NCJ Number
66030
Journal
Judicature Volume: 63 Issue: 8 Dated: (MARCH 1980) Pages: 364-375
Date Published
1980
Length
12 pages
Annotation
CRITICS OF COURT REFORM ARE TAKEN TO TASK FOR OVERLOOKING THE SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS OF SPECIFIC REFORMS; AND THE MINNESOTA COURT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 IS OFFERED A MODEL OF JUDICIAL REFORM.
Abstract
TWO WRITERS ON COURT REFORM-GEOFF GALLAS AND STUART NAGEL--ARE PRESENTED AS TWO EXTREMES ON THE ISSUE OF COURT REFORM. GEOFF GALLAS, IN QUESTIONING THE CENTRAL TENETS OF COURT REFORM, IS CRITICIZED FOR NOT ANALYZING THE FAILURES OF THE COURT SYSTEM PRIOR TO REFORM, BUT DEMANDING PROOF OF SUCCESS BEFORE REFORM MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION. A SECOND MAJOR FLAW IN GALLAS' WORK IS THAT HE FAILS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AND EVALUATION OF COURT REFORM WITHIN THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS IMPLEMENTED. STUART NAGEL, IN ADVANCING SOPHISTICATED MANAGEMENT SCIENCE FOR COURT ADMINISTRATORS AS A MEANS OF EFFECTING REFORMS, FAILS TO ADDRESS THE POLITICAL IMPLICTIONS OF HIS PROPOSED CHANGES AND FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE PROCEDURAL DIVERSITY OF COURT CASES IN HIS ADVOCACY OF QUEUING THEORY TO REDUCE CASE-PROCESSING DELAY. THE MINNESOTA COURT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 IS PRESENTED AS AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM OF MORE EQUITABLE STATEWIDE DELIVERY OF JUDICIAL SERVICES. DEFERENCE IS MADE TO LOCAL POLITICAL SENSITIVITIES IN COURT REORGANIZATION BY MAKING THE OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE COURTS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LOCAL BENCH, OF THE CHIEF JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT, AND OF THE TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS. STATE-LEVEL MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR WERE FOCUSED ON THOSE AREAS WHERE STATEWIDE UNIFORMITY (PERSONNEL STANDARDS, RECORDS, INFORMATION AND STATISTICS OR STATEWIDE PURVIEW (TEMPORARY JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENTS) WAS NECESSARY. THE ADOPTION OF BOTH A STATEWIDE CASE TRACKING INFORMATION SYSTEM AND A WEIGHTED CASELOAD SYSTEM ARE DESCRIBED AS PART OF THE REFORM PACKAGE, AND ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: 1) PRECISE ESTIMATION OF CURRENT BACKLOGS, D 2) ALLOCATION OF JUDICIAL RESOURCES TO REDUCE LEVEL OF DELAY, AND 3) COST-EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE OF THE FOREGOING TASKS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THESE MANAGEMENT TOOLS CAN BE APPLIED WITH SENSITIVITY TO THE COURT ENVIRONMENT IN MINNESOTA WHILE LEAVING THE EVALUATION OF THE NORMATIVE QUALITY OF COURT REFORM ITSELF TO OTHER POLITICAL AND PROFESSIONAL REVIEW MECHANISMS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED.