directions - Ohio Judicial Conference

Transcription

Fourth Quarter 2011
Directions
Retired Judge Mark R. Schweikert
Executive Director, Ohio Judicial Conference
In 2003 the Ohio Judicial Conference launched its current website www.ohiojudges.org utilizing what was
then state of the art technology. Back then only a minimum number of courts and judges were routinely using the Internet. Today many more are using the Internet as a primary resource for research and communications. Additionally, the
Internet has become the primary information resource for the public for everything from elementary and high school
civics research to pro se legal research support. We now expect that a majority of our member judges, other court and
governmental agencies, as well as the public will get their judicial system information from the Internet.
Our website provides judges with current information about legislation and case law that have a practical impact
in Ohio’s courts, resources for managing judicial work, and a directory of contact information for judicial colleagues
around the state. It is a tool that provides the Judicial Conference the ability to instantly communicate important information to everyone that needs it. We have come to rely on the website and email as our most effective communication
tools.
For some time we have known that our website needed a redesign with new and more robust technology and
we are now in the preliminary stages of that process. Some members of the Judicial Conference Court Technology
Committee are assisting staff with advice from a user’s perspective. By July you should expect to see a new, more
responsive website when you visit www.ohiojudges.org. In the meantime, please continue to visit the current website
for the latest news that is affecting Ohio judges and courts, and let us know if there are additional services you would
like to see on www.ohiojudges.org.
In this issue.....
Nonsupport of Dependants..................................13
Judicial Ethics Update on Recommendations/
Endorsements...............................................................2
Ohio Supreme Court New Writing Manual............15
Bridge-ing a Juvenile Court...........................................3
2011 Community Recognition Awards.................18
Sex Offender Assessment & Public Safety .....................6
OJC In Action: Committee News...........................20
Task Force on Criminal Justice & Mental Illness............9
Judicial College Course Schedule..........................21
County Law Libraries.................................................11
Citizen Guide Brochures/Staff Contact List......26-27
Judicial Ethics Update on
Recommendations/Endorsements
Judge Sheila G. Farmer
Ohio Judicial Conference Judicial Ethics & Professionalism Committee
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has further refined the judicial recommendation issues in Opinion 2011-3. Although the specific question answered appears to be a discrete distinction, the Opinion discusses the 2009 reference to “abuse” of the prestige of judicial office.
Jud.Cond.R.1.3 provides the following:
A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.
This amended rule replaces the language “lends” the prestige of judicial office to “abuse” the prestige of judicial office. The Board defines “abuse” to be “use improperly” or “misuse.” The opinion points out the plain meaning
of the term ‘abuse’ “indicates that if the Board finds a use of judicial office to be improper, the use will violate Jud.
Cond.R.1.3.”
In determining the questions posed, the opinion finds that judicial recommendations or endorsement of candidates for a bar association elected office creates the appearance of impropriety and is prohibited by Jud.Cond.R.1.2.
Despite this decision, the opinions affirms previous decisions that a judge may still write recommendations for a lawyer or law student for a specific position because the judge is not favoring or actively promoting one lawyer or student
over another. Therefore, recommendations in education, employment, bar admissions, federal judgeship and lawyer
specialization are still appropriate and do not violate the Code of Conduct.
Jumping
the
Retirement Hurdle
Online Registration
Friday, April 27, 2012
Ohio Judicial Center, Columbus
SAVE THE DATE!
2012 Ohio Judicial Conference
September 13-14, 2012
Hilton Polaris, Columbus
Ohio Judicial Conference
For the Record | Fourth Quarter 2011
2
These two articles are part of a series related to courts participating in the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Bridges Out of
Poverty Project. Working to integrate the concepts delineated in Bridges Out of Poverty into various court programs,
the overall goal of this project is to develop model court programs within a continuum to serve as learning sites for
Ohio communities. More information on Bridges Out of Poverty and the project will be forthcoming in future editions
of For the Record.
Bridge-ing A Juvenile Court
Administrative Judge Nick Kuntz
Chief Deputy Clerk Jennifer A. Petrella
Montgomery County Juvenile Court
This article’s title is not a typographical error! At an organization of over 400 employees, the Montgomery
County Juvenile Court has always been a community of collaboration, fostering new ideas to better serve our families.
Likewise, we recognize that the families we serve are not only those who come through our doors for services, but also
those who participate in the process as our employees. Becoming a Bridges’ Court has caused us to be more mindful
in not only how we interact and plan with our families, but also the relationships and strengths we foster among those
we work alongside each and every day.
As the judges became more versed in Bridges, it was easy to acknowledge that much of the court’s programming promoted its concepts, just under another name – such as “strength-based planning,” etc. Judge Nick Kuntz and
Judge Anthony Capizzi sent staff to attend general training that included Bridges, but then invited Phil DeVol of aha!
Process, Inc. to speak to the court leaders in a one-day training session. About a third of the Montgomery County
Juvenile Court family attended that day, and since then, another 100+ staff have been trained by their peers. It just
proves that the reality of Bridges’ success can come in many forms, not just in private companies or schools, but in
courts too! Where better, than a Juvenile Court, to build relationships resulting in respect for families and their decisions, while still holding persons legitimately accountable? How better, to begin building these bridges with staff so
that it will be part of their daily practice, in and outside the court house?
Bridges - Not a Project, A Way of Life....
The above tells you a bit of how we got started educating those at the Montgomery County Juvenile Court
about Bridges Out of Poverty concepts. It also points out that our participation is not just as judges, clerks, secretaries,
probation officers, etc. ‘We are a reflection of those we serve’ and the expectation is to be people who demonstrate
these practices in our interactions with clients and co-workers. We can only expect respectful collaboration with our
public families, if we are respectful to those within our own.
Being a Bridges’ Court focuses us to 1) promote respect and build relationships within our organization as well
as with community agencies / partners and the people we serve; 2) remove our language barriers; and 3) bring the justice system to those in poverty. Bridges is not training that staff attends, it is the way we do business; and while peer
education continues on a monthly basis, Bridges concepts are used in program development and staff services every
single day.
The Montgomery County Juvenile Court is fortunate to be filled with creative minds on our front lines as well
as in the leadership team, but what is even more mind-blowing is that in this group of people, there are persons who
are so passionate about this work it continues to grow and disseminate beyond the organization.
3
Continued from previous page...
In the mechanics, Bridges is spreading via two tracks. Peer training occurs monthly, where the basics of
Bridges are taught along with examples of how the concepts are currently implemented. It is an opportunity for us to
be ‘cheerleaders’ talking about our successes, and it has fostered the development of new ideas and champions.
On the second track, the Advisory Committee supports in-court training, calendar usage and brings forth information from staff and clients in order to improve service. The Advisory Committee itself is a Bridges triumph!
For the first time in the history of the Montgomery County Juvenile Court, a committee was comprised of staff representing every single department, and at least half of its membership is line staff. Proposals are developed, typically
simple changes with no cost attached, and these ideas are forwarded to administration for an approval process. Upon
approval, they are shared with court leaders through the Directors and Managers meetings, and regular updates are
part of both the court and department update bulletins. Court-wide staff participation has sparked ideas from a unified
calendar of events (non-court hearings) and a thank you project to customer service surveys and a scholarship program
for our youth (in development).
In addition to working collaboratively across department lines and with all of our families, some of the information gathering resulted in clarifying language of court brochures and forms for filing. Times for staff work schedules were adapted when times for clients were expanded. With the size of the court and the numerous services we
