The Gavel

The Editors Corner

Judge Charles M. Travis

Contact Editor at :

2121 Euclid Ave., Rolling Meadows, Il. 60008

847-818-2508FAX 847-818-2766

A publication of the Illinois Judges Association is published quarterly.

Editor

Charles M. Travis

Editorial Board:

Tom Dunn; Kathleen B. Elliott;William Madden;Stuart A. Nudelman;Ronald Spears;John Tourtelot;Susan Trungate;Bonnie Wheaton;David Youk;

Kathy McEnroe, Exec. Secy.Editorial Advisor: Steven Levy, Esq.

Editorial Assistant:Susan Sadlier, Esq.

judgetravis@msn.com

Volume 22 SUMMER Issue 3

Inside this issue:

Special points of interest:

•Write the Right Order 4

•Judges in the Classroom6

•Ridin' the Circuits8

•Court Advocates - A Safer Community10

•Judicial Education In Illinois11

•Around & About the Traffic Center12

•Judicial Selection - Time for Change?17

•Appellate Standards of Review18

•Editors Corner20

The Gavel
Illinois Judges Association
321 South Plymouth Court
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Phone: 312-431-1283;

888-431-1283

Fax: 312-554-2054

Email: info@ija.org

President's Message Hon. Tim Slavin

It is really quite difficult to believe that my year as leader of this fine organization is more than half over. It has gone quickly, too quickly, but I do want you to know about what has been accomplished.

In December I promised that I would devote some time and energy to dealing with the "nuts and bolts' of our association. At its mid-year meeting, the Board of Directors passed a real budget for the coming year, put its stamp of approval on a comprehensive financial policy, and gave the by-laws a considerable makeover. This sort of business may seem mundane, and it probably is. However, it is not form over substance as it is attention to this kind of structure that gives a group institutional form and memory. There are lots of people to thank, including the Board, for having the confidence to do what was necessary to take us up another level.

The issue of widespread interest and concern is Senate Bill 1020 which is the pending piece of legislation to enhance our pension benefits As you all know by now, we had a good run at it through the final hours of the spring legislative session. At the last minute, the third reading was extended to December, 1999.

There is little doubt that if we can get this bill to the floor, hopes for its passage are high. Having a vote conducted at all has been the obstacle. Nevertheless, the proposal remains pending and we are doing everything we can to have it called in the fall. We did not fail, we just have not yet succeeded!

The Retired Judges Committee continues to work on a proposal for senior status for retired judges and a final product is in the offing. The Associate Judges Committee is likewise about to advance suggestions for their initiatives as well.

I am sorry to report that our First Vice-President, Judge Bill Hibbler, concomitant with his ascendancy to the federal bench, has resigned his office with the IJA. I know that we will all miss Bill and wish him Godspeed in his new position.

Pursuant to our newly revised by-laws, the Third Vice-President, Judge Pat McCann will leap-frog into the first vice-presidency in order to keep the alternating Cook County and downstate rotation intact.

The nominating committee will meet on September 10th to produce a slate of officers and board for next year. Any member who is interested in being considered should forward a request to the IJA office in care of Kathy McEnroe either by e-mail, telephone or regular post.

I look forward to the events and challenges of the ensuing months and to seeing you all at our annual meeting on December 9th, 10th, and 11^th.

•

Minutes of the IJA Board

July 19, 1999

Editors Note: These minutes of the July 9^th meeting of the Board of Directors are presented for informational purposes and have not been approved by the Board of Directors.

July 9, 1999 at 4:00 PM at Nordic Hills Resort, Itasca, Illinois.

President Tim Slavin call the meeting to order.

Those Board Members m attendance were:

Philip B. Benefiel, Donald D. Bemardi, Terrence J. Brady, Iudifil M. Brawka, Dennis J. Burke, Robert L Carter, Rosemary Collins, Jacqueline P. Cox, Joy V. Cunningham, Grace G. Dickler, Gino L. Divito, Michael R. Galasso, Daniel T. Gillespie, James F. Henry. Raymond L. Jagielski, Barbara C. Gilleran Johnson, Ann B. Jorgensen, Patrick .I. Leston, Michele F. Lowrance, Stephen C. Mathers, Patrick E. McGann, J. Patrick Morse, James Obbish, Stephen G. Sawyer, William G. Schwartz, Timothy J. Slavin, John O Steele, Jane L. Stuart, and Mary Jane Theis.

Also present: Nancy Jo Arnold. Co-Chair, Judicial Discipline Committee; Charles M. Travis, Editor, The Gavel; and Kathy McEnroe, Executive Secretary.

Upon a motion duly made, seconded and recorded, the minutes of the December 12, 1998 Board of Directors were approved.

Judge Slavin indicated that the Associate Judge Committee is drafting a proposed amendment to Rule 39.

Benefits and Pensions Committee report. Delivered by Judge Leston The AOIC mileage reimbursement policy has been changed and improved.

Budget and Finance Committee report delivered by Judge Slavin . The financial reports were review and explained. Judge Slavin presented the revised Financial and Reimbursement Policy. Following discussion about changes to the prior policy. Judge Galasso moved to approve the new policy. Judge Stuart seconded and the motion was unanimously approved.

The budget for fiscal year 2000 was presented by Judge Slavin. Several amendments were made during the course of discussion. Judge Stuart moved to approve the budget as as amended. Judge Collins seconded and file motion was unanimously approved.

The revised by-laws were presented and reviewed by Judge Schwartz . Following the discussion, Judge Carter moved to approve the new by-laws as amended. Judge Dickler seconded and the motion was unanimously approved.

The Convention Committee report delivered by Judge McGann. Thc Convention will take place December 9, 10, and 11, 1999.

The Court Facilities and Security Committee Report delivered by Judge Morse. The committee submitted one facility report during this year.

Editors note: According to President Slavin, the results of the facilities inspection, evaluation, and report is a very effective tool in convincing the county board to provide the funds for improvement of the facilities.

The Electronic Media Committee report was distributed with the materials. The IJA budget allows for a donation to Prairienet, the website server, of $1,000.

The Government Affairs Committee report delivered by Judge Galasso. The committee is meeting with legislators to insure that the Compensation Review Board continues with active members. Judge Galasso indicated that

the current legislature is not interested in pursuing legislation regarding reducing the pay differential between Associate and Circuit judges. The Committee continues to closely monitor Senate Bill 1020 dealing with changes to the pension bill. Judge Slavin thanked Judges Galasso and the board for their help in contacting legislators

The Judicial Discipline Committee report delivered by Judge Jorgensen. The committee considered drafting an amendment to Supreme Court Rule 63A. After studying the rule the committee felt that an amendment was not warranted.

The Judicial Retention and Selection Committee report delivered by Judge Jagielski . The committee recommended that the IJA take no position on merit retention at this time.

Editors Note: See the article by Judge Jagielski in this issue.

Liaison Committee report by Justice Theis. The committee works to strengthen relationships with other bar organizations.

Editors Note: Justice Thies advised that the committee had meetings with the CBA and ISBA to discuss items of mutual interest and to maintain a close working relationship with those associations.

