Article by Rob Godfrey; Recording by Laurence Stone and Rob Godfrey
Kathy Story, MA JD, has been an important and integral part of judicial branch education for many years. She has been affiliated with NASJE since 2002. For her company, Story Consulting and Coaching, she designs and delivers leadership, mentoring and faculty development training to attorneys, judges, court administrators and other legal professionals. Her workshops include learning styles, effective presentations, personal and organizational change, emotional intelligence, diversity training, generational differences and effective feedback.
Her experience with judicial branch education around the country is extensive, and she has presented at many diverse conferences. She has been an invited speaker for the ABA Judicial Division, National Association of Bar Executives, Association of Legal Administrators, National Association of Appellate Court Clerks, National Association of State Judicial Educators, and the National Advocacy Center for the Department of Justice Office of Legal Education, among others.
Kathy earned her BA and MA degrees from the University of Nebraska and her JD from the University of Memphis. After clerking for a federal appellate judge in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kathy litigated in state and federal court with a Memphis law firm before returning to higher education as an associate dean of judicial and ethical programs. For seven years she served as Associate Director of the Leadership Institute in Judicial Education. In that role, she worked with hundreds of judges, court administrators, state judicial educators and attorneys in the United States and Canada.
Her work with bar association leadership programs has been recognized with the E. Smythe Gambrell Professionalism Award from the American Bar Association, presented to the Memphis Bar Association.
Watch this video of Rob Godfrey’s interview with Kathy, where she discusses important aspects of judicial branch education (recorded 2/2016).
In January of 2016 Kathy concluded a two-day training seminar in Utah titled the Leadership Institute in Judicial Education for a group of justice court judges. Kathy used many different techniques to explore content and get the judges to interact while moving them around Kolb’s learning circle. At the end of the second day, each judge was tasked with explaining to the group their plan for a training session. Starting with identifying their target audience, estimating the time needed and creating learning objectives, they described each phase of the training session and which part of the learning circle it fulfilled. Her techniques clearly conveyed the material and enabled the participants to apply the ideas effectively. Once again, Kathy Story demonstrated why she is a leader in judicial branch education.
Rob Godfrey is Conference Coordinator for the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts in Salt Lake City.
By Hon. Mark Goodner, Deputy Counsel and Director of Judicial Education, Texas Municipal Courts Education Center
On February 25, 2016, NASJE’s Northeastern Region sponsored a webinar for NASJE members entitled Procedural Fairness for Court Staff: A Brief Curriculum for Teaching, facilitated by Kelly Tait, Immediate Past President of NASJE, and Joan Bishop, NASJE Northeastern Region Director. About 55 people participated in the webinar. It was a very quick-moving and informative exploration of how and why judicial branch educators should include the topic of procedural fairness in education programs for court personnel as well as judges.
Kelly Tait spent time up front talking about the importance of getting buy-in from court personnel when approaching the topic in an educational setting, and she offered several examples of ways that could be done. For instance, a string of video clips related to poor customer service showed how frustrating (if not infuriating) it can be when customers are not served fairly and effectively. The video clips helped to put us in the shoes of a court user who might be angered by a perceived lack of fairness. Drawing examples from the learners and using analogies such as the alienating and intimidating use of specialized medical language by health care professionals are also effective methods of letting learners know why procedural fairness is important.
The facilitators explained procedural fairness as whether or not people experiencing the justice system perceive the procedures used and the interpersonal treatment they received as fair. The aspect of “perception” in this brought to mind judicial ethics, as all court personnel must avoid impropriety as well as the perception of impropriety in the courts. Likewise, we can’t disregard the perception of the court user when evaluating procedural fairness. The four key components of procedural fairness are (1) Understanding (Is there an understanding of court and the process?); (2) Voice (Are court users being heard?); (3) Respect (Do court users feel they’ve been treated with respect and dignity?); and (4) Neutrality (Is the court providing a neutral forum?). Helpfulness was also discussed as a related aspect that is relevant to court personnel. This explanation provided a very well-rounded picture of what judicial branch educators should be concerned with when considering procedural fairness.
Procedural fairness should be exhibited (and embraced) by all members of the court staff. Court staff have more contact with court users and experience a one-on-one exchange of information. If the court and the court staff have dealt with users fairly, then those users are more likely to cooperate, be pleasant, provide information, accept decisions, comply with orders, and leave with a positive perception of the court system.
