Texas Judicial Council

2000-2001 REPORT OF ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

The Texas Judicial Council (Council) was created in 1929 by the 41^st Legislature to study and make recommendations for improving the administration of the Texas judicial system. Since its inception, the Council has collected comprehensive statewide statistics on the operation of Texas courts. The Office of Court Administration (OCA) helps the Council fulfill its duties by collecting and annually publishing information on the docket activities of each appellate, district, county, justice, and municipal court in the state.

In 1997, the 75^th Legislature passed House Bill 2297 which restructured the membership of the Council and placed it under the direct supervision of the Chief Justice. These changes, along with legislative appropriations for the hiring of two full-time staff persons, have substantially improved the Council's ability to address the most pressing issues facing Texas' judicial system.

This report discusses the activities, findings, and recommendations of the Texas Judicial Council since December 1, 2000.

In addition the Texas Judicial Council's 73^rd Annual Report on the Texas Judicial System, which is published by the Office of Court Administration, will be available in January 2002.

II. DUTIES, MEMBERSHIP, MEETINGS, AND COMMITTEES

Duties. Chapter 71, Government Code, charges the Council with the following duties⁽¹⁾:

(1) continuously study the organization, rules, procedures and practice, work accomplished, results, and uniformity of the discretionary powers of the state courts and methods for their improvement;

(2) receive and consider advice from judges, public officials, members of the Bar, and citizens concerning remedies for faults in the administration of justice;

(3) design methods for simplifying judicial procedure, expediting the transaction of judicial business, and correcting faults in the administration of justice;

(4) file a complete detailed report with the Governor and the Supreme Court before December 2 of each year on Council activities, information from the Council's study, and Council recommendations;

(5) investigate and report on matters concerning the administration of justice that the Supreme court or the Legislature refers to the Council; and

(6) gather judicial statistics and other pertinent information from the several state judges and other court officials of the state.

Membership. The Council consists of 22 members. Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips serve ex officio as chair, and Presiding Judge Sharon Keller of the Court of Criminal Appeals serves ex officio as vice-chair. Chief Justice Phillips has appointed the following judges to serve on the Council:

Chief Justice John H. Cayce (2^nd Court of Appeals);

Justice Marilyn Ann McClure (8^th Court of Appeals);

Judge Jim Parsons (3^rd District Court);

Presiding Judge Dean Rucker (318^th District Court);

Judge Orlinda L. Naranjo (Travis County Court-at-Law No. 2);

Judge Mike Wood (Harris County Probate Court No. 2);

Judge Al Green (Justice of the Peace Precinct 7, Harris County);

Judge Penny L. Pope (Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, Galveston County);

Judge Rodolfo Tamez (Presiding Judge, Corpus Christi, Municipal Court); and

Judge Glenn Philips (Judge, City of , Municipal Court).

Lieutenant Governor Bill Ratliff appointed Senator Royce West of Dallas (serving in his capacity as chair of the Senate Jurisprudence Committee) and Senator Robert Duncan of Lubbock to the Council. Speaker Pete Laney appointed Representative Senfronia Thompson of Houston (serving in her capacity as chair of the House Committee on Judicial Affairs) and Representative Pete Gallego of Alpine to represent the Texas House of Representatives on the Council.

Governor George W. Bush appointed the following members to the Council:

Ms. Willie Jean Birmingham (Marshall)

Mr. James R. Brickman (Dallas);

Mr. Joseph A. Callier, Esq. (Houston);

Ms. Delia Martinez-Carian, Esq. (San Antonio);

Deacon Jose Luis Lopez (Uvalde); and

Ms. Ann Manning, Esq. (Lubbock).

