CHAPTER FOUR

STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH

The Council of State Governments 145

STATE OF THE JUDICIARY

By Erick B. Low

The administration of justice of state courts across tbe nation is marked by 8 mixtureofin-novation and caution as the courts respond to changes in demographics, social structure, and economic conditions. Courts in many states are trying to do more with less 8.IISpar&e or shrink-ing public resources constrict judicial budgets. 'lb stretch budget dollars, state courts have tested or implemented innovative programs in court finance, personnel administration, case-flow management, appellate review, and al-ternatives to the judicial proceas. State courts have recognized a variety of program a design-ed to relieve congested docketa and to extend informal justice to citizens who are not ac-customed to resolving their problems in court. As they have oontinued to modernize their in-ternal operations, the courts also have begun to use technology in evolving areas of public concern 8uch as the protection of child witneaaes.

While the courts have extended their range of operations and experimented with new pro-cedures in response to social change and limited resources, they have proceeded with caution in a period that h811 been marked 811 much by uncertainty as by progress. Some in· novations in court procedures in recent years have been made in response to a "litigation ex· plosion" that is itself a matter of uncertainty and controversy. The existence of an explosion in the rate of civil filings has been questioned by some commentators. I Data on state court filings. recently released by the National Cen· ter for State Courts. failed to demonstrate na· tional patterns or strong demographic trends in civil litigation rates, including tort filings, from 1984 to 1985.2 Since there is considerable controversy concerning national rates rXlitiga· tion, the responses of court officials to uncer· tain national trends are apt to be controlled by perceptions of their local conditions. Judges and court administrators injurisdictions with heavy caseloads and crowded dockets, for exam· pie, are likely to agree that a litigation explo-

sion does exist in the United States. Other uncertainties exist as well. Extraor·

dinary events in society at large have influenc-ed the day-to-day procedures of the court&. Violence in the courtrooms, the demands of women and minori ties for equal treatment in the justice system, and the specter of AIDS have forced the courts to examine their central purposes and kI reformulate their goals. The following diacu.saion summarizes some of the areas of continuing concern to court admini· strakln and focuses upon several areas of special challenge.

Alternative Court Funding

The 8.88e88ment offees at increased rates and surcharges h88 become institutionalized in many courts 88 a means rA generating revenues kI offset court c08t8 and to provide funding for special programs. The findings of a 1985 survey by the Conference of State Court Administra-tors (COSCA)revealed that 19 states and Puer-to Rico impose surcharges on civil filing fees. S A total of 34 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico llB&e88 criminal court sur-charges. Monies generated by increased fees and surcharges are used to support a variety of traditional court operations and specialized programs. In many states that impose sur· charges, receipts are returned to the state general fund or to a local county or municipali. ty. In other states, monies are earmarked for specific programa such 88 training, retirement, and victimlwitness or indigent defense funds. Frequent recipients d revenues from sur· charges on the civil side are local law libraries.

In some jurisdictions, offenders are a.saeseed increased fees or fines that support programs directly related kI particular offenses., such as the diversion of fines for driving while intoxi· cated (OWD to traffic safety programs. Legisla.

Erick B. Low it the Librarian for the National Center for State CotIJ'U in Williamabw& Virginia.

JUDICIARY

tion enacted by the California Assembly in 1980 provides for increased surcharges on drunk driving fines to help cover the costs of blood/alcohol tests, county alcoholism pro-grams, and laboratory drug tests.4

Increased fees and surcharges are also used to support basic court functions. Montgomery County, Penn., finances its court automation system through court user fees. TIlinois statutes dire

JUDICIARY

Some courts have turned to the private sec-tor for aid in ool1ecting outstanding fines and fees. A New York-based computer firm, Data-com Systems Corporation, collects parking fines for Detroit, Michigan and New York Ci-ty_ 18 Other jurisdictions that have utilized private collection agencies include KiLsap and Franklin Counties in Washington.17 Cincin-nati also considered the use of 8 private agen-cy to collect outstanding parking fines. By improving its reoordkeeping and information management systems instead, the Traffic Court increased its internal capacity to moni-tor delinquent traffic fines and to inform offend-ers of delinquency. The number of outstanding fines has dramatically decreased in Cincin-nati's Traffic Court 8S a result of improved in-ternal record keeping systems.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

In response to the needs of individuals and corporations for timely and aiTordablejustice, a wide variety ofinforma1 programs for dispute resolution have grown outside the courtroom 88 alternatives to formal judicial procedures. IS Initially, many programs were developed at the neighborhood or loca1level without recognition by the court.s. Neighborhood justice centers, operating outside the court system, promised a means of relieving overcrowded docket.s and providing a form of justice that could adapt to the needs of individuals who were unschooled in the adversarial process. l'

The trend in recent ye8J"8 has been toward a reconciliation of informal and formal justice. Many court& have annexed alternative dispute resolution (ADR)pr0gram8 and woven them in· to the fabric of a multi-dimensional approach to public jUBtice. The array of ADR programs administered, authorized or recognized by the court.8 ranges from arbitration and mediation to informal trial techniques. such as summary jury trials and mini trials that enable litigant.s to evaluate their C8Bea and that encourage set-tlement of commercial disputes.

One of the first fOrnlll of alternative dispute resolution to be adopted by the courts was ar-bitration. By amendment of an 18th century statute providing for referral of trial cases to ar-bitrators, the first court.administered arbitra· tion protrram was established in Philadelphia in 1952.20 Court-annexed arbitration pro-grams spread across Pennsylvania in the 1960s, and similar programs were established in other states in the 19708 and 19808. At present, 22

states and the District of Columbia have court.-annexed arbitration programs. The total num· ber of programs is estimated at about 200. In the majority ofstates, programs are mandatory and require participation by litigants in civil damage suits that fall within prescribed juris-dictional limits. An award given by an arbi· Lrator or neutral decision maker has the effect of a court judgment and may be appealed by trial de novo by an unsatisfied litigant. Many court-annexed arbitration programsdiscourage litigants from appealing awards, however, by imposing a variety of disincentives, such as assessing costa or opposing counsel fees if the appeal is unsuccessful or ifthe party bringing the case to trial does not substantially better his or her position.