Joan Bishop discussed some of the barriers to court staff providing procedural fairness. These include personal biases and stereotypes as well as a lack of time due to a high volume of cases and people they are working with. These barriers led to some valuable discussion with webinar attendees, spurred on by questions developed by Northeastern Region members. All participants agreed that including this topic in court educational programs is vital, and participants discussed the different models, group sizes, and methods that might be most useful in talking this topic. Facilitators provided several resources including an excerpt of a toolkit for measuring perceptions of fairness by Emily Gold LaGratta of the Center for Court Innovation and a list of relevant websites and publications.
This was a useful webinar on an important topic, and NASJE thanks the Northeastern Region for sponsoring it.
A recording of the webinar, a PDF with resources, and a PDF of the content from the PowerPoint show are available in the Member Area of this website (Resources > Member Area. If you are a NASJE member and need the password, please contact Kelly Tait at ktconsulting@aol.com or Nancy Smith at nfsmith@sc.pima.gov).
Several NASJE members published articles in Judicial Education and Training: Journal of the International Organization for Judicial Training, Issue 4 (2015). Congratulations to all of them for their fine work in Judicial Branch Education.
Dr. Diane E. Cowdrey, Director of California’s Center for Judiciary Education and Research, authored “Teaching New Judges what it Means to “Be” a Judge.”
Joseph Sawyer
William J. Brunson and Joseph R. Sawyer of the National Judicial College wrote “The National Judicial College Approach to Distance Learning: Towards a Model of Best Practice.”
Dr. Livingston Armytage, Director for the Centre of Judicial Studies in Sydney, Australia wrote the introduction to Issue 4, as well as “Bench Books: Key Publishing Guidelines.”
The NASJE Futures Committee identifies trends and makes forecasts of emerging issues, knowledge, and information that has the potential to significantly impact NAJSE and the practice of judicial branch education. Moreover, we are charged with reporting on these trends and forecasts to the NASJE membership.
The National Judicial College (NJC), with funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, is in the process of developing an advanced curriculum on criminal justice topics for judges in 2017. As part of the curriculum development process, NJC surveyed state judicial educators, state court administrators, and other stakeholders to identify specific needs around judicial education in the criminal justice arena and how the developed curriculum might meet those needs. With this in mind, the Futures Committee shares the following information with NASJE in support of its objectives, and as a “thank you” to those NASJE members who participated in the survey.
The survey was completed in January 2016. One of the questions asked was whether adequate judicial education existed on criminal law and criminal justice topics. Even though the majority replied that mandatory education existed on these topics (67%) in their state, respondents were evenly split on whether what existed was adequate. Some of the content mentioned as needing some skill-building for judges were evidence-based sentencing, digital and forensic evidence, expert witnesses, and pretrial justice matters.
Additionally, while most states had at least an introductory or basic course to offer judges on criminal law or criminal justice topics (65%), only about half offered programming with more advanced topics. Those topics that were noted as among the most pressing for judges today were:
Of note, “evidence” most often included forensic, digital, and scientific evidence.
The NJC will also survey a limited number of its judicial alumni to further explore topics of interest to them as part of the curriculum development process. For more information about the curriculum or the needs assessment, please contact Program Attorney Irene Hart at ihart@judges.org.
By Natalie Carrillo, Research and Evaluation Assistant, Pima County Arizona Juvenile Court, and Matthew Estes, Training and Education Coordinator, Arizona Superior Court in Pima County.
This article reflects upon the July 2015 Implicit Bias training program in Pima County, Arizona (Tucson) and offers lessons and tips that other judicial educators can use as they create their own implicit bias coursework.
Introduction
How do courts deal with issues such as the disproportion of minority representation in the criminal and juvenile justice systems? How can court employees and judges act to overcome the perception that the criminal justice system is biased towards minority populations, as shown in research at ProceduralFairness.org and elsewhere? Pima County courts chose to tackle implicit bias training as one facet of their efforts to combat these and related issues in courts in Tucson, Arizona.
The Pima County court system welcomed two national experts in the emerging field of implicit bias in July, 2015. They taught six sessions on three different court campuses in Tucson in an effort to improve staff awareness of how associations, attitudes and habits shape and affect our daily interactions with court customers and with each other.
