Proposed Revisions to Administrative Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (ARLJ-5)
Presiding Judge, Multiple Judge Court District, Multiple District Counties
MEMORANDUM
TO: Association of Washington Cities, Washington Association of County Officials, Washington State Association of Municipal Attorney
FROM: Justice Charles W. Johnson, Rules Committee Chair
DATE: June 30, 1999
RE: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ARLJ 5-PRESIDING JUDGE, MULTIPLE JUDGE COURT DISTICT, MULTIPLE DISTRICT COUNTIES
Attached is a proposed revision to ARLJ 5 recently submitted to the Supreme Court Rules Committee by the District and Municipal Court Judges' Association (DMCJA). The DMCJA has indicated the change came about because of direction it gave to its Long-Range Planning Committee to explore issues affecting the independence of the courts of limited jurisdiction. The DMCJA believes there are circumstances in which judicial independence and authority for administration of courts has been challenged by local legislative and executive branch.
The attached GR 9 Cover Sheet provides more information from the DMCJA on the background for the proposed change and its purpose.
The Rules Committee is looking for your comments on the proposed change before it considers whether to publish the proposal for comment, Please submit those comments to me by the end of August so that we can take this matter up in September.
Thank you for your assistance in this regard.
Attachments
cc: Judge Janis Whitener- Moberg, DMCJA President-Judge
District and Municipal Court
Judges' Association
June 3, 1999
The Honorable Charles W. Johnson, Chair
Supreme Court Rules Committee
Temple of Justice
Post Office Box 40929
Olympia, Washington 98504-0929
Dear Justice Johnson:
Attached is a proposed rule change to the Administrative Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (ARLJ). The proposal is a result of the District and Municipal Court Judges' Association's review of recommendations contained in the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Survey Assessment Report (Wilson study). The DMCJA Board submits the rule to the Court with the request that consideration of the proposal be expedited by the Rules Committee. We believe it is one important step in the protection and enhancement of judicial independence in our courts.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Janis Whitener-Moberg
President
Enclosure
Proposed Amendment
Administrative Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
(ARLJ -5)
(1) Background:
In 1998 and 1999. the District and Municipal Court Judges' Association directed its Long-Range Planning Committee to explore issues affecting the independence of the courts of limited jurisdiction. The DMCJA is increasingly aware of circumstances in which judicial independence and authority for administration of the court has been challenged by the local legislative or executive branch. The Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Assessment Survey Report examined this issue and noted. "...Judicial officers are considered only contract employees with no responsibility or control over events, records, or personnel outside the courtroom". The report further concluded...The independence of the court depends on the independence of the judge." Although most district and municipal court judges have amicable relationships with the governmental counterparts and are relatively free from direct interference with their independence, judges who serve part time in appointed positions appear to be most vulnerable to these threats.
(2) Purpose :
The purpose of thc rule amendment proposal is to more clearly articulate the responsibilities of each court's presiding Judge. The expectation is that the authority of Supreme Court rule will assist judges whose responsibilities, authority and independence may be challenged by local government leaders in the executive and legislative branches,
(3) Washington State Bar Association Action:
The proposal has not been submitted to the WSBA
(4) Supporting material:
April 30, 1997 memorandum to Hon. Robert E. McBeth
May 27, 1999 memorandum to Rules Committee from Hon. Sara B. Derr
(5) Spokespersons:
Hon. Janis Whitener-Moberg, President, District and Municipal Court Judges Association
(6) Hearing:
None recommended.
ARLJ RULE 5. PRESIDING JUDGE, MULTIPLE JUDGE COURT DISTRICT, MULTIPLE DISTRICT COUNTIES
(a) Appointment. In all court districts having more than one judge, the judicial business of the district shall be supervised by one of those judges to be known as the "Presiding Judge," who shall be elected by the judges of such district for a term not to exceed 1 year subject to reelection. In the same manner, the judges shall elect another judge of said district to serve as Acting Presiding Judge during the temporary absence or disability of the Presiding Judge. Interim vacancies in the office of the Presiding Judge or Acting, Presiding Judge shall be filled as in the original election above described. Notice of the election of the new presiding judge shall be sent to the Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court within 30 days.