Thc Membership Committee report delivered by Judge Obbish. The IJA will offer complimentary membership m new judges appointed during the year. Dues will be payable, however at thc beginning of the fiscal year.

Public Relations was discussed by Judge Slavin. The budget allows for the continued services of the public relations consultant at the rate of $1,000/mo. Judge Slavin thanked Judge Travis for his excellent work on The Gavel.

The Judicial Response Team report delivered by Judge Benefiel. The team has responded to five cases throughout the year. Judge Cox suggested that the service be made available only to members of the IJA.

The Retired Judges Committee report by Judge Slavin who indicated that the committee is studying senior status for retired judges. They are looking into the issue of whether an amendment to the constitution is necessary.

Judge Slavin asked for ideas on improving the IJA Yearbook.

There being no further business, meeting was .adjourned.

229 Applicants for

14 Vacancies in CookCounty

Chief Judge Donald P. O'Connell announced on July 19th that he has received 229 applications for the current associate judge vacancies. Originally the vacancies numbered six, however with the resignations of Associate Judges William J. Hibbler and Joan M. Kubalanza and the mandatory retirement of Associate Judges Lawrence W. Carroll, Carl J. Cipolla, Calvin H. Hall, Mitchell Leiken, Clarance S. Lipnick and Wendy P Marbly the number has increased to the 14.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 39, "… the chief judge of each circuit and at least two but not more that ten additional circuit judges.." shall serve as a nominating committee to select the 28 candidates who will be certified to the Supreme Court. The circuit judges will cast secret ballots prepared and tallied by the Administrative office of the Illinois Courts under the supervision of the Supreme Court to determine who of the candidates will become associate judges.

The nominating committee is as follows:

Judge Francis Barth, Presiding Judge, Chancery Division; Judge Judith Cohen, Presiding Judge, Law Division; Judge Jacqueline P. Cox, Presiding Judge, Municipal District One; Judge Timothy C. Evans, Presiding Judge, Domestic Relations Division; Judge Thomas R. Fitzgerald, Presiding Judge, Criminal Division; Judge Sophia H. Hall, Administrative Presiding Judge, Juvenile Justice and Child Protection Resource Section; and Judge Anthony S. Montelione, Presiding Judge, Municipal District Five

QILDRO

(Qualified Illinois Domestic

Relations Order)

By Rudy Kink, Manager, Judges Retirement

The Illinois General Assembly established the Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) effective July 2, 1999. The QILDRO allows for the division of a retirement benefit or a refund of contributions due to divorce. It does not establish a new benefit, nor does it create a new member or beneficiary.

Generally, the QILDRO orders the payment of a benefit to the spouse, a child or other dependent The QILDRO does not apply a lump sum death benefit, survivor annuities, or disability benefits.

The QILDRO is usually issued at the time of divorce and sent to file member's retirement system. The QILDRO must state when it would go into effect and the specific dollar amount to be deducted from a refund or retirement benefit.

A QILDRO expires if the member takes a refund prior to retirement or dies. A QILDRO would also expire if the alternate payee dies, and the benefit would be returned to the member. The benefit may not be passed on to another person.

Any member, who has questions about a QILDRO should discuss it with their attorney. It a QILDRO will be used in a divorce settlement, the member should contact the retirement system in which they participate.

QILDRO Court Action.A suit has been filed in tile Cook County Circuit Court challenging the constitutionality of the QILDRO law. We have asked the Attorney General's office to intervene in this case to quickly resolve the status of the QILDRO legislation.

WRITE THE RIGHT ORDER Judge Charles M. Travis

The primary function of a trial judge is to rule on issues relating to controversy brought before the court. That ruling is memorialized in the form of a written Order that is presented to the judge, and when signed, forms a record of the proceedings. Notwithstanding that the Order is almost always the work product of one of the litigant's attorneys, it is, nonetheless a reflection of the judge whose signature appears on that document.

The sad truth is that too frequently the Order or Judgment presented to the court fails to sufficiently represent or memorialize that which occurred before the court, whether trial, hearing or status. This is especially significant where no court reporter or transcribing device was available to record the event, although, the principles applicable to the preparation of a proper order should apply regardless of whether the proceeding was transcribed or not.

It is the obligation of every trial judge to insure that all orders presented for entry conform to minimum standards of form, content, and legibility for the sake of the record, the sanctity of the proceeding and the benefit of the litigants.

The purpose of this article, therefore, is to revisit the issue of appropriate court orders in terms of form and substance. It was originally written for the benefit of attorneys and published in the Northwest Suburban Bar Association, NewsBriefs. It is hoped that trial judges will convey its contents as necessary to assist attorneys in the preparation of an appropriate court order that will meet the minimum standards test.

Before presenting the order to the court, the attorney should read it with a critical eye. Does it memorialize all that occurred at the hearing in sufficient detail that satisfies the who, what, where, when and why with the specificity necessary to enforce the rights of parties? Does the Order recite the necessary statutory language? Keep in mind, the document you present to the Court is the Court's Order and reflects upon that Judge as well as the attorney preparing it. The Judge has the right to insist that it be appropriate in form and content before signing it.

The downside to a poorly drafted order is that its terms may be so ambiguous or non-existent that clarification may be required to inform the parties of rights and obligations. This may, in turn, require one or more court appearances and many hours of otherwise unnecessary time to correct.

What is a Court Order. A court Order [or judgment*] is a written pronouncement by a Court of its decision on issues regarding the rights of a party to a lawsuit and serves several purposes. A "judgment" is the official and authentic decision of a court of justice upon the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action or suit therein litigated and submitted to its determination, and it is the expression of the court's decision that constitutes the rendition of the judgment. People ex rel. Schwartz v. Fagerholm, 1959, 17 Ill.2d 131, 161 N.E.2d 20. In the first instance and especially significant in cases where there is no reporter or recording device present at the hearing, the Order serves as a record of the proceedings and action of the Court and acts to preserve the record for future reference. Secondly, it establishes rights and creates duties upon the parties or others that are enforceable by the contempt power of the Court. A Judgment must be responsive to pleadings and relief should not be granted where not pleaded. Zelko for Use of Oostema v. Homewood Sav. and Loan Ass'n, App.1959, 20 Ill.App.2d 481, 156 N.E.2d 233. Thirdly, the Order may provide a basis for appeal. An Order is final and appealable when it terminates litigation on merits of case and determines rights of parties either upon entire controversy or upon some definite and separate part of it. Rizzo v. Board of Fire and Police Com'rs of Village of Franklin Park, Cook County, App. 1 Dist.1975, 33 Ill.App.3d 420, 337 N.E.2d 735

Who is responsible to prepare the Order? The prevailing party, through its attorney; typically prepares the Order which is then submitted to the opposing side or sides for approval of the form and content of the Order. It is then is presented to the Court for entry by the signature of the Judge. Unfortunately, too frequently, the order as presented to the Court fails to meet the basic test of acceptability and notwithstanding that the Judge may sign the Order, nonetheless it is deficient.

THE TEST OF A WELL WRITTEN ORDER.