Michael Brownstein, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and Alex Madva, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Cal Poly Pomona taught the classes. The instructors came highly recommended by those interested in implicit bias both academically and professionally.
Over 300 Court employees participated in implicit bias training at three different training locations July 22-24, 2015. The turnout was one of the largest in Court history for a training event, and drew walk-in attendance from units across the spectrum of the judicial branch, from the Pascua Yaqui tribe to the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.
What is implicit bias, and why is it tricky to teach?
Dr. Alex Madva of Cal Poly Pomona
Implicit bias arises from attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. It may be helpful to think of implicit biases as unspoken stereotypes that we are repeatedly exposed to through media, social segregation, learning at early developmental stages, and normal habits of mind like categorization and heuristics.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy invites us to consider the plight of “Frank” when defining implicit bias:
Frank … explicitly believes that women and men are equally suited for careers outside the home. Despite his explicitly egalitarian belief, Frank might nevertheless implicitly associate women with the home, and this implicit association might lead him to behave in any number of biased ways, from trusting feedback from female co-workers less to hiring equally qualified men over women.
While implicit biases often lie deep within our subconscious minds, their effects have been found to have stark consequences. Researchers have found implicit biases affecting behavior negatively across the spectrum of social interaction. In recent studies, problematic implicit biases appear to cause unfavorable judgment of minority job applicants, and even lead to harsher sentences for inmates with more “Afrocentric” facial features.
The topic of implicit bias is both new and nuanced. Trainers who are preparing court audiences for their initial encounter with implicit bias should prime their audience before the class. Examples of helpful priming include detailed course descriptions and emails with links to academic resources. Trainers who know their audience may consider inviting participants to attempt one of several online exercises that promote awareness of implicit bias, which is an effective way to get participants talking about it.
How can a trainer build an implicit bias class that meets his/her courts’ specific needs?
In our sessions, Drs. Brownstein and Madva explained the theory of implicit bias, how social scientists became interested in studying it, why implicit bias is an important concept for court employees to understand, and what strategies can be employed to combat it in the courts and in everyday life.
We came to know our instructors very well over the several months we spent planning and executing the July training, and learned that their implicit bias research interests lie at the intersection of the ethical implications of our subconscious mental attitudes and the research of psychologists interested in social cognition. And while Drs. Brownstein and Madva were excited to discuss their scholarly interests upon inquiry, they were also extremely capable of using everyday language and real-world examples to ensure that all attentive participants could understand and apply the lessons of implicit bias research.
Our instructors’ examples and explanations centered on the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which detects the strength of a person’s association between representations of objects or concepts that the mind organizes into different categories. Drs. Madva and Brownstein presented an array of research results from the IAT that indicate the existence of troubling bias against members of certain racial, gender, and other social groups.
Our deliberate focus on the IAT was a direct result of observation of our audience in previous situations. Years of course evaluation responses show that Pima County court employees find arguments with relevant statistical data more persuasive than arguments without such data. This type of activity also helps participants understand the power of association without the feeling of judgment that can be involved in other discussion. Other audiences may find IAT data too rudimentary, in which case a deeper discussion of policy implications might be preferred.
Why did we decide to offer Introductory and Advanced level classes?
Drs. Brownstein and Madva presented two levels of implicit bias training. The introductory class was designed for the court employee who had little previous experience with implicit bias or none at all. Titled “Understanding Implicit Bias: The Causes and Effects of Implicit Bias in Criminal Justice and Education,” the introductory class provided a thorough historical overview of implicit bias, followed by an explanation of what the IAT is and how it works. An interactive class exercise completed the content in the first hour. In the second hour of the class, the instructors explained the negative outcomes predicted and explained by the IAT, and concluded with a brief discussion of reforms that could be made in light of implicit bias findings.
The advanced class, titled “Overcoming Implicit Bias: Individual and Institutional Reforms,” started with a condensed version of the introductory class. The remaining 90 minutes were devoted to a deeper exploration of potential reforms, and more in-depth group discussion of those reforms.
We had anticipated that participants would self-sort into the Introductory and Advanced classes based upon the descriptions we provided in training bulletins and emails. However, that turned out not to be the case. Some court employees who had a strong understanding of implicit bias attended the introductory session, and many court employees attended both the introductory and advanced classes. In both cases, we received constructive feedback on the course evaluation forms that parts of the class felt somewhat rudimentary, or repetitive. Upon reflection, the advanced class would have been more effective for the audience had we chosen to present completely new content from the introductory class. This would have allowed Drs. Madva and Brownstein to delve deeper into ideas for institutional level reforms among other things.
