if you can share with judicial council between now
and then when you bring your policy,
what other states have proposed for governance policies?
Yeah, we have looked at other states.
We've also looked more broadly kind of globally because there's
a lot of work being done in the in the UK around AI in the courts.
And so there's some lessons learned.
And we've also then looked internally
at the other side work group in Ohio and how that governance model works.
So we'll have something that we can share.
I had I had a judicial council in March.
I don't have a ton that I would be confident and sharing
at this moment.
Judge Byers I also
support this and I think one of the things that would be helpful to me
when we get to sort of implementation and Sarah alluded to
this is sort of a cost benefit analysis with respect
to implement in some of these initiatives.
Thank you.
Yeah,
thank you.
I have a question along the same lines.
If we gain some staff
efficiencies from the examples that were shared,
like what Sarah shared, I mean, I think that is excellent.
That's kind of what we've all been looking for.
E court and E filing and,
and with the addition of data quality issues, we just haven't found it.
So that's really exciting.
What I'd like to know is how much,
how does does adjacent need?
I'm on the back side to support this sort of work.
You know, are we, are we going to add it?
STAFF Do you need lot more infrastructure
to support this in it to, you know, to the cost benefit analysis?
I think that would be helpful.
And then also, what's the accuracy?
I think that would be
really helpful with some of the programs
that are already in place in courts across the U.S.
How how are these programs for them?
That would also be helpful.
Thank you.
Kind of to that point, the other thing that crossed my line
and I think, Jason, you were the one that said
this, that data will be key because you only get out
what what you put in and what you get out is only as good as what you put in.
And I remember a session that I went to
and I don't remember where I heard this, but it was either amazon
or some big company who was trying to turn over their h.r.
Function to a i.
Only they couldn't weed out the bias against women because the the
the the program had never heard of a female manager.
And so when they were getting female names in, they were just selecting men
and so and they couldn't fix it.
That was my concern and I don't know
if you heard you're nodding, so maybe you've heard that, too.
But they couldn't fix.
And so they said,
I guess we're going to have to go back
to doing making our decisions the old fashioned way.
So how do we how are we going to be selecting data
or is that what you mean by data?
Maybe I'm talking about something else, but how do you
how do we go about selecting data and to protect against
that kind of bias and other errors or things like that?
So I think that needs to be a piece of the the report.
That's I appreciate that comment, Chief.
Thank you.
Could I.
Yeah, maybe respond little bit to Sara's
questions or comments.
You know, from a course from an I.T
infrastructure and it cost perspective.
Some of this is going to come down
to prioritization.
You know, we can't do everything.
We would take a very significant
additional incremental investment if we wanted to try to do everything.
That's not what we're proposing or not what we're thinking,
you know, so we're going to have to come up with a prioritization and council
going to have to help guide that, to say, here are the things that we think
are important as we prioritize what's not on that list.
So there is tradeoffs.
There's there might be operational savings,
there might be siting incremental costs on an I.T.
side.
Well, you know, part of that's the cost benefit will need to come back with
accuracy.
I wanted to just comment.
You know, accuracy is going to be dependent upon, as you mentioned,
Chief data, but also what questions and what are we trying to do?
You know,
if we're using AI responsibly,
we're going to only be looking for things where we have
a very high confidence in the accuracy of the information.
And that's going to come down to, you know,
the types of uses that we we use for A.I.
as well as is then the data that we use to train the models.
So it's important, I think, that falls under some of the ethical pieces
that you mentioned.
Chief I really like that that governance, ethics and guardrails
kind of combination because I think that that really covers most of it.
And I think that that covers accuracy as well.
Well, go Yes.
Shelly.
So my head is kind of going in in circles here with
Sara's comments
about infrastructure needs, with with Sara Taylor's earlier
comments about, you know, one of the robots could do 3.5 years
worth of work, some of the cost benefit analysis.
I can go back to our prior discussion
this morning about right.
And need for additional resource.
You know, I, I don't know if this can be that cost
benefit sense, but if we were to deploy a I
you know how
how do we quantify what we can actually save.
You know I think there may be employees that
this and think, I'm going to lose my job because we have A.I.
and yet I think every technology initiative,
you know, we got this boy, we're going to be so much more efficient.
We have as many staff now.
We've got we have e-filing.
We're going to need as many staff. Well, that's not true.
We just deploy them in a different way.
And so somewhere in there, there's question But
what that is.
But I think, you know, that that whole notion of the cost benefit
analysis and, you know, what is it frees up.
Sara I think that's kind of what you were you were alluding to is
if we've got the robots or the AI doing certain functions,
then where can we really focus our people resources
to be better at what we do or how, how does that fit in?
Yeah, I guess is kind of what I'm, I'm talking about.
Yeah, I think that's so important.
Always going to be a role for people.
There's certain things that you just can't leave to AI because
of the human piece that that brings to it, or the things that humans can do better.
And it sounds like there's been part of that program.
If I don't remember who asks it,
what if something happens or it points to it, can't figure out something
because it's not a part of the data that's been programed
when that gets kicked to the human to figure that that piece out.
So I think Shelly and Sara, those are excellent points.
Those are excellent points.
But what more and then we'll take a break here.
But I think there obviously will there's a consensus
to form this group, come back in March and we'll look at a policy then.
But thank you for the presentation.
It's been very interesting.
It's a journey for us all. I think.
No doubt
we're entering a new, brave new world, right?
I think it's it's got positives and negatives here.
And I think my main point would be let's be cautious in what we do
and why we're doing it and always be concerned about the data,
the inputs, the ethics and the bias that can be brought forth in these systems.
Let's continue to monitor
what other states are doing and what they're doing around the world.
I think that's excellent.
But we've got to look for their successes and their failures.
You know,
my thoughts would be to maybe target a project or two, and I don't even know
what that might be, but to just look at a targeted process
using a AI that we can really do a deep dive created,
analyze it, review it by humans and see if it works.
I think, you know, what I don't want to do
is get into a situation we want to be the first and the newest
A.I. systems and that fails, right?
I want to be the guinea pig.
We got into computerization fairly early in the process,
and I think it's fair to say
we're still kind of suffering the consequences of being first
users of the system.
You know, that
that once you start using a system, it kind of creates its own inertia.
Do we would we rather wait a little bit, see what other people are doing,
what works?
And what doesn't, and then jump on the bandwagon there
knowing that we maybe can get a better product
that's usable for us.
So I'm a little more cautious than other people might be,
but I think I think there's good reason to be cautious because if this is machine
learning and the machine starts doing what it wants to do,
then we have lost control of the process.
And that's my cautionary tale today.
Thank you for listening.
On that note, let's take a break for about, let's say 15 minute now.
10 minutes. Let's do 10 minutes things. Take a ten minute break.
Why don't we see if we can start coming back together again?
Folks, let's see if we can get started again.
Thank you so much.
I sounded like an old guy, right?
I mean, you hear that? I'm like, You're not that old, Barry.
You going to be able to get up?
I know
Legend here he is a legend.
But the man, the vessel that
I think I need a T-shirt that says that.
Yeah, right, Right.
Absolutely. Be
all right.
Why don't we get started again here?
We're going to go back
to air, but now we're on a decision
item with General Darby, I, Westlaw
and Rick and Kayla are going to be presenting on that.
So take it away.
let me just say, I actually well, before I forget,
this for sure is a decision item,
as I think some of you know,
if we do not turn on air as a part of our contract with Westlaw
by the 29th, we could make that decision at a later date.