Despite the apparent pervasiveness of court. annexed arbitration in the nation's trial courts, a recent survey of members of the Conference of State Court Administrators(COSCA) has in-dicated that arbitration programs within the courts are less widespread than aggregate numbers would suggest and that the rate of growtb of court.-annexed arbitration and other ADR progr8l1lll has declined in recent years. The survey data demonstrated that arbitration programs Lend to be concentrated in a small number ofhighly populated slates, and that on· Iy a few staws, California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, have adopted court. annexed arbitration on a statewide basis rather than in selected trial courts. The study also showed that subject-matter or dollar-amount jurisdiction Iimitationa upon arbitration pro-grams lessened the potential impact of court-annexed arbitration on trial docket& In New York, for example. all civil cases are subject to arbitration, but monetary limits are low ($6,000), effectively excluding the majority of complex and time-consuming cases.

The COSCA study also revealed a lack ofna· tional patterna in the estimated 500 mediation programs operated by the courts to resolve disputes in domestic relations, con~ motor vehicle. consumer, landlordlt.enant, and other forma of potential litigation. Analysis of the survey results did not reveal a correlation be-tween program acceptance and population size or urbanlrural patterns.

One area of litigation where ADR program8 have had substantial acceptance in the courts is domestic relations. Courts in 27 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico operate ADR programs for domestic relations cases including family relations, child CUBtody, and

JUDICIARY

divorce. Several ofthe domestic relations pro-grams are mandatory, and BOrne states have im-plemented domestic relations ADR programs on a statewide basis. A sign of growing accep-tance of ADR in domestic relations has been the development of professional standards for attorneys who serve as domestic relations mediators_ 21

Trial Court Delay Reduction

Despite the prevailing interest of the public in the rulings of federal courts, the bulk of judicial activity in the United States is per-formed in state courts. Caseload data for all slate courts providing complete and compar-able data in 1985 indicated that more than 14_3 million new civil cases and more than 9.3 million new criminal cases were filed in limited and ~neral jurisdiction state courts during t he year.

Th provide timely justice, the slate courts have given considerable attention to programs for delay reduction. A recent survey of slate court administrators showed trial court delay in general jurisdiction trial courts was perceiv-ed as a significant problem in 20 states and as a serious problem in 4 states. Delay problems were viewed with less concern in limited and special jurisdiction courts, where only one slate reported a serious problem in the lower trial courts.23

Factors causing delay are usually identified as (1) local traditions under which lawyers and litigants control the pace of litigation, (2) lax continuance policies. (3) lack of adequate case monitoring, and (4) lack of commitment by judges tocontrol the dockets. These attitudinal and procedural factors that courts can control are more likely to cause delay, than factors beyond judicial control that have been tradi· tionally assumed to cause delay, such as court size, judicial caseloads, case complexity, or jury trial rates.24

Thchniques that have been implemented with success in a number of trial court delay reduc-tion plans include (1) commitment to delay reduction by the state's judicial leadership, (2) commitment to delay reduction by the trial bench, (3) education and training of judicial personnel, (4) implementation of eiTective case monitoring systems. and (5) collection and di886mination of data on the court's progress toward its improved case processing goals.

A commitment to reduce court delays is often expressed by a trial court or state court system

with the establishment of time standards for processing civil and criminal cases. While speedy trial rules for criminal cases may be im· posed by statute, civil time standards are usual-ly adopted voluntari ly by the courts by order or rule. A total of 22 states and the District of Columbia have adopted some form oftime stan-dard to reduce court delays. and additional states are developing case processing goals bas-ed upon local aspirations or upon national time standards adopted by the Conference of State Court Administrators (1983) or by the National Conference of State Trial Jud'5s of the American Bar Association (1985).

Strict time standards are also an essential element of differentiated case management, which recently was tested in Anchorage, Alas-ka, Phoenix, Washington, D.C., Aroostook, Cumberland, Kennebec, and Oxford counties in Maine, and Bergen County, N.J.2tI

Differentiated case management (DCM) dist-inguishes between cases at an early stage of development on the basis of their probable im· pact on judicial resources. An essential ingre-dient of differentiated case management sys· terns is the establishment ofmultiple, separate case tracks that reflect the complexity of cases and anticipated levels of judicial resources re-quired to achieve disposition.27 Separate time requirements are developed for each case track, as in Bergen County's Expedited Track for ac· tions that can be tried promptly with minimal pretrial procedures. Standard Track, and Com· plex Track for actions that appear likely to re-quire disproportionate expenditure of resources to prepare for trial.

Connecticut has begun the fU'St statewide dif-ferentiated case management program. M of Jan. 1, 1988, one judicial district was operat-ing a DCM program with statewide implemen-tation scheduled to begin by June 1988. Four tracks have been established for civil actions, and motion practice will be regulated under differing standards for each track. Strict time standards will be observed, and judges will play a controlling role in the pace of litigation.28

Another area of trial court management that has come under scrutiny in recent years and for which comprehensive, national standards have been developed is jury management. In 1979, a task force or judges, court administrators, and representatives of judicial organizations began to design a series of standards regarding man-agement of petit juries in state courts. The American Bar Association adopted the recom-mendations of the task force in 1983 and began

The Council of State Governments 149

JUDICIARY

to seek adoption of its Standards Relating to Juror Use and Management by each state. The jury standards deal primarily with the prin-ciples of jury system management and the mechanics of juror selection and term of service rather than with trial issues, but they provide a framework in which cowte may conduct trials in a just and efficient manner. As of March, 1988, six states, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia and Washington, have adopted the jury standards. and an additional 13 states, Alaska. Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ver-mont and Wyoming, have begun jury standards adoption procedures.

The fIrst set of trial court standards that focus upon the goals Bnd social impact of the courts is currently under development through sjoint projed of the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the National Center for State Courts. A Com-mission on Trial Court Performance Standards has been formed and development has begun of a set of standards that may be used to assess the performance of general jurisdiction trial courts. The commission has identified five broad areas of trial court activity that support the end goals of the courts and that are con· ducive to measurement and evaluation. These concept areas include predictability; regulari· ty and timeliness; equity, fairness and equali. ty; integrity of court action and judicial deci· siom; fiscal and professional respomibility; and public acceptance or institutional integri-ty. Theconcept ofinstitutional integrity focuses upon the effect courts have on participants in court processes, public satisfaction with the courts, the impact of courts upon society as a whole, and the accessibility of the courts.