Meetings. The Council has met four times since December 1, 2000⁽²⁾:

December 14, 2000 (Austin)

February 1, 2001 (Austin)

April 5, 2001 (Austin)

June 20, 2001 (Austin)

Committees. The Council appointed the following new committees in June 2001⁽³⁾:

Committee on the Equalization of Appellate Court Funding

Committee on District Courts

Committee on Juries

Committee on Judicial Data Management

Committee on Judicial Training

Committee on Prosecutors in Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts

Committee on the Judicial Voter Information Guide

III. 2000-2001 COUNCIL ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. 76^th Legislative Mandates with Recommendations to the 77^th Legislature.

1. Judicial Performance Measures. In 1997, the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency (Commission) recommended that Texas courts "establish, adopt, and regularly report uniform measures and standards of performance."⁽⁴⁾ As a result of that recommendation, the 75^th Legislature enacted several provisions to facilitate the collection of data relating to the performance of appellate and district courts.⁽⁵⁾ In May 1999, the 76^th Legislature attached two riders to HB 1 (the Appropriations Act) . The first rider required the Office of Court Administration (OCA) and the Texas Judicial Council (Council) to "conduct a pilot project to develop and implement performance measures for the individual district courts of this state."⁽⁶⁾ The second rider required the Texas Judicial Council to "develop measures to evaluate the work of individual justices on the courts of appeals."⁽⁷⁾

In August 1999, the Council formed the Committee on Judicial Performance Measures (Committee) and its attendant subcommittees, the Subcommittee on District Court Performance Measures, and the Subcommittee on Appellate Court Performance Measures. The Council appointed a district clerk, a county clerk, and members of the Judicial Section of the State Bar of Texas to serve as advisory members of the Committee. The Committee was chaired by Representative Pete Gallego (Alpine).

The Committee and its subcommittees held ten public hearings on the issue of judicial performance measures from the period of November 1999 to December 2000. The final reports with the following recommendations were adopted by the Council at its December 2000 meeting:⁽⁸⁾

Texas District Courts:

Evaluate District Court Data on a Countywide Basis. The Subcommittee believes that quantitative data, if accurately collected and reported, can provide useful information about court operations to the public, funding bodies, and more importantly, the courts themselves. The following quantitative measures or benchmarks could be used to compare the case disposition activity of counties (but not individual judges) with similar population sizes: (1) clearance rates for criminal, civil, and juvenile cases; (2) age of cases disposed for criminal and civil cases; and (3) backlog index for criminal and civil cases. There are two caveats with this recommendation: (1) that only statistical comparisons of similarly-sized counties and/or counties with comparable caseloads should be made, with a special notice given to the profound differences between urban and rural counties and their courts, subject matter jurisdiction, the use of an exchange of the bench system, the use of a master calendar system, the presence of multi-county districts, whether the district court has overlapping jurisdiction with statutory county courts or other district courts, and the complexity of the case; and (2) there are numerous qualitative measures (e.g., knowledge and application of the law, judicial temperament, and impartiality) that deserve equal, if not greater, consideration in evaluating judicial performance.
The Office of Court Administration's Statistical Reporting System Should be Revised. To ensure that accurate data is reported and that the information collected is useful to the public, the Judiciary, and the Legislature, the following changes should be made:

1. Simplify Reporting. Develop an automated reporting system that enables counties to report case statistics electronically. Require the counties to only report basic case information (e.g., case type, number of cases, date filed/disposed, and how it was disposed) that could be sorted by OCA when responding to information requests from the public, judges, or the Legislature. Allow for separate reporting of the age of disposition for civil and family law cases and the reporting of the age of disposition of juvenile cases. Clarify the definitions and categories of cases and dispositions to ensure consistent reporting;

2. Improve Data Collection and Compliance. Consider collecting data on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis and provide clearer information to district clerks regarding statutory reporting requirements; and

3. Streamline the Annual Report. Provide a shorter, clearer analysis of statewide trends and comparisons of key statistical measures (e.g., clearance rates, age of disposed cases, backlog index) from county to county.