A well written order should satisfy the following criteria:

1. Is the Order legible? The document should be legible so it can be easily read. The Order, when hand written should be printed so that it can be easily deciphered. What is the message to the Judge to whom a poorly written and barely legible Order is presented. For openers, one conclusion is that the person preparing the document was lazy and inconsiderate. That message extends to every other person who is forced to decipher such an Order.

2. Is the Order clear in its meaning without reference to another document? If a person with no familiarity with the case were to read the document, would it be clear on its face as to what occurred before the court without reference to another document. What was the basis for the relief requested? Any special considerations? What were the issues presented for consideration? If the court conducted a hearing on the issues presented, is the Order dispositive of each of the issues presented in the Petition or is it necessary for the reader to look to the Petition to understand what took place at the hearing.

3. Does the Order contain the required statutory language? Does the statute under which the relief is sought require that the trial judge make specific findings on questions of fact and jurisdictional issues? In such cases, the Order must recite such specific facts to give validity to the order and provide a basis for the Court to make a finding that is has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of the proceedings. Two examples: 1) For the case where the issue is the custody of a child; and, 2) A case involving bad faith pleadings under Rule 137. In each of these cases the Order or Judgment must recite that the trial court made specific findings of fact required by the statute and the order or pronouncements must logically flow from those findings. The failure of the order to contain this language may render the Order ineffective.

4. Is the language of the Order sufficiently clear and specific to place a party on notice as to the action required, and as such, to justify enforcement by rule of court to show cause for non-compliance? If the Order fails to be specific in its terms as it relates to the obligations of a person to perform, the enforcement power of the court will be unavailable. To enforce an Order of Court by Rule to Show Cause, the movant must recite the language of the Order which the alleged contemnor violated. If the language of the Order is unclear as to what was expected, then it would be inappropriate for the Court to issue a Rule.

5. Does the Order recite all that took place before the court [the parties present; the basis for the hearing before the court; the findings of fact by the court]? In many cases where a controversy arises over an issue presented to a court before whom there is no official court reporter or authorized recording device, the only record of the proceedings are the documents which have been filed with the Clerk of Court and the Orders entered by the Court. Beyond that there is only the memory of the parties. The significance of this scenario is that without an official record the Order is becomes the record. Where the Order is hastily drawn and the drafter fails to recite relevant facts which memorialize the events of court, the result is a poorly drafted order. The potential then exists for a later dispute as to its interpretation. When that occurs, neither the parties nor respective counsel will recall events with a similar mind-set. Inevitably the recall is from each parties own particular sense of reality which suits their self-interest. It is also possible that at the time the dispute arises that the players [attorney's, parties, judge, etc.] are other than those that participated in the original proceeding. Finally, as there is the passage of time there is dimming of recollection.

Preparing the Order - Contents.

The first paragraph or element of the Order. The first sentence of the first paragraph should contain the date of the hearing. [This cause coming on to be heard this __ day of _______, 199_ on the Motion …"] There are times when the clerk's date stamp is unclear or in conflict with other records. Reciting the date of the hearing in the body of the Order will serve as a reminder of the date and a secondary reference of the date the Order was entered. The contents of the first paragraph of the Order should include a recitation of the manner in which the issue was brought before the court; whether there were any responsive pleadings; prior Orders of Court which relate to the instant proceeding [this cause having been previously set for hearing this date by Order dated ------]; the parties present or absent; the attorney's present and participating in the action [in many cases the appearance is of the firm and it is not clear from the Order presented who the attorney was that participated]. Include a statement on any matters considered by he Court as a prelude to the hearing [stipulations, motion in limine, etc].

The second paragraph or element of the Order. The second element of the Order are the findings of fact made by the Court. The pronouncements of the court must be justified by its findings of fact. The findings of fact recited in the Order should track with the pleadings presented [the complaint or petition taken together with the answer or response that placed the matter in controversy before the court. The Order should recite the factual findings of all issues presented. It would be inappropriate for a Court to grant relief to a party through the issuance of an Order directing another to act or refrain from acting without first determining that facts exist to justify the Court's Order. In many cases the validity of an order is based upon the statutory pre-requisite that the trial court make certain findings of fact.

The final paragraph or element of the Order is the pronouncements of the Court, its ORDER.

The pronouncements of the Court must be consistent with, and flow from the findings of the court as recited in the Order. Each pronouncement should be in language that is clear and unequivocal in instructing a person to whom it is directed to perform or refrain from performing an act. A court Order which fails in this regard will not be enforceable by entry of a rule to show cause. Moreover, the additional time and effort resulting from such Order is a waste of judicial economy, a waste of the effort by the attorney and a cause for unnecessary expenses whether at the hand of the client or the attorney.

Finally, unless the Order or Judgement is dispositive of all issues relating to the case in chief and no further action will be necessary, the Order should include a date for further action [ex. "this cause is continued to 8-23-98 for status on discovery heretofore ordered on (date)". A Judgment is final if it terminates litigation on merits of the case and determines rights of parties so that if affirmed the trial court has only to proceed with execution of judgment; judgment is not final if court retains jurisdiction for future determination of a substantial controversy. Allabastro v. Wheaton Nat. Bank, App. 2 Dist.1980, > 46 Ill.Dec. 653, 91 Ill.App.3d 222, 414 N.E.2d 537.

The competency of the attorney is a principal factor when the court is called upon to consider the issue of attorney fees. While it is not always the case, the truth is more often than not that the competence of the attorney who drafts a court order deficient in its ability to meet minimum standards, will be consistently deficient in other areas of representation of the case, from drafting pleadings, to discover, to presentment of the case in chief.

Think about it!!

Judges

in the Classroom

By Stuart Nudelman

Illinois judges will visit classrooms around the state this fall to give students a firsthand account of how the justice system really works, thanks to an innovative educational program sponsored by the American Judicature Society and the Illinois Judges Association.

Judges in the Classroom aims to educate students about the courts by having judges visit classrooms to discuss real-life applications of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Students can ask questions about high profile cases and legal issues of special interest to them. Each class will also have an opportunity to visit the same judge at a later date in his or her courtroom.

The program, which is being done in conjunction with the American Judicature Society, can be tailored to classes of all grade levels. In an effort to promote diversity, many female and minority judges have been recruited to work on the project. Materials will be provided to the judge for his or her use.

Reaction to the program from both teachers and students who participated in it last spring has been overwhelming positive. "Students who were quiet all year long were most attentive and asked a lot of questions," said Frank Kamaryt, a teacher at Holy Cross Nigh School in River Grove. "Even after class, several students stayed later to continue the discussion."

The American Judicature Society, founded in 1913, is a national nonprofit organization of judges, lawyers and other members of the public who support improvements in the justice system. Judges in the Classroom is funded by a grant from the Open Society Institute.

Judges interested in the program may contact Nancy Biro of the AJS at (312)558-6900,xl17 or Stuart Nudelman at (847)470-7200.

RIDIN' THE CIRCUITS

Judges John Tourtelot & Kathy B. Elliot

NEWS FROM THE 21 ST

After much study, and preparation, Presiding Judge Gordon Lustfeldt, selected August 1999 as the projected date for the commencement of a Domestic Violence Diversion Court in Iroquois Comity. Nationally, most D.V. Courts are operating in urban areas where there is a greater density of participants and service providers than in a rural area. Finding trained service providers in less populated areas, the lower average income of participants, lack of public transportation, and lack of funding for additional court personnel and for abuser classes are special concerns. On June 28th the Twenty-first Judicial Circuit Family Violence Coordinating Council, through a grant from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, sponsored a symposium in Iroquois County in connection with the initiation of the Diversion Program.