Appellate Court Time Standards

While time standards have become an in-tegral part of programs to reduce trial court delay, a similar interest in case processing goals has risen in appellate courts as well. In 1986, Idaho and Florida became the fll"8tstates to adopt appellate time standards. The Idaho Time Standards for Appeals prescribe specific time limits for each step in the appellate pro-cess, with a total time, filing to disposition, of 418-508 days. 29 The appellate time standards adopted by court rule in Florida were announc-ed in an unsigned opinion of the Supreme Court and indicate that a decision should be rendered in cases before the five District Courts

of Appeal and the Supreme Court within 180 days of oral argument or submission of the case for decision without oral argument.30

Time standards are used to measure progress toward court- or system-wide goals, but ap-pellate courts also set time limits on specific events in the appellate process, during the nor-mal course of daily operations. Time limits are commonly seton filing the intent to appeaJ, cer· tification ofthe trial record, filing legal briefs, and ~roduction of opinions by judges or jus· tices. I Time requirements enable the court to monitor case progress effectively, and the re-quirements serve as essential building blocks in a variety of programs to expedite appellate cases. In New Hampshire, for example, ap· pellate reforms that gave discretionary review to the Supreme Court and created a multi-track case processing system also recognized eight major events in the appellate process and set a total disposition time of 270-360 days. 32

The adoption ofnational appellate time stan· dards recently took a major step forward with the adoption of the final draft of the Time Stan-dards Committee of the Appellate Judges Con-ference by the American Bar Association's House of Delegatea. The time standards are divided into three aubdivisions: administrative time, lawyer time and judge time. The total time for the normal appeal has been set at 280 days, a goal considered achievable by most courts and a substantial improvement over average completion times of 420 to 480 days. 33 In recognition of the ambitious efforts of the American Bar Association to reduce costs and delays in trial and appellate courts and to develop time standards for appellate courts, the Conference of Chief Justices recently adopted aresolution urging all state chief justices to en-oourage the adoption of time standards for ap-pellate courts in their atates. 34

Judicial Compensation

Inadequatejudiciai compensation continues to be a major problem for state courta.3!i Al-though statistics are unavailable on the num-ber of judges who have resigned from the bench for salary reasons, numerous articlea indicate that dissatisfaction with compensation has been a contributing factor in the decisions of numerousju

JUDICIARY

in the judiciary that may be attributable to low salaries has been observed in Indiana, where an inrormal study by the Indiana Judicial Center revealed a decline in the ages or sitting judges. Thirty-eight percent or sitting judges were round to be under 40 years of age, and nearly 60 pen:ent of the judges elected or ap-pointed after 1980 were under 40. The trend toward a youthful bench is disturbing since it indicates that the bench has become lese attrac-tive to seasoned attorneys.38

In order to preserve an experienced judiciary, the American Bar Association has developed a handbook on state judicial salaries that out-lines strategies to secure higher salaries for judges. :t9 Economic indicators that justify ju-dicial salary increases include the consumer price index and per capita personal income. Reasonable salary levels may also be determin· ed through salary comparisons with attomeys, law deans and professors, noqjudicial state and local government officials, judges of other states, and rederal judges.

Salary comparisons with any one group are difficult, sincejudging, in terms ofskilla, career path and objectives, and proressional commit-ment to public service, is a unique calling. Salary comparisons with attorneys are especially difficult because or wide variations in salary and method of compensation of members orthe private bar. In general,judicial salaries need not equal those of private at-torneys, but should bear a reasonable relation-ship to the compensation or experienced at-torneys in the private sector.oW

In the absence of finn measures or reasonable salary levels for statejudges, the American Bar Association adopted a resolution in 1981 recommending parity between rederal and state judicial salaries. Several states have adopted this resolution as their goal, and some states achieved parity with federal salaries berore the most recent increases in rederal judicial salaries.·1

One or the difficulties raced by state court judges has been the sporadic nature or salary increases and uncertainty whether judicial salaries will keep pace with inflation or with rates of increase of other state employees. Some states, the District of Columbia and American Samoa provide automatic adjustments in salary based upon increases in the cost orliv-ing as measured by the consumer price index or upon increases in the compensation or other state civil service employees.·2 Several states take longevity in a position into consideration

in their salary scales. In Rhode lsland,judicial salaries, as well as the salaries or other state employees, include longevity increments rang-ing rrom 5 to 20 percent. In North Carolina, slate court judges receive a salary supplement of 4.8 percent after 5 years on the bench and 9.6 percent after 10 years.

In order to ensure stability in judicial com-pensation and orderly adjustments in judicial salaries. a number of states have formed com-pensation commissions that examine the ade-quacy or compensation levels for judges, or for state employees including judges, on a periodic basis. In 1985, at least 19 states, including Ala-bama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorad~ Connecti· cut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, D1inois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexic~ Ohi~ Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Washington, had committees or commissions that made recommendations to the legislature concerning judicial salaries. In Alabama, the Judicial Compensation Committee's recom-mendations to the legislature become effective automatically unless rejected by both houses.

The success of efforts to raise judicial salaries often can be attributed to the support ofleaders in the business community and the bar for an independent judiciary. Prominent business leaders serve onjudiciai compensation commis· sions in a number of states. In Delaware, for ex-ample, the legislature is usually sympathetic to the recommendations of the Compensation Committee in deference to the support for higher judicial salaries demonstrated by memo bers of the business community that serve on the committee. Support of the bar is also vital to successful campaigns for adequatejudiciaJ compensation. At least 16 states, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Mas-sachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohi~ Oklahoma, South Dakota, Ver-mont and Virginia, have bar committees that deal with judicial salaries. In a large number ofstates, bar associations have lobbied the leg· islature or shown other forms or support for higher salaries for judges. A particularly suc-cessrul lobbying effort was waged by the Mis-souri Bar, which created a legislative network in 1984 among attorneys, judges, lay public and legislators in order to secure passage or a judicial pay raise and to create a permanent vehicle to support key initiatives, selected on a year-to-year basis, of vital importance to the administration of justice.

The Council or State Governments 151

JUDICIARY

New Developments

7brt Reform. In 1986 and 1987, many state legislatures enacted laws to ease the apparent liability ilUlurance crisis. 43 A number of states pa&Sed legislation setting caps on punitive damage awards. Oregon put the limit at $500,000, Florida at $450,000, Alabama and Idaho at $400,000, Virginia at $350,000, Geor· gia and Kansas at $250,000, and fuaa at $200,000.10 addition to caps on awards, several states al80 diverted a proportion c:L awards from plaintiffs to state programs. Mi880uri now re-quires 50 percent ofpunitive damages, leas at-. torneys' fees, be awarded to the state and deposited in the Thrt Victims Compensation Fund. Georgia requires 75 percent of punitive damages be paid to the stste.

