MINUTES Members Present
Members Absent
Chair Maring called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and drew Committee members' attention to Attachment B (October 10, 2003) - minutes of the October 7, 2002, meeting. It was moved by Judge Kleven, seconded by Pat Durick, and carried unanimously that the minutes be approved. Information Updates Chair Maring drew attention to Attachment C (October 10, 2003) - the Committee's 2002-2003 Activities Report. She said the report was presented early in the month to a national conference on gender fairness issues. One of the key issues discussed at the conference, she said, was how implementation groups can evaluate progress with respect to recommendations made by gender
fairness task forces and commissions. There was also discussion, she said, of possible ways of funding such efforts in low budget states. With respect to the SBAND membership survey and the law firm self-audit project, she said she had appeared earlier in the year before a meeting of the Association's Board of Governors for purposes of explaining the proposed self-audit and providing information regarding the survey. She said the Board of Governors has decided to support a scaled-back version of the self-audit program,
which will entail providing pertinent information to large firms and publicly recognizing those that participate in the program. She said an annual CLE will also be offered on the subject. She said gender-related questions were added to the membership survey and the survey results were generally presented at the Association's June annual meeting. She noted that the Association is strapped for funds and personnel to commit to significant projects. Staff provided an update concerning progress on the domestic violence benchbook, which was funded with a STOP grant. He said drafting is complete and the benchbook and a related introductory training program will be presented at the Judicial Conference's upcoming November meeting. Justice Maring noted that STOP grant funds are still available to the judiciary and drew attention to the ongoing pilot family law court project in Grand Forks. Judge Kleven said the project has essentially a three year commitment for funding and is working well. Justice Maring observed
that other task forces and implementation groups are using STOP grant funds for a variety of purposes. She noted that Washington is using such funds to provide training for attorneys serving as pro tem judges in domestic violence proceedings and to develop an informational brochure on gender issues. She suggested the Committee should keep the availability of funds in mind and encouraged members to forward any ideas concerning possible projects. Judge Kleven explained that the local domestic violence program in Grand Forks had recently provided a training program to clerks, court reporters, judges, and judicial referees. She said the program was well-received and the cost of a similar program would likely be fairly low. She further explained that the family law court pilot project in Grand Forks involves tracking family
members who are involved in several cases. She said handling of the cases is coordinated to make optimum use of resources and a treatment team is established to work with the family and make recommendations to the judge - most often in an open court hearing. She said the judge then decides whether to incorporate any of the recommendations in the particular judgment. She said the family
court coordinator provides monthly reports to the judges. In response to a question from Pat Durick, Judge Kleven said the process has been very helpful in providing the judge with good, relevant, up-to-date information concerning the family. In response to a question from Justice Maring, Judge Kleven said the makeup of the treatment team varies depending on the family's needs and resources. With respect to the recent establishment of the judicial improvement program, staff said implementation of the program is continuing and an outside entity has been tentatively identified for purposes of compiling and providing improvement survey results to the affected judge. He said bias-related questions were included in surveys for both attorneys and court personnel. Justice Maring observed that the judicial improvement program was discussed at the recent national conference and many members found the program's approach intriguing. She noted, however, that in many states with an improvement or evaluation program for judges, all information gained from surveys is made public, which differs from the confidential nature of North Dakota
survey results. For example, she said, in California the judge's name is not disclosed, but the details of the conduct subject to a complaint is made public. She said disclosure is viewed as a deterrent to biased conduct. With respect to judicial education programs, Justice Maring drew attention to Attachment D (October 10, 2003) - a memorandum from Carla Kolling outlining various education programs conducted by the judiciary which touched directly or indirectly on bias issues. She noted that the recent Judicial Institute included a program on immigration which addressed bias-related issues and
also included a program on the bias-related problems associated with court interpreter practices. She asked that members forward any suggestions for education topics on gender bias or bias in general to Judge Jorgensen, Chair of the Continuing Judicial Education Commission. Action Plan - Remaining Issues Chair Maring next drew attention to Attachment E (October 10, 2003) - "Key Components" and "Initiatives" from Gender Fairness in the Courts: Action in the New Millennium, which the Committee has reviewed over several meetings. She asked whether there is anything in the information that should be the focus of Committee attention in the coming year. With respect to Item 11 in the Key Components (data collection), Justice Maring noted the rcent report by the Attorney General's office concerning domestic violence in North Dakota. She said the report covers a host of topics and is a good resource. Judge Kleven noted that all judges have received the report. Barbara Voglewede wondered whether there are methods in place to ensure that the report's information is distributed as widely as possible. Judith Howard asked whether the report has been made available to domestic violence groups. Staff said the report is distributed to a wide variety of recipients and is available on the Attorney General's website. With respect to data collection, Justice Maring said one topic discussed at the recent national conference was the need to gather information concerning possible gender bias in property distribution in domestic cases. She said gathering such information in North Dakota would be exceedingly difficult. With respect to Item 14 in the Key Components (periodic evaluation of implementation efforts), Justice Maring noted that the tenth anniversary of the Commission's final report is approaching and suggested Committee members give some thought to ways of evaluating North Dakota's progress. She said a number of methods were discussed at the national conference, including new surveys, use of focus groups, and relying on "key informants" - individuals identified