offer, peer training at lunch or through monthly meetings was implemented and has further removed language barriers
building upon our interdependence.
In training it is stressed that regardless of our role at the court, we are advocates for those in poverty. We accomplish this by being respectful to all who walk through our doors, and by utilizing cooperative and collaborative
planning. Our standards are not compromised, and families remain successful. Just as importantly, we find that as
the Bridges’ concepts are maintained in our internal processes with staff, the positive outcomes flow-over to our community at large. There is much more work to do, but there is already great work that has been done!
Bridge-ing A River ValleyA Juvenile Court Perspective
Chief Probation Officer Wes Skeels
Mahoning County Juvenile Court
The Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center has been utilizing concepts similar to those of Bridges Out of
Poverty long before we had ever even heard of the Bridges’ coined phrase “aha.” The court did have our own “aha”
moment, however, when staff became aware of the Bridges Out of Poverty concepts, for at last a name and structure
could be attached to the philosophies the Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center had related to so well.
In December of 2009, the Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center sent a team of staff to Columbus to participate in a Bridges Out of Poverty train-the-trainer program. The four-day intensive training rejuvenated and challenged
the Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center to look deeper into the real issues of poverty. Bridges Out of Poverty
explains that there are hidden “rules of poverty,” and by knowing these rules one can become more aware of the culture of poverty. This understanding leads into how to help individuals take on his or her own responsibility, combined
with community action, towards the responsibility to end poverty in their own life.
Continued on next page...
4
After receiving the trainer certification, the team of the Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center came back
and took action by training the entire Mahoning County Juvenile Court, including the detention center and school
staffs. Additionally, the Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center has trained several community partners within Mahoning County. We continue to provide free training to those whom share our vision. The training sessions are hands
on and teach service providers the hidden “rules of poverty” and increase awareness of the culture of poverty. These
free training sessions are an effort towards our responsibility to help create a community that cares to end poverty.
The Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center did not stop there. Our judge, the Honorable Theresa Dellick,
challenged each department to come up with strategies that would help identify obstacles existing within our own Juvenile Court system. Each department held several meetings and came up with ethical internal strategies that would
help address the problems of poverty for those interacting with the court. As a result of the challenge, for example, the
Probation Department found a way to reduce the number of violations filed against youths by implementing graduated
sanctions at review hearings. This has a direct positive impact on the financial burden attached to the families involved
with Juvenile Court. For reducing the number of violations filed against the Probationer means the family does not
incur more fines and court costs on the official violation. The ideas generated by the meetings also led the Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center to train several staff
as certified counselors for the Ohio Benefits Bank through the Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks, the
state’s largest charitable response to hunger and the lead non-profit agency implementing the Benefit Bank program
in Ohio. The creation of this service within the Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center is a valuable tool to assist
fighting hunger and poverty. This process allows individuals in the community to enroll directly for a wide array of
benefits while at the Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center, reducing stress for those in need by linking them to a
support system that can help in their day to day lives.
The Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center is also part of a greater Bridges movement through Youngstown
State University’s countywide Bridges Out of Poverty steering committee. One action that stands out among the many
taken by this committee is a Community Action Poverty Simulation that took place in April of 2011 at the Jewish
Community Center in Youngstown. The Community Action Poverty Simulation provided participants with the opportunity to assume the role of a low-income family member living on a limited budget. The experience was divided
into four 15-minute sessions, each of which represented one week in which one must provide for the family and maintain the home. One participant commented, “This welfare simulation dramatically demonstrates how much time and
energy many families have to give just to survive from day to day. It dispels the myth that, “people would do fine if
they would only go out and get a job!”
As most people are aware, Youngstown and the entire Mahoning River Valley have experienced economic
hardship for a period of time much longer than most areas of the country. Generational poverty creates changes in
individuals and communities in ways unlike what most of general public understands. It is difficult for those of us
who have not experienced this kind of long-term poverty to truly understand the situations that families actually living it experience every day – the decisions they have to make, and the fears and frustrations they feel. The Mahoning
County Juvenile Justice Center will continue to strive to identify the real issues facing our community so that we may
be able to continue to implement real solutions.
Contribute
to
For The Record!!!
We are always looking for interesting articles to print in For the Record. If you know of a good topic, are willing to write an
article, or if you participate in an association, committee, commission or other group covering important information
regarding the Ohio or national judicial system, please email Jennie Long at: [email protected] or Jeff Jablonka at:
[email protected] to let us know. We will contact you for more information.
5
Sex Offender Assessment and Public Safety:
The Importance of Pre-Sentence Investigations
David Berenson
Dr. Robelyn Marlow
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation And
Correction- Director of Sex Offender Services
Madison Correctional Institute
Director- Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center
The problem of sexual assault rivets the public’s attention on a daily basis. High profile sexual abuse cases in
the media are at the forefront of the public’s awareness, yet they represent only the “tip of the iceberg” of the scope
and impact of sexual victimization. Ohio’s sex offender population and the patterns of abuse and victimization of these
offenders mirror the national facts and data on sex offenders and their victims. Currently, there are over 19,000 adults
registered as sex offenders in Ohio’s communities, and another 10,000 adults incarcerated in Ohio’s prison for sex
crimes. We know that most sex offenders are known to their victims, and that an overwhelming majority of victims
are females. Nearly one-half of victims are children.
The impact of sexual victimization is devastating, with victims and families living in an aftermath of fear,
shame and broken relationships. The personal and social consequences of sexual victimization are incalculable. The
National Crime Victimization Survey reports that there are over 200,000 victims of sexual abuse each year and 60%
of sexual assaults go unreported. It is important to understand that this data and the data on Ohio’s sex offender population refers only to felony level crimes. Each of the 29,000 offenders in Ohio appeared in a court of law and was
convicted of a sex crime. The majority of those 29,000 offenders were sentenced to prison for their crimes.
Sexual assault is now considered a human rights issue and protection from victimization is considered a basic
right of victims. The violation of a person’s sexuality reaches into the depths of his/her psyche and can cause fundamental changes in that person’s understanding of him/herself and relationships with others. In 1995, the American
Medical Association declared sexual abuse a “silent-violent epidemic.” The prevention of sexual abuse has become
recognized as a critical public health concern. In fact, sexual abuse is a public health problem that is everybody’s
business and responsibility. The ultimate goal of dealing with sexual abuse as a public health problem is primary prevention, i.e., how do we prevent the problem from ever occurring? Within a public health framework, we, as criminal
justice professionals, are dealing with sexual assault in terms of tertiary prevention. Now that the problem has occurred, how do we prevent it from happening again?
That is our job. It is our responsibility to the public and to sexual abuse victims:
To do the very best we can to stop known and convicted sex offenders from committing more sex crimes.
There will always be the quest to find ways to prevent sexual assault, but we can make a difference by implementing
