Post-Conference Review
NASJE Regional Reports

MIDWEST (submitted by Anne Jordan)
Members present: Anne Jordan, Jane Seigel, Barbara Harcourt (IN); James Landon, Milt Nuzum, Phil Schopick, Christy Tull (OH); Jill Goski (MN); Kimberly Dockter (ND); MariKay Bickett, Ann Blankenship, Anissa Vila, Lamar McCorkle, Dottie McDonald, (TX); Mary Stixrud, (MO); Karn Barth, (SD); Kevin Bowling (MI)

The meeting began at 8:30 a.m.

Evaluations: Members discussed the use of evaluations and whether to edit them prior to sending to faculty. The consensus was if a statement is hurtful or non-relevant, it is not shared. Evaluations are to be considered ‘confidential’ thus allowing edits. Members agreed to share their evaluation forms with one another.

Going Green with Materials: Texas is putting all conference materials online one week prior to the program. It is left up for 90 days. Conferees bring laptops and wireless internet connection is supplied. Minnesota began putting materials on a CD, available upon registration. Now they ask conferees to bring a flash drive with them. Ohio and Missouri do several ‘webinars’ in lieu of face-to-face meetings.

Best Practices: NASJE members reported on successful programs in their states. Missouri has done some ‘blended learning’ programs, requiring pre-reading and web follow up. Indiana does something similar with their Graduate Program. Minnesota is just starting. Texas reported use of an advanced program for judges on the bench eight years, delving into history and purpose, called the Cornerstone of Justice.

Several states (MO, TX, and ND) have done a ‘poverty simulation’ using principles developed by “Aha” (Ruby Payne). The conferees consist of judges, school counselors, court officers, clerks, child welfare staff, and the homeless coalition. States have used federal Court Improvement Program funds. All reported that the module required a great deal of work to plan and a lot of debriefing at the end; but that it is worth it.

Texas reported a series called “Beyond the Bench,” in which juvenile court judges and their teams watch a video of a child welfare case from removal to the court hearings. A professional team of actors was hired. Conferees were asked to reflect on what they would do differently after watching the video and hearing the discussion.

Indiana reported that Calamari Productions is a local company that films child welfare proceedings in the courts where it all occurs.

The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m.

NORTHEAST
In attendance: Crystal Banks, DC; Merry Hofford, DC; Louis Kelly, DC; Debra Koehler, MD; Melody Luetkehans, NJC; Janice Musterman, SJI; Mary O’Connor, CT; Lynn Schafran, NY; Barbara Sweet, NH.

The meeting came to order at 8:15 a.m.

The participants went around the table and introductions were made all around with a short description of what each person in attendance did in their various positions. Five jurisdictions were represented: The District of Columbia, Connecticut , Maryland, New Hampshire, and New York. Two guests joined us: Melody Luetkehans representing the National Judicial College, and Janice Musterman representing the State Justice Institute.

The group then shared current programs that could be used by others:

• The NJC has a course on Traffic Law funded by NHTSA that can come to all/any jurisdictions for in-state traffic courses.

• SJI has $1,000,000 available for scholarships in compliance with Congressional requirements. Its curriculum on Juvenile Sexual Offenders is available to all of the states.

• Connecticut is in transition. Its Judicial Education Committee meets monthly to generate ideas for content of judicial conferences that are split according to the various courts – District and Circuit Courts and the Court of Appeals, that are represented by sub-committees with sub-chiefs – to plan the 2010 education year. They used what they call “grand rounds” (like round tables) at their last conference that included assigned reading relating to the topic to be discussed. Each “grand round” was very different; some were intellectual, and some “nuts and bolts” in the areas of juvenile, family, civil, magistrates, and criminal law. CT also conducts a “Baby Judge School” for new judges when new judges come on the bench, and it also provides transition courses as judges change terms and locations. Every fall each area has a program to apprise of new legislation, etc.

• New York asked about who uses on-line or distance learning: NH uses Webinars, CT is videoconferencing this fall. Melody from NJC talked about active registration for four unemployment conferences from ALJ that attracted excellent attention. NH has had a good reception with good numbers and is getting people who wouldn’t go to an on-line program before.

• SJI is not getting scholarship requests for on-line program tuition and is looking to increase curriculum adaptation grant applications, technical assistance grant applications and program applications. Congress says no continuation program grants, and it requires a cash match for each grant given. Strategic initiative grants in immigration and court security and re-engineering courts (facing budget cuts) grants are available. 90% of SJI grants are to state courts.

• NH is using Webinars to provide training. The “GoToMeetings” conduit that allows Power Point to be shared and allows participants to subscribe to a teleconference system. They use very discreet topics and can be interactive. The participants are encouraged to be interactive. Several meetings can go on simultaneously. “Webex “is another program. The cost depends on the number of users involved. “GoToMeetings” can have up to 1000 participants.