What methods helped us to obtain useful data from the implicit bias trainings?
The idea for implicit bias training originated from a recommendation for a project to help reduce disproportionality in the juvenile justice system in Pima County, Arizona. Due to the nature of the project, it was important to gauge whether the trainings had any measurable effect on the participants. We considered what type of measurement would not only measure change in participant responses, but also provide participants with an opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions for future trainings.
Dr. Michael Brownstein of the John Jay School of Criminal Justice
Participants took part in three surveys. The first survey was completed prior to the training, the second immediately following the training, and a third survey was sent to them three months after the training. The same tool measured participant responses to the same statements before and after the training. Drs. Brownstein and Madva recommended a tool used in a previous study to measure implicit bias education. The third survey was online and assessed whether participants found the training useful and also provided a forum for feedback and suggestions. The surveys showed that the training raised participants’ awareness of implicit bias and its effects on their decision-making.
What did participants think about the implicit bias trainings?
Court employees found Implicit Bias training to be provocative, informative and pertinent to their employment. One attendee wrote that the instructors “did a very good job presenting the information on a topic that can be difficult.” Another recognized “that you have to stretch your mind to be constantly aware of your own biases.”
Several thoughtful attendees asked about the IAT design itself, as response times that lag by mere tenths of a second are deemed significant. Drs. Madva and Brownstein explained that the IAT is one of the most widely used and reviewed tools in social science research. While they did not proclaim any definitive causal links between implicit bias research and prejudiced attitudes, the professors did explain how and why implicit bias is an emerging explanation for the persistence of racist and discriminatory attitudes in twenty-first century America.
As mentioned above, we anticipated that the topic of implicit bias would create some confusion and uneasiness in our audience. And while we did receive some commentary to that effect (“A study can be made to find whatever statistics we want”; “It’s a ridiculous concept meant only to divide and create negative feelings among the masses”), these comments represented a small subset of the larger group. A much larger cluster of comments indicated that participants found the training to be provocative, supported by helpful statistics and useful research, and that the training could be practically applied in the court environment.
How are we keeping up the momentum?
The July implicit bias training was well-received in the aggregate, and the high-quality instruction provided by Drs. Brownstein and Madva has had positive effects on the progress of similar coursework. Current and future coursework on the topic of implicit bias is a high priority, given that one of the instructors’ key takeaways was that “debiasing” is more likely to happen in an environment where implicit bias education is emphasized and frequent. As Court educators know all too well, the lessons of a great training begin to scatter and dissipate if they are not followed by classes on similar topics, with similar themes.
In November, 2015 Court employees were invited to participate in “American Denial,” a class which used a PBS documentary of the same title to explore the impact of implicit bias in a smaller setting. The smaller class afforded trainers the opportunity to solicit more feedback from the participants, and future offerings of the class will provide scenarios with examples of implicitly biased action for participants to consider. Another class, which uses the film Fruitvale Station as a basis for discussion, also puts forth the concept of implicit bias and its relationship to prejudice and racism. Both of these classes will be offered throughout the coming year in an effort to maintain awareness of the impact of implicit bias in the criminal justice system.
Moving forward, discussions are underway to provide more opportunities for Court employees to encounter and wrestle with implicit bias topics. We also plan to use the suggestions and feedback from our employee surveys to develop future trainings.
[For further information, an Implicit Bias Resource Guide is posted in the members-only area.]
Natalie Carrillo is a Research and Evaluation Assistant at Pima County Juvenile Court (Tucson, AZ) where she works on the Disproportionate Minority Contact Intervention Project among other court projects.Prior to joining the Court, she worked in education for over ten years.She earned a Bachelor’s degree in History from The Colorado College, and a Master’s in Public Policy from Johns Hopkins University.
Matthew Estes is a Training and Education Coordinator for the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County. In that role, he brings trainings to judicial staff across many different platforms, and works specifically with juvenile detention and probation staff to meet their training needs on a case-by-case basis. Previously, Matthew was an instructor and curriculum designer at the high school and community college levels.
The Curriculum and Education Committee will host two “book club” style telephone conferences this year in an effort to bring NASJE members together in conversations about topics of interest. The first session is scheduled for Thursday, April 28, 2016, from 1:00pm to 2:30pm CDT.