Texas Courts of Appeals:

The Current Performance Measures Should Continue for Caseload Management. The current performance measures that were developed by the courts of appeals, the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), and the Governor's Office of Budget and Planning should continue to be used for caseload management by each court in accordance with uniform data reporting standards approved by the courts of appeals. Through the Council of Chief Justices' Committee on Docket Equalization and Performance Measures, the courts of appeals should continue to ensure that there is uniform reporting of these measures.
The Courts of Appeals Should Continuously Strive to Operate Efficiently. While the development of accurate and reliable quantitative measures to evaluate the performance of individual court of appeals justices is not practicable, the courts of appeals should continuously find ways to operate efficiently without sacrificing the quality of justice while remaining true to the rule of law.
The Office of Court Administration Should Examine the Reported Statistical Data. The Office of court Administration, with input and guidance from the courts of appeals, should continue to study whether the statistical data currently reported and published is presented in a clear, understandable format and what, if any, additional data should be collected.

2. Student Loan Repayment Program. The 76^th Legislature appropriated funds by rider to the Texas Judicial Council to establish a student loan repayment program for those who accept clerkships or temporary attorney positions in the courts.⁽⁹⁾ The rider, which followed the recommendations of the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency,⁽¹⁰⁾ allocated $255,763 for each fiscal year of the biennium (for a total of $511,526) to the program. The Committee on Law Clerk Recruitment for the Courts, with assistance from each of the state's law schools, the staff of the Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Judiciary, and members of the Bar, developed administrative guidelines for the program which were approved by the Council in February 2000.⁽¹¹⁾

During the first fiscal year of the program, 63 appellate court law clerks participated in the student loan repayment program. On average, a law clerk received a loan repayment of $4054.15 for 12 months of service at an appellate court. During the second fiscal year of the program, 68 appellate court law clerks participated in the student loan repayment program. On average, a law clerk received a loan repayment of $3752.02 for 12 months of service at an appellate court.

3. Judicial Internship Program. In addition to funding a student loan repayment program, a rider to HB 1 (The Appropriations Act) required the Council, the Judicial Branch, and the Texas law schools to develop a judicial internship program.⁽¹²⁾ In December 2000, the Council adopted the following recommendations made by the Committee on Law Clerk Recruitment for the creation of a Judicial Internship Program:⁽¹³⁾

�

The final decision as to which candidate should be selected for an internship should be made by the individual court in accordance with its current administrative policies.

The Office of Court Administration (OCA) should develop a web page describing internship opportunities with the courts in detail. The web page should include instructions on how to apply, important dates (by court), comments from previous program participants, and a contact person. There should be links from the page to each of the appellate courts throughout the state.

OCA should develop a short video presentation and brochure for use by OCA and the courts to describe internship opportunities in appellate courts.

OCA and the Judicial Council should distribute information about internship opportunities to law school organizations, student bar associations, the Texas Young Lawyers Association, and the Judicial Section of the State Bar (and any other relevant sections of the State Bar or local bar associations). There should also be a short write-up in the Bar Journal.

�

Each of the nine law schools should be asked to designate official contacts (preferably in the placement office) to receive information about judicial clerkships and briefing attorney positions in the appellate courts. These designees would communicate directly with OCA's "judicial liaison" (i.e., person who is designated by OCA to answer questions about internships and briefing attorney opportunities in the courts) about job fairs and other school-sponsored job search programs. ⁽¹⁴⁾

OCA should post a blank application (preferably a state application) and instructions for completing the application on its web page. The application process should also be described in the recruitment video and brochure. The judicial liaison would have the primary duty to distribute the application materials to the appellate courts, law schools, job fair attendees, and law-related organizations. After a candidate completes an application and sends it to OCA, OCA's judicial liaison will promptly notify the appellate courts that there are completed applications on file in the office. The judicial liaison then forwards the applications to the appellate courts at their request. After receiving the applications from OCA, the courts schedule interviews with the candidates in accordance with their existing timelines and administrative procedures for selecting interns and briefing attorneys.