Several states approved legislation that allowa reduction of a judgment baaed on the amount of collateral benefila the plaintiffhaa received. Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Mi&llOuri, North Dakota and Oregon have adopted procedures that permit judges or ar-bitration panels to subtract various collateral benefits from a judgment.

Joint and eeveralliability (which allOWll a vic-tim to collect full damages from whichever defendant is at fault, even one only partially at fault) was abolished in several western and cen-tral states in 1987, including Arizona, Idaho. Montana, North Dakota, Nevada and 'Thxaa, ex· cept in cases involving intentional torta, con· certed actions or hazardous wastes.

Although some state legislatures are still confronted with proposed changes in their tort systems, the focus of attention in 1988 appe8J"8 to be turning from tort reform to a re-examina· tion of the extent of tbe liability insurance crisis. Attorneys general representing nine states recently filed suit against major American and British insurance carriere, charging them with conspiracy and manipula-tion oftbe commercial liability insurance mar-ket during the insurance crisis of 1984 and 1985. Numerous other states 888isted in the in-vestigation, headed by the California attorney general's office, that led to the ming of actions in U.S District Court in California and state court in Thxaa. Some of these states are ex-pected to file separate actions in the near future. 44

Court Security. The increase in threats to the phyeical safety of judges, court officers, litigants and other court participants haa received a con-siderable amount ofmed.ia attention.4Ii Guide·

lines for court security have been developed in several ata~ including Dlinois, which conven· ed a court security committee in the wake of several violent incidents in its courtrooms. Guidelines were developed. for daily court security, pri80ner/defendant security, jud.icial and witneas security, security for the se-questered jury, and responses to hostage situations.

The selection and training of court security personnel is one of the most critical deter· minants of the success of a court security plan. Th assist court officials in developing training programs, the National Sheriffs' Aaaociation haa i88ued. guidelines for the development of training programs for court security officers. The U.S Marshals Service also provides court security training programs to loca1law enforce-ment officials.

Plans to assist court personnel maintain security and order in the courthouse must take into consideration the physical features of public buildings. Architects and court planners bave begun to pay serioUII attention to court security in the design of new facilities and the renovation of existing buildings. Courthouses throughout the country also have begun to employ various types of technical equipment to increase security. Courthouses are installing emergency lighting in case of power outages, and m8J"8hals are reinforcingjudgea' benches, witness stands and other courtroom furniture with armor to protect against bullets and ex· plosive devices.

Other technical courthouse security devices include card aocesa control systems, band-held metal detectors, hand-held radios, and poet and rope railings. Walk-through screening stations similar to those at airports have been installed in the Maricopa County Central Courthouse building in Phoenix and proven to be effective. .Aft.er three months of operation, 4 guns, 54 knives and 10 other potential weapons were confiscated by security officials aa a result of the re

JUDICIARY

pants who have been exposed to the AIDS virus.

The San Francisco Sheriff's Department has written guidelines on handling detainees BUS-pected of having AIDS. In January 1988, the New York Office of Court Administration pro-mulgated guidelines for conducting court pro-ceedings involving people affiicted with infec-tious diseases, including AIDS The New York guidelines permit ajudge to establish whether a person appearing in court and suspected of having AIDS has a highly contagious disease. This information may be conveyed to counsel and to court personnel. The judge may seek the waiver of the person's presence in the cour-troom if there is reason to believe that he or she has been exposed to the AlDS virus. If the per-son does not waive the right to attend trial, he or she may be informed that court proceedings will be routine except for the possibility that court personnel may be repositioned, seating arrangements changed, and potentially in· jurious courtroom objects removed or secured. Surgical gloves may be worn under dress white gloves with a uniform blouse by court security officers who are in the courtroom with the AIDS infected person or who are responsible for the infected person's custody. The guidelines recommend that antiseptics and disinfectants be kept accessible for use in case of blood spills, and that objects (e.g. hypodermic needles) containing blood or semen or its residue that will be offered into evidence at trial or in a proceeding be placed inside a sealed, trans· parent envelope and not removed or circulated except under judicial instruction. Since the release of the guidelines, a storm of controver· sy has arisen about whether the recommenda· tions violate the civil rights of the AIDS in· fected person.

AIDS guidelines also have been adopted for the judicial departments in Alaska and Con· necticut. The judicial departments of Massa· chusetts, New Jersey and Oregon also are considering promulgating AIDS guidelines. Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and South Dakota have reported efforts to educate employees about AIDS, and educa· tional programs for court employees are under consideration in 'Thnnessee and New Jersey.

Since the known circumstances under which AIDS may be transmitted are not commonly present in the courtroom, the Center for Disease Control has not recommended any

special precautions for courtroom proceedings where one or more of the participants has AIDS.

Conclusion

The breadth of issues confronting the state courts includes many more areas of justice system management.

In many states, an independent judiciary is threatened not only by a lack of adequate com· pensation and an uncertain financial future for judges, but also by the need for judicial pension reform, paid judicial sabbaticals, improved com· mitments to judicial education, and reform of selectionlretention procedures. A recent study by the Institute for Judicial Administration has indicated that statutory authorization of judi· cial sabbaticals has only been provided in two states (Alaska and Oregon) and Puerto Rico. H Even in these jurisdictions, however, sabbatical leave must be taken without pay. The institute has developed a model plan for judicial sab-baticals that places emphasis upon the oppor· tunities offered by judicial leave for restoration, education and public service in nonjudicial capacities.

A major purpose of paid judicial sabbaticals would be to provide opportunities for judicial education. In 1987, the National Conference on Judicial Education in Williamsburg, Virginia, explored major educational issues. These in· cluded relationships among those who provide judicial education and training: law schools, states and national educational groups, such as the National Judicial College and the National Center for State Courts. Future trends, includ· ing sequenced educational programs for judges and implementation ofmandatory judicial edu· cation in an increasing number of states, also were explored at the conference.

