2011 Las Vegas Conference

July 10-13, 2011
Las Vegas, Nevada
Red Rock Resort • 11011 W. Charleston Blvd • 89135

Room Rate: $130/night
Cutoff Date: June 17, 2011
Room Rate includes access to fitness center, transportation to and from airport and Las Vegas strip at designated times, daily newspaper, in-room internet access

NASJE Conference Keynote Address: iCivics

With the Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor in attendance, the Honorable Jean Hoefer Toal, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, delivered an inspiring and motivating keynote address to the combined NACM and NASJE participants at the 2011 Annual Conference. Chief Justice Toal spoke about iCivics, a web-based education project created to teach the important subject of civics to students, and inspire them to be active participants in our nation’s democracy. The iCivics project is the vision of Justice O’Conner and is designed to capture the imagination of students in a medium they will enjoy: computer games.

The project has online civics games in seven areas: Citizenship and Participation, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Budgeting, Separation of Powers, Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch of government. There are currently 16 games, including:

Do I Have a Right?: Players run a constitutional law firm and explore the Bill of Rights to give legal advice to their clients. As they master new rights, players grow the firm and can take on more and more cases.

Executive Command: Players are tested by the daily challenges presidents face in running the U.S. government and keeping the country safe.

Immigration Nation: Students learn about the paths to American naturalization and citizenship by helping guide hopeful immigrants.

Where applicable, the games draw on landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases to teach the particular subject. Although the curriculum is designed to be presented in a classroom, anyone can go online to play (icivics.org). Players create an avatar; play the games; earn points for which they may be rewarded with badges for their success; compete with others across the country (there is a leader board); and most importantly, learn about and connect with real-world issues.

The project is supported by state supreme court justices, judges, and an impressive list of foundations from across the country.

Chief Justice Toal called on the NACM and NASJE members to become part of the movement to get state and/or local educators to increase civics education for our youth (and others!). At a time when the authority of our own democracy is being questioned, her message was that now, more than ever, we need a citizenry that knows and respects their role and that of the government.

What do Elder Abuse, Drug Treatment Courts and Opinion Writing Have in Common? Judicial Education About Sexual Violence Issues in Unexpected Places

In this interesting and important session, delicate topics were discussed and brought out into the open. The faculty, Lynn Hecht Schafran and Claudia J. Bayliff, discussed a very disturbing trend: The fact that the verbiage most commonly used to describe consensual sex is written in court decisions, newspaper articles, online blogs, and even spoken in news broadcasts to describe sexual violence against women and children. If this is a common occurrence in our community, it begs the question: “When judges use the language of consensual sex to describe sexual violence, what is the message to victims, offenders and the community?”

For judicial educators, this session was particularly useful because the National Judicial Education Program (NJEP) has developed several comprehensive in-person training modules and provides technical assistance to adapt these modules to specific jurisdictions or states. The presenters gave the participants in the audience a short sample of “How Language Helps Shape Our Response to Sexual Violence.”

Even this quick snippet of the training module opened the participant’s eyes to the blatant use of “consensual sex” language that seems to be pervasive in our culture in regard to sexual violence. An example of this would be using the phrase “the suspect had sex with the victim” in place of “the suspect is accused of raping the victim.” On NJEP’s website you can link to the National Judicial Education Program: Sexual Assault Resources. A description of the Program is below:

Understanding Sexual Violence is the overarching title of the materials NJEP has developed to educate the judicial, legal and criminal justice communities, as well as society at large, about sexual assault. These materials explore how rape and sexual assault cases can be handled so as to minimize retraumatization of victims without undermining defendants’ constitutional rights. All of these materials are appropriate for multidisciplinary use (legalmomentum.org, retrieved 9/1/2011).

The presenters, both of whom work for NJEP, passed out resources to the participants – a list of training modules (three different types) and resources that will potentially help judicial educators as they plan training events and conferences for the next year.

Conference Recap: Fueling the “Me” in Team: An Integrated Approach to Team Performance

Theresa Robinson, the faculty for the keynote presentation on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, is an energetic and engaging woman who had the audience’s full attention for the entire morning. Ms. Robinson focused on burnout in the workplace, and she had the perfect audience for this topic—judicial educators, court personnel, and judicial officers.