a comprehensive approach to sex offender management that is strategic, victim-centered, and forges collaborative relationships between stakeholders dealing with sex offenders and victims. The core components of this comprehensive
approach to sex offender management include:
•
•
•
•
•
Investigation, Prosecution, and Disposition
Assessment
Treatment
Reentry
Supervision
6
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) is committed to providing specialized treatment to sex offenders, knowing that most incarcerated offenders will be returning to communities throughout Ohio.
The highest priorities of this system of sex offender services are public safety and victim protection. As we enter 2012,
ODRC is working with the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute to develop and implement an evidencebased sex offender program that will serve as a model for any prison system in the country. This model is driven by
the “principles of effective correctional intervention”, the first of which is the Risk Principle. The Risk Principle is
fundamental to any system of comprehensive sex offender management and treatment. This principle dictates that we
prioritize treatment resources for offenders who are at a higher risk to reoffend. It only makes sense that we utilize
evidence-based programs for those sex offenders who are most likely to commit future sex offenses. As soon as a sex
offender enters the prison system we must begin thinking about his risk to reoffend and his reentry into the community.
Assessment is a key component in sex offender management. Sex offenders comprise a diverse population and
“one size fits all” approaches are not effective in reducing the risk of sexual reoffending. In determining what to do
with convicted sex offenders, careful consideration must be given to the risk levels, needs, developmental issues, and
functioning levels of these individuals. Well done assessments become the key to informed decision-making. First
and foremost, risk assessment instrument(s) must be administered to identify levels of risk to sexually reoffend. This
requires an understanding of static, or unchangeable factors in an offender’s history that can help identify risk factors
for recidivism over the long term.
The Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center (SORRC), at the Madison Correctional Institution in London, OH is
ODRC’s sex offender-specific assessment center. All male sex offenders who enter the prison system are transferred
from their respective reception centers to SORRC for the purpose of assessment. Between 1,300 and 1,500 male sex
offenders are assessed at SORRC each year. The first assessment administered is the STATIC-99, a research derived
sex offender risk tool. This is the most widely used and widely replicated actuarial risk scale, both nationally and internationally, that is utilized to determine the probability of sexual and violent recidivism for adult male sex offenders.
The STATIC-99 yields four levels of the risk, the top two of which identify sex offenders as moderately high to high
risk to recidivate. This is the sex offender population that is designated for more thorough assessment and treatment.
The STATIC-99 is ODRC’s first specialized step in determining how to deal with incarcerated sex offenders in fulfilling its mission to promote citizen safety and victim reparation.
This is the point at which the Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) is of paramount importance. Well constructed
and written PSIs provide the information needed to administer and score the STATIC-99. There are ten items in the
STATIC-99:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Offender’s age: Research indicates that sexual recidivism is more likely in an offender’s early adult years than later in adult years.
Single: Research suggests that having a prolonged intimate connection to someone may be a protective barrier against sexual recidivism.
Index non-sexual violence: The literature indicates that having a history of violence is a predictive factor for future violence. Some studies found convictions for non-sexual violence to be specifically predictive of rape.
Prior non-sexual violence: The basic principle for this item is the same as that for “Index non-sexual violence”.
Prior sex offenses: The literature is clear regarding criminal behavior and sexual offending that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Prior sentencing dates: The basic principle for this item is the same as that for “Prior sex offenses”. This item provides a method for coding the length of the criminal record.
7
•
•
•
•
Any convictions for non-contact sex offenses: Offenders with deviant sexual interests are at increased risk for sexual recidivism. Examples are exhibitionism, voyeurism, obscene telephone calls, sexual harassment.
Any unrelated victims: Research indicates that having victims outside the immediate family is empirically related to a corresponding increase in risk.
Any stranger victims: Research shows that having a stranger victim is related to recidivism. Any male victims: Research shows that offenders who have offended against male children or adults recidivate at a higher rate than those who do not have male victims. Having male victims is correlated with measures of sexual deviance.
The assessment of these factors provides a total risk score that equates to an overall risk level and probability
of sexual reconviction in five, ten, and fifteen years.
Sex offenders who score in the top two levels of the risk assessment are scheduled for a comprehensive sex
offender assessment which requires information regarding the specifics of the sex offense(s), patterns of offending,
victim characteristics and legal history. This assessment provides detailed information and impressions on the risk
patterns of higher risk sex offenders that are important to treatment and reentry planning. The following information
is needed to complete an effective sex offender assessment at SORRC:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Each victim’s date of birth and gender (extremely important)
When (month, day, year) the sex offense(s) occurred/started and ended
Nature of offender’s relationship to the victim(s)
Length of time that the offender knew the victim prior to the offense, as well as how they met
Exact nature/details of the sex offense, e.g., fondling a specific body part, kissing, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal sex, digital-vaginal penetration, penile-vaginal penetration
Frequency of the offending behavior
What the offender said to the victim(s) during each contact
The use of threats, weapons, bribes, drugs/alcohol, or physical force during the offense
Legal history (including dispositions) for every offense. Specific details of prior offenses (including those dismissed) and violent offenses.
Timeline for sex offenses and circumstances of how the offense(s) was discovered and reported.
Any additional reports, e.g., forensic, clinical, school, juvenile, county jail.
Sex offender assessment provides direction for those key decision points that comprise a comprehensive system of sex offender management. ODRC, as a major stakeholder in that system, is committed to providing evidencebased sex offender services to promote public safety and victim protection. Collaboration with other key stakeholders
is critical to the effectiveness of planning for the reentry of higher risk sex offenders being released into Ohio’s communities. The effectiveness of this planning requires high-quality assessments, and high quality assessments require
the requisite information to develop accurate impressions and formulations. The best way to get this information is
from Pre-Sentence Investigations that are written with an understanding of sex offender risk factors.
Keep
up to date with the latest news affecting Ohio
Ohio Courts by visiting our website!
Judges
and
CLICK HERE
8
Justice Stratton and Attorney General DeWine
Co-Chair Expanded Task Force on Criminal
Justice and Mental Illness
On November 16, 2011, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Attorney General Mike
DeWine announced that the Advisory Committee on Mental Illness and the Courts (ACMIC) would evolve into the
Attorney General’s Task Force on Criminal Justice and Mental Illness, allowing the group to expand into areas beyond
the court system. The new task force is being co-chaired by Justice Stratton and Attorney General DeWine, and had
its first meeting December 12, 2011 at the Ohio Supreme Court.
In their press release, both parties discussed their new partnership. “I am pleased to be partnering with Attorney General DeWine to broaden the mission of the task force beyond the court system. We have accomplished much
in the past 10 years, but I believe this expansion will take our mission to a new level,” said Justice Stratton. “I have
worked with Justice Stratton for a long time on the issue of mental health and the courts and look forward to tackling
the issues of mental health and the criminal justice system on a broader level,” added Attorney General DeWine.
Founded in 2001, ACMIC was initially tasked with developing solutions for the revolving door issue of persons with mental illness trapped in the criminal justice system. In the past 10 years, the group has helped establish 37
mental health courts, promoted the training of 4,580 CIT law enforcement officers in 76 of 88 counties, made recommendations for changes to Medicaid, and advocated for a new Juvenile Competency Statute.
At the December 12, 2011 meeting, the Task Force was briefed on “sequential intercept mapping,” a process of
identifying likely points of interaction in the community with those affected by mental illness and determining whether