Need a little help? Try networking! Facing an ever growing case load of DUI's and other traffic offenses, Associate Judges Sheldon W. Reagan and Susan S. Tungate of the 21st Circuit along with the Kankakee County Clerk and a prosecutor from the Kankakee County State's Attorney's office visited Winnebago County's (17th Circuit) traffic court near the end of May. Following the welcoming remarks from Chief Judge Michael Morrison, and Associate Judge Ron White, the visiting Judges were provided with a tour of the system. Associate Judges Angus More, John Tully, Ronald White and Judge Short answered questions and discussed possible solutions for Kankakee's overloaded system. Assistant State's Attorney Fred Fahndrich and Circuit Clerk, Menica Bauer, also met with their counterpart.

SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Hon. Thomas G. Russell, Chief Judge

Supreme Court Appoints Two Circuit Judges. The Illinois Supreme Court appointed Associate Circuit Court Judge Dent}is Schwartz of Carlinville and Sangamon County State's Attorney Patrick Kelley as circuit judges for thc Seventh Circuit on May 28, 1999. The vacancies were created by confirmation of Jeanne Scott to the Federal District Court for Central Illinois and the election of Sue E. Myerscough to the Fourth District Appellate Court.

Sangamon County Building New Juvenile Justice Complex. The county board of Sangamon County recently voted to proceed with building a juvenile justice complex. The complex will offer 58 beds for secure juvenile detention, day reporting, and program services for youths. Ground breaking is slated for the last week of July and they anticipate accepting the first residents in January 2001. Sangamon County is offering options to contract for approximately 31 beds of guaranteed bed space, interested persons should call Gary Dodge. Seventh Circuit Court Administrator.

Seventh Circuit Family Violence Coordinating Council Schedules Nationally Recognized Speaker. The Seventh Circuit Family Violence Coordinating Council has arranged for Ms. Anne O'Dell to speak at two one-day seminars on October 2O[h and 21st, 1999. Ms. O'Dell is a former detective sergeant with the San Diego Police Department with mere than 20 years of experience. The programs and training she developed to] the Sane Diego Police department resulted in the creation of the first Specialized Domestic Violence Investigations Unit, Her work is credited with reducing domestic violence homicides by 59% in a recent three year period. Her expertise in this field and background as a police officer make this seminar particularly informative to alt taw enforcernent officers, The seminar on October 20th will be held at the University of Illinois, Springfield. The October 21st seminar will be held in Jerseyville, Illinois at a site yet to be determined. Anyone interested in attending should contact Gary Dodge, Seventh Circuit Court Administrator at (217) /53-6350 to determine availability of seating.

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Hon. William A. Kelly, Chief Judge

Associate Judge Martin D. Hill, Lee County, has, announced his retirement from the bench, effective August 8, 1999. Judge Hill was elected as an Associate Judge in December, 1972 and was recently re-appointed. His most recent approval rating from the Illinois State Bar poll was 98.77.

Chief Judge William A. Kelly stated that Judge Hill will be sorely missed. His many years of outstanding service are greatly appreciated by all the judges who had the privilege of serving with him. Best Wishes Judge Hill.

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ESTABLISHES

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CAPITAL CASES

On March 8, 1999 the Illinois Supreme Court issued an Order, In re, Special Supreme Court Committee on Capital Cases. Its premise is to study the trial and sentencing processes in capital cases in Illinois, including the respective functions of the prosecution, defense counsel and the judiciary.

In its announcement, the Supreme Court stated that it wanted a committee in place to assimilate ideas which it expects to be forthcoming when the General Assembly establishes its sub-committee and the Illinois Attorney General establishes a similar group to study the problem.

The Court ordered the Committee to report on its findings and recommendations at its earliest opportunity. Following its initial report, the Committee shall continue to meet periodically until discharged by the Court.

The Committee will be Chaired by Judge Thomas R. Fitzgerald. Other members of the Committee are: Hon.Thomas Callum; Hon. Philip L. DiMarzio; Hon. Williams Cousins, Jr.; Hon. Thomas A. Hett; Hon. John R. DeLaMar; Hon. Themis N. Karnezis; Hon. Christopher C. Starck; Hon. Fred G. Suria, Jr.; Hon. William A. Kelly; Hon. Charles V. Romani, Jr.; Hon. Robert L. Welch; Hon. A. Andreas Matoesian; Hon. Joseph J. Urso; and Hon. Daniel M. Locallo.

In his concurrent opinion, Chief Justice Charles E. Freeman, joined in by Justice Benjamin Miller, expressed what they believed the proper scope of the inquiry to be undertaken by the Committee. The purpose and objective of the Committee, according to Justice Freeman is to provide a forum for debate which will, hopefully result in meritorious suggestions for improvement of the trial process in capital cases.

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting, questions the purpose this committee serves. He argues that the purpose in establishing the committee is to show that the Supreme Court is doing something regarding media induced concerns about the death penalty; that the creation of this committee is a public relations gesture pure and simple. Justice Heiple goes on to argue that, "Perfect justice, admittedly, can never be achieved in capital cases or any other area of the law." He cites, People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532 (1999), which he authored, which outright reversed both the conviction and death sentence of the defendant because the evidence failed to meet the requisite standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He states further, "significantly, the fact that a death penalty conviction may be reversed on appeal is not an indication that the system has failed. It is, rather, an indication that the system works. Finally, Justice Heiple argues, "whether or not one believes in the death penalty is a matter of moral and personal conviction. That proposition is wholly outside the purview of either the Supreme Court acting in its official capacity or this committee."

This Order from the Illinois Supreme Court can be viewed in its entirety on the IJA website.

A MESSAGE TO OUR MEMBERS.

It has been rewarding to hear comments that the format of the GAVEL has been well received. The goal of the GAVEL is to provide practical and useful information, on activities of the association; its judges and the circuits through which each of our state judges, active and retired have an interest. It also seeks to bring all of our judges together by providing a vehicle for communication. In every issue we hope to include information that will be useful in everyday work.

The GAVEL invites the submission of unsolicited articles, essays, and book reviews. Letters to the editor, intended for publication, are welcome.

To make this publication great, we would like to know what you would like to see included in this publication.

Please take a few minutes and let us know what you think about the GAVEL.

Thanks. CMT

The IJA WebPage*url:http//ija.org

A Publication of the Illinois Judges Association

David A Youck, Chairman [dayouck@prairienet.org]

It has all the information you need and a whole lot more. Have you tried the internet ?