Ms. Robinson focused on a different approach to the theory of team and burnout…stating that there is a “ME in team”, and the foundation of a good team is based on each individual’s ability to contribute to the team as a whole. If the individual team members are not functioning due to stress, lack of sleep, poor diet and exercise habits, the team unit will suffer in the end.

Self-care was an integral component to Ms. Robinson’s presentation, as she believes and promotes that self-care is essential not only to individual well-being but also to the ability to participate and contribute to a team. Fueling strategies were introduced to the audience—the strategies help keep mind, body, and spirit in the forefront. Ms. Robinson recommends writing out this affirmation and keeping it posted near personal workspaces: [“When I don’t take care of me, it impacts everyone around me.”]

• Fuel the Body
  • Don’t over fuel or under fuel but eat a well balanced diet
• Get Moving
  • Sitting is hazardous to our health
  • Movement and active bodies help jump start the brain
  • Create opportunities to move (i.e., using a restroom on a different floor)
• Reduce “Bad” Stress
  • Brains are designed to handle 30 seconds of stress at a time
  • Too much stress may erode team functionality
  • May not function at our best
• Rest & Recovery
  • Sleep is a critical time for the brain
  • New insight formation happens during sleep
  • Most people are sleep deprived
• Seek Out Joy
  • 1 minute of deep belly laughter is equal to 10 minutes of cardio
• Connect with Others
  • We are social creatures
  • It is not good to be isolated

What was really great about this keynote presentation was the fact that there was a follow-up session immediately after. While the main focus of the keynote address was to raise awareness regarding burnout and the effects of individual burnout on a team, the follow-up session was very “hands-on” and gave concrete steps for sustainable growth and change. The four stages introduced were geared to be practical and actionable:

1. Information
   a. Take this opportunity to gather as much information as is necessary to raise awareness regarding health and stress.
2. A Compelling “WHY”
   a. Find a “why” to help make a change more meaningful (i.e., I want to take better care of myself so that I can play with my grandchildren).
3. Self-Discipline
4. Habit

Brains and Biases: Bringing Emotional Intelligence to America’s Courts

Charles Schudson’s session on brains and biases was a preview of a course he teaches that he dubs “not another program on race and gender ‘sensitivity.'” More than anything, the session was an interesting discussion of recent breakthroughs into the physical manifestation of cognitive/emotional behaviors, and a quick journey through articles and other literature and cinema that reveal, and teach us about, our implicit biases and emotional intelligence.

First, he challenged us all to participate (on our own) in an online test that may demonstrate biases – which he described as “fool-proof” and, for him, humbling. He said we are ordained, as part of our biology and self-preservation, to harbor biases; therefore, it is important to acknowledge and recognize bias, and be conscious of its potential impact on decisions, relationships – all aspects of our professional and personal lives.

That said, Schudson also described recent research into the physical manifestations of cognitive/emotional behaviors that demonstrate, with the same speed we adopt prejudices, humans can dissolve them. Because judges’ decision-making is done in isolation, he noted that biases are particularly dangerous in the courtroom.

To demonstrate the impact of emotional intelligence in the workplace and other parts of our lives, Schudson asked everyone in the packed room to write one word on a Post-it Note that best described the individual who was most influential in his or her life. On the left side of a column on an easel he wrote “IQ”; in the next column, “Education”; in the third column, “Other”, and he asked everyone to place their Post-it in the column that best characterized the one word. After half of the room overwhelmingly (95%) placed their one-word description in the “Other” column, the other half of the room deferred.

What Schudson demonstrated is what studies at Harvard, Stanford, Carnegie and other institutions have shown: What is most powerful and motivates us the most in the workplace and our lives are emotional traits – understanding, sympathy – of an emotionally sophisticated individual, and the unquantifiable human connection we share.

Back to a more left-brain analysis, he suggests that emotional intelligence also empowers an individual to carefully identify and integrate appropriate emotional factors when evaluating behavior and making decisions; accurately identify and segregate inappropriate emotional factors when evaluating behavior and making decisions; and recognize (in oneself and others) the consequences of ignoring or suppressing the emotional factors that often establish relationships, control behavior, and determine decisions.

Personality, logic, bias impact decision-making
Reported by Lee Ann Barnhardt

Teaching to a full house, Tom Langhorne of Virginia explained the roles logic, personality, life experiences, and values play in decision making.

