In the North Dakota judicial system, a system of committees has been established to develop new ideas and evaluate proposals for improving public services. These advisory committees include citizen members, legislators, lawyers, and judges. The activities of these advisory committees are summarized here:
Committees Under the Rule on Procedural Rules,
Administrative Rules, and Administrative Orders
Joint Procedure Committee
The Joint Procedure Committee is the standing committee of the Supreme Court responsible for proposing adoption, amendment, or repeal of rules of civil procedure, criminal procedure, appellate procedure, evidence, and specialized court procedure.
Justice Dale V. Sandstrom chairs the Committee. The Committee membership of ten judges and ten attorneys is appointed by the Supreme Court, except for one liaison member appointed by the State Bar Association.
In 2003, the Committee continued work on its multi-year project to update and revise the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure. Recent projects also include development of new rules governing writ procedure and refinement of North Dakota’s judicial referee rule.
Judiciary Standards Committee
The Judiciary Standards Committee, chaired by Brian Neugebauer of West Fargo, studies and reviews all rules relating to the supervision of the judiciary, including judicial discipline, judicial ethics, and the judicial nominating process. During 2003, the Committee reviewed questions concerning state judge service in the miliary reserve or guard and submitted proposed amendments to Canon 4G, Code of Judicial Conduct, to the Supreme Court for consideration.
Court Services Administration Committee
The Court Services Administration Committee, chaired in 2003 by William A. Strutz of Bismarck, is responsible for the study and review of all rules and orders relating to the administrative supervision of the judicial system. During 2003, the Committee reviewed issues concerning court interpreter qualifications and access to administrative records.
Committees of the North Dakota Judicial Conference
Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee
The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, chaired by Judge Ronald Goodman, provides advisory services for judges relating to judicial ethics issues. The Committee has provided all judges with an ethics manual and responds to inquiries by judges on ethics questions. The Committee also documents responses for use by all members of the judiciary.
Jury Standards Committee
The Jury Standards Committee, chaired by Judge Joel D. Medd, studies and oversees the operation of North Dakota's jury system.
Committees Established by Administrative Rule
Judicial Planning Committee
The Judicial Planning Committee is chaired by Justice William A. Neumann. The Committee studies the judicial system and makes recommendations concerning long-range and strategic planning and future improvements for the system.
North Dakota Legal Counsel for Indigents Commission
The Legal Counsel for Indigents Commission, chaired in 2003 by Judge Laurie Fontaine, identifies and reviews issues concerning the operation of the indigent defense contract system.
Council of Presiding Judges
The Council of Presiding Judges is a policy making body charged with the responsibility to provide uniform and efficient delivery of administrative support to the trial courts. The council consists of the presiding judge of each judicial district with the chief justice of the supreme court as the presiding officer of the council. Duties of the council include the responsibility to develop administrative policies for the trial courts and provide the mechanism to ensure implementation. The Council of Presiding Judges meets at the call of the chair.
Juvenile Policy Board
The Juvenile Policy Board, chaired by Judge Norman Backes, continues to oversee the implementation of Balanced and Restorative Justice.
Under this system, juvenile courts address public safety, accountability of the offender to the victim and society, and the competency development of juveniles who come in contact with the court. Research indicates that courts that "balance" these approaches with juveniles are most effective in reducing juvenile recidivism.
Accountability means holding the offender accountable to their victim and to the community. Accountability to the victim has traditionally meant collecting restitution for the victim. Annually, the juvenile courts collect about $100,000. The ability to collect restitution, enhanced in recent years by the legislature, includes such options as reducing the restitution amount to a judgment when the child turns 18. This keeps the obligation to pay for damages in place for at least ten years. Under Balanced and Restorative Justice, however, the courts attempt to involve the victim more fully.
The courts have contracted with a private provider to hold "juvenile accountability conferences". Through these conferences, victims are given the opportunity to face offenders and explain to the offender the true consequences of their actions and to have input on the consequences of their actions. This program has been shown to be very beneficial to victims and to have a serious impact on offenders.
In several communities, the courts, through local funding, have established restitution funds. Under this program, victims are paid damages immediately and the offender pays the restitution back, or completes community service hours equivalent to the damages paid out.