appropriate intervention resources are in place at those points. In addition, the Task Force was briefed on the efforts of
the Attorney General’s office to combat drug abuse. Senior Assistant Attorney General Aaron Haslam spoke about the
Attorney General’s Drug Task Force focusing on Ohio’s prescription drug abuse epidemic, which includes a multifaceted approach around investigating and prosecuting crimes involving prescription drugs. In addition, he spoke about
the awareness, education, and prevention initiatives Attorney General DeWine has implemented since taking office.
To further the work of the Task Force, ten subcommittees were charged with establishing goals and “doable
projects.” “We want to be action-oriented and are encouraging our sub-committees to create an agenda that can solve
problems related to mental illness and criminal justice in their subject area, using the combined force of the Attorney
General and the justice system partners,” said Justice Stratton. The subcommittees and co-chairs established are:
Mental Health & the Courts
Debbie Nixon Hughes, Deputy Director, Ohio Department of Mental Health
Judge Patrick N. Harris, Fairfield Municipal Court
Diversion & Re-Entry
Teresa Moorman-Jamison, Chief, Ohio Department of Mental Health, Office of Forensic Services
Dr. Robert Hammond, Chief, Bureau of Mental Health Services, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Juvenile Justice
Judge Stephen D. Michael, Jackson County Juvenile Court
Melinda Sykes, Director, Children’s Initiatives, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
9
Research and Best Practices
Dr. Lisa Shoaf, Researcher, Office of Criminal Justice Services
Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
Law Enforcement
Amy O’Grady, Deputy Director of Professional Standards, OPOTC, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
Lt. Mike Woody, President, Crisis Intervention Team, Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence
Housing
Sally Luken, Director, Corporation for Supportive Housing
Doug Garver, Executive Director, Ohio Housing Finance Authority
Psychiatry and Treatment
Dr. Stephen Pariser, Professor, Department of Psychology, OSU College of Medicine
Sandy Stephensen, Executive Director, Southeast Inc.
Veterans Courts and Military Affairs
Judge Robert P. Milich, Youngstown Municipal Veterans Treatment Court
Tammy Puff, North Central Ohio Regional Director and Director of Veteran’s
Outreach, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
Policy and Legislation
Betsy Johnson, Associate Executive Director, National Alliance on Mental Illness of Ohio (NAMI Ohio)
Scott Corbitt, Policy and Legislative Director, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
Kristin Strobel (alternate), Legislative Liaison, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
Aging
Judge Kenneth J. Spicer, Delaware County Probate/Juvenile Court
Mark Molea, Chief, Strategic Partnerships and Stakeholder Relations, Ohio Department of Aging
For more information about the Task Force or to get involved, contact:
Amy O’Grady, Deputy Director of Professional Standards, OPOTC, Office of Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine,
(740) 845-2683, Amy.O’[email protected].
Court Technology Conference
Register Online Here!
May 8, 2012 - Crowne Plaza North, Columbus
A conference for judges, clerks, court administrators, IT managers,secretaries, bailiffs, prosecutors,
probation staff, law enforcement -anyone who works with or is interested in court system technology
10
Statewide Consortium of County Law Library
Rescources Boards
Judge Charles A. Schneider, Consortium Chair
Franklin Co. Common Pleas Court
The purpose of this report is to advise the appointing authorities of the status and progress of the Consortium
of the county law library resources boards.
Pursuant to R.C. 3375.481 a statewide consortium of county law library resources boards was created. The
initial appointments to the Consortium were effective on July 1, 2010.
ORGANIZATION
The first meeting of the Consortium was held on August 16, 2010. At the initial meeting, officers were elected,
and an Advisory Council was appointed as authorized by law. The balance of 2010 was devoted to organizational
responsibilities. This was not an easy task as the Consortium was effectively creating a statewide agency where none
existed.
The first order of business was to contact the Office of the Attorney General for representation. Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Croskey was assigned as the Consortium’s counsel. She has become a very important part of
the Consortium’s operation. The next goal was to establish a financial account. The Consortium Board decided that it
did not want to be its own fiscal agent. The Supreme Court of Ohio was contacted for assistance. A Memorandum of
Understanding was executed with the Court to serve as the Consortium’s fiscal agent. In additional to serving as the
Consortium’s fiscalagent, the Court has provided office space. Being able to use the Justice Center added immediate
status and credibility.
Steven Hollon, Administrative Director of the Court, and Jo Ellen Cline, the Court’s Legislative Counsel, has
been very helpful especially with setting up a budget and working with the Office of Budget and Management.
The next big step was staffing. It was agreed that the statutory obligations of the Consortium could not be
accomplished with volunteers. However, the Consortium could not afford, nor did it need, a full time director. It
was decided to hire a part time director. It was very important that this person have a background in library science.
Equally important, this person had to be familiar with the current system and have the confidence of the current county
law librarians with whom the Consortium would be working. In addition, the Consortium did not want to hire an
employee. However, given the amount of supervision and direction that would be required between the Consortium
Board and its executive director, a contract agreement would not work.
The Consortium was able to satisfy all of the foregoing requirements pursuant to a Request for Proposal. A
Memorandum of Understanding was executed with the Lake County Law Library Recourses Board for services to be
provided by its librarian, Angela Baldree. The Consortium agreed to reimburse the Lake County LLRB for the actual
hours Ms. Baldree devotes to the Consortium. Ms. Baldree is a very experienced librarian who is well- known and
trusted by the other county law librarians. Ms. Baldree was very active in the legislative process creating the current
system. Consequently she is very familiar with the concerns of the librarians and county boards that were expressed
during the transition from a series of private associations to the new system of public law library resources boards. It
is anticipated that the annual cost to the Consortium will be about $26,000.00 during 2012.
11
Each of the county law library resources boards are required by R.C. 3375.481(E) to deposit with the Consortium two per cent of the statutory funds it received the prior year. The deposit was required to be made by February
15, 2011. To date just over $300,000.00 has been deposited. Twelve counties have not made the required contribution. The counties that have not contributed are smaller counties and will not significantly impact the mission of the
Consortium. Ms. Baldree will continue to work with the LLRBs that have not made the required contribution. ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE
The Consortium’s biggest challenge is to convince the local LLRBs that it will get more back from the Consortium than it pays to the Consortium in dues. This is no small challenge.
The Consortium is well under way to accomplish this goal.
A large-scale survey was conducted of the LLRBs to determine the extent of their collections, the vendors from
whom they purchase legal research materials, and the prices they pay. This information was necessary and very valuable to provide the material that is most used and at the best price.
Ms. Baldree has already started to visit each of the 88 LLRBs. During these visits, in addition to the local librarian, she invites the local board members as well as the county commissioners. The meetings have gone very well.
The Consortium has received positive feedback not only from Ms. Baldree, but from those who have participated in
the visits. The goal is to visit each of the state’s LLRBs.
The Consortium’s most recent meeting on October 19, 2011 was held in cooperation with the Ohio Regional
Association of Law Libraries in Cincinnati. This facilitates an opportunity for the Consortium to advise the librarians
of its activities and to engage in constructive dialogue with its members.
At this meeting the Consortium Board approved the purchase of a set of legal publications from Mathew Bender for each of the state’s LLRBs. Ms. Baldree negotiated the contract which was at a substantial discount if members
were purchasing the same collection. Each LLRB will receive the same collection. The initial cost to the Consortium
will be $100,000.00. Further, Ms. Baldree was able to negotiate a deal that if any LLRB wanted to purchase additional
copies from the collection they would receive the same discount that the Consortium receives.
This purchase represents a distribution of approximately one-third of the Consortium’s receipts to date. It is
important that the LLRBs see that the Consortium is actively distributing its receipts back to its members. This distribution is especially helpful to the smaller library which was one of the goals of the legislation. One librarian from
a very small library reported that the value of this one distribution exceeds the amount that it has paid in dues.