4. Media Pooling in Texas Courts. The 76^th Legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 23 by Senator J. E. Brown, which required the Office of Court Administration "to study and develop uniform guidelines for media pooling agreements for courtroom coverage" and to "solicit and consider the opinions and advice of the Judiciary in developing the uniform guidelines."⁽¹⁵⁾ The Council created the Committee on Media and the Courts which drafted uniform guidelines to assist trial and appellate court judges who, in their discretion, wish to allow audio and video coverage (as well as still photography) of court proceedings. The Uniform Court Rules for Coverage of Judicial Proceedings in Texas Trial and Appellate Courts which were submitted to and adopted by the Council in December 2000, were forwarded to the Rules Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court.⁽¹⁶⁾

5. Jury Service. The jury's role in protecting the rights of citizens is recognized in both state and federal law and is a vital component of the American judicial system. In spite of this, many individuals who are summoned for jury service do not appear because they are either disinterested or are simply unable to fit this important civic obligation into their busy lives. "The treatment of jurors is an issue that has a profound effect on the functioning of the jury system,"⁽¹⁷⁾ and numerous studies have shown that citizens are more likely to serve as jurors if the financial hardships and inconveniences that often accompany jury service are minimized.

In 1999, the 76^th Legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 15, by Senator Rodney Ellis, which directed the Judicial Council "to examine the costs of increasing juror pay to $40 per day after the first day of trial and to examine the feasibility of allowing counties to offer other incentives to jurors for service."⁽¹⁸⁾ In February 2000, the Texas Judicial Council created the Subcommittee on Juries ("Subcommittee") and asked the Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Robert Duncan (Lubbock) to study SCR 15 and recent efforts to encourage jury service in El Paso County and in other states. The final report of the Subcommittee was submitted to and adopted by the Council in December 2000 and included the following recommendations:
� The Office of Court Administration, under the direction of the Texas Judicial Council, should develop a "Jury Service Pamphlet" and a "Jury Service Webpage" to inform jurors and the public about the Texas system and to answer basic questions about jury service (e.g., "What are the qualifications for jury service?"; "How often can I be called as a juror?"; "What does a court reporter do?"; "How many people can sit on a jury?"; and "Who pays the jury fee?"). The Webpage should also be linked to county webpages that provide information about jury service;

� The Legislature should direct the Texas Judicial Council (with assistance from the counties and the National Center for State Courts) to conduct a pilot project that collects detailed statistical information relating to jury participation, compensation, and demographics and to make additional recommendations for improving juror participation to the 78^th Legislature;

� Texas courts should be encouraged to seek immediate feedback from jurors who have completed their service via brief and confidential jury surveys; and

� Subject to availability of funds, counties should consider offering jurors other incentives in addition to or in lieu of increased pay. Possible incentives include:

free public transportation (e.g., bus passes);

reimbursement for mileage;

free or designated parking; and

free meals.

In 2001, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 395, by Senator Robert Duncan, which directs the Judicial Council "to conduct a study to examine jury service in each county of this state; collect and examine information relating to reimbursement of expenses for jurors and other incentives for jury service."⁽¹⁹⁾ The Council is also directed to collect and examine demographic and statistical information regarding each county's prospective and empaneled jurors. In June 2001, the Council created the Committee on Juries (Committee). The Committee, which is chaired by Senator Duncan, must submit its report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2003.
B. Submission of Other Legislative Recommendations to the 77^th Legislature.

1. Campaign Finance. In October 1999, the Supreme Court of Texas created the Judicial Campaign Finance Study Committee and asked the Committee to "propose both rule and statutory changes to improve the way in which campaigns for the Texas judiciary are financed."⁽²⁰⁾ In February 1999, the Committee issued its final report and recommendations to the Supreme Court. The Court then held two public hearings with invited public testimony on the Committee's report. As part of its disposition of the Committee's recommendations, the Court directed the Texas Judicial Council to do the following:

(1) review the Judicial Campaign Finance Study Committee's recommendation that limits be placed on the amount of campaign funds that judges can retain between elections and determine whether legislative changes or amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct are necessary to address this recommendation;
�
(2) review the Judicial Campaign Finance Study Committee's recommendation that limits be placed on judges' use of political contributions to make donations to political organizations and determine whether legislative changes or amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct are needed to address this recommendation; and
�
(3) review the Judicial Campaign Finance Study Committee's recommendation that voter guides be developed to inform the public about judicial candidates. Also, study House Bill 59 as passed by the 76^th Legislature, the Governor's veto message to House Bill 59, and similar efforts in other states to inform voters about judicial candidates. Determine whether legislative changes or amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct are needed to address this recommendation.⁽²¹⁾

In August 1999, the Council created the Committee on Judicial Campaign Finance, chaired by Judge David Patronella, to study the issues outlined in the Court's directive and to develop recommendations for consideration by the full Council.
In September 2000, the Committee recommended that the Council support legislation that would substantially limit the contributions that a candidate who is unopposed can accept from a person. In December 2000, the Council amended the recommendation to prohibit a candidate who is unopposed in the general election from accepting contributions and that recommendation was filed as House Bill 167 by Representative Pete Gallego.⁽²²⁾
�
In January 2001, the Committee recommended that the Council support similar legislation that would prohibit unopposed judicial candidates, including independent and write-in candidates, from receiving political contributions. In February 2001, the Council submitted the recommendation to the Legislature and that recommendation, which would also serve as a committee substitute to House Bill 167 by Representative Pete Gallego, was filed as Senate Bill 823 by Senator Royce West.⁽²³⁾ SB 823 died in Senate Committee. HB 167 died in House Committee.

In January 2001, the Committee also recommended that the Council support legislation that would limit certain political contributions by judicial candidates and officeholders. Contributions made to the principal political committee of the state executive committee or the county executive committee of a political party would be allowed only if (1) made in return for goods or services, including political advertising or a campaign communication, the value of which substantially equals or exceeds the amount of the contribution; or (2) the amount is not more than the candidate's or officeholder's pro rata share of the committee's normal overhead and administrative or operating costs. In February 2001, the Council amended the recommendation to provide that a judicial officeholder or a specific-purpose committee could not, in any year the office held is not on the ballot, knowingly make a political contribution to a political committee that exceeds $250 when aggregated with other contributions to political committees in that calendar year. The recommendation which was filed as Senate Bill 720 by Senator Royce West was passed by the Legislature, signed by the Governor, and became effective on September 1, 2001.⁽²⁴⁾
In January 2001, the Committee recommended that the Council support legislation that would require a candidate for office to the supreme court or court of criminal appeals who chooses to pay the filing fee to also submit a petition with 500 signatures, with no more than 10% per county. In February 2001, the Council agreed to support House Bill 1117, filed by Representative Toby Goodman, which required judicial candidates for positions on the supreme court or court of criminal appeals who choose to pay the filing fee to also submit a petition with a minimum of 100 signatures each from five state senatorial districts. HB 1117 was passed by the Legislature and vetoed by the Governor in June 2001.⁽²⁵⁾

In January 2001, the Committee also recommended that the Council support legislation that would allow the Secretary of State to implement a voter information program on the Internet and through a newspaper insert for judicial elections. In February 2001, the Council amended the recommendation to reflect House Bill 59 as filed by Representative Robert Puente with an additional provision that the information be made available in a newspaper insert.⁽²⁶⁾ That recommendation which was filed as Senate Bill 719 by Senator Royce West died in Senate Committee.⁽²⁷⁾ HB 59 was signed by the Governor in June 2001, and became effective on September 1, 2001.