But they're going to charge us for for the delay.
So it would be helpful to make a decision here today.
So, Rick, go ahead and take it away.
Thank you, Chief Justice.
My name is Rick and colleagues,
and this is my colleague Khalil today with the legal counsel division.
We're here to present on the generative AI functionality, a limited one
that is available with our current subscription
under Westlaw.
We're here to learn a little bit more about it, that the functionality
that's available under that subscription and the efforts to
we went through to review the functionality
as a as a group in assessing it
and requesting that the counsel, as Chief Justice noted to decide today
whether to option to turn on that particular functionality.
There are three agreements
that the branch currently has.
One is for the district courts as a whole,
the Court of Appeals and also the Supreme Court.
And we have until February
29th to inform Westlaw as to whether to enable
this particular feature or functionality
as this a research is generally
a simple legal research tool that allows users to type in a simple legal question
and response with a list of relevant cases and reference
materials, along with a plain language narrative response
that cites to those cases the materials used for the response.
What's unique about this is Westlaw uses its own closed system legal research
databases paired with a large language model like GPT that it had purchased.
But how are unlike those large language models that are in the public sphere,
this system is not open to the public
and it's not generating responses based on other users data.
I also want to be clear
that this tool does not draft legal documents
such as memoranda or motions or things of that nature.
That's actually a separate product called co-counsel that Westlaw offers,
and it's not part of the branch subscriptions and has not been reviewed
or would be requested to be added
at this time.
We have some
following examples of Minnesota specific questions that we ran
through the tool in three particular areas
being service torts and criminal law.
At this point, I'd like to thank Chief Judge Filius, who is, I believe,
in the Sun
for his assistance.
He actually ran a couple of them.
The tort and criminal based queries.
I won't read them out.
They are in the materials.
I suggest using Zoom because some of them are hard to see.
It's small and I now need reading glasses. So
but the first
question we have what was we entered do Minnesota
hip pocket service deadlines apply when a case is removed to federal court
using the term hip pocket as opposed to any technical term we used?
It was just a general question and it provided what is the narrative
response followed by a list of cases that it cites too.
This functionality allows users
to further refine their query or questions.
In this case, we asked what if a case is immediately remanded back to state court?
And it provided yet again another narrative response,
citing two particular cases case law.
And if you went further down, there would be
other things such as Android
and things by nature,
the next query, which I apologize,
it wasn't blurry when I first put in here, but it's it was a question of
what is the difference between direct
and proximate cause in Minnesota, which is a very basic
tort based question that we would expect
anyone who is not familiar in this area might just take a look to see.
And it provides a very short narrative response.
Again, with that list of cases.
The last was a criminal question
is can a witness in a criminal case testify remotely in Minnesota?
What I would like to note about this is the very first case
that it returned was actually quite recent court of appeals,
unpublished Court of appeals decision from December of 2023 that it
cited, too.
So it is relatively current is not relative, is quite current
in what it searches and provides and produces
as pertains to use
beyond or other states outside of Minnesota.
To our knowledge, the state court systems of Iowa,
Michigan, North Dakota and Pennsylvania are
have I assisted research as well as district courts in Wisconsin.
The appellate courts there don't have it
as it was told to me yet.
And Illinois counties in Illinois specifically could,
which would be Chicago.
We also understand the Minnesota attorney general's office also has
this functionality, as well as comparative offices in Wisconsin and Dakota.
And it's expected to be available in law schools for the students there this year.
So students who will be graduating out of law school are going to be quite familiar
with this particular feature.
As noted,
this functionality was not initially turned on with our new subscriptions
and that was because the special topic was being presented
here to the Judicial Council last month and this month.
And because we were not able to extend our then current subscriptions
for the Westlaw classic beyond or and into the New Year,
as a result, we negotiated the option to turn on,
you know, turn on the functionality after the special topic was presented
and we had a chance to review it and presented at this month's
Judicial Council meeting for a decision.
Part of that
review was following the counsel policies
that Jason had just put up.
317 where submitted it to cybersecurity.
Cybersecurity Review
did not identify concerns with the feature and conditionally approved
its use pending approval by the council.
Additionally, legal counsel also reviewed the functionality
and found it to be a basically a research tool and a more reliable option
than using a public non legal search engines.
When you're looking for those trying to understand
certain concepts or areas of law and recommends making it available.
I would also add Chief Justice
Chief Judge Julius indicated that I could do so.
I'm invoking him here.
He was provided a long term access to access and research.
He reviewed it and also met
with Westlaw representatives to go over its functionality and functioning.
And he also recommends turning it on
once again.
I just want to be clear that this is a research tool, not a document
creation tool.
Instead of Googling legal terms or unfamiliar errors of law, which
when starting your research or trying to understand certain concepts,
we can use this tool which is rooted in Westlaw as known
and reliable databases and materials, and those databases and materials are ones
that judges and clerks and practitioners have relied on arguably for decades.
The tool doesn't change the need to check your work in any way.
So I have to review and cite Czech law clerks already do this regularly
when they use proposed orders from counsel that are submitted
past orders and other documents from internal order and document banks.
All of them still need to be updated, reviewed and checked.
Once again, it is a closed system.
It's Westlaw as own closed system
that was trained only within Westlaw as existing databases.
So those risks of hallucinations that we hear about are quite small.
It's very limited research tool that provides that list of cases
from a user who selects the particular databases for it to search,
such as Minnesota or all federal or Minnesota federal cases
to support that plain language response that you saw in those few slides.
It has been reviewed and approved by cybersecurity.
We do need that decision as to whether to option it
by February 29 because and as the chief Justice indicated,
it said no additional cost officers option in place put into our subscription.
However,
if it is excluded from our subscription, it would be excluded until such time
as we would go back to them thereafter and that there would be an additional cost
that is currently undefined at this time, given the
that have been done, the approvals and the expand availability
in other states around Minnesota and also in the state agencies
including the Minnesota Attorney General's Office
Legal Counsel division also recommends turning it on.
And that's why we come here to ask the question, does the
Judicial Council agree that ASU should research functionality be turned
on made available through our subscription
agreements at no additional cost?
Answer any questions if there an
any questions or thoughts?
Yes, Judge Anderson, I this isn't a question, but an observation.
But other than the narrative function that it spits out after the inquiry,
I really see this as very little different
from the current type in your key words.
And maybe that's not what they're called anymore, but type in the keywords.
Get a list of cases based on hierarchy of, of applicability.
I really don't see a problem with it because I'm
going to write my own narrative anyway based on the facts and such.
So that's an observation.
And if you want to follow up,
I actually do.
I as I noted, Judge Hilliard does support turning it
on, and he explained it this way
is that he sees this as a logical expansion of West Laws,
existing plain language research tool,
which we all use many judges and clerks are already familiar with and use.
So similarly, I think that
parallels what you're relying.
I'll just add,
I did my some research of my own in the sense
of just talking with some younger lawyers who are using it.
And what I've heard just anecdotally is it is fairly easy to use
the maybe the slight differences you get as.
You saw here this example.
You get a narrative which includes case citations.
And so it does some of that work for you.
And so
it certainly will increase efficiency.
There's no question about that.
But I think as has already been stated, it is still not a substitute
for checking those citations and reviewing the accuracy it.
And the main benefit that I hear from lawyers,
if you're unfamiliar with a particular area of law,
it's a good start or it's kind of like Cliff Notes only faster.
And so it'll give you that big picture overview.