Ms. Baldree also negotiated with an online database (EBSCO’s Legal Information Reference Center) to allow
county law libraries to purchase the service through the Consortium, again at a substantial discount. This particular
online database is especially useful for pro se litigants.
At the October meeting the Consortium Board voted to set aside $50,000.00 for grant applications to help local
law libraries in the areas of staff training, programming for patrons, technology or multi-county collaboration. The
grant schedule provides for the awards to be made in the first quarter of 2012. The Consortium Board and Angela Baldree, with the assistance of the Advisory Council and Jennifer Croskey,
have made significant strides in accomplishing what was intended when it was created less than a year ago. Ohio Judicial Conference
12
Nonsupport
of
Dependants
Julie Frey, Director
Adult Probation Department
Clermont County Common Pleas Court
In an effort to address the problems and barriers of those on community control for Nonsupport of Dependants,
in May 2005, the Clermont County Common Pleas Court Adult Probation Department entered into a contract with the
Clermont County Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) to establish two specialized probation officer positions. Since that time, the Clermont County Adult Probation Department has dedicated two specialized probation officers
whose duties include the following: conduct all presentence investigation reports on offenders convicted of Nonsupport of Dependants, supervise and provide case management services to all persons placed on community control for
Nonsupport of Dependants and develop case plans with nonsupport probationers to address individual criminogenic
needs related to failing to pay child support.
Both nonsupport probation officers work closely with the Clermont County CSEA special investigators. The
CSEA special investigators provide the necessary information for effective and detailed presentence investigation reports and the necessary information regarding payments toward child support throughout the course of an offender’s
supervision period.
In 2007 the Adult Probation Department developed the Success Through Employment Program (STEP) which
entailed the creation of a new position that is a cross between a probation officer and an employment coach. We called
this position the employment specialist. In 2009 a second employment specialist was added. The nonsupport probation officers also work closely with the Probation Department’s employment specialists to help offenders develop job
seeking skills and obtain employment.
The employment specialists’ offices are not at the Common Pleas Courthouse where the rest of the Probation
Department is located, but at Workforce One (WF1) of Clermont County where there is quick and easy access to a
number of services to help break through common barriers of the unemployed/underemployed. The following services are also located at WF1: GED classes, Ohio DJFS, Veteran’s Administration Intensive Services program, a Mature
Services representative, the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, LifePoint Solutions, and many other services.
This is extremely beneficial to those who experience the barrier of lack of transportation. This office location
also provides probationers with access to computers for job searching and resume development. A clothing closet
located at WF1 provides proper attire for interviews.
Employment specialists of STEP do not provide cookie cutter employment services; they take a person-centered approach and develop individualized plans with our nonsupport offenders to address their personal needs/barriers. The employment specialists frequently venture out into the community to meet the nonsupport probationers in
their own neighborhoods; they are often at the other area One Stop employment locations to meet with offenders living
in areas outside of Clermont County. For example, if transportation is an obstacle, it does not make sense to place an
offender living in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio with an employer in Milford, Ohio who is 20 miles away. The employment specialists of STEP also transport probationers to job and career fairs and to job interviews.
13
After interviews, the employment specialists often make follow-up contacts with employers on the probationer’s behalf. Once an individual secures employment, the employment specialists keep in contact with the probationer
and the employer for three months to help the probationer sustain the new job. Lastly, the employment specialists
of STEP seek out employers in the surrounding communities who are willing to hire felony offenders. They work
with employers to develop on-the-job training contracts to allow the probationer to receive hands-on training while
the employer can evaluate a potential employee who would normally be overlooked due to the felony record. The
employment specialists strive to maintain a good relationship with these employers for future placements.
In order to help nonsupport probationers develop marketable skills, they are frequently placed in short term
training programs such as fork lift certification, welding certification, computer training, and restaurant training. We
strive to help our probationers obtain skills which will improve their resumes and make them more marketable for
meaningful employment.
SAVE THE DATES!
Ohio Judicial Conference Events:
2012 Judicial-Legislative Exchange Program
March 21, 2012, Columbus
2012 Jumping the Retirement Hurdle
Register Online
April 27 Ohio Judicial Center, Columbus
2012 Court Technology Conference
May 8 Crowne Plaza North, Columbus
Ohio Associations of Probate/Domestic Relations/Juvenile Judges
2012 Combined Summer Conference
June 4-7 Bertram Inn, Aurora
Ohio Courts of Appeals Judges Association
2012 Summer Conference
June 14-15 Cherry Valley Lodge, Newark
Ohio Common Pleas Judges Association
June 20-22 Kalahari Resort & Conference Center, Sandusky
Association of Municipal/County Judges of Ohio
July 16-18 Cherry Valley Lodge, Newark
14
Introducing the Supreme Court
New Writing Manual
of
Ohio’s
Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, Chair
Supreme Court
of
Ohio Style Manual Committee
This article originally appeared in Ohio Lawyer Magazine, © Ohio State Bar Association, 2012
The Supreme Court of Ohio’s Writing Manual: A Guide to Citations, Style, and Judicial Opinion Writing took
effect on January 1, 2012. Available on the court’s website (www.supremecourt.ohio.gov), the manual is published
by the Supreme Court for its own use in preparing opinions for publication. Use of the writing manual is not mandatory for those outside the court, but is designed to be useful to those who write judicial opinions or draft documents
for filing with the court.
Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer created the Supreme Court of Ohio Style Manual Committee in 2008, and as
chair I have served along with eight other committee members: Justice Terrence O’Donnell, Judge Judith L. French of
the 10th District Court of Appeals, Ralph Preston and Sandra Grosko, the retired and current Supreme Court reporters,
Mary Beth Beazley, professor and director of legal writing at the Moritz College of Law, C. Michael Walsh, admin
istrator of the 9th District Court of Appeals, Steve Hollon, the court’s administrative director, and Arthur J. Marziale
Jr., director of legal resources. Pam Wynsen and John Van Norman, Supreme Court staff members, volunteered valuable assistance by offering their exceptional editing and formatting skills. The committee met regularly for more than
three years.
During initial meetings, the group focused on the specific task of creating an internal document solely for the
Supreme Court, but after several meetings it became apparent that a manual could also be helpful to other judges and
lawyers. After first reviewing the earlier Ohio citation manuals published in 1985, 1992, and 2002 and researching the
existing writing manuals of other state supreme courts, the committee decided to create a three-part writing manual
covering citations (Part I), style (Part II), and examples of judicial opinions (Part III). The completed manual exceeds
150 pages.
A quick overview shows that the manual contains both a table of contents and an index for ready reference. Each of the three parts begins with an introduction and is divided further into sections based upon topic. Each section
contains examples to illustrate the principles described.
Part I. Manual of Citations
Six sections within this part set forth rules for the forms of citation for cases (Section One), constitutions (Section Two), statutes and ordinances (Section Three), other rules and regulations (Section Four), secondary sources
(Section Five) and miscellaneous citations (Section Six).
The case-citation section begins by first explaining the significance of May 1, 2002. Beginning on that date,
the Supreme Court’s website became the repository of all opinions of the Supreme Court, the courts of appeals, and
the Court of Claims, as well as selected opinions of the state’s trial courts. Since that time, each opinion posted to the
Supreme Court’s website has been assigned its own unique number or “WebCite.” The WebCite is composed of three
elements: the year of decision, the word “Ohio,” and a number unique to that opinion, e.g., 2003-Ohio-1234. Cases
that have a WebCite will always have it as a portion of the citation, whether the case is also published in print (printpublished) or not.
15