The Presiding Judge so elected shall send notice of the election of such Presiding Judge and Acting Presiding Judge to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on or before March 15 of each year. If the judges of a district shall fail or refuse to elect and certify to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court shall by appointment designate the Presiding Judge and Acting Presiding Judge.
In court districts or municipalities having only one judge, that judge shall be known as the "Presiding Judge". The name of the Presiding Judge shall be sent to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on or before March 15 of each year.
(b) Duties and Authority. The duties and authority of the Presiding Judge, in addition to exercising general administrative supervision over the court shall include:
(1) Supervision of the business of the court in such a manner as to assure the expeditious and efficient handling of all cases and equal distribution of the workload among the judges:
(2) Assigning the judges to departments; if the court is departmentalized;
(3) Presiding at meetings of the judges of the district;
(4) Responsibility for developing and coordinating statistical and management information;
(5) Complete supervision of all court personnel relating to all matters except wages or benefits directly related to wages, and including hiring and termination .decisions. The Presiding Judge shall have complete supervision and authority over working conditions of all court employees. The court administrator, or equivalent employee, is an employee of the court and shall report directly to the Presiding Judge;
(6) Responsibility for accounts and auditing, as well as procurement and disbursement of court funds. The Presiding Judge shall be responsible for the control and preparation of the court or judicial district's annual budget;
(7) In multiple judge jurisdictions, the Presiding Judge shall be guided in personnel and budgetary matters by the policies, if any, established by all. the judges on that bench-,
(8) Promulgate local rules as a majority of the judges may approve or as the Supreme Court may direct;
(9) Supervision of the preparation and filing of reports as required by statute and court rule;
(10) Act as the sole spokesperson for the court in all matters dealing with the executive or legislative branches of government.,
(11) Other duties as may be assigned by statute or court rule.
(c) Multiple Court Districts. In counties having multiple court districts, the judges may, by majority vote, elect to conduct the judicial business collectively under the Provisions of this rule.
Kent Municipal Court
April 30, 1997
To: Hon. Robert E. McBeth, President
District and Municipal Court Judges Association
From: Judge Robert B.C. McSeveney
DMCJA Judicial Independence Committee - Municipal Courts
Subject: Committee Report/Recommendations
Statement of Issues:
Most municipal court judges in this state have amicable relationships with their local legislative bodies and are relatively free from direct interference with their judicial independence. Many of these judges are "part-time judges" in courts organized under chapter 3.50 RCW, serving in appointed positions.
However, the DMCJA is increasingly aware of the plight of some past and present municipal court judges throughout the state whose judicial independence and administration of their courts has been challenged or interfered with by their respective local legislative officials who are either ignorant of state laws and legal principles governing judicial independence and court operations, or who intentionally disregard legislative mandate for the sake of expedience and/or compromise. Examples include:
- Personal service contracts which either severely limit the judge's involvement
with court operations or which contract away legislative mandates under RCW
3.50 er seq.
- Disciplinary or hiring and firing decisions of court personnel made by City officials without judicial involvement, in violation of RCW 3.50.080.
Analysis:
Canons 1, 2 & 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) mandate that judges should 1) participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of judicial conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary; 2) not allow relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment, and 3) be faithful to the law and judicial duties.
The Administrative Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdictions (ARLJ), 4, mandate that all judges must run their court and conduct themselves in accordance with the CJC. Any willful failure to apply the ARLJ may be considered contempt by the Supreme Court and punishable as such (ARLJ 7).
Because of judicial ethical constraints and current Supreme Court rules such as ARLJ 7, appointed municipal court judges often find themselves tip-toeing through a mind field of intervention by city governments. With no "army" to fight the invasion, a judge's only recourse is to educate the respective city attorneys and administrations on the law and hope they will comply, ask the DMCJA for assistance (which is severely limited), or hire legal counsel and be embroiled in a dispute detracting from other legal duties, and in the meantime run the court and hear cases, usually as a sole judge.