And so you're going in cold and you, you know nothing.
It is very useful for that
you know but I would just stress the obvious again
is that it is not a substitute for telling your law clerks they've
still got to do their own site checking, they've still got to review this.
They've still got to ensure the accuracy of what they're giving you as the judge.
And certainly for judges using it, we need to do own homework.
If you're if you're utilizing it.
So, you
know, I'm I'm in favor of of turning it on.
We're probably one of the few folks not using it right now.
So although that's not a reason to do it.
But but I think with Judge Hill, just Elias's support as well,
it's something that that makes sense, understanding its limitations
and what our ethical obligation still remain as judges to verify
and as law clerks are making sure we're telling our law clerks that
that this is a starting point. This is a tool.
You're still responsible for verifying the accuracy
of the citations and the analysis and doing doing your work
to make sure that what they're giving you as judges
is is accurate. So.
So that's all I can say. Yes.
Just just a quick question.
Are there training resources
available for judges and law clerks once this is turned down?
Yes, there there are training resources, and that is why I brought Kayla
and she is our she's a contact and can connect you with the appropriate
representative and or videos or things of that nature.
But yes,
Chief, I really appreciate it.
Sorry. It's chief.
I really appreciate your comments about preserving the integrity of the work
that we are doing as judges to ensure that the citations and the law that we're
including in our orders and opinions is accurate.
I am concerned
that the messaging that you've expressed
get down to the people who are doing the bulk of the research
to support our judicial officers and also to our judicial officers.
And I'm wondering if
at the time that this is turned on, that we can craft a communication
that goes out to law clerks and judges about permissible
and not permissible uses of, I know, cutting and pasting obligations
to verify the veracity of the citations.
I think that's a good idea.
Judge version I had in the back of my mind
doing something just like that to say, you know, especially like the cutting
and pasting idea, that whole that whole piece of ensuring
the accuracy and using this as a, as a tool,
you know,
or as one young attorney said to me, it's a force multiplier.
And I thought, okay,
but don't you know, don't be forcing and multiplying
too much without checking it out and making sure that what you're doing is
is still accurate.
Any other thoughts or comments?
If not,
can I get a motion to
what's the term Rick activator?
What what's the option
to exercise our option to turn on the air functionality.
I do have a the just legal so
would this be for all three contracts?
That's my understanding, yes.
Do we can we pick and choose because my judges are not as
comfortable with it and I'm not sure what exactly they all looked at.
But when we were deciding to go with precision,
there was a lot of concern about any air function.
So I, I mean, I think I need to talk to my bench or have you come talk.
And then it would be per subscription.
So the district court's as a whole court of appeals and also the Supreme Court. So
So it's a yes.
The Court of Appeals could decide not to turn on that particular
functionality is individual for each agreement.
And those are the three agreements that we have.
So we'd have one appeals.
We cannot decide, you know, three within the
in this subscription agreement can get it and the rest can't, that kind of thing.
It's it's either the it turns on it is option for it or not.
But we do have until the 29th
so we can kind of try to work with some of the folks
if they have some other additional questions.
So it gets turned for all three.
Been saying it would be turned off its turned on per agreement.
So if procreation council authorizes that yes it can be optioned.
I'll be sure to reach out to you
and others to or to you and Supreme Court
just to ensure that yes, that's, that's the option that we want to take.
Do you have a bench meeting before the 29th?
No. Yes, there is.
There's this thing called remote technology
and maybe we can do it quick.
We can certainly do that. Yes.
Yeah, that would be great, isn't it?
I will know that we've learned quite a bit more about it and it is
more limited than than initially thought.
Yeah, I, I, yeah, that would be wonderful
because and then people can make a fully informed
decision that would be great.
The only information we wouldn't
have is what the exact cost will be to the Court of Appeals.
If you want it later
you'll have would be heard that part of our estimate of appeals.
No. Okay, that would be great.
Thank you so much.
Just to build on Judge Fisher's comment, I'm wondering,
we have so much turnover with law clerks in in Greater Minnesota.
In addition to doing an initial email.
Is there a way we can institutionalize this advice or training or whatever
it is for law clerks where we are very clearly setting the dangers
and what's expected of them as part of their onboarding?
I think that I agree with you.
I think that's something that maybe each chief judge should,
you know, ensure in your district that that happens.
I mean, as I was thinking about this for our court, my first conversation
was going to be with Commissioner Prosky to make sure is a part of our onboarding
of law clerks in orientation that this is a piece of that.
And so whatever process you have in place now for for your law clerks,
it seems to me this would be an integral part of that, that onboarding.
Again, I can certainly do something as chief
send out a message as well to to help in that in that regard.
But that would be my suggestion.
Let's others have other suggestions about how to approach that
but but you're right it it it needs to be a part of the onboarding
and discussion with all of our law clerks.
Yes. Heather,
I agree.
I think that would be that's, you know, key here.
I don't know if there's a way statewide to just have one
narrated PowerPoint that we could all use
that way.
We're not all reinventing the
just a few slides on exactly what we've discussed here.
So if we get a new law clerk on board,
part of the training process is to have watch and sign off on that.
Just a thought.
So, yes, I'd like to volunteer.
Chief Kelley, Chief Judge Kelley is to do
what happens when you're not here.
So what's he been volunteered
for to develop the PowerPoint or something like that? Yes.
Okay, Chief, he's extremely interested in this topic, and I'm sure he'd be happy.
Okay. I support that.
Yeah.
What?
Judge Moeller, I'm sorry, was that I love how we volunteered to vote on this.
Chief. We are about to. We're
volunteering, Judge, for this.
We'll let that be an informal encouragement.
If he seriously, if he is with something he says he can't do
or he's for whatever reason, let us know and we'll we'll figure it out.
And I think I think the idea is a good one.
Heather So that's awesome.
So in light of
Judge Siegel's concerns related to the Court of Appeals,
what an appropriate motion to be made be that the District Court's subscription
be turned on and that the appellate court, then the Supreme Court subscriptions
be turned down upon approval of the chief judges
of those courts after they visit with the other judges.
Is that kind of what we're looking for, maybe as a motion?
I'm just curious.
Yeah. Yeah, that would serve.
Yeah. Yes.
And that would give my bench a chance to learn more in
and make an actual decision and and go forward.
I think I'm okay with turning on for the Supreme Court.
I so I think it's just you and Chief Judge SIEGEL.
Yeah.
So then I guess I'd make the motion that we turn on the district court
in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals upon approval
of Chief Justice Judge SIEGEL Perfect thing thinking,
Judge Myer, yet something the second second, I'm sorry.
Okay.
So as everyone understand
motion, it's been moved and seconded that we turn on the air function
for the district courts and the Supreme Court, and we would do
so for the Court of Appeals upon approval from Chief Judge SIEGEL.
And sometime in between now and February 28th,
we'll hear from Judge SIEGEL on that.
And there's been a second all in favor of that motion signify by saying I.
Any opposed? No,
The ayes have it.
Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Next on our agenda is a
discussion item on the Minnesota Card Payment Center.
Internal audit.
And Jim is going to do that presentation
this morning.
Thank you,
Chairman.
Screen.
You should have this in your materials.
This is the overview document that I generally provide
when I bring the audits to this group.
And you also have the the full audit
attached as well, if you wanted to look at that.
So I'm here to just review the payment center
audit with you all as my audit committee.
The audit scope was January
1st, 22 to July 31st, 23,
and we looked at a number of areas system access,
receipts, refunds, high risk transactions, paper citation entry.