If not, your missing out on a whole lot of goodies

The IJA Web Site - has all of this - and more:

§The latest appellate & supreme court decisions

§Complete information about the IJASearch engines

§Law Links- Public InformationJudge's Retirement1999 IJA Yearbook Court BoundariesJudges SeminarsInternet ResourcesJudge's Specialty AreasInvestments

§Judge's Insurance and Investing"The GAVEL",

§Online Member ApplicationsTravel Information for Judges

E-mail - its fast, cheap, convenient and FREE OF CHARGE

The IJA Web page is available 24 hours a day 7 days a week52 weeks of the year

eed Your

Illinois Supreme Court's

Comprehensive Judicial Education Plan

By now most Illinois Judges should have received a guidebook and Memorandum from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts setting forth the Comprehensive Judicial Education Plan for Illinois Judges. The Plan, endorsed by the Illinois Supreme Court, details judicial education programs, policies and procedures in a 16 page manual containing the names of schools and the calendar of programs offered for the year.

In his forward to the plan, Chief Justice Charles E. Freeman issued the formal statement of the Supreme Court encouraging each Illinois Judge to avail himself/herself at least 15 hours of judicial education annually.

Chief Justice Freeman highlighted several aspects of the Plan, as follows:

First, that Judicial Conference seminars remain the keystone of judicial education in Illinois;

Second, that the Plan re-establishes the large conference format, that while focused on education, addresses the need for judges from around the state to come together; and

Finally, that the Plan sets out an ambitious agenda for future growth and development.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE - It is the obligation of judicial office that each judge work to attain, maintain and advance judicial competency. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge "should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it" and "maintain professional competence in judicial administration". Judicial education is the primary means of achieving judicial competency

EDITOR'S NOTE: The booklet sent to each judge contains, amongst other things, a list of all of the approved schools with the courses, dates , and locations.

The Electronic Judge

Inclusion of the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) at http://www.legis.state.il.us/ilcs/chapterlist.html by the Illinois General Assembly (http://www.legis.state.il.us/) a few weeks ago is a giant leap forward in bringing Illinois laws to the citizens of our state for **FREE**!

The site has information about all Illinois Legislative Services, including Senate Schedules, House Schedules, Illinois Compiled Statutes, Illinois Constitution, Public Acts, Legislation, Illinois Legislators, and Legislative Support Services.

Just plug in a favorite phrase into the search box at http://www.legis.state.il.us/ilcs/search1.html and sit back to get all the state statutes containing those words in your search request!

For those judges with many Spanish-speaking parties before them, try visiting http://babelfish.altavista.com/cgi-bin/translate? for Two-Way Translation between English and French, German, Italian, Spanish or Portuguese. Try translating some of your common court forms. Just type in the word, phrase or sentence. Instant results! **FREE**

Don't forget to sign up for **FREE** email notification of Illinois Supreme and Appellate Court cases the day they come out (http://www.prairienet.org/fordiroq/law/email.htm). Kankakee attorney Adrienne Albrecht writes excellent and concise summaries of all the appellate case opinions (http://www.prairienet.org/fordiroq/law/appsumms.htm). *FREE**

Important IJA Meeting Dates

May 21

Task Force Meeting at Headquarters

June 4

Committee Reports for Board of Directors Due

July 9

Executive Committee Meeting

Mid-year Meeting of Board of Directors

September 10

Nominating Committee at HQ

September 17

Task Force Meeting at HQ

November 5

Executive Committee Meeting at HQ

November 19

Executive Committee Meeting at HQ

December 9 thru 11

Annual Meeting and Convention Commences

December 11

Annual Meeting of Membership

Annual Meeting of BOD

E-Mail Directory

The Association is in the

process of compiling an

E-Mail directory of IJA Members.

Please send your E-Mail

address by Fax or Mail to:

Executive Secretary:

Kathy McEnroe

or E-Mail your address to

info@ija.org.

ILLINOIS JUDGES

ASSOCIATION

TOTAL

MEMBERSHIP

960

COURT ADVOCATES

WORKING FOR A SAFER COMMUNITY

- By John Tourtelot

Some time ago judges working within the First Municipal District of Cook County became aware of individuals appearing regularly in their courts identifying themselves by name badges as court advocates. These people are not the court watchers we have come to recognize, but people who have volunteered to participate in a relatively new program which has as its aim the reduction of crime within the respective neighborhoods.

As it has often been said, Chicago is a city of neighborhoods. That observation, however, is true of most communities within Illinois. The Court Advocacy program was initiated as a tool in Chicago's Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) program through which neighbors and community leaders, working with the police, identify and track court cases and attend court sessions. It was originally designed as a support system within the CAPS program. CAPS is a community oriented philosophy of policing and crime prevention. In CAPS, the police, other government agencies and the community work together to identify and address problems of crime and work towards improving the quality of life in all Chicago neighborhoods.

Courtrooms that have come to be known as neighborhood courts in Cook County are located at 155 West 51st street (Branches 34 and 48), 3150 West Flournoy street (Branches 43 and 44), 5555 West Grand avenue (Branches 50 and 23), 2452 West Belmont (Branches 29 and 42) and 727 East 111th street (Branches 35 and 38). Each of these locations is within the neighborhoods of Chicago and the courtrooms are located within the Area police headquarters. Cases heard in those courtrooms include felony preliminary hearings and misdemeanor/city ordinance violations and involve prostitution, retail theft, criminal damage/defacement of property, disorderly conduct, minor drug charges, battery and assault complaints and a variety of city ordinance violations. [Crimes that affect the daily quality of life of the residents.]

The community is an active partner at all levels of the strategy employed by the CAPS program. Each police district has a District Advisory Committee that helps identify key issues and set broad priorities. Community groups, block clubs and individual residents meet regularly with their beat officers and other police personnel to discuss local problems and priorities. The primary goal, of course, is to reduce crime through communication with the police by sharing information about what is going on in the neighborhoods regarding gangs, drugs and other illegal activities. The purpose of the Court Advocacy subcommittee is to identify cases of concern to the community and to follow those cases in court. Some districts may wish to follow cases of robberies, rapes, drive-by shootings, drug activity etc. Other communities may identify abandoned buildings or slum landlords as the types of cases they want to track. Still others may identify taverns selling liquor to underage drinkers as a problem to be addressed. Working with the police and other city or county agencies the court advocates hope to eliminate the seeds of crime before it gets out of hand.

Participants in the Court Advocacy program feel that by their presence in court they send a message on behalf of the entire community to the alleged offender and other would-be offenders that crime will not go unnoticed in the police district. In addition their presence tells offenders that the community will not be intimidated by criminals and shows support for the victims and witnesses of crimes.

Each participant in the Advocacy Program is provided with a volunteer manual and is required to attend periodic CAPS meetings to maintain contact with members of the community and to learn of the crimes taking place and the concerns of the individuals who live in the neighborhoods. The manual is prepared by the Office of Court Advocacy Services in conjunction with Chief Judge Donald P. O'Connell's office, the American Bar Association and the Departments of Law and Police. The manual discusses such topics as court room decorum, an overview of the court system, how cases are prosecuted and courtroom locations. There is also a glossary of legal definitions so that each participant in court is given a better understanding of what is taking place during the proceedings.

The level of in-court participation of individuals who attend court as court advocates is, to a certain extent, regulated by the sitting judge in that particular courtroom. Some judges will allow the members to stand when a case is called that they, as members of the community, have an interest. Other judges will allow the court advocate to come up and stand behind the state's attorney or city corporation counsel. By tracking the disposition of the cases along with increases or decreases in crime it is hoped that a certain crimes are reduced and an overall reduction of crime within the community will be achieved.