Options and Recommendation:
In trying to formulate a strategy, the Judicial Independence Committee considered a variety of options, the most significant of which are:
- New legislation or an amendment to RCW 3.50 to add language to address judicial
independence and municipal court operations, or;
- Propose a general rule to the Supreme Court to address the DMCJA's concerns.
Courts must limit their own incursions into the legislative realm in deference to the separation of powers doctrine, but courts must be able to insure their own survival. As stated:
...[C]ourts possess inherent power, that is, authority not expressly provided for in the constitution but which is derived from the creation of a separate branch of government and which may be exercised by the branch to protect itself in the performance of its constitutional duties.
In Re Juvenile Director, 87 Wn.2d 232, 245 (1976).
It would appear the municipal court issues and DMCJA concerns fit within the Supreme Court's Statement of Purpose, GR 9. The Supreme Court rule making procedure is also set forth in GR 9. Any proposed rules by the DMCJA must be received by the Supreme Court on or before October 31, 1997, to be effective September 1, 1998. GR 9(d)(6). The rules must also be reviewed by the Washington State Bar Association and published for comment before action is taken by the Supreme Court. GR 9(d)(e)(f)(g).
In conclusion, the Judicial Independence Committee recognizes that all appointed municipal court judges sooner or later will be confronted with issues of separation of power and judicial independence, if they have not already. As we see more and more municipal courts created, there is a greater need for uniformity in organization and procedures. A viable local rule promulgated by the Supreme Court would provide authority and leverage for judges to carry out their responsibilities without improper interference by the local legislative entities.
Special thanks to Committee members: Hon. Mariane Spearman - Kirkland Municipal Court; Hon. Stephen Shelton - Puyallup Municipal Court; Hon. Corrina Harn - Renton Municipal Court. Also thanks to Hon. Jean A. Cotton of Elma Municipal Court.
MEMORANDUM
TO: State Rules Committee
FROM: Judge Sara B. Derr
DATE: May 27, 1999
RE: Proposed ARLJ 5
As a Member of the DMCJA Long Range Planning Committee and a sitting DMCJA Board Member for the last three years, I am keenly interested in the proposed ARLJ 5 amendment referred to your committee for action. I thank you in advance for reading this letter and giving the proposed amendment your consideration.
Historically, 'the Municipal Court members of our Association have experienced difficulty in maintaining their independence from the city executives. The Cities generally believe they can control the Judge(s) through the appointment process, through a forced contract relationship, through budget restraints, or through any other process available to them. Many Municipal Judges have been forced to sign contracts giving away judicial prerogatives just to keep their jobs. The non-stop pleas for assistance from Municipal Judges, and the horror stories they share with the DMCJA, are often extreme. The DMCJA has yet to offer them the assistance they need, as we lack a vehicle less cumbersome and expensive than a lawsuit. The Municipal Court Judges have been desperately searching for a protection in law, or by rule, upon which to base their on-going battle for judicial independence.
ARLJ 5, as proposed, was designed to offer Municipal Court Judges a vehicle to protect their independence. The pro ' posed changes were drafted mainly by Municipal Court Judges with assistance from District Court Judges who found themselves under attack by unfriendly County Commissioners. The proposed amendments are supported by the DMCJA.
The amendments incorporate existing case law and the language found in the cases, as well as some statutory language that addresses the issues. Therefore, the Rule is consistent with current law. The amendments would provide Rule protection for Municipal Judges in the areas of staff management, trust accounts and budget control. It would also void any existing contract provision that is contrary to the amended Rule.
This proposed rule chance is specifically designed to protect Municipal Court Judges. It will have beneficial impacts to all courts of limited jurisdiction, but the Municipal Judges are anxious to see support for the Rule and its passage as expeditiously as possible.
I appreciate the time you have taken to read this letter of support for the ARLJ 5 amendment. Of all prior solutions to assist Municipal Courts, this rule change is the most comprehensive and of greatest value to limited jurisdiction courts.
Please consider expediting the Rule process for this change.