The manual also covers Internet citations. An earlier version of the writing manual used only Westlaw citations in the examples of cases that were not print-published. We have now clarified that Lexis may also be used appropriately and that “electronic legal-research citations” are acceptable when opinions are not print-published. Lexis
examples are now also included, along with those of Westlaw.
The most helpful portion of the citation part of the manual may be the last two pages in Section One, “Ohio
Citations at a Glance.” The examples cover the distinction between cases before and after May 1, 2002.
For cases decided before May 1, 2002, the cases are cited with the date at the end.
Supreme Court case: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kennedy, 95 Ohio St.3d 116, 766 N.E.2d 151 (2002).
Court of appeals case (cited with the district and date at the end): State v. Johnson, 134 Ohio App.3d 586, 591, 731 N.E.2d 1149 (1st Dist.1999).
Trial court case: Moscow v. Moscow Village Council, 29 Ohio Misc.2d 15, 504 N.E.2d 1227 (C.P.1984).
For cases decided on or after May 1, 2002, there is no need to add a date at the end unless there is no Web
Cite. Paragraph numbers instead of pages are pinpointed.
Supreme Court (with pinpoint paragraph) : Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 314, 2002-Ohio-2220, 767 N.E.2d 707, ¶ 15.
Court of appeals (cited with district at end): Swartzenruber v. Orville Grace Brethren Church, 163 Ohio App.3d 96, 2005-Ohio-4264, 836 N.E.2d 619, ¶ 5 (9th Dist.).
Trial court (WebCite unavailable): Kantos v. Lopez, Franklin C.P. No. CV-00-024671 (Aug. 6, 2002).
In summary, the most notable citation changes are (1) the date of a judicial opinion will appear at the end of
the citation, (2) the district rather than the county and the date will appear in parentheses at the end of a court of appeals’ citation if it is not published in print, (3) Ohio case citations will no longer refer to Ohio Bar Reports (OBR) or
Ohio Opinions (O.O., O.O.2d, O.O.3d), (4) the Ohio Constitution will now be cited Article IV, Section 11 rather than
Section 11, Article IV, (5) federal circuits will be identified as 6th Cir. instead of C.A.6, and (6) federal statutes will
be cited using 42 U.S.C. 1982 instead of Section 1982, Title 42, U.S.Code. These changes minimize idiosyncrasies
in Ohio’s former citation style and still provide sufficient information to allow accurate retrieval of an authority on
which the author relied.
The remainder of Part I covers matters such as the short-form citations, acronyms, and abbreviations. Signals
(accord, compare, see, etc.) will be italicized. As noted earlier, Part I sets forth the citation form that will be used by
the Supreme Court. Those preparing document for filing in the court should follow Part I the manual of citations. Conformance to another generally recognized citation manual, however, will still be acceptable.
Part II. Style Guide
Where the first part of the manual concerning citations is in great part a revision of earlier versions, the second
and third parts were written to create a comprehensive Supreme Court writing manual. The second part of the manual,
the Style Guide, sets forth standard guidelines for formal English writing. The style guide attempts to assist the writer
with common grammatical conventions. When more than one correct standard or practice exists, one alternative has
been chosen for the sake of uniformity.
16
The ten sections are arranged by topic and include direction on capitalization (Section Seven), dates in texts
(Section Eight), use of numbers (Section Nine), punctuation (Section Ten), footnotes (Section Eleven), italics (Section Twelve), acronyms, abbreviations, and parenthetical references (Section Thirteen), case captions (Section Fourteen), and headings (Section Fifteen). The last section in this part lists more than 50 commonly misused words and
phrases (Section Sixteen).
Certain stylistic choices have been made. Block quotations are now to be used when the text is longer than
four lines. Footnotes are generally disfavored, headings within longer opinions are encouraged, and acronyms and abbreviations are not to be overused. Juveniles are not to be identified by their full names to protect their privacy. Section
Fourteen on case captions will be particularly helpful in maintaining technical accuracy in complex cases.
The style guide makes no attempt to be comprehensive. For rules of punctuation, grammar, diction, hyphenation, and usage that are not covered by this second part of the writing manual, the court follows conventions of standard English and relies in particular on The Chicago Manual of Style (15th Ed.2003); Sabin, The Gregg Reference
Manual (9th Ed.2001); Johnson, The Handbook of Good English (Rev.Ed.1991); Garner, A Dictionary of Modern
Legal Usage (1995); and Strunk & White, The Elements of Style (4th Ed.2000). Subjects covered include capitalization, punctuation, use of footnotes, headings, and captions.
Part III. Structure of a Judicial Opinion
The third part of the manual contains the last five sections and also is not intended to be prescriptive, but to
simply offer several examples of how an Ohio Supreme Court opinion might be organized. As a guide intended to assist writers of judicial opinions, it offers an outline setting forth the basic components of an opinion in the traditional
sequence, followed by several examples written in the court’s style.
This part is offered as a guide to organizing a straightforward judicial opinion. First, it addresses the subject of authorial discretion (Section Seventeen). Next, it sets forth the basic components and subcomponents of an opinion, arranged
in the traditional sequence (Section Eighteen). It then presents three examples of fictitious Supreme Court opinions,
two civil and one criminal, whose structure follows the outline (Section Nineteen). All three cases are arranged as they
would appear in the Ohio Official Reports, except that marginal notes have been added to identify outline elements and
explain certain points. Section Twenty discusses the need for precise dispositional language, with examples of various
dispositions. Finally, Section Twenty-One considers the topic of separate opinions.
Because there are many ways to write a good judicial opinion, the guide is meant to provide a basic model that
can be easily followed and adapted for a variety of cases with single or multiple issues. The principles illustrated in
this third part of the manual can also be adapted for other legal writing. The reader will always benefit from a logical
presentation organized through headings and subheadings and by issues clearly introduced and summarized.
Although this new manual is officially for the Supreme Court, we welcome its adoption by other courts. The
court intends to update the manual periodically and to ensure that the latest version will always be available at the
court’s website (www.supremecourt.ohio.gov). Look for the icon labeled “Writing Manual” on the right-hand column
of the court’s home page.
If you have any comments on the Writing Manual, please contact the Reporter’s Office at the Supreme Court
of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431. Telephone: 614.387.9580, toll-free at 1.800.826.9010.
E-mail: [email protected].
17
2011 Community Recognition Awards
Harvey J. Reed, Director
Ohio Department
of
Youth Services
In partnership with the Ohio Association of Juvenile Court Judges and the Governor’s Council on Juvenile
Justice, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) presented the Third Annual Community Recognition Awards
on December 1, 2011. The presentation highlighted youth who have done an outstanding job of turning their lives
around and recognized community partners for providing valuable services to youth.
In August 2011, DYS began the call for nominations for the awards, and agencies from all over the state responded with recommendations of many successful youth and notable community programs. A committee composed
of judges and staff, children’s advocacy groups and DYS reviewed the nominations and had the challenging task of
narrowing the selections to be highlighted at the presentation. Five deserving programs and six exemplary youth were
selected.
The Linda Modry Young Woman of Achievement
Award is given in honor of Linda Modry, who retired in
2011 as Deputy Director of Parole and Community Services at DYS. Throughout her career, Linda was passionate
about seeing youth, especially young women, succeed. She
was a key to the agency creating and preserving collaborative relationships with juvenile courts and community
programs. Linda was present at the event and received a
plaque acknowledging the presentation of an annual award
in her honor.
Director Reed and the providers of ArtWorks 2011 honor
Bethany, a youth participant in the “Absence Trua youth during the 2011 Community Recognition Awards
ancy Tardy Elimination Now Docket” (ATTEND), part of
the Warren County Juvenile Court, was presented with the
Linda Modry Young Woman of Achievement Award. With support from ATTEND, Bethany has made significant
changes in her life and is on the path to high school graduation. In addition, Bethany is doing a fine job raising her
young child as a single mother.
The J. Thomas Mullen Achievement Award is given in memory of Tom Mullen, who served as the second Director of DYS, President and CEO of Catholic Charities of Northeast Ohio and Chair of the Governor’s Council on
Juvenile Justice. Throughout his career, Mr. Mullen showed tireless dedication to Ohio’s youth.
The Lorain County Juvenile Drug Court was presented with the J. Thomas Mullen Achievement Award. This
program uses a therapeutic and strengths-based approach to assist juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent and
