In his recent
opinion piece, Portland attorney, Peter Murray, has written
a thoughtful, serious analysis of troubling symptoms coming from Maine's
probate courts, along with a call for reform and his thoughts about how to do
probate reform. In so doing, he appears to use as inspiration the recently
reported symptoms of the Biddeford ProbateCourt and JudgeNadeau. It is encouraging for members of the public to hear a distinguished
lawyer "thinking out loud" about any form of court reform, and Mr.
Murray is to be congratulated for his courage and public spirited effort. However, in our view, there is a great need
for a much broader, more extensive public conversation about court reform, a
conversation not limited to just probate courts, nor limited in participation
to the "legal guild"
talking to itself.
Our observation is
that there are troubling symptoms pouring forth from other types of courts, as
well that merit public conversation. We are aware of widespread, public
dissatisfaction with Maine's familycourts. There are also noises calling for reform of criminal justice
systems. While not claiming expertise in these matters - to us (and many
others) there appears to be considerable symptomatic smoke in these various
court sub-systems. Is there also fire? In this connection, it should also be
noted that Maine courts seem to get consistently low grades (F) in national surveys, and also that a
numerical grade of 43% (out of 100%) is not a brilliant grade. These outside
evaluations suggest that we have no cause to be smug about the functional
quality of our Maine courts. What to do and how to do it is a conundrum. Who is
to take charge? Who is to investigate,
what is the nature of the problem(s) and who is to take responsibility for
systemic repairs or remodeling?
To many, there is a
problem with simply correcting a symptom. As an approach, it often ignores
other fault lines in a total system and is inadequate for any complex systemic
problem-solving. There is also another problem-solving danger for court reform:
that of attempted "solutions" to such problems getting trapped by the
perspective of a particular professional culture. An outside evaluation of the
entire system and how it is working for client users, the public, is needed. We
would ask the decidedly, populist question: who owns the court system (probate
and otherwise)? For whose benefit are they working? How do taxpayers fit into making the
change-decisions involved in court reform? Many people today will feel that a
"guild knows best" approach is elitist, exclusionary and wrong. These
comments are not intended to be disrespectful of Mr. Murray. As we move
forward, there will be more and more populist questions asked by a
consumer-oriented public that is used to the open systems of media. Paternalistic, professional answers by
themselves will not suffice.
In this regard, Mr.
Murray's remark that voting invites "problems for judges", comes
across as distinctly exclusionary. With all due respect, it is "tone
deaf" for populist times. No question but voting for judges does invite
problems. The "root" problem he proposes to avoid is called
"democracy". Democracy is a messy business. However, many would say:
so is the current process admired by Murray for the selection of district and
superior court judges. It operates below the public's radar: Behind closed doors, oligarchic bar grandees
select judicial nominees, these are then privately sold to the governor and
then rubber-stamped by the legislature that is presented a near 'fait accompli'
the tidal movement of which is difficult (nearly impossible) to reverse. The
current judicial appointment process doesn't inspire awe or respect in the
public who "consume" court service. The potential for cronyism and
patronage in the current opaque process is nearly unlimited.
We would suggest to
Mr. Murray et al that there is a serious need for an in-depth look at the total
court system, that there is a need for a thoughtful, careful analysis by
outside consultants who are experienced in advising on the rehabilitation and
repair of large government systems. Some of the consulting resources of a Harvard Business School might
come to mind- just as an example. To us, Mr. Murray appears to be prescribing a
"band- aid" to cover probate courts. The public wants and deserves
much more.
Mr. Murray has made
a brave beginning to a much needed court reform "conversation" in the
press recently. For this he deserves our
thanks. However, this "conversation" needs to continue and expand
bringing in those civilians who use (and pay for the courts) while being denied
the input of normal ownership. Those "who pay the piper" ought to
have something to say about the "tunes" that get played. We all -
civilians and legal professionals alike - need technical help from out of state
consultants in how best to get our arms around the problem and how to set
direction for the best interests of the public.
We sincerely ask
that the press continue this much needed conversation about Maine court reform.
MeGAL
has been working towards reforming Family Court vendors (Guardians ad litem and
the use of 'court experts') as well as Family Courts. We can be contacted at
MeGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.
Maine received an (
F ) recently in many aspects of our state government. Regarding Judicial
Accountability Maine received a score of 43 ( F ). This is not the first time
Maine has received an ( F ). For further information about Maine and other
states follow this [ LINK ].
No comments:
Post a Comment