Every community within the State is touched by some form of crime that has an impact on the quality of life experienced by the residents in their neighborhoods. It is felt that the Court Advocacy subcommittee, in conjunction with the CAPS Program, is an effective step towards making the neighborhoods a safer place to live.

If you believe your community would benefit from such initiatives and would like additional information on the CAPS program or court advocates program, contact Bill Wise in the CAPS office at (312) 747-9983.

Advisory Opinion - ILLINOIS JUDICIAL ETHICS COMMITTEE. IJEC

A joint Committee of the Chicago Bar, Illinois Judges and Illinois State Bar Associations

IJEC Advisory Opinions are prepared as an educational service to members of the IJA and to the public. While the Opinions express the LIEC interpretation of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct and uther relevant materials in regard to specific hypothetical fact situations, they are not binding on the Judicial Inquiry Board or the Courts Commission.

Opinion No. 99-1 January 12, 1999

FACTS

United Way has asked all the judges in an area to volunteer as "celebrity baggers" for a fundraising effort to be conducted at a local supermarket. The supermarket would advertise that it will donate ten percent of purchases to the United Way and that judges will be serving as celebrity baggers. Names of individual judges would not be used in the promotional materials.

RATIONALLE

The Committee believes that a judge's participation in the charitable fundraising effort would constitute the solicitation of funds for a charitable organization in violation of Supreme Court Rule 65B(2). That rule provides in pertinent part:

B. Civic and Charitable Activities. A judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon the judge's impartiality or interfere with the performance of the judge's judicial duties. A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, subject to the following limitations:

(2) A judge should not solicit or permit his or her name to be used in any manner to solicit funds or other assistance for any such organization... (Emphasis added.)

This Committee has repeatedly concluded that a judge may not solicit funds for charitable, educational, religious, fraternal and civic organizations, nor permit his or her name to be used for that purpose. See Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee ("IJEC") Opinion No. 93-5 (judge's name may not be used to solicit funds for nonprofit organization); IJEC Opinion No. 95-13 (judge may not solicit funds for civic organization or permit name to appear on letterhead used for that purpose); IJEC Opinion No. 96-3 (judge may not be a speaker at a university fundraiser); IJEC Opinion No. 96-4 (judge may serve as officer of religious institution, but may not solicit funds or list name on letterhead used for fundraising); IJEC Opinion No. 97-15 (same restrictions apply to judge's service as officer of charity). On the other hand, Supreme Court Rule 64C permits a Judge to assist in raising funds for an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, so long as the judge does not personally participate in public fundraising activities. See IJEC Opinion No. 95-22 (applying Rule 64C to judge's service on charitable arm of bar association).

This Committee has also concluded that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 65A, a judge may "engage in the arts" in a manner that has the incidental effect of helping raise funds for a nonprofit organization, at least where fundraising is not the judge's motivation for participating and the judge's participation cannot reasonably be expected to appreciably benefit the fundraising effort. See IJEC Opinion No. 95-23 (judge may assume non-leading role in play benefiting nonprofit civic organization). See also IJEC Opinion No. 93-3 (judge's service as board member of university may be mentioned in non-fundraising literature included with informational packet accompanying fundraising effort).

Here, the judge's activity would be directly and solely intended to assist a charity's fundraising efforts. Although written promotional materials for the fundraiser may not identify any participating judges by name, if an individual judge is identified as such at the fundraiser he or she would be permitting their name to be used to solicit funds in violation of Rule 65B(2). Even if a judge is never identified by name and position, the judge's participation would involve soliciting funds for the charity because the judge's participation would unquestionably be intended to help raise funds. By its express terms, Rule 65B(2) prohibits the solicitation of funds by judges regardless of whether their names are used. Solicitation encompasses efforts intended to raise funds that do not involve direct requests for contributions. See In re Harris, 72 N.Y.2d 335, 529 N.E.2d 416 (1988) (sanctioning judge who assisted charitable fundraising effort without personally requesting contributions).

******************

Opinion 99-5April 14, 1999

REFERENCES:

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 65B(2); Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion No. 96-FACTS: A judge serves as a member of the board of directors of a high school. An invitation to a benefit for the high school includes the judge as one of several honorees receiving awards at the benefit. All proceeds will support the high school. The judge's name appears inside the invitation as one of several honorees receiving an award.

Several months before this particular invitation was printed, the judge in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, requested the high school in writing to remove the judge's name from any stationery noting, "I can no longer be involved in fund-raising activities."

OPINION

The question is whether the use of the judge's name on the invitation can be interpreted as directly involving the judge's name in the solicitation of funds and thereby violating Illinois Supreme Court Rule 65B(2). This situation raises the additional problem of whether Illinois Supreme Court Rule 65B(2) is violated by the Judge appearing as a guest of honor and receiving an award at the high school benefit.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 65B(2) provides as follows:

Civic and Charitable Activities. A judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon the judge's impartiality or interfere with the performance of the judge's judicial duties. A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, subject to the following limitations: (2) A judge should not solicit or permit his or her name to be used in any manner to solicit funds or other assistance for any such organization. A judge should not allow his or her name to appear on the letterhead of any such organization where the stationary [sic] is used to solicit funds... A judge should not be a speaker or the guest of honor at any organization's fund raising events, but he or she may attend such events.

**********************

Opinion 99-6 April 14, 1999

REFERENCES:

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63B(3); Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.3(a); McDunn v. Williams, 156 Ill. 2d 288 at 309 (1993); Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion Nos. 94-10 and 95-10.

FACTS Based on an executed entry of appearance and waiver of notice filed by a lawyer in a divorce suit, the judge of one circuit entered a default divorce. Later, the husband in the case filed a motion to vacate on the ground that the waiver of default form was a document that he had filed in another circuit some months previously, and which had been rescinded by the husband. The form filed in the other circuit appears to have been altered to look like it had been executed for the present suit when the lawyer knew it had been rescinded in the other circuit. For the purposes of this opinion, it is assumed that the judge had knowledge of the lawyer's misconduct in altering the document.

OPINION: This question involves an apparent conflict between two rules of the Illinois Supreme Court. Rule 63B(3)states:

A judge having knowledge of a violation of these canons on the part of a judge or a violation of Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct on the part of a lawyer shall take or initiate appropriate disciplinary action.

Rule 8.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct states:

"A lawyer possessing knowledge not otherwise protected as a confidence by these Rules or by law that another lawyer has committed a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) or (a)(4) shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation."

Because judges are also subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct, there is an apparent conflict between the two rules. However, one of the basic principles of statutory construction is that specific statutory provisions generally control over general provisions on the same subject, McDunn v. Williams. Because Judges form a sub-class of lawyers, rules pertaining only to judges are specific when they conflict with rules pertaining to lawyers in general.

Rule 63B(3) requires that a judge "take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures". Judges have available an array of disciplinary measures that are not available to lawyers, ranging from publicly or privately chastising the lawyer, e.g., for a sexist or racist remark, to holding the lawyer in contempt, to reporting the lawyer to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Care should be taken to punish the lawyer, however, not the client. Any of these sanctions may be an appropriate disciplinary measure depending on the circumstances.