In the session, Court Teams’ Decision-making , Langhorne asked participants to get rid of the old-fashioned thinking about group-think and to believe that groups generally generate better decisions in courts. A key to better decisions is understanding the personality traits of the group members.

Participants in the session had been instructed to take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in advance and to remember their scores. Langhorne then explained how the various types (extroverts, introverts, sensing, intuitive, thinking, feeling, judging, and perceiving) influence decision-making. He said there is a strong connection between an individual’s personality and the logic they prefer to use.

Langhorne gave tips for working with each of the personality types and said groups that can learn to appreciate the differences will be better decision makers.

The session also looked at implications for logic and the differences between inductive (bottom up) and deductive (top down) reasoning. Langhorne said individuals should avoid common errors in logic and reasoning, including forming hasty conclusions based on implicit or explicit bias.

Using the short film The Lunch Date, Langhorne explored the role of bias in decision making. He said the most challenging thing decision makers must do on a daily basis is suspend judgment until they have sufficient information.

Bias in the courts can be eliminated by the following:

• Inventory beliefs about “different others”
• Practice monitoring reactions
• Train ourselves about “assumptions”
• Know that differences are not better or worse
• Realize life experiences color perceptions

Education Topics and Tools for Staff and Judicial Officers
Reported by John R. Meeks

Distance learning
There was extensive discussion about the value of distance education for court managers and staff, as well as how it should be done and for what purposes distance education is most beneficial. The attendees agreed that there is an expectation that distance learning can and should be part of the solution to the fiscal constraints facing judicial branch education. Not only is it less costly for people to do on-line education than to attend live courses, but the technology has improved and is itself less expensive than before and offers many more options for judicial education offices. (Most of the attendees are in courts/offices that provide DL for their court managers and staff.)

The challenges with distance education include that it does not offer the benefits of face to face networking and it is very difficult to accomplish high level objectives, such as those found in Bloom’s Taxonomy. Often the audience for DL education is unenthusiastic about using a computer for education (many use computers all day long in their regular work) and they do not always have a quiet place or time to dedicate to the program. There was general agreement that distance education is more effective in the delivery of technical content and that if it is used in conjunction with traditional education that is when DL is most effective.

Curriculum development vs. event-based planning
Many of the attendees reported having success with curriculum development and implementation for court manager and staff education. North Dakota and Ohio are two examples. It is more likely to be achievable when the judicial educator can work directly with discreet groups of staff who have common educational needs and when the staff has planning input and serves as faculty for their programs. Faculty development has been an important component for some of the states implementing curriculum design into their planning.

Some attendees said that even when they work with groups for which a curriculum would be beneficial, the court staff may not understand or accept that they “do not know what they do not know” and that their professionalism, competence, and job satisfaction could improve by using a curriculum design for their education. The default in this case is to “nuts and bolts” and event-based planning.

Participation of committees of court managers and staff in governance and education planning
Some states have had success in involving court managers and staff in governance and planning and others have not. It seems to be most successful when, as with curriculum development, the judicial educator can work with a group of staff who have similar job responsibilities. Most attendees agreed that it is desirable to have participation by these committees, but that it can be hard to get court staff who can or will act as representatives of their work peers. There can also be resistance if the court staff will believe they are being asked to do someone else’s work. “Why should we do your job?” can be the attitude of some court staff toward judicial education staff who want to use active planning committees.

Use by attendees at education programs of an electronic device such as a BlackBerry
This was acknowledged as being prevalent at all education programs and there was disagreement about what, if anything, to do about it. Some believed that there is little we can or should do to stop or discourage the use of electronic devices, because “multi-tasking” is how work is done these days. Others thought the use of these devices in class is disruptive, disrespectful of other learners and the faculty, and that it is actually not possible to “multi-task.” There was a lively debate and no consensus.

The attendees seemed to agree that this shared interest group meeting was relevant to the issues they face in their work and that hearing from others with similar challenges can inspire us to try new approaches and not take for granted the current court staff and manager education practices in our organizations.

Curriculum planning focus of closing plenary

The closing plenary session at the 2011 NASJE Annual Conference explored the use, benefit and impact of curriculum-based planning on the justice system.

Taught by Stephen Feiler of Pennsylvania and Maggie Cimino of California, the session discussed the design steps supported by the new NASJE Curriculum

Design and identified resources provided in the curriculum. The faculty said the curriculum can help manage those who deliver education for judicial educators and help manage education designed and delivered in house.