There are few areas where paper citations still happen.
And then also the call center.
We looked at the Cpsc's internal control structure to ensure that it was adequate,
that it was protecting its assets and following policies and procedures.
The conclusion the overall conclusion was is that the internal controls
generally adequate.
In the CPC, there's two written observations
and the audit observations are written observations are not considered major.
They're just an internal control weakness that we like to bring forward
and to the branch's attention to work on.
So written
observation one is the CPC did not always conduct their review of excess refunds
in compliance with procedure, so CPC does refunds on behalf of the trial courts.
When a refund is needed, the courts submit a ticket, court administration
and then CPC performs the refund
due to some risks within the system.
There's an independent review that is needed of those refunds.
That independent review was not always taking place.
Then reviews of the receipt refunds were not taking place timely.
So bringing that to their attention and then also written observation
number two,
the CPC did not have adequate controls over daily deposits in cash funds,
and we found some weaknesses in daily deposit as far as
proper documenting the deposit slip and then timely review
to ensure that we could see if there was timely review.
And then also just some secure of the key
to the Cabinet where there some important documents such as check
stacks left and then their deposit slips and it was left out in the open.
So to ensure that those are secured properly, because they do have
like cleaning staff and things like that or coming into their secured area.
So those were the two written for CPC.
If there's any questions, you can take them.
The questions
doesn't look like it.
Thank you, Jamie, for that presentation.
Thank you.
The next item for discussion is our second quarter
financial projection and diagnostic is going to give us
that update.
Welcome, Dan.
Thank you, Chief.
Let me get set up here.
So when iRobot could come up here and
build that next year,
I'm might be out of a job.
All right.
So I'm going to run through,
like the chief said, I'm going to run through the fiscal year 24.
Second quarter financial projections report with you.
And then at the end, I'm
going to share with you some of my observations with the report
as well as some of the things that I'm seeing this by management
and maybe some things we need to work on this next two years.
So with that, I'm
I'm on page three and you can see it up on the screen.
Yes, very small print. We are coming world.
But you can see our current budget
is $455.5 million for the branch.
We've had year to date expenditures of roughly $204
million with total projected expenses
of $448 million.
So it leaves a uncommitted projected balance of about $7.2 million.
Now, what I always like to do is how does that compare to two years ago
and two years ago that number was $11.4 million.
So as you can see, have more committed funds than we did two years ago.
That obviously impacts our statewide unfunded needs
and investments that we make.
But just to give you some
basis for that, so I will move on to the next slide,
which is the Supreme Court.
And I look at the term budget and it's the middle
subtotal there, which you can see the term budget for the Supreme Court.
And this is general fund budget.
It's $46.5 million with year
to date expenses of about 20.5 million.
We have total projected expenses of about $45.5 million
that the uncommitted balance of just roughly under $1 million.
That's the Supreme Court
for the Court of Appeals,
the general fund budget as of December 31st.
Obviously, the current budget, $14.5 million year to date expenses of $6.8
million.
They have total projected expenditures for this fiscal
year of about 14.4 million.
That leaves some uncommitted balance
of about 166,000.
Or the trial courts.
Scroll down just a hair here,
But we have a current budget of 361
million, roughly year to date expenses of about 160 million,
with total projected expenses of about 355 million.
So that leaves a uncommitted balance of a little over $6
million for this fiscal year.
Then, as you are aware,
the last legislative session, we were provided some one time funding.
So I wanted to go through that quick.
At the top of the page is the court case backlog funds.
We received those $4.2 million.
This funding ends at the end of this fiscal year,
but you can see we are out of the $4.2 million.
We spent a little over $2.2 million.
We're projected to spend about $4.1 million.
That leaves a uncommitted balance of roughly 96,000.
That money will be used, but right now it's uncommitted at this time.
At the
bottom of the page is the courtroom technology funding
we received from the legislature here, we received 7.4 million.
We have spent 340,000 roughly,
and we have total projected expenses
for fiscal year of 5.744 million.
These are uncommitted balance, which rolls in the next year of about 1.65 million.
So that money will be spent in fiscal year 25.
That's uncommitted at this time.
They are both one time and funding.
So we will not see that money next biennium.
Part of our base,
just the one carries,
the one will carry forward, but it is going to the central city needs.
That is the agreement that was made.
That's not a lot.
Okay. The next is our mandated services.
And at the top of this page, this talks by district or central budget.
You can see the current
term budget for
mandated services is 21.4 million, roughly.
The original budget was $20.9 million.
So already districts are starting to transfer some of their regular
DHS funding into the current budget to cover some of these expenses.
The year to date expenditures
are about $10.6 million, and the total projected expenses
are $23.5 million,
at least a deficit of approximately $2.557 million.
And you can see this budget is in not too great a shape.
You can see the percent of current budget spent already.
Today it is 49.6%.
If you look at that, usually your bills are behind about 30 days,
so the percentage should be more in the 44% range, 45% somewhere in there.
And we're already at almost half.
So you can see there's a little problem in this budget again.
So where is the problem this time?
And if you see on the bottom, this is broken by program and you can see
the interpreter budget and the jury budget have projected deficits for this year.
And a lot of that is because of the number of events
or interpreters or the number of juries
happening this fiscal year for jury.
So that's the issue there the budget.
Then you have the treatment courts.
This does include the cannabis money we received as well.
And you see the current budget for all this funding
talk about small print is 7.157 million.
We had year to date expenses of about 1.9 million
projected expenses for the entire fiscal year of about 6.4 million.
So that leaves about $735,000 of uncommitted funds at this time
for the senior judges.
This is the senior judge budget in the middle of the page.
You see the current budget, it's about 1,000,050.
We've had year to date expenses of about 218,000
and projected expenses, 582,000.
That's to leave a uncommitted balance of about 252,000.
I think some of this money, after talking to some of district administrators,
will transfer some of this money back to their regular budget.
Some of them have transferred money into this budget anticipating more usage,
but we're just not seeing that.
So there will be a transfer there in the next quarter
or the 40 money or the trial courts.
You can see the original budget was $7.2 million
and the current budget is almost $16 million.
And that's because of roll forward.
This money rolls
forward from one biennium to, the next, which general fund doesn't.
So this is the nice thing about these funds, which you can see.
We spent about 3.4 million was projected to spend about 13.8 million,
and that leaves about $2.2 million that will roll forward in the next year.
Statewide, unfunded
needs, we've had contributions of a little over $2 million
and we've had approved projects of about $2 million.
So at least $33,000 on the bottom line.
And you can see the projects that
that are slated for this biennium down below on their projects.
Right now, a total $1.992 million.
So to sum it all up, as far as the numbers.
This gives you a look at not only general fund,
but for D and sort of add some together, but for the trial courts,
we're looking at uncommitted balance of about 8.1 million.
And for the Court of Appeals, 166,000 roughly,
and the Supreme Court, about $2.2 million,
when you include the four D funds, would be general
fund balance.
As far as court
receipts, Tom, you can see that we are we're up about $1.5
million, 2.4, 3% from last year at this time.
So that's good news.
The Department of Revenue collections are also up
about 600,000, about 8%.
So that's good.
And then the rest is just for your viewing pleasure,
the appendix of mandated services, if you want to look at that
closer.
Any questions about this report?
Before I get into observations?
Question
The Chief can ask a question just on the man.
So what we're seeing,
part of the reason we're not seeing a problem
is because we got the one time funding.
That is correct.