Another issue of special concern to the judiciary is the partisan election of judges. Na· tional attention was recently focused on 'Thxas, where members of the Supreme Court are reo quired to raise large sums of money from the public and the legal fraternity in order to con· duct successful election and retention cam· paigns. The chief justice of 'Thxas recently resigned from the Supreme Court in order to actively support reform of the state's partisan judicial election system and to lobby for adop-tion of a merit plan of judicial selection. Announcing that he would not seek ~lection, the chief justice of Alabama recently voiced similar concern over the continuing practice in

The Council of State Governments 153

JUDICIARY

Alabama of selecting judges in partisan popu· lar elections. The chief justice expressed his hope that the state would consider a merit selection process that would be free from all political considerations. At present, nominat· ing commissions and merit selection are employed to some degree in 33 states and the District of Columbia. Although popular elec· tions are still in use and a matter of controver· sy in some states, particularly for judicial vacancies in the lower courts, no states ex· clusively use popular elections for all phases of selection and retention of judges at alljurisdic· tionallevels.48

As leaders of the judiciary and court ad· ministration bave examined ways to improve the quality of judging, they have also begun to focus on a wide variety of areas that affect, or are affected by, the work of the courts. The role of women in the court.s as members of the judiciary,'9 court officials and officers, liti-gants, offenders and users of court services has been expanded in recent years as more women have entered the professions and the workplace and as family units have dissolved in increas-ing numbers. Twenty states have undertaken formal initiatives to determine the extent of gender bias in their court systems and to seek a goal of equal justice under law for all court participants regardless of race or sex.&O

In the areaof child support, a wave ofchanges in state laws has swept the country following federal revisions in Title IV-D programs (nam· ed for Title IV·D of the Social Security Act, which created the nationwide subsidized child support enforcement system). In view of changes in state and federal law, recommenda· tions have been offered that outline a model child support. system in which courts play a cen-tral role in determining and modifying the amount of child support orders, establishing paternity, enforcing support orders and collect-ing support payments.

Following the decline in federal funding of state court improvement project8 in the early 1980s due to the elimination of Law Enforce-ment Assistance Administration CLEAA) pro-grams, a substantial portion of remaining federal support for state courts has been pro-vided by the Bureau of J ustice Assistance and the National Institute of Justice. A major new force in the development ofcourt improvement initiatives has been the State Justice Institute (SJI). State Justice Institute Act of 1984 au-thorized the institute to award grants and con-tracts to state and local court.s and court-

related organizations to improve the adminis· tration and quality of justice. Some of the areas that SJI is currently interested in funding in-clude judicial career enhancement, judicial education and training, alternative dispute resolution, court technology and management systems, enforcement ofrmes and orders, court-house security and the implications of AIDS for the courts.

One of the initiatives that the State Justice Institute proposes to explore is the future and the court.s_ This research would focus upon the changing demands that will be placed upon the court.s in the 21st century and the modifica-tions that may be necessary in court organiza-tion, procedures and services to dispense fair and equal justice. As state courts approach the end of the present decade, they are faced with many new and familiar issues_ Despite the in-herent caution of the courts, they will need to demonstrate a capacity for change to solve problems of increasing complexity and to pre-pare for the challenges of the 21st century.

Notes

1. St8.te Court C8.seload Statistics: Annual Report 1984 (National Center for State Courts 1986): 172. See also, Deborah R. Hensler, 1hmds in 1brtLitigs.tion: The$tory Behind the Statistics (Institute for Civil Justice 1987); Stephen J. Carroll, AsseS'1ingthe Effects of7brt Reforms (Institute for Civil Justice 1987): 2.

2. State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1985 (National Center for State Courts 1987).

8. Thble4, "Imposition of Surcharge on Civil Filing Fees," Standards .Relating to Court Costs: Fees, Miscellaneous Charges and Sur-charges and a National Survey of Practice (Con-ference of State Court Administrators 1986)_

4. Dena Cochran, "The Rising Costs of Jus· tice, Compliments of Proposition 13," Califor-nia JournaJ 30 (January 1981).

5_ According to an article e ntitled "New Publication Covers Importance of .Accounting Skills for Managers." National Center for State C

JUDICIARY

6. Dana R. 8aggett;"- Memorandum to Marilyn Roberts, "Update on Maine Court Ad-ministration Activities," Sept. 10. 1987. 1.

7. "Court Facilities Financing Plan Introduc-ed;' Modern Courts 3: 1 (Spring 1987).

8. Bruce A. Kotzan, "Court Fees and Fund· ing of Court Programs," Benchmarks 14:2: (Fall 1985).

9. Standards Relating to Court Costs: Fees, Miscellaneous Charges Bnd Surcharges and 8 National Survey of Practice (Conference of State Court Administrators 1986), sec. 3.l.

10. "AALL Executive Board Adopts Resolu-tion on Standards Relating to Court Costs;' American Association of Law Libraries News-letter 19:108 (December 1987).

11. Robert Tobin, Financial Management (National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice 1979):2.

12. Dana R. Baggett, "Memorandum to Marilyn Roberts, Update on Maine Court Ad-ministration Activities," Sept. 10, 1987, 2.

13. "Judicial Council Recommends Guide-lines for Collection of Fines and Costs," Accent on Courts 3:15 (January/February 1981).

14. Cal. Vehicle Code sec. 4760 (West 1987). 15. "National Center Researchers Report

New Trends in State Courts," National Center for State Courts Report 14:2 (July 1987).

16. "Cincinnati May Hire Agency to Collect Old Fines:' Judicial Notice 4:3 (August-September 1984).

17. "National Center Researchers Report New Trends in State Courts," National Center (or State Courts Report 14:2 (July 1987).

18. Unless otherwise noted, the remarks in this section are based upon an upcoming arti-cle in the State Court Journal by Susan Keilitz, Geoff Gallas, and Roger Hanson, "What's Been Going on in the States with Alternative Dispute Resolution?".

19. Deborah R. Hensler, "What We Know and Don't Know About Court-Administered Arbi-tration," Judicature 69:270 (February-March 1986).

20. Ibid, 27l. 21. "Standards of Practice for Lawyer Media-

tors in Family Disputes," Family Law Quarter-ly, 18:363 (Fall 1984).

22. State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1985 (National Center for State Courts 1987).

23. Unless otherwise noted, the remarks in this section are based upon the fourth in a series of annual surveys of state court ad-ministratorson caseload management, Howard

P. Schwartz, Delay Reduction Efforts: Con-ference of State Court Administrators Survey (Conference of State Court Administrators 1987) sec. 1:l.

24. Thomas Church, Jr. , Justice Delayed: The RIce of Litigation in Urban Trial Courts (Na-tional Center for State Courts 1978):5.

25. Alaska, California, Connecticut, Dela-ware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minneso-ta, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Da-kota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont and West Virginia.

