The Colorado Judicial Coordinating Council Works to Improve the Judiciary

• Jurisdiction: Colorado,United States
• Citation: Vol. 31 No. 1 Pg. 37
• Pages: 37
• Publication year: 2002

31 Colo.Law. 37 Colorado Lawyer 2002.

2002, February, Pg. 37. The Colorado Judicial Coordinating Council Works to Improve the Judiciary

Vol. 31, No. 1, Pg. 37

The Colorado Lawyer
February 2002
Vol. 31, No. 2 [Page 37]

Departments
Judges' Corner
The Colorado Judicial Coordinating Council Works to Improve the Judiciary
by Andrew S. Armatas

On December 5, 1996, the first meeting of the Colorado Judicial Coordinating Council ("CJCC" or "Council") was held at the Byron White U.S Courthouse in Denver. The Council's initial membership was appointed by U.S. Circuit Judge John C. Porfilio and Chief Justice Anthony F. Vollack of the Colorado Supreme Court and includes eleven judges representing various county district, state, and federal courts.1This article describes the Council's purpose and a few of the issues it currently has under consideration

Purpose of the CJCC

The Council's charter was adopted on March 15, 1997, and states:

The purpose of this council is to:

—improve and expedite the administration of justice by state and federal courts in this state;

—promote and encourage harmonious judicial relationships between the state and federal judicial systems within the state;

—promote discussion and the sharing of information and resources for resolution of common problems;

—maintain a resource for state and federal judges to utilize to eliminate conflicts between jurisdictions; and

—foster greater understanding of the roles each of our courts plays in those matters which give rise to conflict and interchange between state and federal judicial systems.

Although the Council has no enactment authority, it has encouraged the interchange of information between the federal and state judiciaries. As one judge has stated:

Any consideration of long-range planning for state and federal courts must be governed by realism. This is doubly true in the case of state-federal judicial councils because they are ad hoc bodies—they have no legal status and are invested with no regulatory or administrative authority. . . . However, that does not mean that they have to shy away from activities that can contribute to long-range planning for the courts. . . . Councils can be a place where the issues are considered on a practical level, experiences are exchanged, and pragmatic answers to problems are developed. The work of councils in this area could inform...