struggle with substance abuse. Youth receive access to treatment and services, and the drug court stresses the importance of parental involvement as well as academic performance.
Antonio, a youth participant of the Lorain County Juvenile Drug Court, was presented with the J. Thomas Mullen Achievement Award. This young man has worked hard to get his life back on track. With support from his family,
he graduated from Lifeskills in June 2011, earning two scholarships to the Lorain County Community College, where
he is now taking classes. Antonio is working at a local factory, seven days a week, in addition to being a student.
18
The Thomas J. Stickrath Reentry Award is given in honor of Tom Stickrath, former Director of DYS and current Director of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation. From his time as Assistant Director of the Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction to his years at DYS and today, Director Stickrath has been passionate about promoting
successful reentry for youth and adults, reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety.
The Muskingum County Juvenile Court Reentry Initiative was the recipient of the Thomas J. Stickrath Reentry Award for 2011. The Reentry Initiative uses a transitional plan to incorporate community protection as well as
the juvenile’s competency and accountability through counseling services, routine surveillance checks, employment
preparation and education monitoring for youth. Since its inception in 2007, a total of 28 youth have already successfully completed the program, and 27 participants have earned high school diplomas and/or GEDs.
Lance, a youth participant in the Muskingum County Juvenile Court Reentry Initiative was honored with the
Thomas J. Stickrath Reentry Award. This young man was headed on the wrong path and became involved with the
Muskingum County Juvenile Court. With support from his mother, he embraced the programming offered by the Perry
Multi County Juvenile Facility and the Reentry Initiative. Lance is now working and on track to graduate from John
Glenn High School in 2013. He is working closely with his employer to learn and develop his skills and plans to go to
college to pursue a degree in business development.
The Community Award is an honor presented to an outstanding youth and community program. Recipients
are selected based on the youth benefit from the program and the youth’s accomplishments. A total of 3 Community
Awards are presented.
Directions for Youth and Families received a Community Award. Based in Columbus, the Directions for Youth
and Families program assists families and young people to help them identify strengths and learn new skills that lead
to healthier decision making. With the ultimate goal to achieve success in their lives, families and youth work with
staff to address many issues including violence, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, delinquency and abuse. “Directions”
programs are offered in homes, schools, and community centers. Directions for Youth and Families has a counseling
program that has helped thousands of youth and their families avoid the cycle of the juvenile justice system and put
kids on the track to success.
Joshua, a youth participant of Directions for Youth and Families, was presented with a Community Award. At
one time Joshua was struggling with school behavior and academics and also faced criminal charges. This young man
was referred to Directions for Youth and Families to work on anger management and to learn to make better decisions
and improve his school performance. Joshua applied himself, improved his grades significantly, turned his conduct
around and has faced no probation violations or new charges. Joshua even was eligible to play some football and received a little playing time on the varsity team as a freshman at Walnut Ridge High School.
Building Bridges, located in Dayton, also received a Community Award. This program is an intensive rehabilitation program that serves hundreds of at-risk youth and their families every year. The program seeks to provide a
safety net for youth involved with the court and children’s services that offer discipline, structure and skills in settings
including a group home, work therapy groups, educational programs, recreational groups, sports teams, social gatherings and summer trips. Last year, over 75% of all court-involved youth who were involved in the Building Bridges
Work Therapy group successfully completed their probation supervision while gaining self-confidence, self esteem,
social skills and improved family relationships.
A highly successful participant of Building Bridges, Decapolis, was honored with a Community Award. Decapolis has had to overcome much adversity including the loss of both parents; foster care placement; and separation
from his siblings. This young man was supported at the Building Bridges Group Home, and he has displayed much
resiliency. Decapolis was awarded admission into Central State University where he is currently a freshman.
19
The Director’s Award is the highest honor presented to a youth and community program. The DYS director is
privileged to select the recipients based on the youth benefit from the program and the youth’s accomplishments.
The Director’s Award was presented to Artworks 2011, a program with the Young Audiences of Northeast
Ohio, which enriches the lives of children and promotes creative learning by uniting arts and education. This workplace development program utilizes the power of the arts to transform the lives of Northeast Ohio adolescents. For six
summer weeks, youth from diverse socio-economic backgrounds serve as paid apprentices to professional artists and
gain arts and employment skills to succeed in the classroom, in the 21st century workplace and in life. The program
provides an irreplaceable outlet for students who come from environments that put them at risk for delinquent behavior. Since its inception in 2005, more than 600 teens have participated.
Sebrina is the youth recipient of the Director’s Award. Sebrina had significant family challenges, associated
with the wrong crowd, and found herself in trouble before becoming an ArtWorks 2011 ceramics apprentice. She applied to ArtWorks because art was her refuge – the only place she really felt comfortable. During the six-week program, Sebrina demonstrated continuous improvement and became “an asset to the workplace.” Sebrina is currently
completing her senior year and plans to attend college after she graduates. Not only did ArtWorks improve her skills
as a young artist, it gave her training in workplace behavior and preparation for pursuing her professional goals and
reaching her full potential.
Congratulations to all of the nominees and award winners! The Community Recognition Awards provide an
exciting forum to celebrate youth successes and thank staff for a job well-done.
OJC In Action - Committee News
We
For
serve
Ohio’s
judges, and we serve best when
information about the
OJC
Ohio’s
judges are involved
standing committees, click on the name of the committee and it
will take you to the committee page on the
OJC
website. If you would like to be involved please
call or email; our phone numbers and email addresses are shown on page
27.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Judicial Compensation & Benefits
Magistrates
Civil Law & Procedure
Judicial Education
Probate Law & Procedure
Community Corrections
Judicial Ethics & Professionalism
Court Administration
Ohio Jury Instructions
Public Confidence & Community
Outreach
Court Technology
Jury Service
Publications
Criminal Law & Procedure
Juvenile Law & Procedure
Retired Judges
Domestic Relations Law & Procedure
Legislative
Specialized Dockets
20
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
JUDICIAL COLLEGE
COURSE SCHEDULE
(for Judges, Magistrates, Acting Judges, Court Personnel, & Judicial Candidates)
DATE
COURSE
March 2012
FOR
LOCATION
7-9
Wed - Fri
Probation Officer Academy (Module 1)
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
8
Thu
Guardian Ad Litem 6 hr Pre-Service (3 of 12)
Attorneys
Hilton Akron/Fairlawn
14 - 16 Wed - Fri
New Magistrate Orientation
Magistrates
Crowne Plaza North – Columbus
15 - 16 Thu - Fri
Abuse, Neglect & Dependency 101
Judges & Magistrates
Columbus
16
Fri
Jury Trial Skills
Judges
Crowne Plaza Dublin Columbus
21
Wed
Guardian Ad Litem 3 Hr Course (5 of 24) (1:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m.)
Attorneys
Mohican State Park - Perrysville
21 - 22 Wed - Thu Court Executive Team Seminar
Court Personnel, Judges
& Magistrates
Doubletree Worthington Columbus
22
Thu
Guardian Ad Litem 3 Hr Course (6 of 24) (8:30 a.m. noon)
Attorneys
Mohican State Park - Perrysville
23
Fri
New Americans
& Magistrates
Columbus
28 - 30 Wed - Fri
CMP 2012 Module V: Managing Technology Projects
and Technology Resources
CMP Participants
Embassy Suites Airport Columbus
30
Municipal: DUS Epidemic
Magistrates, Judges &
Acting Judges
Video Teleconference
Fri
April 2012
4
Wed
Guardian Ad Litem 6 Hr Pre-Service Course (4 of 12)
Attorneys
Quest Conf. Center (Columbus)
4
Wed
Performance Management (1 of 2)
Probation Officers
5
Thu
Performance Management (2 of 2)
Probation Officers
10 - 11 Tue - Wed PO Academy: What Works
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
12
PO Academy Basic Defensive Tactics (1 of 2)
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
12 - 13 Thu - Fri
Certified Court Managers Course
Court Managers
Columbus
13
Fri
Acting Judge Course (1 of 4): Avoiding Potential
Minefields
Acting Judges
Holiday Inn Fairborn - Dayton
13
Fri
Domestic Relations Spring Seminar
Embassy Suites Dublin Columbus
13
Fri