Necessarily, lawyer misconduct spans a continuum of behavior. The Committee believes that at a minimum, if the lawyer misconduct (if proved) would constitute a crime, the judge is under an obligation to notify the ARDC. No sanction available to the judge under that circumstance would be appropriate if suspension or disbarment were a possible result of ARDC proceedings.

Hence, the lawyer's action is potentially a crime. If the judge does not report the conduct, it would probably go unchallenged. The facts as presented suggest that the judge should exercise his or her discretion by reporting the lawyer to the ARDC.

Illinois Judicial Conference

1999-2000 Seminar Series

Civil Pre-Trial

Motion Practice

Bloomington - Nov. 18-19, 1999

Sentencing, Post-Conviction

And Sexually Violent Persons

Commitment Act

Urbana - October 28-29, 1999,

Chicago - May 11-12, 1999

Handling Pro-Se Litigants

Springfield. November 4, 1999

Statutory Rules of Evidence

in Criminal Law

Chicago, October 9, 1999

Urbana, April 13, 1999

The Persistent Drunk Driver:

Sentencing Strategies

Norman, April 6-10, 1999

Juvenile Law

Naperville - Sept 30-Oct1, 1999

Education Conference 2000

Chicago - Feb 2-4, 2000

New Judge Seminar

Chicago - December 6-10

The Committee on Education of the Illinois Judicial Conference is responsible for the orientation and continuing education of Illinois judges, in cooperation with the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. This responsibility includes assessment of education needs and program design, planning and execution.

Judicial education programs fall into four different categories: seminars and workshops, new judge orientation, resource lending library, and faculty development. Commencing in 2000 there will be a statewide Education Conference for Illinois judges.

SEMINARS

Illinois Judicial Conference seminars are the keystone of the continuing judicial education program conducted by the Illinois Supreme Court. The seminars provide judges with a means to remain current in developing areas of the law, increase their knowledge of specific substantive and procedural topics, and increase their knowledge in matters related to the effective administration of the courts.

Regional Seminars. Regional seminars are two-day residence programs that provide an opportunity for detailed study and discussion of the selected topic. While serving as an intensive educational experience, these sessions also allow for communication and interaction among judges from throughout Illinois. Regional seminars address substantive and procedural law, procedural and technological developments, court management, and judicial ethics and conduct. Topics in the 1999-2000 seminar year include:

· Civil Pre-Trial Motion Practice

· Juvenile Law

· Sentencing, Post Conviction and Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act

· The Persistent Drunk Driver: Sentencing Strategies

Mini Seminars. Mini seminars are one-day programs that provide study and discussion of specific substantive and procedural topics in a condensed time period, Topics in the 1999-2000 seminar year include:

· Handling Pro Se Litigants

· Statutory Rules of Evidence in Criminal Law

Seminar Enrollment

Administrative staff will determine maximum attendance for each seminar and admit a sufficient number over the maximum to allow for cancellations. This will allow the Administrative Office to confirm three to four weeks before the seminar an applicant's ability to attend. In 1999-2000, the Administrative Office will not utilize waiting lists.

New Judge Orientation

New Judge Seminar. Newly elected and appointed judges are required to attend the New Judge Seminar, a five-day orientation held in December. New judges receive an in-depth introduction to the Illinois court system and to substantive and procedural topics, such as criminal law, civil motion practice, trial practice, family taw, juvenile law, and Rules of the Illinois Supreme Court. The seminar is held in December in Chicago. Registration packets will be mailed at a later date.

New Judge Mentoring Program.

Initiated by the Supreme Court in 1998, the New Judge Mentoring Program mandates that a mentor judge be assigned to every new circuit and associate judge. The program eases new judges' entry into the judiciary by:

(a) Assisting in the transition from attorney to judge; and (b) Providing basic assistance prior to the mandatory new judge seminar; and providing such assistance after the seminar as the new judge may need.

Through the mentoring process the new judge develops his or her own skills and confidence level, while having an experienced judge to consult regarding unfamiliar situations.

Mentor judges must attend a training program conducted by the Committee on Education.

Self-Study Orientation Videotapes

Pre-bench orientation videotapes produced by the American Judicature Society are available on loan to every new judge. The videotapes address numerous issues encountered by new judges in their transition to the bench, such as becoming an arbiter, social isolation, becoming a public figure, changing relationships, judicial conduct and ethics, keeping bias out of the courtroom, handling stress, managing time, handling pro se litigants, and more.

Education Conference

Beginning in 2000, the Judicial Conference will reinstate the large conference format for judicial education. An Education Conference will be held on a regular basis to provide a wide range of judicial education and professional development activities for associate, circuit and appellate judges. There will be two conference meetings held in close proximity, with half the state's judges participating in one meeting and the other half in the second meeting. Registration packets will be mailed at a later date.

Resource Lending Library

The Resource Lending Library lists an extensive collection of videotapes, audio tapes, and publications. Many resources are available on loan to Illinois judges free of charge, while other resources are available to judges for their personal office library upon request. In this latter category, the most frequently requested items are reading materials from past Judicial Conference seminars. The library also coordinates annual distribution of free government publications to judges requesting them.

Faculty Development

While the judges who teach at Judicial Conference seminars are highly skilled in the law and the art of judging, many do net have backgrounds in education. The Judicial Conference conducts an annual faculty development workshop to familiarize judicial faculty with adult learning principles and to teach them new ways to connect with audiences and promote retention of information. Topics covered at the workshop include:

· Characteristics of adults as learners;

· Learning styles and the implications for instruction

· Analyzing the topic and audience;

· Selection of instructional strategies;

· Presentation skills and visual aids;

· Effective use of the case study method.

All judicial faculty are invited to attend the program.

Judicial Selection and Retention - Is it time to change?

The Judicial Selection and Retention Committee of the IJA met on March 19th to discuss that issue. According to information received by the Committee, the Illinois Judicial Council reviewed the proposal submitted by Justice Cousins to amend the present system of judicial selection. That proposal was, according to Justice Cousins, made in light of the possibility that a change in retention may occur and, as such the judiciary should have some input as to a new system's design. However, after a discussion the proposal was overwhelmingly voted down. The general consensus is that the present system works well.

Committee comments were that there is no ground swell in support of a change in judicial retention from the elective process to a committee process, either in Cook County or in downstate, and that such a change was unlikely to be introduced in the General Assembly. The further consensus of the Committee was that the current mechanism for judicial performance review and evaluation by Supreme Court Rule with confidentiality for those participating is helpful and positive and should be expanded. The Committee also agreed that disseminating a proposal for committee retention, as opposed to elective retention, would not be beneficial.

The committee also undertook a review of voting trends;

(a) An analysis of Cook County was prepared by Ray Jagielski. It seems evident that the elimination of straight party balloting helped the results in judicial retention races in Cook County and that voters, once they started punching the ballot, stayed with the ballot to the end in a very high percentage. The total votes cast in retention races were also higher than previous years. The Committee consensus was that this indicates the success of the present system and that higher participation and higher percentages favoring retention seem to be a stable trend, and not a one time occurrence. It was noted that seven of the judges running for retention in Cook County were targeted by various bar groups or the media, but still succeeded in retention, although in some cases their numbers were lower than those of other candidates.