What’s an “Article Club,” you ask? Think book club, but the selection is an article, requiring less time to read and discuss. Committee member Stephanie Hemmert shared that the inspiration for these sessions came from a desire to provide “a convenient and fun way for members to dialogue over ideas, new and classic; connect with one another; and inspire learning.”
The first article chosen by the committee is “Do You Suffer from Decision Fatigue?” by John Tierney. This 2011 New York Times article provides a review of the research included in an excellent book, Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength, by John Tierney and Roy F. Baumeister.
As Judith Anderson, co-chair of the committee, observes, the session “will be like your regular book club, but without the chairs, couches, or good food.”
These sessions will be held in a conference call format, and the focus will be on discussion. The discussion will be moderated by members of the committee.
“While we come together for committee meetings and see each other at conferences, we don’t have many opportunities to talk with, and learn from, each other,” says committee co-chair, Dr. Anthony Simones of Missouri. “The sessions we are proposing are designed to address this.”
In 2004, judicial education became mandatory for Nebraska judges, probation and Court staff. In 2005, judicial branch education staff were hired, and in 2006 the program was designed and launched. The funding for the mandatory judicial education program came from “dollar filing fees” meaning a dollar from every filing fee received was directed towards the program. The fund receives approximately $374,000 per year which has not been a tremendous budget for growing a program.
The program started with a director, Carole McMahon-Boies, and one clerical staff. Carole’s biggest challenge was to grow the program on her given budget. Because of Carole’s restricted budget, her main education delivery method for Court staff became distance learning. Carole realized she needed more funding to grow and so she reached out to another part of the judicial branch that was untapped – the probation division. Strategically, she knew the probation division received funding from the general appropriation fund. Probation had just begun an ambitious project to implement evidence based practices, and training initiatives blossomed. Once Carole established a firm partnership with probation, far more funding was available. In addition to partnering with probation Carole undertook a new program in Nebraska – Attorney CLE – which became mandatory in 2009. This provided the opportunity to share some resources between programs.
The new Judicial Branch Education Training Center opened in October of 2015 in Lincoln, Nebraska, less than 10 years since Carole took the helm. In its humble roots, the offices for the program were housed in a historic setting, the Supreme Court law library “because nobody uses a law library any more” Carole said. The trainings were conducted in a hotel training space. But because of her fruitful efforts to grow the program, they soon outgrew the space. Now, all the training is housed in the Judicial Branch Education Training Center, including the training done by the Court Improvement Program which provides education regarding juvenile issues.
While Carole misses her old historic office setting, she’s enthusiastic about her new modern home equipped with state of the art technology. The training center has four training rooms, all equipped with 90” screen video TVs that are networked but can also operate autonomously, there is a retractable curtain to partition the rooms for quick accommodation, and significant acoustics attributed to the top-notch speaker system.
Another highlight Carole identified in the new training center was the kitchen. Having the kitchen is an upgrade that makes it convenient for all of the probation officers that gather regularly from across the state for new officer training. The officers practically live at the facility for a nine week training in Lincoln. There have been several new probation initiatives implemented by the Nebraska legislature. To give you an idea of the size of the undertaking, there are approximately 220 new probation officers hired in the last 18 months, all of which have gone through new probation officer training through judicial branch education. Other highlights of the building include its live two-way video conferencing capabilities offered state-wide. The building also offers many conveniences to the attending judges which include parking right outside of the facilities (which they didn’t have at their old location) and they have partnered with a hotel right behind the facility so it’s an easy walk across the street to class for those that live in more remote regions of the state.
To give you a sense of the driving force that is Carole, there are a total of 1800 judges and court staff in Nebraska, 109 judges in her state. Those are modest numbers compared to other states. But through her campaign she was able to grow from a staff that included just her as director and one clerical staff to her current fully staffed state which includes a probation education director, a court staff director, four trainers (which includes ex-probation officers and attorneys to do the court staff training), a distance learning specialist, and two clerical staff. Not to mention her instrumental role in delivering a state of the art training center for her judges.
Through this entire process, Carole learned that she needs to find partners to accomplish her goals. No [wo]man is an island and she relied on outside resources. She said “it’s amazing what’s out there and that doesn’t cost anything.” Her advice to her colleagues is “get creative, it’s amazing what you can achieve.”
