1.1.3.4 Examining Roles and Responsibilities of Judicial Branch Educators (4pg/.06MB)
NASJE Curriculum Design - Governance Entry Level - Participant Activities
1.1.3.4 Examining Roles and Responsibilities of Judicial Branch Educators (4pg/.06MB)
National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE)
Notes:
Governance Entry-Level Faculty Resource Examining Roles and Responsibilities of Judicial Branch Educators
Description:
1.1.3.4 Examining Roles and Responsibilities of Judicial Branch Educators
Purpose of activity
This activity has two sets of scenarios or dilemmas. The first set of scenarios (A – G) engages judicial branch educators in dilemmas involving individuals dealing with demands from administrative governance and stakeholder-based governance entities. The purpose of these scenarios is to highlight the difficulty in balancing demands of these two types of governance, one the employer and the other representing learners. Scenarios are divided based on various types of administrative governance entities; faculty may choose which dilemmas to use based on the entities represented by participants in the learner group.
The second set of scenarios or dilemmas (H – K) engages judicial branch educators in balancing their professional role and the sometimes personal expectations of stakeholders. Any or all of the scenarios would be appropriate for judicial branch educators; faculty may choose to assign different scenarios to each small group.
There are no right or wrong answers to the dilemmas and faculty needs to be prepared for differences of opinion among learners.
Use of activity
This activity would be effective as part of a discussion about how individuals involved in judicial branch education interact [see B, Dynamics of Blended Governance in Judicial Branch Education, subpart c, Dynamics of interaction between and among various groups concerned with judicial branch education, pgs. 13 – 16].
This is a small group activity.
Relevant Learning Objective
The Basics of Governance in Judicial Branch Education
Roles and Responsibilities of Judicial Branch Educators
Balancing Conflicting Perspectives and Needs
Administrative Office of the Courts – In addition to the administrative governance provided by the AOC, your judicial branch education department has three levels of stakeholder–based governance: policy, program planning, and course planning.
Scenario A: The department’s budget has been reduced annually for the past three fiscal years. The state court administrator recently announced that the new fiscal year budget will reflect additional reductions. The stakeholder policy-level committee decided to implement curriculum development for all target audiences three years ago. The project has been delayed due to budget constraints. The chair of the policy committee suggests that the project be delayed indefinitely because (1) funding is not available, (2) most of the members who originally supported the idea have all rotated off of the committee, and (3) interest in more formalization of education is waning. You believe curriculum development is crucial and if not pursued actively, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to regain momentum for this effort.
What do you do?
Scenario B: You are traveling by car with the chair of the program planning committee for the judges’ annual conference. The purpose of your trip is to evaluate sites for next year’s conference. During a two-hour drive, the chair begins to talk about the ineffectiveness of the state court administrator.
What do you do?
Scenario C: Recently the state court administrator mentioned to you that she had received complaints about the chair of the course planning committee for ethics education, who was appointed to the ethics education committee by the chair of the policy committee. She noted that her experience with the chair was negative, that the individual had no credibility, loved the spotlight, and was only serving as chair to strengthen her list of accomplishments. You partially agree.
What do you do?
Scenario D: The state court administrator asks you to design a course to get judges to use a referral program for attorneys who demonstrate substance abuse behavior. Judges are divided on the advisability of the program. Education committee members say that a course will not resolve the issue.
What do you do?
University – In addition to the administrative governance provided by the university, your judicial branch education department has three levels of stakeholder–based governance: policy, program planning, and course planning.
Scenario E: The president of the university recently announced that several services previously provided at no charge (such as printing, use of space for non-student activities, and administrative support) would now be billed to various special projects, including judicial branch education. You discuss this new fiscal situation with the chair of the policy committee who firmly states that the change is the direct result of a personal disagreement between himself and the president. He adds that he will rally the policy committee to stop this change.
What do you do?
Scenario F: The judicial branch education department is hosted within the university by the College of Law. The dean of the college asks you to urge the course planning committees to involve more law school professors. She indicates that some professors are not fulfilling their research and writing obligations and has told them that faculty service for some courses for judges will be a substitute.
What do you do?
Association – The judges association employs seven staff members, including an executive director, an administrative assistant, a benefits coordinator, and you and two program attorneys who are involved in judicial education.
Scenario G: The association elects a new president every two years. The chair of the policy committee for judicial education was a candidate for president of the association but was defeated by the current president. The new president and executive director want to offer a daylong course on retirement issues and provide 7 continuing judicial education credits (the requirement is 10 hours per year); the chair of the policy committee is opposed and expects you to resolve the issue with the president and executive director.
What do you do?
What do you do?
Scenario I: You have traveled many times with a court administrator whose court is in the same city as your office. He serves on a judicial branch education advisory committee and is often faculty for management courses that you offer. You are both dog lovers and have the same breed of dog. During your trips you have shared many stories about your pets. Yesterday you received an email from him asking if you would take care of his dog while he is on a weeklong trip. He prefers that the dog stay in familiar surroundings, so you would go to his home.
What do you do?
Scenario J: Today you arrived at the local airport with five members of a program planning committee for a three-day trip to select a site for an upcoming conference. One of the committee members, who lives in a city 200 miles away, is an acquaintance of many years. She asks you to take her luggage home with you so she can take a brief side trip to a local hot springs resort for a few days; she will be traveling in a small shuttle bus and does not want to be bothered with anything other than one small bag. She says she will come by in a few days to pick up the luggage before she flies back to her home.
What do you do?
Scenario K: A judge with whom you have worked closely for many years asks if he can talk with you confidentially. You agree to meet after work at a local coffee shop. The judge tells you that he is one of two judges being considered for an appellate position. He asks if you will write a letter of recommendation on his behalf since he has done so much work on behalf of judicial branch education. He lets you know that the other judge being considered has also been involved for many years with judicial branch education.
What do you do?