SAVE Commission's findings - La Follette School of Public Affairs ...

A comprehensive family maintenance system
also makes sense, perhaps administered by
a single agency for a county on a competitive
basis, open to public employees, the private
sector and not-for-profit organizations, assuming
there is a “level playing field” allowing fair
treatment for all.
R E S U L T S
EFFECTIVENESS
In successful re-engineering, a required
question is whether the system itself is bad. The
courts are tradition-honored processes in a time
of rapid change. Finding answers to basic systems
questions may be difficult because the
courts are not only distant from other branches,
but they also don’t have the same sense of need
for change.
The courts and other branches should
strategically plan, sometimes together. From a
technological standpoint alone, the planning is
badly needed. Scientific evidence is valued as
much as eye-witness accounts. Tools such as
virtual reality, animation and genetic testing are
dismantling the paperdriven
system. Historically,
courts lag behind
science and the recent
Carnegie Commission
suggests wise steps.
Government growth
is slowing. The courts
should ask the question other branches must ask:
how do we get out of this business? For the
courts, that is a huge question to undertake,
since it means taking steps to reduce the level
of litigation.
The legal profession and the Legislature
should reflect on whether some practices, such
Focusing on the judicial
branch will:
1 Treat the judicial branch with the
same management scrutiny as
other branches.
2 Bring it as a full partner into the
technology age.
“The judiciary generally escapes
reform efforts, but is a major
cost factor.”
Joe Martin, Arthur Andersen and Co.
as large awards for punitive damage, encourage
lawsuits and detract from the credibility of
the system. They also should study how to cooperate
on issues such as sentencing laws to
determine their true costs before implementation.
Together, the branches should look for
answers to shared questions that have their origins
in science and technology, such as those
involving computer crime and the human
gnome. Not all legislatures and courts are prepared
to debate science and related ethics issues.
RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RIGHTS
Another challenge is the way people view
the whole legal and political system. Currently,
the court’s role is defined in terms of rights.
But we have to ask how our Founders wanted
to deal with responsibilities to balance those
rights. That is a question for public dialogue
that the legal profession should ponder.
Another part of that dialogue might explore
whether law is
the modern equivalent
of lowest common
denominator
morality. If so, does
the legal profession
have an obligation to
discuss how to take
higher ethical ground or encourage resolving
issues outside the court, through conflict resolution
or mediation for the sake of community
fabric? Might the attorneys also lead a discussion
on the long-term effects of pursuing personal,
rather than community, happiness?
3 Move the courts from a paper
based system to an electronic
based system.
4 Reduce turf battles among state
courts.
5 Save taxpayers money as hightech
efficiencies are implemented.
6 Streamline delivery of social
services to families to avoid
duplication and waste.
22.3
Address artificial
barriers that discourage
efficiency.
22.4
Examine the concept of
responsibilities with
rights.
22.5
Aggressively develop a
state alternative dispute
resolution strategy.
22.6
Address juvenile crime
and violence.
22.7
Provide adequate
information to justice
system professionals.
22.8
Calculate the costs of
crime and punishment.
22.9
Evaluate new ways of
securing funding for
courts.
22.10
Adopt a competitively
driven social services
model.
22.11
Place the court system
on a sum certain
budget.
22.12
Eliminate archaic
procedural requirements.
CITIZEN • COMMUNITY • GOVERNMENT — WISCONSIN: THE 21 ST CENTURY 59