26. Chuck Ray, "Judges Say Fast Track Works," Alaska Bar Rag 11: 1 (May 1987); "Ad-visory Committee's Explanatory Memorandum Concerning Administrative Order in Regard to Civil Case Flow Expedition;' Maine Bar BuJ-Jetin 267 (November 1984); "Bergen County Pilot Rules Re: Differentiated Civil Case Man-agement:' New Jersey Law Journal 117:1 (Jan. 23, 1986).

27. Differentiated case management is an umbrella term that has been applied to a number of caseflow management programs that share certain characteristics, most notably multiple case tracks. The definition offered in the text closely follows that of the EMT Group, Inc., which is conducting a project to pilot test components of criminal and civil differentiated case management systems in 4 jurisdictions under the sponsorship ofthe Bureau of Justice Assistance. Economical Litigation Projects eELP), such as the pioneer programs in several California and Kentucky counties, are similar to differentiated case management programs in that they provide expedited procedures for specific case types. For additional infonnation on ELP projects, see Attacking Litigation COBts and Delay: ProjectReports and Research Find-ings (American Bar Association 1984). For ad-ditional information on differentiated case management, see Marcia J. Lim, "State of the Judiciary;' in The Book of the States 1986·87, 148.

28. George Gombossy, "Connecticut Courts Hoping to Speed Handling of Suits," National Law Journal 9:10 (Feb. 9, 1987).

29. "Idaho Court System is First to Adopt Ap-pellate Time Standards," News Release Odaho Administrative Office of the Courts, May 14, 1986).

30. The Florida Bar Re: Amendment to Rules, 493 So.2d 423, 425 (Fla. 1986).

The Council of State Governments 155

JUDICIARY

31. See tables 13 through 17, Robert T. Roper, Mary E. Elsner, and Victor E. Flango, 1984 State Appellate Court Jurisdiction Guide for Statistical Reporting: Summary Tables (Joint project, Conference of State Court Adminis-trators and National Center for State Courts 1985).

32. Charles G. Douglas ill, "Summary Disposition: The New Hampshire Supreme Court's Innovative and Unique Approach to Appellate Case Processing," New Hampshire Bar Journal 27:211 (Summer 1986),

33. According to Douglas K. Somerlot, project director, American Bar Association Judicial Administration Division, Lawyers Conference 'Thsk Force on Reduction cLLitigation Cost and Delay, late amendments to the final draft of the Appellate Judges Conference Time Standards Committee before adoption by the ABA House of Delegates reduced the total disposition time from 300 to 280 days.

34. Resolution 22, "Appellate Court Time Standarda," adopted as proposed by the Delay Reduction Committee of the Conference of Chief Justices, Williamsburg, Virginia, Jan. 28,1988.

35. For a general discussion of judicial com-pensation, see Marcia J. Lim, "State of the Judiciary:' The Book oltbeSta.t.es 1986-87, 146.

36. FrancisJ. Flaherty, "Judges are Militant, Bitter Over Pay:' National Law Journal 6:1 (April 16, 1984); "Crisis in Judicial Morale Generates Study and Action:' Bencbmarks 1 (August-September 1981); Martha Middleton, "Higher Pay for Judges: Bars Called Upon to Lead the Fight:' Bar Leader 8:4 (July-August 1982); Bruce S. Rosen, "Edwards: Quality of Judicial Candidates Declining, New Jersey Law Journal 117:1 (April 3, 1986).

37. In 1982, Chief Justice Douglas K. Am-dahl reported to the Minnesota State Bar Aasociation that thejudiciary had lost substan-tial numbers of trial judges through resigna-tions attributable to insufficient compensation. In 1983, however, the chief justice indicated that, through the support of the bar associa-tion. substantial salary increases had been won in the state legislature and a IS-member Com·

pensation Council had been created to make continuing recommendations concerning judi-cial salary levels.

38. "Crisis in Judicial Morale Generates Study and Action:' Benchmarks 1 (August.-September 1981).

39. A Handbook on State Judicial Salaries (American Bar Association 1986).

40. Statement of Edward R McConnell, presi. dent. National Center for State Courts, to the Joint Select Committee to Study Judicial Com· pensation in Ohio, March 5, 1987, Columbus. Ohio, 2.

41. Ibid, 6. 42. According to a survey conducted by the

National Center for State Courts in 1980. the salaries of judges in California, Ohio and 'Thn· nessee were adjusted in accordance with changes in the consumer price index. The salaries of judges in Maryland and Missouri were increased automatically on the basis of salary increases received by other state govern. ment employees.

43. This section is based upon a recent report on tort reform compiled by the National Center for State Court's Information Service, Jan. 20, 1988.

44. "Eight States Sue U.S, British Insurers," Washjngton imt, March 23, 1988.

45. This section is based upon a report on court security compiled by the National Center for State Court's Information Service, Sept. 16, 1987.

46. This section is based upon a report on AIDS and the court community compiled by the National Center for State Court's Informa· tioD Service, Feb. 5, 1988.

47. "IJA Study Advocates Judicial Sab-baticals." IJA Report 19:1 (Spring/Summer 1987).

48. State Court Organization 1987 (National Center for Slate Courts 1988).

49. There are approximately 950 fulltime, law·trained women judges in the state and federal courts in 1988.

50. For additional information on gender bias, see Marcia J. Lim, "State of the Judi· ciary:' The Book oftbe States 1986-87, 152.

Table 4.1 STATE COURTS OF LAST RESORT

hilitka~~ CIWt/}w!1« .. ,. N_of " " _./ T~"" T_of-""" oil." i .. lldjtrlo~ - - ..... _I _I Mrr/ood of "w,,,,,, -dUQjtutl« Abkao ............ S.C. • • • POpUIat dMiooI '-................... . I.C • , " "'- ' ..... < AII_ ............. s.c. • , • ,,~" '"~ ,. .... -........... s.c. • I • POpUL.r .kcdoo ."~ ""'_ s.c. • I " AppoI~'rd by ,0---'.) U ~ •• fI ~ .... ....... S.C. • I " ::.,- A' pIeasu", of COIln c.._ .......... S.C. • I • 1111'''' by _...-. ~.., by Gnwtal A ...... bly '-~ .... ........... s .c. • I " AppOinIiJna.