To begin, the faculty started with the following definition of curriculum:

“An overarching plan of education for a specific target audience: may be as brief as a list of topics or as detailed as course plans with relevant materials; may be used to guide the education of the target audience; at a minimum involves a broad-based needs assessment.”

Curriculum-based planning is a process that assures comprehensive, relevant education is available for court staff throughout their careers.
Feiler said Pennsylvania is using curriculum-based planning to provide more robust target courses for their trial judges. He said through a review by a committee, they agreed on six core areas for course content. The core areas have become their curriculum design and when planning an event, they make sure that each individual course fits under a core area in order to provide balanced programming during a conference.

“We want balanced exposure in all areas,” said Feiler.

California has a more structured approach and has developed curriculum for judges and staff and uses a template to design courses for delivery at an event, online, broadcast, or other delivery method.

The remainder of the session was used to highlight the NASJE Curriculum Design developed under a State Justice Institute grant and based on the 11 core competencies for judicial educators. The curriculum includes a glossary, information about learning objectives, and a robust bibliography. There is also information about how to conduct a needs assessment, design a course, and evaluate the course.

State directors face challenges in providing judicial branch education

Budget cuts, distance learning, and managing public perception were just a few of the topics discussed by state directors of judicial branch education during a forum at the 2011 NASJE Annual Conference in Las Vegas.

Directors from Nevada, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Ohio, North Dakota, and the District of Columbia were present.

The impact of budget reductions on judicial branch education was a common theme among the states. Most indicated they had to reduce or eliminate live, fact-to-face training during the past year. Solutions offered included the following:

• Distance learning—including live and on-demand courses
• Taking the training to various court locations
• Using grants to pay for or to supplement live training, including travel cost

The group suggested that one way to keep judicial education budgets intact was to be able to show funding authorities the value of continuing education. The need for evaluations was discussed as well as a request for NASJE to provide some talking points for state directors to use in budget proposals, as well as a resolution, perhaps endorsed by other organizations, stating the value of education. The directors said they need an effective and efficient method of measuring their outcomes. The need for judicial leadership in this area was discussed.

Other challenges facing directors are providing meaningful new judge training as judicial vacancies occur and managing the professional staff in their departments. Getting staff involved in NASJE and keeping them connected to other professionals were suggested as ways to motivate staff and prevent burn out.

International Committee Meeting
Reported by Paul Biderman

About a dozen people from NASJE and NACM reported on their interests and experiences with foreign judicial organizations during a meeting of the NASJE International Committee at the 2011 NASJE/NACM conference. Milt Nuzum, Director of the Supreme Court of Ohio Judicial College, led the discussion.

After hearing the caution from William Brunson of the National Judicial College that people shouldn’t sign up as international trainers expecting to board the next flight to Paris, the group reviewed training offered to judicial personnel in third world countries and emerging democracies. Interchanges occur both through delegations to the U.S. and through travel abroad by judges, court administrators and judicial educators. Those experienced with the International Organization for Judicial Training discussed the value of associating with that growing organization.

Representatives of two USAID primary contractors, the National Center for State Courts and Tetra Tech DPK, discussed the opportunities that exist through their programs for interchanges abroad. Experienced trainers also described some of the challenges, such as adapting to different expectations about educational techniques, unfamiliar traditions of judicial independence, and varying objectives for the training. Everyone who had participated in international training described the warm relationships built, the enthusiasm and creativity generated, and the enormous amount gained by the trainers as well as trainees from their interchanges.

It was agreed that the rewarding and exciting area of international training can be the subject of future collaborative planning between NASJE and NACM.

NASJE Northeast Regional Meeting

Crystal Banks (Washington, DC), Joan Bishop (New Hampshire), Stephen Feiler (Pennsylvania), Franny Haney (Delaware), Joy Lyngar (National Judicial College), Judge Cornelia Mews (Canada), Judge Robert Pirraglia (Rhode Island)

NASJE 2012 Annual Conference
Ms. Joan Bishop and Judge Robert Pirraglia are leading local efforts to organize NASJE’s 2012 Annual Conference. They were kind enough to share with us their plans and progress. Their ideas are exciting and capitalize on the unique history and culture that only Boston offers. Regional members are encouraged to take advantage of the meeting’s closer proximity and plan to attend. NASJE’s 2012 Annual Conference is scheduled August 5 – 8 and will be at the Seaport Hotel, Boston, Massachusetts.