We received funding in the sake of $1.5
million per year with the psych services.
So that takes care of issue.
Okay.
Any other questions?
Okay.
If the circuit
board
room has to be spent during the biennium, Bob,
just so you know, we receive $1.5 million per year.
This biennium, Bergen has received $2.5 Million in the next biennium.
So that's good news.
Any other questions?
Okay.
I just wanted to run through some observations, chief, if you don't mind.
Okay. I want to stop sharing, too.
Okay.
So, as you know, as I just went over the second quarter,
financial projection is tighter than, you know, two years ago.
Projected on committee balance two years ago was 11.4 million.
This time, 7.2 million this fiscal year.
And I just wanted to go over part of reasons for that decrease
in our uncommitted balance.
One is with the nine and 6%
compensation adjustments in 2425, we are seeing less turnover,
less turnover.
You have less vacancy savings.
That's a good thing.
That's what we wanted
when we asked the legislature for bigger increases was to see our turnover go down.
So that's good.
Also with the
branch, we're seeing expenditures rise due to inflation.
I think we have all seen on the news things are going up,
but items such as the mileage rate, prices for hotels, meal reimbursement
rates, sales tax rates, everything seems to be going up.
Other issues are operating budgets within the branch, operating budgets.
I'm talking about non payroll at this time.
They're starting to look like the pre-pandemic levels.
So we're seeing more travel, more catered events,
more in-person training sessions, both in-state and out-of-state.
So that's part of the reason.
Then mandated services budgets, we're seeing increases in the expenditures
like a set number of events, number of juries,
psych examinations, things like that.
And not only that, inflation costs within those budgets as well,
like postage, for instance, and the jury budget.
We're seeing large increases there.
Hopefully, we'll get funding from the legislature to help out with these issues.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Then another item is the cost of it
growth, including higher sales tax rates.
Right now, there are commitments in the statewide
unfunded needs, some deficiencies we have in the branch.
One is around cybersecurity at 1.75 million.
And the other is around increased technical expenses that we have
which we call our net budgets.
But we need to cover those in the fiscal year.
It's just commitments that are made.
So as far as long term issues,
I thought I'd cover this as well.
The first four items I'm talking about revolve around information
technology and the growing needs or appetite for technology.
You heard the air talk, right?
How much is that going to cost?
We all get excited about technology.
It's great investments.
But the growth in I.T., I.T.
base budget cannot handle all the growth in I.T..
So we need to figure out where do we get these funds?
Do we funds from other places, or do we ask the legislature for more funding?
With technology
strategic off the top, some of you might be familiar.
We used to pull .91 percent off the top of our budget
for what we called strategic off the top
so we could invest in projects right from the start of a fiscal year.
We have that anymore.
That was used up to pay for Mondays.
And so that money is gone.
And so we need to rethink how we do that in the future.
I think, too, another issue, long term
issue is too much reliance on statewide unfunded needs.
You saw some of the reports in the past,
millions and millions of dollars in unfunded needs.
I think we need to budget more upfront.
Not everything, but there's needs to be a good mixture of unfunded
needs, allows us to utilize all our funding for the entire biennium.
So you have to have some unfunded needs, some unbudgeted items,
but I think it's gone too far at this point in time and we need to figure out
how to deal with that.
Other issues,
statewide systems and standards, you know more of that.
I think that will help reduce cost.
You know, it's hard to see, you know, maybe some courts or districts
using some system, some not, that creates okay, we have to do it this way for this
and this way for that creates,
you know, less standards just are more costly.
And then mandated services I've talked about this before,
and I think we'll we'll talk it again.
But the three year rolling average, how we calculate mandated services,
it just doesn't work with the budget going up and up and up.
So we need to figure out a new to do that.
So I wanted to bring these issues again
on to you today just to talk about them today.
These are the kind of issues that over the next six months
during the biennial budget request discussions,
you know, during 2024 and the budget allocation discussions that we'll have in
2025, those are the kind of items that we'll need to tackle and talk about.
So I just wanted to bring them to your attention now
so you can think about them
and we'll be bringing back more information on the future.
That's all I have for today, Chief.
Okay.
Thank you, Dan, That was very helpful.
Any questions, though, for Dan before he leaves?
Judge Meier.
So brand new, right?
What you just said, three year rolling average.
That explains why almost every district's jury budget is out of whack.
Right?
Because we didn't have very many jury trials in 2020, 2021
because of the pandemic.
But those are being used to determine our budget, right?
That's correct.
Okay.
Thank you.
If I go ahead
and then I'm assuming that you've thought this through
and you're going to come back and tell us a new way to calculate is
and how we would budget for our mandated services.
Yeah, I'll bring on yeah, I'll bring ideas.
And of course, we'll work with Jad as well to
come up with some of
the ideas or recommendations or this.
Thanks so
still need more.
So we'll be seeing the February forecast I'm assuming in early
March March 5th usually, and I don't know if we've been hearing
anything different in terms of what's projected long term
in terms of the state maybe looking at more of a deficit position.
Well, right now, you know, for 24, 25, I think it's 2.4 billion
as a projected surplus in 26 and 27, pretty even.
They talk about structural deficits.
And what that really means is they're spending more money.
They're bringing in.
That's what a structural deficit is.
But as far as a balance on the bottom line, you're looking at $82 million.
I think the number was for 26 and 27.
But structurally, they're on it out of whack right now by about 3 million
or before revenues was above expenditures by about three. So
thank you, Dan.
Thank you.
We'll look forward to hearing from you a little bit later on.
All these solutions already. Great.
Thank You,
let's see,
let's move to our discussion item number eight,
education for judges.
Dana is going to be here to discuss some proposed revisions.
Council policy 400.
Thank you.
There Was a memo attached from Susan Law that explained this
change or proposed change pretty clearly.
But to sum it up, the judicial education 400 currently
allows for 15 hours of the 45 required for C.J.
ese to be on demand courses.
This was changed during the pandemic
to allow for 30 hours for obvious reasons.
Also, it was changed by the Board of Clubs and usually were parallel.
Are these are parallel to what's required for Kelly's.
On January 1st, the board
of Kelly's changed the requirement
to make no difference between on demand
or in-person or other types of Kelly's
that 100% of the Kelly's could be done in this on demand environment
since we usually have ours as parallel to theirs.
Also, this seems to be the way the world is working,
allowing for on demand things, as we've talked about a lot today.
We propose changing our judicial education
policy to mirror that the Kelly policy as well.
So the change is put up here on the screen.
Basically, we'd just remove the part, even clarifying on demand,
not because any type, of course that is accredited
would be allowed for those 45 hours.
So also one other change where we're moving outdated materials
from year 2023 on the policy that is the proposed change.
And I'll turn it back to you for any questions,
questions from anyone
on that change.
Just casual.
Looks like you've got a thought there. And I have a question.
I'm wondering if this is something we can vote on today.
I think we can if people are still ready to do that.
I'm seeing nodding of heads.
So why don't you make the motion, Judge Castro.
I move that your policy of
judicial education policy 400 to allow
for 100% of Judge
credit to be on demand zero second.
So it's been seconded.
All in favor signify by saying I, I, I,
I'm sorry. Just.
Castro, You had your hand up again.
I didn't mean to.
You did. It includes, as I said, correct.
Dana.
So it would include the senior judges. Okay.
So all in favor, say I, i any opposed
that passes?
It's all on demand.
Great.
We've got our next item on decision item.