(b) Review of voting trends in two selected circuits downstate was presented by Richard Goldenhersh. The two circuits were the Second Circuit, which is predominantly a rural and small town circuit with two counties having a heavier weight than others in voting, and the Twentieth Circuit, which is more urban and adjacent to St. Louis, with one county having a predominant weight in voting. Review of retention election results indicated that retention percentages stayed stable in the Second Circuit and increased in the Twentieth Circuit and the trends of voter participation generally mirrored those of Cook County. Anectdotally, the percentages downstate, especially in Southern Illinois, tend to be lower than those of Cook County, but the pattern reflected those in Cook County, as shown in Chair Jagielski's report. As in Cook, judges who were targeted had lower percentages than fellow candidates. Generally, the Committee consensus was that this indicated a good outlook for retention success.

(c) Review of voting trends in retention elections in Lake County was presented by Ray McKoski. The report indicated the percentage of people voting the top ballot position and voting in the retention election in 1998 increased significantly and as in the other two reports, and the percentage of people voting the entire list of retention candidates stayed high and stable. Also, the percentage of positive votes in retention increased in 1992 and 1996, and stayed relatively stable in 1998. The general conclusion was the percentage of voting and the percentage of positive votes indicated stability in this area.

The Committee recommends that the Illinois Judge's Association should not adopt the Cousins' proposal and conceptually is not in favor of a committee form of retention. The Committee was in favor, however, of supporting programs for the improvement of the judiciary, focusing primarily on the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program. The further consensus was that this should be expanded and encouraged for the positive goals of improving the quality and performance of judicial officers and acceptance of the professional responsibilities of the judiciary, and that these measures would have a positive effect on retention. The Committee also was in favor of encouraging an expanding the mentoring programs already in place and conceptually in favor of any program that would improve the performance of the judiciary. Specifically, the Committee suggested that the Supreme Court be encouraged to expand both the evaluation and new judge's mentoring programs.

AROUND AND ABOUT THE TRAFFIC CENTER

Llewellyn L. Green-Thapedi

The Circuit Court of Cook County, First District Traffic Court, presently located at 321 North LaSalle Street, Chicago is a center of activity.

The Circuit Court Clerk's Statistical Services Unit reports that from January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1999, more than three million orders were entered by the 17 Cook County judges assigned to the Traffic Court and the two rotating judges from other circuits.

During the four dally calls, they hear quasi-criminal and misdemeanors cases - presiding over motion calls, arraignments, bench and Jury trials.

Honorable Dennis K. Cashman, of the 8th Circuit, Quincy, Illinois, assigned for a week in July 1999, commented on the high volume and the desirability of having prosecutors provide extensive driving records of the many defendants seeking supervision. He also noted the improvement8 in court procedures since his rotation some 20 years ago.

Supervising Judge, Patrick E. McGann, regularly meets with court administrators and interested groups to explore innovative methods to improve the judiciary's effectiveness.

Recognizing that the high volume of cases before each Judge does not permit the in depth analysis desired, He plans to increase the number of daily court calls and decrease the number of cases on each call. This will stagger the numbers of people using the facility.

As he copes with the volume, Judge McGann also evaluates sentencing alternatives designed to modify the behavior and attitude of violators using the streets and highways. As a part of that effort, he conducts weekly meetings with the Judges. They discuss current law, problems, potential solutions and techniques for improving judicial skills. Morale is high. There is camaraderie. There is enthusiasm partly because Judge McGann has a system of rotating the assignments. The result is a more equitable distribution of cases and more diversity.

Because of the Cook County Board's July 8, 1999 action, 19.8 million dollars was allocated to build court faculties in the Daley Center for temporarily relocating the Traffic Court. When it permanently relocates, the newly built Daley Center facilities will become available for other necessary court functions. It is, therefore, postulated that only 2.1 million of the 19.8 million dollars spent will actually be unrequired.

Judge Mc Gann reports that the new facilities will include eleven lower level courtrooms where minor violations, prisoner violations and other matters will be heard. Eight rooms will be constructed on the 4th floor for judges, chambers, jury trial rooms and other courtrooms for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) matters.

Concern that the Daley Center could not accommodate the increased numbers of people, caused the Public Building Commission to retain a firm specializing in the evaluation of traffic impact to study the feasibility of relocating the Traffic Court to the Daley Center. The study concluded that the Daley Center can safely and efficiently accommodate the Traffic Court users and the ground floor security checks can accommodate nearly twice the total projected number.

Moving day is January 2001. Who said that "There won't be a dry eye in the place"?

Nominations Open for Officer and Board Vacancies

Instructions for Judges

Seeking Nomination

The Nominating Committee of the IJA will be meeting September 10th. Those interested in being considered for officer or board vacancies should contact Kathy McEnroe, IJA executive secretary, in writing, via mail, facsimile, in person or e-mail/.

DID YOU

Remember

To

Send in

Your

1999

Dues?

Ron Spears'

Top 10 Reasons to Join the Illinois Judges Association

10. You can participate in the Annual Run for Justice and get a nice T Shirt.

9. You will receive your very own Judge's Manual, including marriage ceremony and contempt guide.

8. You can attend the Annual IJA Conference and network with Judges from throughout the state.

7. You will be informed of the latest Ethics Opinions concerning Illinois Judges.

6. You will be updated on important proposals and changes in the laws that impact Illinois Judges.

5. You will be part of an Association that was a leader in protecting judicial pensions from a federal law that could have imposed severe taxes and penalties.

4. You will be part of an Association that works for fair compensation and benefits for Illinois Judges and to prevent erosion of salaries by inflation. (A one year pay increase has covered a career's worth of IJA dues!)

3. You will have an opportunity to serve your profession as you work on committees and as an officer of IJA.

2. You will be a part of an Association that actively seeks to improve the public understanding of the role of judges and instills public confidence in our legal system.

1. You will be a part of the only Association dedicated to serving the needs of Illinois Judges.

Please share the importance of IJA membership with all the judges with whom you work. Membership information can be obtained on our IJA website at http://ija.org or by calling Kathy McEnroe at 888-431-1283 or 312-431-1283. Send any ideas you have for membership recruitment or retention to Judges Spears, Obbish, Coleman or Mathein. Together we can make a difference!

What are your Top 10 Reasons for continuing to belong to IJA or recruiting new members to join with us?

Get a judge to join

Appellate Standards of Review:

What is Reversible Error?By Honorable William E. Holdridge

Effective July 1, 1997, Supreme Court Rule 341 required appellants to include a statement of the applicable standard of review for each issue raised in their briefs to the appellate court. I welcomed this change as I believe it reminds appellate advocates that understanding and applying the appropriate standard of review to each appeal is essential to good appellate advocacy. While appellants point out error below and ask the court of review to correct that alleged error, the question before our court often is not whether error occurred (no trial is perfect), but rather does the alleged error require appellate relief. The answer depends inevitably upon the level of scrutiny to which we subject the actions of the trial court, i.e., the stand