National Judicial College Offerings
Ms. Joy Lyngar briefed our group on National Judicial College resources that are available to supplement state efforts. In addition to free webinar offerings, the NJC has grant funded opportunities in a variety of areas, such as child exploitation. Members are encouraged to contact the National Judicial College with questions.

Program and Faculty Recommendations
Attendees shared program and faculty recommendations on a variety of topics. In the area of e-filing, Mr. Craig Ball (TX) and Judge Grossman (NY) came recommended as good resources. Mr. Peter Phillips (NJ) could assist in mediation discussions and Professor Orin Kerr (George Washington) is recommended for United States Supreme Court reviews. Ms. Teresa Robinson (Florida)who presented at the conference, is recommended for wellness programs and Ms. Kate Trotter presents interesting work in understanding how body language is perceived. Members who are interested in additional information are encourage to contact one of the members present.

Regional Communications
Several ideas were discussed to increase regional communication, collaboration, and support among members in the Northeast. Three suggestions enjoyed support among those present: an email list serve, quarterly conference calls, and annual face-to-face meetings. Efforts will be made to pursue these ideas during the coming year.

NASJE Southeast Regional Meeting

1) New Programming
State members offered new programming ideas that they have implemented or are going to implement. New need requests were discussed that mirrored recognized trends in the law germane to each state. Innovations in format and experimental learning procedures that have been utilized were covered. Each state provided input on its constituency, by statute and by evolution of practice.

2) Faculty Development
Most states are seeing a growth in judges taking senior status and full-fledged retirement. Among this growing group are many of our volunteer faculty. Member states discussed strategies for recruiting and retaining volunteer faculty during a time of shrinking budgets.

3) Online Education and New Technologies
Members discussed their organization’s experience with distance learning and adaptation of new technology. Court automation and electronic filing were also minor topics.

4) Budgets and Burnout
Obviously the economic impact of the last few years has been felt by every member state. With less money and more work, maintaining morale in challenging times was a hot topic. Questions such as, “How can we support our staffs?” and “How can we support fellow judicial educators?” were asked.

5) Networking
The Southeast has done a good job of trying to communicate more effectively in the past two years. A general review of that process and recommitment to connecting throughout the year (especially with members who were unable to attend the annual conference) was made. New suggestions about how to maintain our connections were brought to the table.

NASJE Midwest Regional Meeting 2011

Margaret Allen (Ohio), Lee Ann Barnhardt (North Dakota), Karn Barth (South Dakota), William Brunson ( National Judicial College), Kim Dockter (North Dakota), Joyce Francis (Texas), Melody Luetkehans (National Judicial College), Lamar McCorkle (Texas), Dottie McDonald (Texas), Carol McMahon-Boise (Nebraska), Milt Nuzum (Ohio), Phil Schopick (Ohio), and Jennifer Wadsworth (Iowa).

Regional Conference or Webinar 2011/2012?
a. Feedback received in prior survey by Lee Ann indicted that the group was not interested in a face to face meeting primarily due to travel restrictions.
b. The Western Region did hold a meeting in Spring, 2011. Melody stated that the regional conference she attended included judicial educators and court managers.
c. After agreeing that a webinar would be best, Milt recommended waiting until January to hold a webinar. Lee Ann will follow up on topics and seek a volunteer state to host.

NASJE 2014 Annual Conference (Midwest Host)
a. Lee Ann reported that the Midwest Region is scheduled to host the annual meeting in 2015. She suggested that the 2014 Annual Meeting be held in Ohio, in either Cleveland or Cincinnati.
b. Joyce asked if we will be partnering with NACM. Lee Ann said NACM will be in Scottsdale, AZ in 2014 and that there were no definite plans to partner again, but that the board is looking at partnerships with different organizations that have made inquiry. Joyce noted that NASJE attendance is getting smaller and likes the idea of partnering.
c. It was suggested to look at travel expenses of the suggested locations for 2014 and take that into consideration when making a decision. Lee Ann will host a post conference “Back to School” webinar in August – over lunch hour and solicit feedback at that time.

