Fall 2009-#18. Vermont Commission on Judicial Operation.


Vermont Bar Journal


Fall 2009-#18.

Vermont Commission on Judicial Operation

THE VERMONT BAR JOURNALVolume 35, No. 3Fall 2009 Vermont Commission on Judicial OperationCharge and Designation

The General Assembly, by statue, has recognized that the allocation of resources in the judiciary, including judges and staff and operating expenses, is controlled to a great degree by statute and does not always allow fexibility to meet the judiciary's constitutional responsibilities in the most effcient and effective manner.

The General Assembly has also recognized that the new technologies, including video transmission and electronic documents and fling, provide opportunities to increase effciency while maintaining or improving access to judicial proceedings.

The General Assembly has requested the Supreme Court to appoint and convene a commission on judicial operation to consist of members representing the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government and persons representing the citizens of Vermont in a number determined by the Court.

A. Charge

The Vermont Commission on Judicial Operation is hereby established for the purpose of developing specifc proposals for consideration of the General Assembly and making recommendations from time to time by report to the Senate and House Committees on Judiciary and Appropriations, the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions, and the Senate Committee on Government Operations in the areas identifed below. By January 15, 2009, the Commission shall report to those committees with specifc proposals regarding subdivision (1) identifed below with accompanying draft legislation to implement these proposals, and by January 15, 2010 that shall address the following areas;

(1) Consolidation of staff, including clerks of courts, paid by the state within judiciary budget and consolidation of staff functions across courts in individual counties and statewide; (2) Regionalization of court administrative functions, both those now performed at the state level and those performed at the county level; (3) Use of technology, including video technology, to reduce unnecessary expenditures, including transport of prisoners, while improving access and maintaining the quality of adjudication; (4) Flexibility in use of resources to respond to the demands on the judiciary overall...

To continue reading