It was reported on March 3 last year by a blue-ribbon commission, that our courts are "mired in managerial confusion" and need "sweeping changes.” The commission had been appointed by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall the previous summer.

     Previously, a nationwide poll of businessmen showed that the Massachusetts court system is ranked as one of the very worst in the nation. It would cause the businessmen to hesitate in moving their companies here, they said.

     The courts’ image was not helped when the SJC voted 7-0 in 2002 that the Legislature and Gov. Swift had violated the state Constitution when they dismissed the Protection of Marriage Amendment without a vote, but the court held there was nothing they would do about the unlawful behavior.

     Then, instead of correcting the problems, Marshall had oral argument, the very next day after the report was released, in the case about homosexual marriage. This forced all her judges to spend over eight months in a bitterly divisive battle which ended in a 3-3 tie. In the end, Marshall had to cast the deciding vote in favor of homosexual marriage on Nov. 18, 2003.

    Courts Are Dysfunctional

     The panel found the court system to be "dysfunctional" with only pockets of excellent performance. "The existing organization of the courts is unmanageable, inefficient and lacks accountability," it said.

      Due to inequalities in the system, "some citizens receive better justice than others." Also, "morale is near the breaking point, and there is little concern for customer service. Employees cry out for leadership. The public wants reasonably priced, quick, and courteous justice, but often receives the opposite," the report stated.

      It stated further, "These shortcomings affect a broad range of constituents, as well as court personnel. Taxpayers bear the burden of an unreasonably expensive system, witnesses and police officers are away from other responsibilities as they wait to testify, and litigants wait years for justice."

      Bolstering the arguments of those who suspect Beacon Hill political agendas are polluting the court system, the report revealed, "As the many line items of the Courts' budget wind their way through committee, individual judges, clerks, and other officials lobby for their units to be funded, and back room deals abound."

      Mindful of the need to save money, the panel pointed out that mismanagement of jurors is costing millions of dollars. "Jurors called for jury duty but not utilized," it said, "cost the Commonwealth's employers tens of millions of dollars." It found that only 12.4% of citizens who appeared for jury duty in 2001 were utilized. "If utilization were raised to 24%, it would save over 150,000 workdays and approximately $23 million in wages for Massachusetts employers." The panel cautioned that, "Businesses avoid states with slow, unsteady courts."

      Ranked 45th in Nation by Businessmen

     Massachusetts courts have a reputation for being slow and costly, it said. A 2001 U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey of corporate attorneys ranked Massachusetts 45th in terms of timeliness, says the report.

      Also, in a 2001 Massachusetts Bar Association survey of lawyers, judges received the lowest approval ratings for consideration accorded to parties' time obligations and sensitivity to litigants' legal fees.

     In another eye-opening statistic, the report said while the number of caseloads remained flat from 1994 to 2002, increasing only a fraction of a percent, the court budget increased a whopping 79 percent and the number of personnel increased 25 percent (even with layoffs).

      Despite all that extra money and personnel, Massachusetts has four of the slowest counties in the nation in terms of time to disposition of civil trial cases, according to a 1996 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of 45 of the most populous counties in the U.S.

     Stopgaps Will Not Work

      “Stopgap, piecemeal measures will not eradicate these deficiencies," said the Chairman of the Committee, Chancellor J. Donald Monan of Boston College. "The fundamental problem is that no one really knows who is in charge-at the local, regional or statewide level."

     Some in the Courts expressed concern to the Committee about interference of the Legislature in the management of the courts.

      The Committee pointed out that although the SJC has general powers of oversight over all the courts, the authority within the Judiciary is often directly assigned by the Governor or Legislature, rather than delegated by the SJC. "For example," it said, "the Chief Justice for Administration and Management [Justice Barbara A. Dortch-Okara] has been established as a nearly autonomous authority to manage the Trial Court. The SJC is prohibited by statute from exercising or overriding those powers except in egregious circumstances."

      It is the same story at each layer of management, said the report. There is little ability to direct those below and little accountability to the one above.

      As an example of waste and misallocation of resources, an interesting exhibit in the report shows how Suffolk County has too many courts of overlapping jurisdiction within a short distance of each other. Also, the District Courts of Suffolk County and the Boston Municipal Court receive over 70% more funding than the four western-most counties of Massachusetts, despite a similar number of cases entered.

     The committee advised that "only a major transformation would provide relief to the court's problems." It provided 14 specific recommendations organized into three initiatives:

      • Commit to new leadership norms and structures.
      • Create a culture of high performance and accountability.
      • Establish discipline in resource allocation and use.

      The report should not be used as an excuse for courts to plead for more money, because the Committee says, "Reaching this goal does not require additional funding. Full implementation of this report would result in a less expensive and more effective Court system."

     The name of the panel is: "Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts." It was headed by J. Donald Monan, S.J., Chancellor of Boston College.

     Vice Chairs were: Patricia McGovern, former state Senator and now Senior Vice President at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; and William C. Van Fassen, Chairman of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts.

     Members were: Charles D. Baker, President of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care; Wesley W. Marple, Jr., Prof. of Finance and Insurance at the College of Business Administration at Northeastern University; Ralph C. Martin II, former District Attorney of Suffolk County and now a partner at Bingham and McCutchen; Judge A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Court, Boston; and Dorothy Terrell, a "seasoned executive and business leader in the Commonwealth."


 
“Damage Control” by Judge Marshall Doesn’t Work