In re Admin. Plans Cir. & Dist. Cts

Cite as 2013 Ark. 487SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered November 21, 2013
IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS
FOR CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT
COURTS
PER CURIAM
The requirement for the submission and approval of an administrative plan outlining
the case assignments and other administrative practices of each of our judicial circuits was
implemented in 2003. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 14(4)(a), the plans are
submitted biannually on July 1 to be reviewed and approved by this court and become
effective the following January 1.
The requirement of the administrative plans has proved to be a successful method of
insuring consistent docketing and case-management practices across the state has also provided
access to information that is extremely helpful to the bar and to the public. Beginning this
year, most of our state and local district courts are also required to submit administrative plans
for approval. Today we announce the following action based on our review of circuit and
district court administrative plans.
CIRCUIT COURTS
As a result of amendments to Administrative Order No. 14, circuit court administrative
plans were required, for the first time, to address two additional issues:
Cite as 2013 Ark. 4871) If state district court judges are authorized to preside over circuit court
matters pursuant Administrative Order No. 18, the circuit court administrative plan
must include a description of the matters so authorized and the judges assigned to hear
them. Administrative plans required for state and local district courts are also required
to be appended to the circuit court administrative plan but are not a part of the circuit
court plan. Administrative Order No. 14(3)(c)(3) and (4).
2) If the circuit court operates any special programs, dockets, or proceedings the
administrative plan must include a description of the program, its funding and
resources, its statutory authority, and a certification that it conforms to all applicable
laws concerning sentencing. Administrative Order No. 14(3)(c)(2).
We have now completed our review of all the circuit court administrative plans,
including their provisions on case assignments and allocations, caseload estimates, processes
for recusal, and use of state district judges. As limited by our comments below about specialty
court programs, all circuit court administrative plans are approved and shall be effective
January 1, 2014.
DISTRICT COURTS
Recent amendments to Administrative Order No. 18 now require that state and local
district courts submit an administrative plan for our review and approval if the court is served
by multiple judges, is authorized to conduct its proceedings in multiple venues, or operates
a specialty docket or program. Administrative Order No. 18(9) & (10). In response to these
amendments, fifty-one administrative plans were submitted by state and local district court
2
Cite as 2013 Ark. 487judges. We appreciate the efforts made in developing this initial set of administrative plans.
They will be posted on the Arkansas Judiciary Website; the information will be extremely
helpful to members of the bar and to the public.
It appears that the following district courts failed to submit a plan as required by
Administrative Order No. 18: Cross County District Court, Phillips County District Court
– Departments 1 and 2, West Fork District Court, Franklin County District Court – Ozark
District, East Camden District Court, and Fulton County District Court. These courts should
either submit a plan for approval or provide information to this court that a plan is not
required pursuant to Administrative Order No. 18.
We have now completed our review of the district court administrative plans that were
submitted. As limited by our comments below about special court programs, all district court
plans are approved and shall be effective January 1, 2014.
SPECIALITY DOCKETS AND PROGRAMS
Our revisions to Administrative Order No. 14 and 18 to require more detailed
information about the operation of special programs or dockets by circuit and district court
judges were initially prompted by published reports about the lack of financial accounting and
legal authority in one such program. Further inquiry led to our discovery of a proliferation
in the number and variety of programs–described as “courts”–which are operated by or
adjacent to our circuit and district courts. In the administrative plans that we have just
reviewed there are references to “Drug Courts,” “Juvenile Drug Courts,” “Fine Collection
Court,” “Mental Health Courts,” “DWI Courts,” “Veterans Treatment Courts,” “Sobriety
3
Cite as 2013 Ark. 487Courts,” “Swift Courts,” “Family Treatment Drug Court,” “Smart Court,” “Domestic
Violence Courts,” “Teen Courts” and “HOPE Probation Court.”
The materials and descriptions regarding these programs make clear that they were
created in response to serious problems and needs within our communities and represent a
shared attempt to coordinate information and resources from multiple local, state, federal
and/or private agencies, centered upon court cases that are pending or filed in circuit or
district courts. Many of the programs were created pursuant to federal legislation, operate
pursuant to federal guidelines, and are supported by funding from a federal agency. In a few
cases there is specific statutory authority that has been provided by the General Assembly, i.e.,
Drug Courts, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-98-301 et seq., Swift Courts, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-
1701, Juvenile Drug Courts, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-323 and Teen Courts, Ark. Code Ann.