in key areas and asked whether they have observed any changes in practices. She said if funding is needed for an evaluation project, the Committee should consider having a proposal to include in the upcoming judicial branch budget, or should perhaps consider grant funds from some source such as STOP or Byrne grants. She noted there was considerable anti-survey sentiment at the national
conference. Judge Kleven said she would prefer using focus groups if possible. Pat Durick said he would agree with misgivings about a survey since they are generally expensive and statistical accuracy for a small state such as North Dakota is questionable. In response to a question from Justice Maring regarding when to initiate an evaluation project, Committee members generally agreed to consider initial necessary groundwork in early 2004. Handbook/Guide for Court Employees Committee members next reviewed Attachments F and G (October 10, 2003) - a
memorandum concerning possible development of a bias-related guide for court employees and sample guides and handbooks regarding court conduct (including employees) and language. Staff noted the judge's guide to gender fair court proceedings developed earlier by the Committee. He said the guide is focused precisely on judge conduct and, therefore, the format might not lend itself to including information concerning court employees. He said options include
developing a separate guide for court employees or, notwithstanding the current format, revising the judges' guide to include court employees. In response to a question from Judge Riskedahl, staff said there currently is nothing in there Clerks Manual which addresses issues concerning bias or conduct generally. Barbara Voglewede said if there is no pertinent information in the Clerks Manual, it would seem worthwhile to include a supplemental piece addressing bias and conduct issues. Jim Fitzsimmons suggested not revising the judge's guide and developing a guide for court employees that is either separate or included in the Clerks Manual. Pat Durick agreed. Judge Riskedahl agreed and said information concerning the recognition of bias and stereotypes should be
provided in writing for court personnel. Clerk personnel, he said, need to know how to respond to bias issues. Barbara Voglewede said including a guide in the Clerks Manual will also elevate visibility since the manual is the focal point for procedural operation of clerk offices. It was moved by Judge Riskedahl, seconded by Barbara Voglewede, and carried unanimously that staff prepare a draft guide for court personnel for review at the next meeting. Other Topics Chair Maring next requested discussion on any other bias-related topics that might not have been addressed in the Commission's initial work. She drew attention to Attachment I (October 10, 2003) - a memorandum and associated articles regarding custody investigators, mediators, and
gender issues. Judith Howard noted a disturbing frequency of problems associated with the work of custody investigators in domestic cases. Justice Maring noted that the article in Attachment I suggests the need for a standardized format concerning the required elements to be addressed in custody investigator reports. She said the Committee should at least monitor the issue. Jim Fitzsimmons said that during years of representing Native American and low-income clients, he had always considered the presence of a custody investigator as a negative development. He agreed it would be useful to identify the factors that custody investigators must address in their
reports. Justice Maring noted that the state court administrator's office is currently working with the bar association to develop an agreement by which the association will provide training for custody investigators and guardians ad litem. Committee members agreed a letter should be sent to the president of the association, the association executive director, and the state court administrator which emphasizes the importance of including in custody investigator training programs a segment on awareness of cultural, ethnic, race, and gender bias. With respect to a standardized format for custody investigator reports, Committee members agreed such a format could assist in ensuring custody investigators consistently address elements considered necessary and important by the court, and perhaps could aid in minimizing any tendency
to allow bias of any kind to color the custody investigator's recommendations. It was agreed that the custody investigator should, at a minimum, respond to those factors that courts are required to consider in making custody determinations. Following further discussion, Committee members agreed a letter should be sent to the Council of Presiding Judges encouraging the development of a standard report format to be used by custody investigators. In response to a question from Justice Maring, it was agreed that the article included in Attachment I should accompany the letter as a means of further explaining the
importance of standardized reports in addressing bias-related issues. With respect to additional new topics, Justice Maring noted that discussion at the recent national conference highlighted gender issues in immigration, court interpretation, and women in prison. She said the latter issue is particularly compelling with respect to the number of women in prison because of illegal drug use and the consequent concerns about child care, termination of
parental rights, and parenting in prisons. Jim Ftizsimmons said with the incoming new Dean at the Law School it may be an opportune time to encourage a concerted effort within the law school to address bias issues through ethics classes or other means. Barbara Voglewede explained that the legal clinic at the Law School is facing a reduction, but there will still be a civil litigation component. She said clinical training also addresses bias issues and the trial advocacy program includes a fairly concentrated civility component. She said
orientation for first year law students includes emphasis on diversity and civility and professionalism. She said a professionalism course will focus in good measure on civility and ethical and civic duties as a lawyer. Future Meetings Committee members agreed the Committee should meet in early 2004, perhaps in February to consider the possibility of pursuing a project for regional domestic violence training similar to that conducted in Grand Forks. Possible sources of funding, e.g., STOP grant funds, could also be discussed. It was agreed the Committee could then meet again in mid-summer and the fall. Memberships Chair Maring noted that membership terms for Judith Howard and Barbara Voglewede, as well as her own term, will expire in December. She inquired of interest in serving another term. Barbara Voglewede said she is willing to accept reappointment for another term. Judith Howard observed that she had been a member of the Committee since its creation, as well as a member of
the original Gender Fairness Commission. She said it is likely time for someone else to have the opportunity to participate and she would, therefore, decline reappointment. Chair Maring and Committee members thanked Judith for her many years of commitment to the Committee. All agreed she would be missed. Chair Maring will submit a letter to the Chief Justice concerning the memberships. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m. _____________________________
Justice Mary Muehlen Maring, Chair
Pat Durick
Jim Fitzsimmons
Judith Howard
Judge Debbie Kleven
Judge Burt Riskedahl
Barbara Voglewede
None
Jim Ganje, Staff