Developing Fundamentals of Partnership between the Court Administrator and the Chief Judge: Ukrainian Experience
Nataliia Chumak is currently the Deputy Head of State
Judicial Administration Office in the city of Kyiv (Ukraine),
Board Chairwoman of the “Court Management Institute”
NGO, a participant of the faculty team for the Michigan State
University (MSU) Judicial Administration Certificate Program
in Ukraine and she is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the
Journal of Judicial Administrators of Ukraine “NewsLetter of
Court Management Institute”. In this capacity she is promoting
best practices and innovations in court administration
throughout Ukraine. Nataliia is located in Kyiv, Ukraine.
Nataliia Chumak may be reached at chumak.icmi@gmail.com
In this article, the author analyzes various models on which the interaction between a Chief Judge and a court administrator is based. The author also gives the overview of the judicial administrator profession history in Ukraine and discusses the conditions under which it becomes possible to achieve the optimal and effective model of cooperation between the two key leaders in the court.
Needless to say, proper administration of court operations secures necessary conditions for high quality adjudication of justice, thus, affecting the court performance and the level of public trust to the judicial system. There are two key figures in the judicial administration: the chief judge and court administrator (chief of staff, court clerk, registrar). It is no wonder that a lot of attention is paid in court administration today to ensuring efficient interaction between these two figures. This is evidenced by numerous publications, training programs, and training courses. The partnership between the chief judge and court administrator is singled out in a separate module in many basic training courses on court administration. The importance of this issue was also highlighted by a number of course selections which were offered as part of the International Conference on Court Administration in Washington, DC, in July 2017. The conference attracted a large audience of those willing to investigate the problem.
In this first example, during the session “The Judiciary and Delivery of Justice Evidence-Based Practices”, speakers Jeff Apperson and Mary McQueen presented two models of developing the successful partnership between the chief judge and court administrator: “Loosely Coupled Organization (LCO)” and “Productive Pairs”. Another session was entitled “Leading and Managing; When Status, Power, and Control Collide: The Story of Chief/President Judges and Court Administrators” featuring speakers Dr. Maureen Conner and Dr. Luis María Palma. This class was intended to analyze the roles and responsibilities of the chief judge and court administrator in the fast-changing environment and define further steps to develop such cooperation.
Therefore, the theory and practice of modern court governance pays serious attention to problems of governance. An analysis of existing models of cooperation between the chief judge and court administrators allowsus to identify three major categories:
- Complete removal of the chief judge from ვsupervision over the court administrator;
- Minimal participation of the court administrator in the organization of court operations because of an insignificant scope of his/her powers and the chief judge’s leading role in resolving administrative issues; and
- Close collaboration of the chief judge and court administrator aiming at partnership where the former defines the court policy and strategy and the latter ensures implementation thereof.
Surely, the third model may be deemed optimal should it be based on trust and mutual respect. Support from all individuals working at the court makes such a model viable. In this case, both judges and staff members are aware that their joint efforts are supposed to ensure high-quality and efficient adjudication of justice.
The judges focus on the major task of the court: they adjudicate
justice based on the principles of rule of law, respect of rights and liberties, and everyone’s right to a fair trial. In doing so, the staff performs support functions. For this example, the chief of staff’s mission is to relieve the judges of the administrative burden associated with resolution of a large number of organizational issues. His/her task consists in operational leadership and governance based on partnership with the judiciary as usually represented by the chief judge as well as judicial self-governance bodies.
As far as the Ukraine is concerned, development of the Court Administrator profession is still in its initial phase. The professional judicial community is just becoming aware of the importance of the chief of staff as a key administrative position at a court. Prior to 2006, when the chief of staff position was introduced at Ukrainian courts, the chief judge was the main administrator at a court of any level. All staff members were subordinated to the chief judge.