About Carole McMahon-Boies In May of 2014, the Nebraska Supreme Court named Carole McMahon-Boies as Administrator for Judicial Branch Education and the Attorney Services Division of the Nebraska Judicial Branch. As administrator for Attorney Services, Carole provides support to the Counsel for Discipline, Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Commission, Nebraska State Bar Commission, and the Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Additionally, she retained her position as education director for the Judicial Branch providing educational offerings for all judicial branch employees and judges. She has served as Director of Judicial Branch Education since October 2006. Prior to her position with the Court, Carole practiced law for 25 years mainly in the area of labor litigation. Several of her cases were the subject of published opinions in the Federal Circuit Courts and the Nebraska Supreme Court. She is a member of the bar in both Nebraska and Iowa and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. She is a past president of the Robert Van Pelt American Inns of Court. Her teaching experience includes adjunct faculty for many years with Nebraska Wesleyan, Doane College, Union College, and Hamilton College where she taught Labor Law, Human Resource Management, Criminal Law, Contracts, and Business Law.
Greetings from Ohio! In this edition of “From the President”, I’d like to share my plans for the coming year.
After the conference concluded in Seattle, the Board held its traditional meeting. Before the meeting started, we had lunch with all available committee chairs, and I asked everyone to share a word or phrase that encapsulated their plans or hopes for the coming NASJE year. Click here to see a “word cloud” image of all the contributions.
My phrase was “come together.” NASJE is an organization made up of diverse members – while we do similar work, our methods to accomplish it vary greatly. We come from different areas of the world, our organizations are structured and perhaps funded differently, and we each develop education in our own unique method. An image that comes to mind is a tapestry woven together from many different threads. Each thread is distinct, but by weaving them together, a beautiful design is completed. Over my ten years as a member, I have observed that while NASJE members collaborate on an organizational level on some projects, such as the curriculum designs and our annual conferences, we could also come together at an even higher level in additional ways:
Gather information regularly from members regarding their educational offerings so that all can benefit from the information through sharing of materials or possibly attending courses of interest;
Partner with other judicial branch organizations such as NACM, COSCA, CCJ and others for the benefit of all, highlighting the important role of judicial branch educators (by attending and presenting at conferences, partnering on projects, etc.);
Coordinate with partner organizations in terms of scheduling webcasts, conferences and other activities to avoid overlapping complementary events;
Continue to document our internal processes and practices so that our volunteer leadership can more easily transition from year to year; and
Grow our social media presence to allow members to easily share information and to inform our partners and the public about NASJE activities.
Undoubtedly this idea can be explored further. I welcome you to share your thoughts with me via email at margaret.allen@sc.ohio.gov or by phone at 614-387-9464.
Board Activities: As always, your Board is hard at work on your behalf. Today at our Board meeting, we’re going to approve the 2016 budget, finalize the location of the 2017 and 2018 conferences (to be held in the Southeast and Midwest, respectively), and continue to use the Strategic Planning Document as a guide as we look ahead.
COSCA Midyear Meeting: I had the pleasure of meeting many of your state court administrators at the Conference of State Court Administrators in early December at their midyear meeting. Our organizations have many shared interests, including a commitment to excellent education, a focus on diversity, and a mission to improve the administration of justice. I was able to share NASJE resources during committee meetings, including our curriculum designs, as well as thank them for their support of your participation in NASJE and encourage those states without NASJE members to consider membership in the new year. You’ll be interested to know that Washington State Court Administrator and NASJE member Callie Dietz is COSCA’s Education Committee Chair – great to see a NASJE member in that important role.
NASJE Website: I encourage you to visit www.nasje.org regularly to read articles of interest to judicial branch educators and learn about committee activities, regional meetings, and other resources. Click here for a calendar of committee meeting dates and times. These will also be entered into the calendar (click “Calendar” on the black menu bar at the top of the home page). Email addresses for Board members and committee chairs are on the Board and Committees page, respectively.
NASJE on Social Media: Have you joined the NASJE LinkedIn page or the Judicial Educators Facebook page yet? Social media is an easy way to share relevant information and keep in touch with NASJE colleagues, as well as raise our profile.
Giving Tuesday: Many thanks to those who made a tax-deductible contribution on Giving Tuesday (and throughout the year). NASJE has received nearly $1,000 in donations since the conference – funds that will grow our endowment and support conference scholarships and other initiatives.