The proposed revisions to judicial Council policy number
221 REPORTER Transcription rates.
And Don's going to walk us through that.
Last month, Don had presented some information on what other states
the federal government were doing in this area, and we agreed to
members were going to talk about this with their districts
and bring that back to council today.
And I think we have some updates on that.
So all at Don, take it from here.
Yeah.
So we did bring materials last month that just provided some comparative around
what we're seeing with other
transcript courts in other states and at the federal level.
And we provided some information on obviously
the mandated budgets and this item is an expenditure there.
It's really
at this point, I think this is more of a discussion
to see if there were proposals that folks wanted to forward or discuss
further with council for purposes of whether we'd make a decision today or not.
I am aware, you know, that there have been some proposals
that would increase the transcript rate, I think to
the same rate as the civil rate, which is 575 per page.
But I don't know if folks, you know,
wanted to discuss that further if that's still something on the table.
But that's that's all I've heard in terms of options at this point.
So I kind of turn it back to, you, Chief, and to council to have some discussion.
Well, I'll open it up for discussion.
My hope is that
we can make a decision on this today because we've carried this over for many,
several months, I would say, and I don't think much has changed.
But as I understand the as Don said, the current proposal
is to increase the IFP
transcription rate from 425 to 575,
which is what the civil rate is.
So thoughts on that proposal, Any discussion about that?
Judge Myers
I guess I see it as two separate issues.
I think there's the issue of should we increase the IFP rate?
And then I guess the question of should we do it now in light
of some of the other discussions and people come into judicial council
with their hat in their hand in that we're supposed to consider this
every two years
and so is this the right time to do it?
I'm not sure it is.
Think that perhaps there's a
troubling optic with respect to that
and that we should we should follow our policy.
So that's my perspective.
Mr. Castro.
I agree with excuse me, with Judge Virus.
It seems to me that
if we were going to review this, we should have reviewed it last year.
But more importantly.
I don't understand why this is outside the process of our budget process.
I think we should look at it.
I understand the concern that's been raised.
I just seeing that the process
seems inappropriate to me at this point to be
this particular issue when
we have a lot of things that we'd like to put on the table, frankly.
I mean, we just went through
a two and a half billion dollars of projected
deficit and mandated services.
And so I think it should be part of the entire discussion.
And we shouldn't piecemeal out a specific
line item, if you will,
in in the middle of of the
I tend to agree with Judge Beyers and Judge Castro.
I'm also very mindful of the totality of the priorities
that we have been discussing and that some of those priorities
that we are going to be presenting to the legislature have
significant funding requests associated with them.
And I do think that this is another priority that we should be considering
in conjunction with
other priorities of the branch that have monetary consideration.
So it makes a lot of sense, as Judge Castro indicated for us, consider
all of these requests as a whole.
I do agree with with these three judges as well.
I feel a little responsible for this being before us today,
because when we were looking at this policy,
I had raised, if this is in our policy, we should address it.
And I and I meant that I want the court reporters to know
that we're taking our own policy seriously and that when we say
we're going to review something, we will review it.
But it makes a lot more sense to review it in the odd numbered year
with our budget.
If if the policy needs to be revised to ensure that we do during the budget year.
I'd be happy to make a motion to make sure that that's part of that process.
But it doesn't make sense for all the reasons stated
to make any big changes to these rates right now.
And so I wouldn't support doing it today.
Yeah, I think a policy ultimately is
sort of the formalization of a commitment and we need to keep our commitments.
And so the policy says we're reviewed in nine years.
That's not the same as deciding that something in particular
is going to be adopted.
But I think we have to have a discussion about how we get into compliance
with our policy, which is we missed it in 2023.
I think we need to get on it now.
I don't know what that looks like and different
from saying that a particular action is ultimately taken.
I don't know if the discussion we've had a council constitutes
complying with our policy and maybe that's part of the discussion.
But to say we missed the boat and now it's inconvenient
and it's problematic in terms of the budget
is not the same as having reviewed this.
And so I think that this is new to me,
but I want to know how to talk to reporters to say
we're in fact, reviewing it, which we're not going to do it now
for these reasons is different from we're not going to do it now
because it's it's problematic budget wise.
And so how do we review this
involve for reporters and then have a meaningful response?
What does this review look like?
Is my question.
I don't know if I should respond to that or
I mean, we did technically, we complied with the policy
because it was first introduced to council in November of last year.
So in November of 2023,
you know, the review has taken various forms over the year.
I mean, I know there was some history provided, for example, by the court
reporters in terms of how the rates have maybe, you know,
been at certain thresholds for periods of time.
Council has reviewed those the policies in those
and just opted to not increase the rate at that time.
So I mean, it really depends on what is useful to council frankly in terms
making that determination, which for example, is why I brought some
additional information in January to kind of help advance the discussion.
So at least there was some information that folks could react to.
I mean, I would argue similar to other conversations we have around
contract work, you know, we do tend to look at what our competitors doing.
And so that's why I brought the information I did in January.
If we think something like that's helpful, we can bring that kind of stuff up front
and maybe there are some opportunities to with Dan, for example,
as we're going through the budget process, when would it make more sense
if council wants to include it in that piece of the process.
You know, what would make sense to do it then?
So, I mean, that's that would
assume that we would go to the legislature perhaps and ask for this funding.
Whereas historically, I think it's something
that perhaps the branches absorbed, which is maybe
why we've not increased the rates a lot over the years.
And, you know, frankly, I would argue we look pretty good compared
to other states.
I know some might not agree with that, but
the problem is
like when you are presenting that,
do you believe that what the court reporters and if you don't,
is that a modification that we could do so that
we're not getting communicated with separately by the court reporters?
But then you're seeing that and having some discussion
with the people that it impacts before it's being presented.
So one of the issues that was raised for a number of us,
maybe all of chiefs, is that some of the information was not correct.
And rather than us getting that
before a meeting and then raising it here, that that discussion is occurring
before it's presented and what the disagreements are so
that there's a consultation with the court reporters involving them in
some way more formally than through the chiefs.
And Jeff, I don't know if you have thoughts.
I mean, we've
gotten court reporter feedback in the past where we put things out for comment.
I think at that point, maybe counsel had forward with some options
and then we made those available to court reporters and to,
frankly, our partners because the rates affect them too.
So, I mean, that's been one approach.
I don't know in terms of specifically reaching out to this group
and asking for feedback.
And I think it depends what council wants.
Yeah, this is your decision.
So whatever you want in terms of a process or information,
we're happy to go out and get it.
But This is a situation where we pay for IFP.
Everybody else pays for their own transcripts.
PD's county attorneys, private attorneys.
So how broadly input do you want?
Do you want us to send it to the whole bar?
I mean, this is going to be a really big deal then.
And I have so many questions about the budget process in the legislature.
I personally do not want to ask the legislature
for a dime for transfer rates because to explain our system to them
they're going to say, what the heck are you doing?
Why do you buy that?
These people who work for you to separate transcript rate paid as a contractor
and they're going to ask all kinds of questions about reporting.
One of them will be, Why do you need these people?
Can't we do it?
These are the things electronically.
I do not want to get them involved in this decision making process.
The timing may be okay because some of it's coming out of our budget
and some of it's coming out of other public partners
who may have to ask the legislature for money to pay for it.
So I think I'm okay with the timing and just not okay with us
as part of our budget request getting the legislature involved in this.
But we can debate that.
I don't get to decide that. You guys do something.
And I was not I did not mean
to suggest that this be part of our our request for the legislature at all.