JUDICIARY

] ..

i

. . ... o 0i 0 0 0 0 ...... H ' 0 3 ~5m]

JUDICIARY

The Council of State Governments 159

JUDICIARY

i • • ~q , ,

'!'lI '0

!! '!' .. .. . . ... . . . ... .

.. ... ... . . . ... ... .

! ,"" " , " "", ,"" ""

if iiH~ b Iii IJ W dfu ~ij;

JUDICIARY

Table 4.3 QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES OF STATE APPELLATE COURTS AND

GENERAL TRIAL COURTS y ....... of ",;nl,"~m ~

u.s. d '/utafMp M~mb

JUDICIARY

QUALlFICATIONS OF JUDGES- Continued

Alan"", .

A .........

ArlIOII .. • .

Colifonlo.

CoI-'koo • .•• • .

0011 ... .,.

I .... ~o

1111001, .

10 ... .. .

JUDICIARY

Table 4.4 SELECTION AND RETENTION OF JUDGES

Apptl""~, cirw~, di"rilri "" App1laa .Iea ... on non·pat.i .... bIIlou.

Supr ..... Coun. coun of . ppealo and oupnior COUrt j~ ...... ed on ""n.pan ..... bIIlot •• Prol>al. jkOdaot and Jllllices of p

JUDICIARY

SELECTION AND RETENTION OF JUDGES-Continued M-"_ .••.• AllIlOOllDwN and "IIPDiDled by..,....- with ~ aM 00_ orC,lowmor', CouDCil. Judldal NomIwi.., Com ....

oioa, eltllbIUhod by _Iw ordo

Wy."'I .. ...

!.Mol . of Col •• •••••

A_rk ... S . ....

G ••• •••••••

No . MIn. ...... .

" otrlO Itkv ..

\ 'Ir&I. 1.01 • ..1,

JUDICIARY

SELECTION AND RETENTION OF JUDGES- Continued Suprrt; .""",n'N Uporl ad>"k< and """""', of U.S. S

JUDICIARY

Table 4.5 METHODS FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGES AND FILLING OF VACANCIES

Abo ....... . . .. ... .. .

A~.

AII_ •• . .••...•.

" ........ ........ .

c.ufondo ..•...•..

Colo ...... ... . .... .

186 The Book of the Stat 8 1

EI}I JUb .... worial .ppoim· _ . AI .... ' ~ doc\ioa btIcI after oppoin(~ Iw boea in off .... 0'" )'tar. afn.. b fiu.d for. !'WI' ..... . In 10 .... count;"', .aandu la circuli and diAna toIIru ... r~1od b1 IUbcfworiaJ appoIm ....... CNI n.omInatloDl rude by judicial - .

By JUbn .... ori.ol o.ppoInt. _. ttom nominacioDl ou~ ",inod by Jodidal COIU>

n o .wa •.

c-p ....

11--'1 ., ... , .....

Ida.

IIU ....... . .

ladl •••. •.

10 .... ..

JUDICIARY

METHODS FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGES- Continued

How"",otlft! Supmor and superior coun judtOO of dllll ...

Supr ..... Coun, dillrict roun. of appr" &rid oirmrnondo.tioD of J DPIr1d1J1 buio from names .ubm~lo:d try J udicial Nomi· na,ln, CommiOlion,

VKllncies on SUpr ...... In· ,om>ocIia".ooun 01 oppralo and cim1il tOU'" arc filkl'Ofial IP!'Oinl .... nl (.u'" jon 10 conom! of ....... j from ........ JUbmiuo:d try Jlldicial Sdcction COmmi" .... '1","0' .... on district coun. a .. f~kd try aPI'Qi",,,,,,,,, try chid";...tice f.om n..".. .ubmiuo:d by Comm;" ....

Vltl"d • • on Supr.me Coun.

Ap""II., ... conde. or. rdlcd .. in initial ....... ;on. Va· cancia 011 ci.cui, COlIn ..... filled try lui:>-lion . V •• and .. on moOl .uporio< """n . .... filled try ,ubnna'ori&I appOillUl1C1l1 ,

Vacancies ore fillod .. in lni,ial od«tlon .

The Council of State Governments 167

"- .......... .

ltntootkJ . .. .. .. . .

........ .........

M .... ........... .

M...,.. .. ........ .

~ ........ .

JUDICIARY

METHODS FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGES-Continued

v ......... 1ft tilled u bo .... -.

SlOI, or ",,," jo>rUdkl it;M

M looIMippi •.

M ....... ri . .

Mo .............. .

1'1_ . ....... ..

1'I ... d.

JUDICIARY

METHODS FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGES-Conlinued

Sup" ..... aBd dioltk! mun Iud,eo arc ... 1>1«'1 .0 impeachment . Upoa recom .... nda.ion of IIoatd o f J udicial SlaBd ... d •• SUP"''''' Coun ..... y ...................

pond (wi,b '" .i1bout "'0f)'1 . ... It. or 'rn>O>''' I Iud", for c:onvi

JUDICIARY

METHODS FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGES-Continued

N_ Mnkto ...... .

"""'''"'''' ....... .

NHI~ Canol .. ....

1'1 ... 0.. ... .....

Ol .. " .... ...... . .

Ortao_· · .

, .. ..,"' ....

~ , .... , ...

Soot •• Da_ ..

JUDICIARY

METHODS FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGES- Conlinued

., "Ii

.esoIULio

Jt.KI.Ia lIe subject '0 impeachrt ••• u fo< willf'" nea\td or du,y. COI"TU",ion in om"., ""bit .... io'rn>pn.,.".. itlCOmpre.nq 0< l OY orf ..... iol'(>lvi .. IDOI1II tUrpi,ude.

Upon ...,.,.,rn

JUDICIARY

METHODS FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGES-Continued

Tout ............ .

u .... ............ .

v..--•..........

v ............... .

w.....- ...... .

IIl'IIOI """""' ••••••

Wloco.oi • . • .

PI". 01 Col .

IDmCIARY

METHODS FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGFS-Continued

1I0w"",owd All JIHI,.. ....... bjecl to Impoacllment . Supmne Coun. coun of "WKily. menl .

No. Mlrllrill.. J IHI,.. aro , ubjecl 10 impeacllmoru 10/ 1'Ol

~ .. .. ........ ArIaM ••••••.••• . M_ .........

c.JIIl_ ••.••. . .. C-... ••.••.••• C_ •. .. .. .• --. ......... IltriU •.••. . .. .. .