As you can see, our organization has a lot of irons in the fire. In Seattle, Immediate Past President Kelly Tait concluded her excellent welcoming remarks to conference attendees with this William Butler Yeats quote – “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” I’ll end here with the observation that NASJE’s fire is burning brightly, thanks to the energy and contributions of all kinds from our committed members.
I wish you all the best for a wonderful end to 2015 and a superb start to 2016. It is a privilege to serve our organization as President, and I look forward to working with you all over the coming year.
Larry Stone is the embodiment of the qualities the Karen Thorson Award recognizes: a deep, abiding positive influence on our organization and our profession. The award was presented to him at NASJE’s 2015 Annual Conference in Seattle (October 4-7).
Below is two-minute video clip of Karen Thorson introducing Larry, the recipient of the award, followed by a portion of Larry’s acceptance speech. The full video of the award ceremony can be viewed here.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri, Patricia Breckenridge, presented NASJE member, Anthony Simones, with the Missouri Chief Justice’s Award for Judicial Civics on October 8, 2015 at the annual Missouri Judicial Conference. The award recognizes excellence and leadership in promoting education about the courts.
Dr. Simones is the Manager of Judicial Education for the state of Missouri and has been a member of NASJE since taking the position four years ago.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri, Patricia Breckenridge, presented NASJE member, Anthony Simones, with the Missouri Chief Justice’s Award for Judicial Civics
Commenting on his impact, Chief Justice Breckenridge stated: “When Dr. Simones joined the Office of State Courts Administrator he had been a professor at Dalton State College and was a nominee for both the Georgia Professor of the Year and the Carnegie Foundation U.S. Professor of the Year. Georgia’s loss is our gain. In just four short years, he has brought his enthusiasm to virtually every aspect of judicial education.”
Noting the specific initiatives of which he has been a part, Breckenridge observed: “Dr. Simones is a true ambassador for the judiciary. His development of the Court Management Institute and Judicial Leadership Conference reflects his genuine passion for the judicial system.”
“Tony also has the unique ability to engage any audience in learning,” Breckenridge noted. “An integral member of the Civic Education Review subcommittee, his creativity is evident in every presentation developed for use by members of the judiciary and educators.”
“Dr. Simones has been the heart and soul of the civic education effort and I am pleased to recognize his contribution today,” Breckenridge concluded.
“To be recognized in this manner is an extraordinary honor,” Dr. Simones said in response to the award. “But to receive it from Chief Justice Breckenridge, someone for whom I have such respect and admiration, someone who was the driving force behind the civic education initiative in this state, makes it especially meaningful.”
Rob Godfrey is Conference Coordinator for the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts in Salt Lake City.
On February 25, 2016, NASJE’s Northeastern Region sponsored a webinar for NASJE members entitled Procedural Fairness for Court Staff: A Brief Curriculum for Teaching, facilitated by Kelly Tait, Immediate Past President of NASJE, and Joan Bishop, NASJE Northeastern Region Director. About 55 people participated in the webinar. It was a very quick-moving and informative exploration of how and why judicial branch educators should include the topic of procedural fairness in education programs for court personnel as well as judges.
Natalie Carrillo is a Research and Evaluation Assistant at Pima County Juvenile Court (Tucson, AZ) where she works on the Disproportionate Minority Contact Intervention Project among other court projects.
Matthew Estes is a Training and Education Coordinator for the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County. In that role, he brings trainings to judicial staff across many different platforms, and works specifically with juvenile detention and probation staff to meet their training needs on a case-by-case basis. Previously, Matthew was an instructor and curriculum designer at the high school and community college levels.
In 2004, judicial education became mandatory for Nebraska judges, probation and Court staff. In 2005, judicial branch education staff were hired, and in 2006 the program was designed and launched. The funding for the mandatory judicial education program came from “dollar filing fees” meaning a dollar from every filing fee received was directed towards the program. The fund receives approximately $374,000 per year which has not been a tremendous budget for growing a program.
While Carole misses her old historic office setting, she’s enthusiastic about her new modern home equipped with state of the art technology. The training center has four training rooms, all equipped with 90” screen video TVs that are networked but can also operate autonomously, there is a retractable curtain to partition the rooms for quick accommodation, and significant acoustics attributed to the top-notch speaker system.
About Carole McMahon-Boies