I meant in terms of timing because as a chief,
when you're trying to plan your budget, it's really to be thinking
about all of it at the same time and what portion is coming out of what.
That was the only reason I suggested that those two things align.
I don't know if anyone has the appetite for this or not, but
one of the things we could consider is forming some sort of small group
that consisted of judges and perhaps some court reporters.
That's sort of a standing that would look at this issue
and make recommendations to the Judicial Council.
It's something I just throw out there for discussion.
I'll nominate Judge Hill
just to be on the small group.
I think that makes a lot of sense.
And what strikes me is looking at the policy, you know, paragraph seven
just has a very vague mandate that is reviewed every odd numbered year.
And I think it might be helpful to incorporate some more specificity
about when it's reviewed so that everybody is on the same page with expectations
about gathering information and having those conversations locally.
So I truly am not volunteering Judge Filius,
but I think that's a really wise decision
to have a small group and maybe make some recommendations
about the policy changes if it needs to be changed.
Does that open the door to having to do the same thing with
interpreters, to have a small
group with them and to have a small group with the psychologists?
And I mean, I just I think that our policy requires
that we review this every of years, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around
what that looks like with respect to the other people that we have
separate contracts with.
Let me interrupt here.
I just noticed.
Thank you, Judge Larson.
Judge Lennon has had her hand up virtually,
and I wasn't even looking at that. Judge Lennon.
Sorry about that. I didn't see you.
No problem.
This is a little bit foreign for me, too.
I'm more than happy to work on a small group related this topic.
Obviously, it's one that I feel
I've got some history and understanding of.
I, you know, I do support that.
We that we not burden our reporters
with a different rate because the client is indigent.
I don't think we do that in any other area.
And but I'm happy to look at
the big picture because it is really difficult to compare
what other places are doing
because you have to look at their overall compensation package.
But I have a lot of that information.
I'm more than happy to volunteer to do that.
Thank you, Judge Lynn, In other thoughts.
Yes, Judge.
Well, just kind of on you know, on our manned
mandated service budgets and the stress that we're experiencing today,
I mean, I think the reality is it's sort of easy to just sort of overlook
an increase in pay
historically to the point that it gets to be a crisis for the service
providers that look like they don't feel like they're appreciated or they're
they haven't had an increase rates relative to market forces.
So they're they have other, you know, vendors that are going to pay them more.
And so then, you know, they look at our work and kind of look in as a
as a as a second option maybe is the way to look at it.
So I do think probably the point being that we should continue
to look at of our contractors, what we're paying them
in is some level of increase appropriate and it might be easier to absorb
a smaller increase through time and each budget cycle than to be
in sort of a crisis mode where people are saying,
you're not paying me enough and I'm not going to take that contract
because I got some other work elsewhere.
So I mean, I think it's maybe a big picture issue.
I am in favor of maybe doing a work group to look at this
each budget cycle, to look at, you know, what are we paying?
We'll 20 examiners, psychological service, What we paying interpreters,
what are we paying for transcript costs and those other kind of service providers.
And then, you know, look at maybe some incremental
that kind of
makes things work in our budget, knowing that we got to figure
that we got to plan for, you know, I mean, the worry here is
and I've kind of crunch some numbers internally, you know,
if I do a buck and a half increase, we're talking
about a pretty good chunk of change.
You know, if we're talking about a 25 or 50% increase per page.
It's it's more manageable, you know, but I think the worry is,
is these these pay
just are stagnant for so many years that that creates its own set of problems.
And so maybe maybe we could really each budget cycle look at what
we're paying and think about some type of increase.
It's just food for thought.
Other thoughts?
Yes, Judge SIEGEL, Chief Justice, just
when was the last time we increased?
Because I know that there was a national survey done
of what every state did, and there was an increase then
And then was it it was last
year, wasn't it, when the pilot was terminated,
where I have peace, where to be done during regular work hours when possible.
So there has been change, there have been increases.
And, you know, it's obviously something that needs to be looked at periodic.
But I mean, it's not something where
the court reporters have been completely ignored
by judicial counsel either.
Yeah, the last in quite a little history.
When was the last June of 21.
June of 21.
Yeah.
Judge Anderson, I'm not sure how to formulate this, but I think
I've been of the
view that I can't see the justification for the lower rate.
However, if the history was explained to me a little bit by Judge Lawson
last night, but that predates my here,
I guess I would move that we consider
this IAF transcript rate
in connection with the next budget cycle
and that we obtain information
whether it be through a small group or confer
and counsel
before that time.
But I, I'm echoing
what so many have said is that yes we need to consider this.
Yes, maybe we need to change it when we have the information.
But now cannot
I submit now cannot be the time.
So would move that this matter be considered in connection with the next
budget cycle and the information we obtain can be
gathered through whether is through small groups or otherwise,
but just kind of a clean motion at this time to consider this
in connection with the next budget cycle.
That would be the motion
at this time, unless there's a was this before us?
Is there a motion before us?
I lost track.
Okay, not yet, but so that's my motion.
Thank you.
Just for clarification,
picking up on something Jeff said, when we talk about in the next budget
cycle, it's kind of just I think as Judge Hennessey, we're not talking about
as a part of our budget request to the legislature.
We're just talking about that's the timing in which we want to think it.
The numbers today.
Yeah, but in connection with the next budget session,
because the way I read everything, I think that's the way it has to be.
The second
So as I understand the motion, it's been moved and seconded
that we form a small work group
of some sort to kind of study our process and potential changes to our policy
for how we review
increases to the transcript rate. And
we tie that in
terms of timing to our next budget cycle.
So we would not take any action on on raising those rates today.
We would defer that to this this small work group
to gather that information and make some recommendations closer
to that budget cycle. Exactly.
And I heard I think I heard Judge Lennon volunteered to be on that.
So thank you.
Thank you for that reminder.
Yes, Judge Lennon volunteered to be on it.
Do we is it the feeling well, maybe we should vote on this question.
I'm sorry, Jeff.
So two questions.
One, so the budget cycle would mean that the worker
would need to start meeting pretty quickly because the budget cycle is this summer.
So I just want to clarify that.
The second I don't know, the council is going to appoint
or the chief's going to appoint or who wants to appoint, but I heard Judge
Hennessy say we'd want some judges and some court reporters on it,
probably some staff, obviously.
Are we having outside people or having PD reps, private attorney reps,
county attorney reps, How are we going to get their feedback on these?
Just throwing it out there.
I just want to have some clarification here
before we go forward because this is going to have to start pretty soon.
If I'm going to say I don't think this is a situation
where we need the reps and the county attorney reps right now.
The request of reporters is for the
AP rates to be the same as civil.
And so at least in terms of this next budget cycle
starting right away, but that seems to be the area of concern.
And so I would support judges and spokesperson staff
and whether or not other areas come on in the next rotations.
And I think we address that there.
There are clearly in terms of services and integrate
other issues, and I think they will deserve their attention.
But right now, I would like to see Lennon,
some reporters and some
staff review this question of
IFP rates and whether they should be the same as civil.
So I don't want to open it up to be more complicated
and I think the issues are being raised.
That's fine with me.
I don't know if that's part of the motion,
but it could be limited just to what to do with IFP.
I would certainly simplify this
to the standards.
Yeah, I just was going to make the comment that I mean, I think Jeff's raising
an interesting point here and from an implementation standpoint,
maybe the best bet is to leave, I mean, if the committee thinks it needs to get to
and I'll tell you information, I suppose they can go get it. But
the more
out, the more those from outside the branch
you point to this community, I think the more complicated
the process becomes and the less likely it is
that you're going to get this thing done in time. So
yeah, I think that's probably a good idea.