Accountability to the community means repaying the community for harm caused. A principle of restorative justice is that any crime hurts the peace and security of the community and that offenders have an obligation to rectify that harm. In response, all of the courts are involved in community service projects. Statewide, the courts are attempting to establish community service projects which are meaningful to both the community and to the juvenile. For example, the Williston juvenile court established a community garden where offenders plant, weed, and maintain a community garden. The produce is sold with profits going to the local victim restitution fund. The Valley City juvenile court undertook a project to have offenders plant trees and shrubs in the local parks. Much of the value of these programs involves the mentoring relationship of the supervisor.
The Balanced and Restorative Justice model also emphasizes the importance of building on the competency of the offender. That is, most, if not all, offenders need to improve in such skills as decision making and anger management.
The courts have emphasized a program known as "Keys to Innervisions". This program emphasizes that the juvenile accept responsibility for their behavior, understand that they have the power to change their behavior, and provide skills towards changing their behavior.
Community safety also involves controlling the whereabouts of certain offenders while they are in the community. This may mean electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol screening, and face-to-face intensive tracking. At times, it involves removal from the community to a correctional and residential setting.
The North Dakota Supreme Court, through the Juvenile Policy Board, established a Juvenile Drug Court Program. A court was established in the Northeast Central judicial district and in the East Central judicial district in May 2000. A third court was added in October 2003 in the South Central judicial district. There have been 130 participants since the establishment of the program and 48 successful graduates.
A juvenile drug court is a special program aimed at intervening in the lives of substance abusing juveniles. The program aims to reduce the criminal behavior that frequently co-occurs through intense judicial supervision, individual, group, and family counseling, drug abuse treatment, educational opportunities, and the use of sanctions and incentives. The program forms a unique partnership between the drug court judge, the state's attorney's office, the probation officers, the defense counsel, the school system, the local law enforcement, and the treatment professionals.
The program is a post-petition/post-adjudicated program with possible dismissal of the current petition if the participant successfully completes the program.
Commission on Judicial Education
The Continuing Judicial Education Commission was established following adoption of Administrative Rule 36 by the Supreme Court and is chaired by Judge Donald L. Jorgensen. The Commission is comprised of the chief justice, state and municipal court judges, a representative from the law school, juvenile court and court support staff for the courts of record. The commission develops policies and procedures concerning the implementation of a statewide continuing judicial education program for judges and personnel of the unified judicial system.
The commission was instrumental in the Supreme Court's decision to mandate that all supreme, district and municipal judges, judicial referees and magistrates, and juvenile court directors and court officers receive an identified number of hours of continuing education each biennium.
In 2002, the Commission began implementation of the strategic plan for judicial education. In part, this plan identifies specific long and short-term training needs for all judges and employees of the North Dakota judiciary. The plan will allow the Commission to focus on providing quality education that meets the direct needs of the judiciary and its employees. In 2003, the plan was revisited to ensure its objectives were in line with the education needs of the judiciary.
Committee on Tribal and State Court Affairs
The Committee on Tribal and State Court Affairs was established following adoption of Administrative Rule 37 by the Supreme Court and is chaired by Judge Donovan Foughty. The Committee is comprised of tribal and state court judges, tribal and state court support services representatives, and public members. It is intended to provide a vehicle for expanding awareness about the operation of tribal and state court systems; identifying and discussing issues regarding court practices, procedures, and administration which are of common concern to members of the two court systems; and for cultivating mutual respect for, and cooperation between, tribal and state courts.
Joint Committee on Attorney Standards
The Joint Committee on Attorney Standards was established following adoption of Administrative Rule 38 by the Supreme Court. The Committee, chaired in 2003 by Alice Senechal of Grand Forks, is comprised of members appointed by the Chief Justice and the Board of Governors of the State Bar Association. During 2003, the Committee completed its study of lawyer assistance and diversion and submitted rule proposals to the Supreme Court, completed its study of lawyer advertising and solicitation and submitted several related rule proposals to the Supreme Court and continued a review of the Rules of Professional Conduct in light of recently adopted ABA Model Rules.
Committees Established by Administrative Order
Gender Fairness Implementation Committee
The Gender Fairness Implementation Committee, chaired by Justice Mary Muehlen Maring, was established by Supreme Court Administrative Order 7 to oversee implementation of the recommendations of the Supreme Court's Commission on Gender Fairness in the Courts. It is further charged with monitoring the progress of the judicial branch in eliminating gender bias in the courts. During 2003, work was completed on a domestic violence benchbook through STOP grant funds and the Committee reviewed possible models for developing a handbook on conduct for judicial system employees.