The tradition of such hierarchy turned out to be so strong that when the chief of staff position was introduced at our courts, it was not perceived as a professional manager position right away. Quite often, chief judges saw the position as nothing more than a senior office clerk. At the same time, it was getting clear that the knowledge gained during law school was not sufficient for the chief of staff position. Indeed, professional court administration requires knowledge of management and managerial skills. In 2010, the changes of the Ukrainian legislation to the judiciary became the next momentous stage of developing professional court administration. The new laws greatly expanded powers of the chief of court staff and entitled the chief of staff to hire staff members and to perform managerial and supervisory functions regarding staff members. For the first time ever, legislators defined the key role of the court administrator in organizing the case flow and operation of the automated document flow system, thereby securing that the court has the necessary financial, material-and-technical resources etc. The new law made the chief of staff responsible for successful completion of these tasks by the court.
From now on, the chief judge is cast in the role of monitoring the performance of the chief of staff. In addition, the chief of staff has become subject to reporting to the judicial self-governance body: the chiefof staff may be dismissed should the meeting of judges impeach his/her credibility. At the same time, the chief judge continues representing the court as a government authority in external affairs and managing government funds according to budgetary laws.
Later, there were other amendments to the Ukrainian legislation on the judiciary. However, they did not greatly affect the above described status of the court chief of staff. Some aspects of segregation of powers of the chief judge and chief of staff remain ungoverned. Unfortunately, existing gaps in the legislation preclude partnership of these key figures in the court from consolidation and strengthening.
In view of the above, one can identify the following areas where interaction and partnership between the chief judge and court administrator could be improved: Regulation: Indeed, the Ukrainian judiciary lacks statutory provisions which would clearly define and segregate powers of the chief judge and chief of staff. Only legislators can eliminate this shortcoming. Organizational-and-methodological framework:
The chief judge will not be able to monitor the court administrator’s performance unless there are clear criteria of such performance. There is also a need for up- to-date information on the actual situation in the court and progress with completion of regular and irregular tasks. Here, international practices can come in handy as there exists many efficient systems for managing court operations quality and evaluating judicial excellence. And, we could successfully apply in our actual conditions, those modules which were developed for the purpose of evaluating the quality of court administration.
However, mental changes will be the most complicated stage of building the efficient “chief judge – court administrator” dyad. An authoritative and inflexible chief judge can hardly appreciate the very idea of such cooperation and partnership and repudiate the means of influence on court operations which he/she got used to.
On the other hand, an incompetent chief of staff without leadership qualities cannot act as an equal partner in communications with the judiciary and chief judge. A key to successful interaction of the court’s two main officials vested with powers of authority and administrative powers, consist in mutual respect and awareness by both of their responsibilities and their ability to hold a dialog and to reach a consensus. To improve their managerial competences, gain knowledge of, and master skills of practical management at a court, the chief judge and court administrator need to undergo relevant training. A possibility of joint participation in a specially designed program of training in leadership, interaction, and partnership would be extremely valuable.
Today, those Ukrainian courts where the chief judge and chief of staff managed to create an effective and reliable dyad demonstrate initial results of their efficient cooperation, such as improved quality of court services, proper organization of court operations, positive psychological climate, motivated staff members, increased public trust, and growing reputation of the court.
We are just at the beginning of a long way towards judicial excellence and excellence in relationships. But we have already made initial steps; there is no way back. I fully agree with Dr. Maureen Conner who believes that if the advancements continue, the Ukraine court administrators will have much to share with the rest of the world as their efforts represent a case study of how to develop and sustain a profession.
References:
1. Hlushchenko S. V. Problem Issues of the Organizational Support of the
Higher Specialized Court/ Адміністративне право і процес. – No 1(7). –
2014.
2. Conner, Maureen E. 2016. Developing the Court Administration
Viewpoint. Newsletter of the Ukraine Court Management Institute, Winter
Issue, no. 1.
3. Mary Campbell McQueen, President, National Center for State Courts
Two Sides of the Gavel, or C