§ 16-13-326.
The success demonstrated by many of the programs is due to the exceptional
leadership, skill, and dedication of circuit and district judges. These judges do not receive
additional compensation for these additional duties. Nothing in our review of these matters
should be seen as questioning the efforts or motives of those involved in the programs or
minimizing the positive impact that the programs bring to our communities and our state.
There are, however, three primary concerns that our review of these programs has
brought to our attention. The first might be viewed as one of semantics, but it raises the
potential for more substantive and negative consequences. Most of the special programs and
dockets that are in existence are specifically referred to as “courts,” i.e., “Drug Courts,”
4
Cite as 2013 Ark. 487“Mental Health Courts,” etc. Amendment 80, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution
provides, “The judicial power is vested in the Judicial Department of state government,
consisting of a Supreme Court and other courts established by this Constitution.” The only
other courts so created include the court of appeals (amendment 80, section 5), circuit courts
(amendment 80, section 6), and district courts (amendment 80, section 6). While the
description of specialty programs as “courts” may not create substantive legal issues, it, at a
minimum, creates confusion for the public and for parties who interact with our court system.
As an additional matter, the resulting confusion creates an assumption and expectation
on the part of the public that, if an institution is called a “court,” it must mean that the court
system is knowledgeable of and responsible for all aspects of the program. Unfortunately, this
is not the case. As has been mentioned, many of these programs find their origin in federal
legislation and federal agencies that have an interest in addressing or advancing a policy
outcome for which the agency is responsible in matters that come before a state court. Local
interest in the creation of a special “court” is prompted when federal grant funds are made
available to communities that agree to create such a program consistent with federal
guidelines. In many instances, these programs are created absent any involvement of this
court or, in some cases, absent the knowledge or participation of other judges in the same
circuit or district.
This lack of coordination and oversight has made it impossible for this court to carry
outs its constitutional responsibility to “exercise general superintending control over all courts
of the state.” This concern was the basis for our decision to require that specialty dockets or
5
Cite as 2013 Ark. 487programs be described in the administrative plans and approved by this court.
Finally, our review of administrative plans reveals that, in some instances, there is no
specific statutory authority provided for the creation of specialty programs or for specific
alternative procedures or sentencing outcomes that appear to be a part of such programs.
There may be circumstances in which a court or the judicial branch possesses the authority,
absent specific legislation, to create a program or procedure. By their nature, however,
specialty programs or dockets bring together interbranch and interagency programs and
activities and impact executive-branch agencies and local government programs and resources.
For this reason, deferring to the action of the General Assembly to consider and authorize the
creation of the programs as an initial step is appropriate.
In sum, we take the following action with respect to specialty programs and dockets:
1) Those specialty programs and dockets for which specific statutory authority
for their creation currently exists are approved. With respect to our concern about the
confusion created by the reference to such programs as “courts,” we request that
judges and others involved with the programs consider the issue and make
recommendations for the revision of such descriptions in the future. We also
respectfully request the General Assembly to consider the revision of current statutory
language that includes references to specialty “courts.”
2) Those specialty programs and dockets for which no specific statutory
authority for their creation exists may temporarily continue, based on the descriptions
of the programs found in the administrative plans submitted to the court. Action
6
Cite as 2013 Ark. 487should be taken, however, to request that the General Assembly consider legislation
to specifically authorize such programs. Further action by this court will be deferred
until that time.
3) Apart from general legislation that authorizes the creation of a program, some
specialty-court programs provide for alternative processing of cases or, in some
instances, the use of alternative sentencing outcomes or dispositions. Our review and
approval of these programs do not in any way sanction the use of sentencing
alternatives that are not specifically authorized by the General Assembly. As a part of
the submission of administrative plans we require a certification that “the program
conforms to all applicable sentencing laws, including fines, fees, court costs, and
probation assessments.” No program may be continued that utilizes sentencing
options or the imposition of financial assessments or sanctions that have not been
authorized by the General Assembly.
7