Court Technology Committee
The Court Technology Committee, chaired by Judge Allan Schmalenberger, is comprised of representatives from the supreme court, district courts, clerks of court, and state court administrator's office. The committee is responsible for general oversight and direction of technology for the Judicial Branch.
The unified court information systems (UCIS) continued its growth by being installed in the remaining 13 North Dakota counties. In May of 2003, the 53rd county was added to UCIS, making UCIS the case management system used in all of North Dakota's counties. There are currently over 600 enrolled users in the UCIS system.
Wahpeton municipal court was also added to UCIS and is now using it as the case management system for their municipal court. This brings the total number of municipalities using UCIS to seven.
The Court Technology Committee continued with the project to provide the full text of protection orders to law enforcement. This is a joint venture between the judicial branch, the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, State Radio Communications, victim advocate groups, and others. This project was installed for statewide use in late 2003. Enhancements are being planned for 2004.
Work was finalized on a data transfer project between the Highway Patrol's in-car citation system and UCIS. In November 2003, we began receiving traffic citations electronically from the Highway Patrol and automatically creating a case within UCIS for each citation received. This results in significant efficiencies through reduced data entry and reduction of data entry errors.
We continue to provide access to district court case information to other criminal justice related personnel. Currently, web-based access is provided to over 250 non-judicial personnel, and UCIS access is provided to over 125 non-judicial personnel.
The use of interactive television was expanded to include the East Central judicial district. Rules were amended to allow in-custody appearances from the newly constructed Cass County jail in West Fargo. Equipment was installed in the courthouse to accommodate the remote appearance of in-custody defendants. Procedures are now being developed with the goal of using the system in early 2004.
Digital recording, the practice of taking the court record digitally and storing it to a computer hard drive was expanded to include Cass County's courtrooms. This involved placing a digital audio server in the courthouse for audio storage and placing a computer in each courtroom for digital encoding of the audio tracks. The system replaced analog tape recording in October, 2003.
Additionally, the digital recording system used in Stark County was upgraded and a digital recording system is planned for installation in Grand Forks County for 2004.
The North Dakota judicial branch continues its work with the state's criminal justice information system (CJIS) initiative. This initiative is a joint, multi-branch of government effort to facilitate sharing of criminal justice information.
The judicial branch's Help Desk provides technical support to all judicial branch employees, judges, clerk of court personnel, and others using and accessing our information systems. Over 5,600 calls for assistance were placed to the help desk in 2003.
In 2003, we continued our technology training efforts by having our technology coordinator provide on-site training for counties and municipalities being added to UCIS; to the protection order advocate personnel for use of the protection order system and to court personnel for other technology training needs.
Committees Established by Administrative Policy
Personnel Policy Board
The Personnel Policy Board was established following adoption of Administrative Policy 106 by the Supreme Court. The board is chaired by Judge Mikal Simonson and is comprised of a supreme court justice, district court judges, supreme court department heads, and employees of the supreme and district courts. The board is tasked with the responsibility of reviewing and implementing the personnel system and developing a salary administration plan for the judiciary. In 2003 the board's primary focus centered around finalizing the review of the current pay and classification system. In August 2003, the proposed revisions to the plan were forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration.
Trial Court Legal Research Assistance Committee
The Trial Court Legal Research Assistance Committee, chaired by Judge David Nelson, was created in 1999. The committee provides technical assistance and management assistance to trial courts in the state. The contract for computer assisted legal research (CALR) was again awarded to Lexis after a thorough review and bidding process. The Committee continues to look at library holdings between districts and encourages group purchasing when appropriate.
Committee on Caseflow Management
The Committee on Caseflow Management, chaired by Judge Allan Schmalenberger, has been established to review district case management plans and practices; to ensure early court intervention and continuous court control over case progress; develop strategies for differentiated case management; creation of realistic and credible trial dates; and the development of strategies to ensure oversight of all court related case events. The Committee of 16 is made up of judges from each judicial district, two bar representatives, court administrative personnel, public defenders, and state's attorneys representatives.
The Committee meets at the call of the chair, but usually quarterly.
Committee on Trial Court Operations
The Committee on Trial Court Operations, chaired by Judge David Nelson, develops and maintains a current clerk of court procedures manual; reviews various clerk of court operations for consistent application of statutes, rules, and policies; develops and maintains forms for use statewide; and reviews matters assigned by the Council of Presiding Judges.
The seven member committee, appointed by the chief justice, includes two district judges, two trial court administrative representatives, and three clerks of district court.