I would accept that amendment and just move this to the next move.
Consideration of the IFP rate in the next budget cycle.
And the court reporters have been very good about providing us
information and background.
And then we also have our own staff.
So maybe just a clean motion to consider
the IFP rate in the next budget cycle
and we will get information has deemed appropriate
is needed from from different sources.
So I accept the friendly so much as a friendly amendment.
The one thing I forgot to mention that I should mention here is normally
we would ask the Chief Justice to appoint people to this committee
and rather than having this body decide who is going to be appointed,
that question was raised as well, I would suggest would be appropriate.
I don't think needs to be part of the motion
we normally the chief would appoint and just leave it to the chief.
She doesn't have anything else to do anyway. So.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Justice Sanders.
No, I'm I am fine with appointing people.
I would just ask folks who are interested in participating, let me know.
Obviously, Judge Lennon has already indicated her interest,
but if there are others who would be interested in it, let me know.
And just so I'm clear, it sounds like the motion has been a friendly amendment.
We're just talking about the IFP
piece to it, which I do think really simplifies it.
And and I think is the the crux of the issue,
just given that that's a part of our mandated services budget
and what do we do about that given that it's running the deficit? So
are people clear on the motion,
If so, all in favor of deferring this decision
and then taking it to a to be determined work group
who will work quickly given the budget time frame,
all in favor of that motion
signify by saying, I, i
any oppose, say nay.
The ayes have it.
Great. Thank you.
I think this is a workable solution and hopefully
we can get to a resolution here.
Thank you.
And We'll take a break for lunch if it's here or it is.
Callie's nodding your head yes. So let's take a break, folks.
Thank you.
Till till about 1240, maybe
get started and finish up our agenda
and get folks on the road.
So the next item on our agenda actually is other business.
We've got our performance measures, review.
As I'm sure everyone knows,
the council reviews performance measure results twice a year.
These
measures have been in our policy for nearly 20 years,
but there have been a number of significant changes in the branch
during that time and so we've put in place
an operational plan task force to conduct
a formal review of those measures.
The COPS committee led the development and review of the original measures.
And so I really wanted to see if there was any objection
to having the COPS committee
review the performance measures here again and put together some recommendations.
So if there is no objection to referring this to,
the COPS committee, we will do that.
Any objection or thoughts
or comments about that
hearing?
None and seen none.
Yeah, with that's what we will do.
We will refer that to cops. Thank you.
The next thing under other business
is a legislative update, and I'll turn to Jeff to do that.
Right.
So things are moving along.
This is the first week of the legislative session.
Our bill, our omnibus judiciary bill, which contains
all of our supplemental budget request items and all of our policy
requests items, with the exception of the Judicial Security Bill
and the Law Library Task Force is now ready.
It's been jacketed.
The on the House side, chair, Becker Finn
will be the sponsor of that
and we will hold our first hearing in the House next Tuesday
at 830 in the morning.
And she and I will present that Bill, which includes, as I mentioned,
the money piece of the bill and the policy piece of the bill.
We will do the same thing,
a little less policy in the Senate the next day at 1230.
We are still waiting to hear from Senator Lotz, the chair of the committee,
as to whether or not she will be the sponsor of that bill in the Senate.
But we will go before that committee and mostly talk about money
and probably have a separate hearing over there
with regard to policy.
We have been working with Judge Gutmann,
who's sort of the MDG person on the judicial security bill.
He and Carly have met with some senators and House members.
Senator Limmer is willing to sponsor that bill in the Senate,
and we are still talking with others to sponsor that bill at all.
Becker is going to do it in the House
and we're continuing
to talk to the privacy groups about some concerns
that they have with it, and we're hopeful we can probably get those
ironed out in some way so that this bill could move forward.
It seems to have very positive support from those that we've met with.
The chief and I continue to meet with members of our committee
to update them on things that are going on in the judicial branch.
And I think those meetings have been going very well.
We met with civil legal services
yesterday, so the legal services has have introduced a bill
to try to sort of change the structure of civil legal services.
So Callie and I and Judge Knutson and the chief met with them.
What it would do is sort of take
the role of the
Supreme Court for some general oversight role of civil legal services
and would create a civil legal
state board to really handle
these kind of functions.
So it'd be like setting up the jail board
or the competency attainment board or the board of Public Defense.
The Supreme Court would still have some appointment of members to the board,
along with a few other entities who would appoint them.
We asked a lot of questions.
I was concerned that they're not ready for prime time yet,
that they don't know exactly what they want to do,
and I think that was obvious from the questions
we asked them, and they didn't have really any good answers.
I don't think they understand what's involved in setting up a board,
providing resources for the board, but they're going to still work on it.
So the best advice is often not taken.
So we'll see how it goes.
I think they're worried that the elections
coming up and right now, given the money they got last session,
this is their best chance to get their allies
on the Democratic side to do what they want. So
we'll see how it goes.
We'll see if we're asked to testify.
There's a number of amendments that need to be made to the original bill
based on some of our concerns, one being that the language says that
they can contract with the judicial branch to provide services like h.r.
Finance and i.t.
we had that issue with the competency attainment board.
We have stopped being the department
of administration for anything in the judicial branch.
We don't have the resources.
Even if you give us money, we don't have the time or the effort
to take on other things. We have enough things going
in the judiciary, so i want that language removed.
They also in the bill say that they're following the rules of public access,
including a
provision in the rules of public access that says the state court
administrator is the final arbiter of whether something is provided or not.
Under the rules,
I can do that for the judicial branch, but I can't do that for other entities.
I don't know anything about.
Another problem we came upon with the jail board
because they had that same language and had to change it.
So we gave them advice whether they can get this amended and in the right format,
we'll wait and see.
But that's what's going on with them.
We're waiting, as you heard from Dan on the February forecast,
I just want to put in perspective that number he threw out there.
If you look at the surplus we have this biennium
and you look at the deficit we have in the next biennium,
the difference between what the surplus is that would carry forward some of it
and the amount next biennium is about $82 million.
So I have heard legislators and leadership talk about
that's all we can spend for ongoing costs this year
in the session.
Even Democrats are that $82 million
across the whole state budget is nothing.
I mean, our request, if you look at ours, is asking for $52 million.
So we're going to be in a tricky situation if they actually stick to their guns on
that and try to be fiscally conservative in light of the election
and as we've talked about as a council, we're going to have to prioritize
some of these mandated services costs that we have to pay no matter what,
especially one time money, the psych area.
So we'll see how these hearings go next week and
probably have to have more discussion
with council as the session goes on through May.
That's my update.
I don't. Kelly, is there anything I forgot that you want to mention
any questions or
concerns or thoughts to share with Jeff on the legislative update?
No OC hearing nothing.
We've got a couple of other items
to discuss, but we need to do those in executive session.
And so Kelly is going to pass out the agenda for what.
I just talk about that and also the handout that the court
interpreters wanted us to make sure the Council members receive.
And there are not enough handouts
on this.
So thank you, Kelly, for passing out.
See, and Jeff reminded me the handout
from the court interpreters.
So that will be a part of the discussion
here in closed session.
I get a motion
to move us into executive session
so it's been moved and seconded.
Any further discussion,
all in favor of moving
into executive session signify by saying I,
I any opposed
and said we will move into executive.