Sharing Successes and Requests for Support or Information

Ohio just held the Elder Statewide Summit. Steve Hanson is a good resource on this topic. Ohio is partnering with Ohio State University to evaluate effectiveness of education for Juvenile Court Judges. Ohio launched its online academy for judicial education this year. Registration and materials are now online and available to judges from other states. They are continuing efforts in curriculum development. Ohio’s Court Managers and Presiding Judges held a 2 day Mini CMP, which was very successful, and Ohio is offering a training series on New Americans, each program of which focuses on people from different national origins.

South Dakota’s Deputy Clerk education program on professional development and success planning has been very successful. It Includes books, books on tape, and articles. Karn is developing a Mentor Program for the entire judicial system that matches up anyone within the system based on an online assessment, rather than position within the court.

Texas – A symposium was held on “Leading into the Future: Securing the Public Trust in Texas Courts”. The South Texas Law Review dedicated its Summer 2010 Issue to the symposium. The symposium sessions may be reviewed online at Westlaw, LexisNexis and HeinOnline. The Texas Supreme Court has supported initiatives related to foster care and implicit bias. Continuing to work with Texas Department of Transportation to set up DWI Courts with grant funds to provide training for these courts.

Nebraska has done mostly distance learning during the past year, but is using grant funds to offer some in-person training. They will offer the 2012 Justice Conference (5 Tracks/5 Days), and Upcoming SJI training on Elder Abuse, and a DUI Seminar through Melody at the National Judicial College.

North Dakota is looking for faculty with expertise in Elder issues. A successful statewide multi-disciplinary conference dedicated to Juvenile Justice issues. Training on implicit bias has been developed and offered to judicial officers and staff

Iowa has worked on and is seeing increased support for education from the State Court Administrator’s office and progress with the state budget. They are currently working on developing curriculum-based courses.

National Judicial College – William promoted the upcoming web-based course for new judges, Taking the Bench. The course is designed to be a transition from Bar to Bench and included 4 Modules Online. It is expected to be active October 1, 2011. He said Human Trafficking for Judges will be offered December 2011 and that he wrote a proposal for Arkansas for faculty development. Melody said NJC has money and resources for traffic-related training. She mentioned the Commercial Drivers License faculty development program that is available and the In-State Traffic Programs offered in partnership with NHTSA.

Good of the Order – The next NASJE Annual Conference is scheduled for August 5-8, 2012 at the Seaport Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts.

NASJE Western Regional Meeting
reported by Evie Lancaster

Judith Anderson (WA), Beth Asselin (AZ), Rebecca Bluemer (NV), Susan Conyers (NV), Claudia Fernandes (CA), Lisa Galdos (CA), Ileen Gerstenberger (WA), Laurie Ginn (NV), Gabe Goltz (AZ), David Gordon (NV), Deb King (AZ), Evie Lancaster (NV), Michael McLaughlin (ID), John Newell (NV), Michael Roosevelt (CA), Jeff Schrade (AZ), Charlie Schudson (AZ), Nancy Smith (WA), and Gordon Zimmerman (NV).

The meeting was also a time to acknowledge 2009-2011 Western Region Director Michael Roosevelt, as his term came to a close. Michael expressed his thanks for everyone’s part in invigorating and bringing momentum to the regional membership. “…we were able to accomplish a number of things we need to be proud of” Michael humbly stated. Under his leadership, regularly scheduled conference calls, web sessions, and a face-to-face conference were held. After highlighting the topics offered, which included funding sources, new technologies, nano-technology in genetics, and engaging people in Webinar’s, Michael went on to say, “I think one of the accomplishments I’m most proud of, and I think for the group, is our Western Regional [Conference].”

Sessions such as judicial branch leadership education tips to engage learners, incorporating fairness into courses, evidence-based sentencing, and tips on PowerPoint presentations were offered, along with an opportunity for colleagues to display and discuss an innovative or new education program offered in their state. Michael went on further to acknowledge the many resources and generosity involved, such as CJER and NJC, for making these opportunities more cost effective. And of course, to the members of the Western Region, for without their involvement and support, none of these opportunities would have been a success.