• NY was represented not by a judiciary employee, but by a representative of the National Judicial Education Program that has a comprehensive program on adult victims of sexual violence that is funded by the Office of Violence Against Women. It conducts meeting to plan programs within the states, and is trying to integrate these ideas into other programs. The first meeting will be of the Mid-Atlantic region in September 2010. Web-based courses can add local jurisdiction information. The NJEP is also working on providing on-line information down the road.

• The DC Superior Court’s Judicial Branch is training aspiring non-judicial court leaders two days per month for twelve months and is using curricula from other organizations including Virginia, Michigan, the National Center for State Courts, and the Institute for Court Management.

• DC has on-line tutorials for Spanish and computer software. They are very popular with the judges. It also has monthly training for 1 hour that the judges find very helpful –up to 80 trial judges attend. Court of Appeal judges have a brown bag lecture series that is very popular. New Judge Orientation is also provided in a 4 -week program where they choose mentor judges, shadow and observe trials, participate in mock trials and have meetings with court clerks.

• DC also has a strategic plan emphasizing a strong Judiciary workforce that uses a survey of all employees to find out how they like/feel working for the Judiciary, working conditions, supervisors, etc. The Chief Judge did a streaming video to encourage participation and got an 80% response rate.

• MD provided brochures that list and describe all of the 2009 and 2010 judicial education courses provided by the Judicial Institute of Maryland. Maryland has a three-year cycle of “core courses” and combines those offerings with a dozen or so “electives” for a total offering of approximately 30-40 courses per year. In addition, New Trial Judge Orientation is offered annually, and other specialty courses like the 3- day Family Law Seminar and Business and Technology courses are offered. 34 Circuit Court (general jurisdiction) and Appellate Court judges are ASTAR (Advanced Science and Technology Adjudication Resource) Fellows and must attend an education seminar at least once every two years.

The meeting adjourned in a timely fashion at about 9:45 a.m.

SOUTHEAST
The NASJE attendees from the Southeast Region enjoyed the chance to talk with their colleagues at the regional meeting. After introductions, attendees reported on some of their success stories from the past year. This report will mention some of the topics discussed.

Alabama made a foray into videoconferences this year. The videoconferences were two-way audio and video communications, using county extension offices. At each site a technical support staff person and a moderator assisted with the programs.

In other experiments with electronic delivery methods, North Carolina had three webinars this fall to replace a conference. The method seemed especially suited for updates or similar topics.

Also in North Carolina, to try to meet the needs of new judges appointed mid-year, judicial educators developed several asynchronous modules on various topics. North Carolina judicial educators also compiled a Survival Guide compiled from materials that judges use in their own benchbooks.

Arkansas also is posting a searchable benchbook online. The state recently experienced a large turnover in judges, which resulted in a number of younger judges who want to have materials and resources available online.

Florida redesigned part of the program for new judges to include a three-day course on fundamentals in specific subjects. Reassigned judges with little or no experience were also invited to attend these fundamentals courses.

In concluding, the group considered the possibility of a mid-year meeting, realizing that tight budgets and busy schedules might derail such a possibility. However, the Southeast Regional Newsletter may continue, to foster communication among NASJE members in the region.

WESTERN
Sixteen participants attended the Western Regional Meeting at the NASJE conference in Asheville, North Carolina. The first portion of the meeting was spent on introductions and sharing of resources and current projects. Some of the information highlights included: a demonstration of a resource DVD and the “10 minute mentor” tool (California AOC); an education plan based on collaboration of stakeholders (Maricopa County); the availability of funded speakers to support state, regional, and national training (NCJFCJ and the Williams Institute); and the availability of technical assistance and a capital case benchbook (NJC). During this information sharing, several participants noted challenges associated with budget cuts, but did see the crisis of funding as a catalyst for change and rethinking how judicial education is done. For example, many states are looking to develop their online/distance learning capacities to improve access and efficiency in light of limited travel funds. The meeting concluded with a discussion around how to better share information (e.g., promote activities on the website). Although there was interest in having a regional meeting, identifying resources and a workable date were seen as challenges. Most noted quarterly conference calls would be a good step toward sharing information and moving the group forward.

Facilitators:
Michael Roosevelt - California, Administrative Office of the Courts
Evie Lancaster - Nevada, Administrative Office of the Courts

Attendees: Judith Anderson - Washington, Administrative Office of the Courts
Todd Brower - California, The Williams Institute/UCLA School of Law
Hon. Lowell Castleton - Idaho, Supreme Court
Eddie Davis - California, Administrative Office of the Courts/Education Division
Elizabeth Evans - Arizona, Trial Courts of Arizona in Maricopa County
Nancy Fahey Smith - Washington, Administrative Office of the Courts
Lisa Galdos - California, Administrative Office of the Courts
Steve Lee - New Mexico, Alamogordo NM Municipal Courts
Joy Lyngar - Nevada, The National Judicial College
Shawn Marsh - Nevada National Council of Juvenile and Family Courts
Pauleen Schnaper - Utah, Administrative Office of the Courts
Nanette Zavala - California, Administrative Office of the Courts
Autumn Zemke - Nevada, Administrative Office of the Courts

Copyright 1999-2012, National Association of State Judicial Educators
Contact Web Developer