GtotaIa •..••..•• . • 11 • ..-.11 . .. ...... .. I ...... .. . . . . ... . . uu ................ ,..,. .... ...... .. .. . ,,, .. ............. IIto._ ........... Iii_, ......... .......... ......... ,1\11_ .. . ......... lot.., ..... ... .. ... .

M--...II ..... MktoIpoo .........

MI_ •.•••.•• M~ ........

M .... " ••••••••••

Mo.t ••• •••••••••• Nobn"' . . .. ... .. . N .. _ . .... . .. ... N ... II • .,.... . N ... J....,. ........

Ntw~ . ...... N ... V . ........

S_~ .... N_ Doll ... ..... ow. ............. 0I0.~ ........

~ ....... .. .. "-,,_ ...... " _ I ...... ...... !1M" CorooIi .. ... . SolO •• OUot. TN_

Tft.IIII .............

II ... ............. "'_ .......... n ................. W::."':I;:.; ...... W .. ' · .....

w ........ .........

~~~: :::::: ... -'< __ C .... n )1) •• '1(') ..... -Su_COIIn 63,SU Diotrkl ..... no

Supr ..... ' CItcuit Court .. -~ $6.9'I~0 g:~=

am.~ -'"' S..."mn< eo..n 1Il.MC(0 6J.Itl%' """"" _.

6),1 ) ","",-.-. """"""-"'- ""'" 71.~.) eo..n of "'ppab 70.9161'''' OitIrkI-.u Coun of CrImIMl ,.."'tl) Soopo~C- ''.000(l0) Counor~ SS. IIlO(b) """'" --""'" 6O.JOO(o) ....... -""''''' -_ C- IJ ,»-'a) ~~- 7t~) """--""'" 12.100(.) "'"'~- n ., --Sa_Court ", " ... """--... -""'" 16,1J9(0..1 c..n~_ 1O.9ofl --_c- .... --Court ", "'ppcaIo ".000(0) Supnb Coun HIP Colon 69.000('" t,'porIor Colon ~_Coun

60.000(0) "'_c-""' ... c..n Tl'l'rilorial Cowl

71.»-.d) " ... '1,'1l 6Ull M.W l),oootrl 1If,"" «) 77,6OC(b) l't.)7S

6.:1.171«) g ... ~.~ H.=) ~. , ~ '( 57.lOO(b

ill", g.", 6I.7U(b,,) l~,OOO

":=bl H 0' U...,

6.S,~)6

51,000 " ,000 61.1&2(b •• )

;S" . ,~ ~.17' n,O)1 67.000 ",,~) IJ, k)

"'.))1)

".~

~:~~ $9,7

JUDICIARY

COMPENSATION OF JUDGES- Continued S< r-.,. additionaI ........ n .. 'o ,I>< lice or prnidinl jud", of toIln of lUI ,'''''', AJ.I>am&. U,.b_ 1.000. Alk.n ... _SS.I6O. Californla- SS,OU. Coiora.r;lo, Misoouri, PeM.,I,"niI- 12.SOIl. Cottn«liC'l,,_S7.2OO. o.l ..... =-5J.2OO. Haw.;;. M'f)"I.nd. leIa_5I.SOIl. Indi.na, ~ Jorxy. Soulh Oak"'.-Sl.OOO. lowl_".7oo. K ....... - $I.I17. Keo, ... ky_I!.lJ9. MaiIlt-I J.)87. Ml$$&l,kt mOlis"." judIC. 527.)16; ........ ,. di,tri

JUDICIARY

Table 4.7 SELECTED DATA ON COURT ADMINISTRATlV£ OFnCES

-~ --1It'-}tuUdktwM "'. "' ....... .~. -.u...... . .. .. ....... .......... ruive Dnctor 01 c~ (b) ,no '" ... .... -•... ... . .. .. ... ................... , .. "'., v.". A_ •. • .•• ..••. . • Coun Adml ... ruor , .. '" lUll ArII._ .. ••.. ••.•• El«\>II .... S«nW7. Jlldidal ~""III ,., CJ(e) j(l,16J Cool' .......... , Adm)nl ••• rl .... Oircaor of "'" I " .. >C _.m c.Mnooko • ••••. •• . .• SUr. Coon AdmiabI ..... , .. '" ~.,., ~ .... .. ... ~ Coout IodmIaiRrIIor (d) ,~ '" 10,111 .". ....... ........... Dlttaor. ~ Com! 5,.."" ,no '" . ... ........ ........... .. s< ... eo-u~ 'm '" 61.'1) c...p. ............. o.m:cor. ~ 0I'fI00 01 .. Cowu "" '" Sl,W II ..... . .. .. .. . ..... ............. ive DiruIor 01 II .. c-u "" CJ(b) N." .... .............. ~ Oin!aot 01 II .. eo-... "" '" .... " ..... , ............. AdaoIuR,,,,, .. Dirtaor 01 ,110: c-u ,m '" n.~ ,-- Elo!cIoIive Dlrtcror. DiY\sIoo 01 su.r. Coon ,., '" " .... .............. 10'" •. .. Coun MMinistraror ,., SO ... ,.,

'066,200

~ .... JIICIIdal MmllIIsr .... or '''' '" n.m l .. ..n:.J ... . ....... Ad ...... .-J ... Oin!aot or ,be eo.uu ",. '" ",LlJ ........ .. .. ... .... JIOIIIIdaI AI;boiobr ... or , .. '" M .... M_ . .. ........... "'""'- ,., '" n.CIOO rot"""""' •. •. ... .. •. SI ... c-..~(b) ,., '" 111,100 rot_ .. ....... ~,~ JIOdidaL c.- (b) ",. '" n." ~ ........... s.....c-.~ '''' '" ...,., r.u.- .. ........ Oir«ror, SUI. CO\U1 AdaIiDior ... 1oo> ,~ '" _ ...... M." MJtoboIPIII • I!uartM AaisrIJll '0 Lhe 511_ Court , •. '" ",IOCI rot ..... " ..• •• . •• . . . • C""" Admlllis""or "" '" C .... rot_, ..•• , . •• , . • SuI. Coout AdrDIaiRrIIlOr ,., '" lI,l16 N ......... . ..... . ... . SW.COIU1~ ,m '" ...... Nfgob •• .. •• .. ••• . • Dlrtcror, orr .... 01 Coran ~ ,., '" B.no ~"---- ..... 0itftI0t rtf AdmiaiIr...u... 5a'Ybo ,,., S