Being the largest region in NASJE, one of our challenges during the annual meeting is having sufficient time to conduct business and to provide our colleagues with ample opportunity to share innovative ideas and accomplishments. Approaching the meeting format slightly differently this year, Michael asked members to provide an innovative idea or program in their state in writing. During the meeting everyone was asked to discuss their ideas at their tables and then to select and showcase one of the innovative ideas or programs with the entire group. Here are just a couple of the ideas and programs showcased:

1. Capital Case backlog reduction (Gabe Goltz, Arizona AOC). In partnership with Maricopa County, the AOC brought judges and prosecutors and defense counsel together for a statewide education conference to discuss their respective issues and concerns, and how they might work more cohesively in these cases. As a result, the AZ capital case backlog has been reduced by approximately one-third.
2. NJC (John Newell) The College has been working on several model curriculums, some of which will be available on NJCs website. Curriculum will be broken into modules and accompanied by student materials, faculty guides and topic resources. Curriculum currently available or in development stage include such topics as sex offenders, leadership management, and judicial fairness and courtroom communication.

Other innovative ideas and programs will be showcased in the days to come. Also, please let me know as you or your state has additional innovative ideas and programs that you would like to share with our colleagues.

Michael opened the floor for ideas on how we as a region can connect staff, especially those who are unable to join in on conference calls or Webinar’s, or attend face-to-face conferences. The new NASJE website has been implemented and will make available such features as a “members only” area where resources can be shared, topics can be discussed, etc. One form of staying connected currently offered on the website is the opportunity to give feedback on articles, ask questions, etc. One of the ideas offered was the possibility of using social media, such as twitter, as an informal communication tool. The question was raised whether or not we might be excluding any members who might not be as versed in technology as others, and to consider how this might be addressed.

It was agreed that Webinars have been a good resource and should be continued. It was also suggested to hold a face-to-face conference again. Another idea offered was to hold the conference via videoconference so as not to exclude those members not able to attend.

While wrapping up the meeting, Michael offered two additional thoughts for staying connected:

1. Consider taking a few moments to pick up the phone and call or email a colleague you don’t know or haven’t had contact with for a while. It doesn’t need to be lengthy, maybe only once a month, and a different person each time.
2. Go back to your office and share conference information with your colleagues.

Before I put my touch pad to rest, I would like to thank Michael Roosevelt once again, for his outstanding leadership and for being a wonderful mentor and friend. I would also like to encourage you to continue to reach out to our NASJE Western Region colleagues, to share your challenges and solutions, and to support and serve this dynamic association called, the National Association of State Judicial Educators. I look forward to serving you as western region director and welcome your thoughts and ideas as we move our region forward together in the year ahead.

BRIEF PROJECT/IDEA/SUGGESTION LIST:

Liz Bullard (AOC CO)
Project/Idea/Suggestion – Judicial Executive Development Institute: Advanced training for supervisors or those who have successfully completed the pre-requisite course, Trial Court Path to Supervision or Probation Orientation to Supervision course.

Nancy Smith (AOC WA)
Project/Idea/Suggestion – Blended Learning Project: Combines various types of e-learning with face to face learning events in order to maximize learning & minimize expense & time away from the office. The material in the e-learning pieces is designed to prepare participants for the face to face (f2f) meeting. The f2f is a sort of “capstone” exercise composed of learning chunks that are difficult to do remotely. Programs provided: Court leadership teams on budgets; Dealing With Difficult People targeted at courthouse facilitators; and Search & Seizure for new judges.

Elizabeth Evans (Maricopa County Superior Court AZ)
Project/Idea/Suggestion – Web video training for Self Represented Litigants in Probate Court, “The Role and Duties of a Guardian.” Ten minute video and narrated training that spells out in simple language the court ordered duties of a newly appointed guardian. Reference http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/ProbateAndMentalHealth/guarandianship/guardianshipcbt.htm.

Michael Roosevelt (AOC CA)
Project/Idea/Suggestion – State Interagency Team: The program coordinates the efforts of multiple agencies to reduce or eliminate racial disparities in education, health, mental health and the courts. The effort is driven by data which shows that each of the previously listed areas fail to equally and equitably serve CA’s different ethnic, racial & language groups/populations.

Lisa Galdos (AOC CA)
Project/Idea/Suggestion – CA Statewide Case Management System: Use of online simulations combined with face to face. Include training as business process.

McLaughlin, Michael (AOC ID)
Project/Idea/Suggestion – Web cast to judges every other week, with phone & chat capabilities. Forty-five minutes in length. Uses WebEx. Sentencing information online using scenarios as a training tool.

Goetz, Gabe (AOC AZ)
Project/Idea/Suggestion – Developing: Capital Case Training with judges, prosecutors & defense attorneys as target audience, One avenue of building collaboration.