Commentary
It is the view of the committee that the selection and duties of a presiding judge should be enumerated in a court rule rather than in a statute. It is also our view that one rule should apply to all levels of court and include single judge courts. Therefore, the rule should be a GR (General Rule). The proposed rule addresses the process of selection/removal of a presiding judge and an executive committee. It was the intent of the committee to provide some flexibility to local courts wherein they could establish, by local rule, a removal process. Additionally, by delineating the selection criteria for the presiding judge, the committee intends that a rotational system of selecting a presiding judge is not advisable.
Commentary
In training and preparing the designated Presiding Judge Pro Tempore to fulfill presiding judge duties, a Presiding Judge from a single judge court should address the significant and nondelegable administrative, budgetary, and personal responsibilities of a presiding judge under this court rule, any obligations under collective bargaining agreement(s) or law(s) applicable to court personnel, interjurisdictional relations, and executive and legislative branch collaborations.
If it becomes necessary for the Chief Justice to appoint a Presiding Judge Pro Tempore for a single judge court pursuant to RCW 2.56.040(2) or other authority, then the State Court Administrator or the Chief Justice may consider consulting with the local executive or legislative authorities prior to the appointment.
Commentary
Whether caseload adjustments need to be made depends on the size and workload of the court. A recognition of the additional duties of the Presiding Judge by some workload adjustment should be made by larger courts. For example, the Presiding Judge could be assigned a smaller share of civil cases or a block of time every week could be set aside with no cases scheduled so the Presiding Judge could attend to administrative matters.
Commentary
The trial courts must maintain control of the working conditions for their employees. For some courts this includes control over some wage-related benefits such as vacation time. While the executive branch maintains control of wage issues, the courts must assert their control in all other areas of employee relations.
With respect to the function of the court clerk, generally the courts of limited jurisdiction have direct responsibility for the administration of their clerk's office as well as the supervision of the court clerks who work in the courtroom. In the superior courts, the clerk's office may be under the direction of a separate elected official or someone appointed by the local judges or local legislative or executive authority. In those cases where the superior court is not responsible for the management of the clerk's office, the presiding judge should communicate to the county clerk any concerns regarding the performance of statutory court duties by county clerk personnel.
A model job description, including qualification and experience criteria, for the court administrator position shall be established by the Board for Judicial Administration. A model job description that generally describes the knowledge, skills, and abilities of a court administrator would provide guidance to Presiding Judges in modifying current job duties/responsibilities or for courts initially hiring a court administrator or replacing a court administrator.
Commentary
This provision recognizes the Presiding Judge as the official spokesperson for the court. It is not the intent of this provision to preclude other judges from speaking to community groups or executive or legislative branches of state or local government.
Commentary
The proposed rule also addresses the duties and general responsibilities of the presiding judge. The language in subsection (d), (e), (f) and (g) was intended to be broad in order that the presiding judge may carry out their responsibilities. There has been some comment that individual courts should have the ability to change the "duties and general responsibilities" subsections by local rule. While our committee has not had an opportunity to discuss this fully, this approach has a number of difficulties:
It would create many "Presiding Judge Rules," all of which are different. It could subject some municipal and district court judges to pressure from their executive and/or legislative authority to relinquish authority over areas such as budget and personnel. It would impede the ability of the BJA through AOC to offer consistent training to incoming presiding judges.The Unified Family Court subgroup of the Domestic Relations Committee suggested the presiding judge is given specific authority to appoint judges to the family court for long periods of time. Again the committee has not addressed the proposal; however, subsections (e) and (f) do give the presiding judge broad powers to manage the judicial resources of the court, including the assignment of judges to various departments.
Commentary
Subsection (g) provides an option for an executive committee if the presiding judge and/or other members of the bench want an executive committee.
Wash. Gen. R. GR 29