PO Academy Advanced Defensive Tactics (1 of 2)
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
16 - 20 Mon - Fri
New Judge Orientation Part II
New Judges
17
Tue
Attorneys
Shawnee State Park Portsmouth
18
Wed
Guardian Ad Litem 3 Hr Course (8 of 24) (8:30 a.m. noon)
Attorneys
Shawnee State Park Portsmouth
CMP 2014 Module I: Managing Court Financial
Resources
CMP Participants
Embassy Suites - Columbus
Thu
18 - 20 Wed - Fri
21
25
Wed
25 - 27 Wed - Fri
May 2012
Jury Managers Course
Court Personnel
Columbus
Ohio Association of Magistrates (OAM) Spring
Conference
Magistrates*
Cherry Valley Lodge - Newark
3
Thu
Attorneys
Holiday Inn French Quarter
Perrysburg - Toledo
3-4
Thu - Fri
Capital Cases
Judges
4
Fri
Sex Offender Course
Probation Officers
Quest Conference Center Columbus
7 - 11
Mon - Fri
PO Academy Firearms Module
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
10
Thu
Domestic Relations Court Personnel Course
Domestic Relations Court
Personnel
11
Fri
Municipal Course (1 of 2): Debtor - Creditor
Acting Judges
Embassy Suites Beachwood Cleveland
18
Fri
Civil Procedures By The Numbers Part III
22
Tue
Attorneys
23
Wed
Guardian Ad Litem 3 Hr Course (10 of 24) (8:30 a.m.
- noon)
Attorneys
June 2012
1
Fri
Judicial Candidates Seminar (1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.)
Judicial Candidates
Ohio Judicial Center Columbus
5-7
Tue - Thu
Ohio Association of Juvenile/Probate/Domestic
Relations Judges Summer Conference
Judges*
Bertram Inn - Aurora
6
Wed
Law, Life & Literature w/Judges Association
Judges*
Bertram Inn - Aurora
8
Fri
Computer Lab - Personal Technology
12
Tue
Guardian Ad Litem 3 Hr Course (11 of 24) (1:00 p.m.
- 4:00 p.m.)
Attorneys
13
Wed
- noon)
Attorneys
13
Wed
Plan-Project Meeting (1 of 2)
Probation Officers
14
Thu
Plan-Project Meeting (2 of 2)
Probation Officers
14 - 15 Thu - Fri
Ohio Courts of Appeals Judges Association Summer
Conference (OCAJA)
Judges*
15
Municipal (2 of 2): Debtor - Creditor
Acting Judges
20 - 22 Wed - Fri
Ohio Common Pleas Judges Association Summer
Conference (OCPJA)
Judges*
Kalahari - Sandusky
21
Attorneys
Mansfield
Juvenile Court Clerks Course
Juvenile Court Clerks
Fri
Thu
28 - 29 Thu - Fri
22
July 2012
9 - 13
Mon - Fri
Juvenile Detention TOT
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
10
Tue
Attorneys
11
Wed
Magistrate Practice: General Division
Magistrates
11
Wed
Magistrate Practice: Juvenile Course
Magistrates
12
Thu
Law, Life & Literature (Magistrate Practice)
Magistrates
12
Thu
Magistrate Practice: General Interest
Magistrates
13
Fri
Magistrate Practice: Business Entities Issues in
Municipal and County Courts
Acting Judges
13
Fri
Magistrate Practice: Domestic Relations Course
Magistrates
13
Fri
Magistrate Practice: Probate Course
Magistrates
16 - 18 Mon - Wed Association of Municipal/County Judges of Ohio, Inc.
Summer Meeting (AMCJO)
Judges*
25
Wed
- 4:30 p.m.)
Attorneys
Hilton Garden Perrysburg Toledo
25
Wed
PO Academy: PSI Writing
Probation Officers
26
Thu
- noon)
Attorneys
Hilton Garden Perrysburg Toledo
26
Thu
PO Academy: Search and Seizure Classroom
Probation Officers
27
Fri
PO Academy: Verbal Tactics
Probation Officers
31 - 1
Tue - Wed Annual Planning Meeting
Invited Participants
Columbus
August 2012
3
Fri
Delinquency & Unruly
6 - 10
Mon - Fri
Parent Project TOT
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
7
Tue
Attorneys
Wyndham Garden Dayton South
14 - 16 Tue - Thu
PO Academy: Search & Seizure Drills
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
15
Wed
PO Academy: Special Populations
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
16
Thu
Judicial Candidates Seminar (1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.)
Judicial Candidates
17
Fri
Computer Lab - ELR
23
Thu
- 4:30 p.m.)
Attorneys
Holiday Inn Boardman Youngstown
24
Fri
- noon)
Attorneys
23
September 2012
5-7
Wed - Fri
CMP 2014 Court Performance Standards with
Courtools
CMP Students
6
Thu
Attorneys
Deercreek State Park - Mt.
Sterling
7
Fri
Abuse, Neglect, Dependency
12
Wed
Ohio Courts of Appeals Judges Association Fall
Conference (OCAJA)
Judges*
Hilton Polaris - Columbus
13 - 14 Thu - Fri
Ohio Judicial Conference Annual Meeting
Judges*
14
Fri
Court Reporters Course
Court Personnel
19
Wed
- 4:30 p.m.)
Attorneys
19 - 21 Wed - Fri
CMP 2013 Level II Module IV: Visioning and Strategic
Planning
CMP 2013 Tier II Class
20
Thu
Minefields
Acting Judges
Holiday Inn French Quarter
Perrysburg - Toledo
20
Thu
- noon)
Attorneys
25
Tue
PO Academy: Substance Abuse
Probation Officers
Crowne Plaza North - Columbus
26
Wed
PO Academy: Street Smart on Drugs
Probation Officers
27
Thu
Organizational Culture (1 of 2)
Probation Officers
28
Fri
Clerks Course
Court Clerks
28
Fri
Organizational Culture (2 of 2)
Probation Officers
Quest Conference Center Columlbus
October 2012
3-5
Wed - Fri
CMP 2012 Module VI: Managing Human Resources
CMP Participants
3-5
Wed - Fri
Ohio Association of Magistrates (OAM) Fall
Conference
Magistrates*
9 - 10
Tue - Wed Mentally Ill Youth in the Courts
Probation Officers
10
Wed
- 4:30 p.m.)
Attorneys
11
Thu
- noon)
Attorneys
12
Fri
Juvenile Traffic
15 - 19 Mon - Fri
Juvenile Detention TOT
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
18
Thu
Constitutional Law
Judges
19
Fri
Judicial Ethics and Access to Justice & Fairness
Judges
23
Tue
Guardian Ad Litem 6 Hr Pre-Service Course (10 of
Attorneys
Invited Participants
24 - 25 Wed - Thu Faculty Development
24
26
Fri
Municipal Course: Damages
Magistrates
26
Fri
Pretrial Services Course
Court Personnel
Columbus
November 2012
1
Thu
- 4:30 p.m.)
Attorneys
Athens
1
Thu
PO Academy: Basic Defensive Tactics (2 of 2)
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
2
Fri
General Division Course
Magistrates & Judges
2
Fri
- noon)
Attorneys
Athens
2
Fri
PO Academy: Advanced Defensive Tactics (2 of 2)
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
8
Thu
Minefields
Acting Judges
Holiday Inn Strongsville Cleveland
14
Wed
Attorneys
14
Wed
Probate Seminar
Magistrates & Judges
15
Thu
New Americans
& Magistrates
16
Fri
Evidence
Judges
16
Fri
Judicial Transitions
Probation Officers
Webinar
30
Fri
Magistrate Ethics
Magistrates
December 2012
4
Tue
Ohio Association of Domestic Relations Judges
Winter Conference
Judges*
5-7
Wed - Fri
Defensive Tactics Faculty
Probation Officers
OPOTA - London
5-7
Wed - Fri
Ohio Common Pleas Judges Association Winter
Conference (OCPJA)
Judges*
6
Thu
Minefields
Acting Judges
6-7
Thu - Fri
Judges*
10 - 14
Mon – Fri
Ohio Association of Juvenile Court Judges (OAJCJ)
Winter Meeting
New Judge Orientation Part I
New Judges
11
Tue
Guardian Ad Litem 3 Hr Course (23 of 24) (1:00 4:30 p.m.)
Attorneys
12
Wed
- noon)
Attorneys
14
Fri
Ethics
Judges
18
Tue
Attorneys
(phone)
614.387.9445
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
JUDICIAL COLLEGE
(fax) 614.387.9449
(e-mail) [email protected]
TO VIEW THE MOST UPDATED VERSION OF THE COURSE CALENDAR
PLEASE VISIT THE JUDICIAL COLLEGE WEBSITE AT
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov
25
OJC Citizens Guide Brochures
OJC Citizens Guide Brochures
How to Order
The Judicial Conference has created a series of brochures to help judges inform the public about Ohio’s
judicial system. We have seven tri-fold brochures with general information about aspects of the judicial system
and one 25-page guide to small claims court. The back panel of each brochure has space for a standard size
mailing label with contact information for a local court or judge.
Tri-Fold Series
The Citizens Guide tri-fold series consists of seven of the following brochures:
• Jury Service
• Grand Jury Service
• Legal Terminology
• Electing Judges
• Representing Yourself
• Ohio Courts
• Mediation
The brochures can be ordered in bulk at a low cost of 15 or 20 cents per copy, depending on the number ordered.
Small Claims Court Guide
The Small Claims Court brochure is a new edition of a brochure that was previously published by the
Ohio State Bar Foundation. It has been updated and redesigned.
This guide can be ordered for 58 cents per copy.
Ordering Information
Individual brochures are available for download at www.ohiojudges.org on the
“Publications” webpage. You may also place your orders for large quantities of the Citizens Guide Brochures
on this same page or retrieve a downloadable order form on this page that can be faxed.
You may also contact Trina Bennington at [email protected] or 614-387-9750 to obtain
ordering information or for general questions regarding the brochures.
26
Ohio Judicial Conference Staff
Executive Director
Hon. Mark R. Schweikert, Retired
[email protected]
Legislative Activities Coordinator
Donna Childers, Ph.D.
[email protected]
614-387-9750
Project Specialist
Jeff Jablonka
[email protected]
614-387-9753
614-387-9763
Program Specialist
Jennie Long
[email protected]
614-387-9766
Judicial Services Coordinator
Kristin Schultz, Esq.
[email protected]
614-387-9767
Administrative Assistant
Trina Bennington
[email protected]
614-387-9761
Legislative Liaison
Louis Tobin, Esq.
[email protected]
614-387-9756
Fiscal Specialist/Office Manager
Jayma Umbstaetter
[email protected]
Legislative Secretary
Alyssa Guthrie
[email protected]
Legislative Liaison
Christina Madriguera, Esq. 614-387-9764
[email protected]
614-387-9765
614-387-9757
27

directions - Ohio Judicial Conference

Transcription

Similar documents

Sherry L. Smith Margaret A. Searle Will Kirby

Columbus Metropolitan Library

OSU, Jerome Schottenstein Center

Complete Streets - Health Policy Institute of Ohio

Davis Development Group and Landerhaven Corporate

www.duketarchitects.com 2011 Maumee, Ohio

We`d like to express a sincere thank you to all of our sponsors – you

Environmental Pest Management Newsletter

jd kaplan - GraphicsAD.com

covered bridge tour