Many Write about Radio Ad Where we say State was Ranked by Lawyers as "45th in the Nation"
By MassNews Staff
            Many people have written about the content of the radio ad where we say: "Businesses avoid moving to states with slow unsteady courts. We were ranked by lawyers as 45th in the nation."
            Those who have written wish to know the source of that statement.
            It's a direct quote from the "News Release" of the "Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts."
            The quote was: "In a 2001 U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey of corporate attorneys, Massachusetts ranked 45th in terms of timeliness."
            (We should note that every message on WBZ is carefully scrutinized by the lawyers at CBS in New York for accuracy. They do a good job. Obviously, we provided them with the source of this statement before it went out over the air.)

 Marshall Held Unfavorable "Press Release" Instead of Releasing It
            Although the Release was given to Marshall in anticipation that she would release it to the press, she held it for a long period before doing so. Our closest estimate is that she held it for six weeks while she pondered what her reply would be. When her reply was ready, she released both together on March 4, 2003.
            The Panel included a list of reports from former panels which had had a quiet death. This group was determined that its findings not suffer the same fate, but it did not realize the chicanery of Margaret Marshall nor the politicians on Beacon Hill.
            The panel picked these quotations from its Report to highlight in the Press Release.
            - Today, the Courts of Massachusetts are mired in managerial confusion. The impact of high-quality judicial decisions is undermined by high cost, slow action and poor service to the community.
            - Despite pockets of genuine excellence, the management of the Judiciary is preventing the people of Massachusetts from receiving the justice they deserve. The failings have a significant impact on the citizens of Massachusetts. Some citizens get better justice than others. Businesses avoid states with slow, unsteady courts, families suffer because of slow case resolution, and inefficiency wastes taxpayer money.
            - 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. Jurors called for jury duty but not utilized cost the Commonwealth’s employers tens of millions of dollars.
            - The existing organization of the Courts is unmanageable, inefficient and lacks accountability. These problems are not the result of bad intentions, but the fault of a series of partial solutions that have combined to make the structure of the courts incomprehensible to all but the most attentive observers.
            - The Courts must be transformed so that they deliver the justice that the people of the Commonwealth deserve. The Court’s current mindset of resignation must be replaced by a relentless focus on serving the public.
            - Full implementation of this report would result in a less expensive and more effective court system. Reaching this goal requires something that may be even more challenging than securing funding in a budget crisis – collaboration and cooperation among the Courts and the Legislative and Executive branches.
            - Success brings a great reward: a Court system that performs to high standards of civility, timeliness, cost-efficiency and decision-making, and a Commonwealth where citizens can rest assured they will receive the same quality justice from the Islands to the Berkshires.
            - This unusual and problematic structure is unique among American Judiciaries and runs counter to basic management principles followed by private sector organizations.
            - The Judiciary suffers from its lack of a clearly defined leader for the entire system. Internally, no one knows where to turn for guidance. Externally, the Judiciary lacks a powerful voice….
            - While many courts pointed to high-quality decision-making as a goal, none had a way or measuring progress toward this goal. In fact, not one Court was able to point to clearly defined benchmarks by which it measures itself on...decision-making quality, efficiency, timeliness and service.
            - There exists today no complete mission statement for the Courts.
             -The current budget system, in addition to being inefficient and non-quantitative, also limits managerial flexibility. The Judiciary has little flexibility to move resources where they are needed in response to changing caseloads or trends.
            - The Judiciary must focus attention on its difficulties, its needs and its level of performance, and must generate momentum by laying out a compelling path forward on a rapid timeline.
            - The people of this Commonwealth should know that whether they walk into a courthouse in the mountains or on the islands, they will get equal justice, delivered in a timely, efficient, and respectful manner.
            - We are confident that our ambitious vision for the future is possible. The current state of low morale, poor performance and budget cuts is also a window of opportunity for change. With awareness of the problem comes acceptance of the need and responsibility for change, and the search for new direction.
            - The path ahead will not be easy, and will require a new form of leadership and accountability from the Judiciary, commitment form the Governor, structural change from the Legislature, and years of hard work. But the people of Massachusetts deserve no less.
 
           The panel wrote that it had been appointed by Marshall in August 2002 to "provide an independent perspective on management in the state's courts and recommendations for improvement."