In January 2001, the Committee recommended that the Council support legislation that would provide that for the purposes of contribution limits and limits on the reimbursement of personal funds, the primary and the general elections would be considered a single election for unopposed judicial candidates. In February 2001, the Council amended the proposal to include minor and independent judicial candidates. That recommendation which was filed as Senate Bill 822 by Senator Royce West died in House Committee.⁽²⁸⁾
In January 2001, the Committee recommended that the Council support legislation that would provide that a candidate for office to the supreme court, the court of criminal appeals, a court of appeal, a district court, or a statutory county court could seek nomination in the primary and/or general election as the nominee of one or more parties. That recommendation, which was filed as House Bill 2884 by Representative Pete Gallego, died in House Committee.⁽²⁹⁾

2. Visiting Judge Program. In November 1998, the Council submitted to the 76^th Legislature several legislative proposals for improving the visiting judges' program. Those recommendations, which were filed as Senate Bill 263 by Senator Robert Duncan, were passed by the Senate and died in House Committee.⁽³⁰⁾ In December 2000, the Council agreed to submit those same recommendations to the 77^th Legislature. Those recommendation, which were filed as Senate Bill 397 by Senator Robert Duncan, died in Senate Committee.⁽³¹⁾

3. Judicial District Board. The state's district courts have not been comprehensively redistricted since 1883, and the work of the Judicial Districts Board after the last census was not addressed by the Legislature. The Council created the Committee on Judicial Redistricting (Committee) to study and make recommendations for improving the method of reapportioning judicial districts in Texas. The Committee developed a legislative proposal that would abolish the Judicial Districts Board but retain the constitutional provision that requires the Legislative Redistricting Board to reapportion state judicial districts. In January 1999, the Council agreed to submit the recommendation to the 76^th Legislature. That recommendation, which was filed as Senate Bill 412/Senate Joint Resolution 20, was passed by the Senate and died in House committee.⁽³²⁾ In December 2000, the Council agreed to submit that same recommendation to the 77^th Legislature. Pursuant to that recommendation, companion bills were filed as House Bill 1473/House Joint Resolution 61 by Representative Pete Gallego and as Senate Bill 394/Senate Joint Resolution 15 by Senator Robert Duncan.⁽³³⁾ HB 1473/HJR 61 died in House Committee. SB 394/SJR 15 died in Senate Committee.

C. 77^th Legislative Directives.

1. Committee on the Equalization of Appellate Court Funding. In May 2001, the 77^th Legislature attached a rider to SB 1 (the Appropriations Act) that requires the Texas Judicial Council (Council) to "study issues involved in equalizing the funding of the sixteen appellate courts� [and to] include a comparison of current funding, staffing levels, caseload, and other appropriate variables."⁽³⁴⁾ In order to comply with this legislative charge, the Council formed the Committee on the Equalization of Appellate Court Funding (Committee) in June 2001. The Committee, which is chaired by Chief Justice John Cayce has conducted two public hearings and is focusing on developing a meaningful legislative appropriations process for Texas' appellate courts so as to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated for the preservation of public trust and for the protection of the rule of law. The Committee expects to issue its final report and recommendations to the Council in February 2002.

2. Committee on District Courts. In May 2001, the 77^th Legislature attached a rider to SB 1 (the Appropriations Act) that requires the Texas Judicial Council (Council) to "prepare a report on current district court locations, populations served, docket activity and other appropriate variables that would inform a legislative determination on the need for creating additional district courts."⁽³⁵⁾ The rider also instructs the Council to collect statistics regarding the use of visiting judges and the efficiency of the current district court system. In order to comply with this legislative charge, the Council formed the Committee on District Courts (Committee) in June 2001. The Committee, which is chaired by Representative Pete Gallego, recognizes that both the Judiciary and the Legislature need an objective and reliable methodology to determine the location of any additional district courts in Texas. As a result, the Committee will develop and make recommendations regarding appropriate criteria that will allow lawmakers to properly assess and identify those counties that are in need of additional judicial resources.
�
3. Committee on Judicial Data Management. In an effort to streamline, revise, and simplify the current reporting system for the Judiciary, and as requested by the 77^th Legislature in a rider attached to SB 1 (the Appropriations Act),⁽³⁶⁾ the Office of Court Administration (OCA) is examining different ways to improve the compliance, efficiency, quality, and method of trial court data collection. Likewise, OCA is reviewing the statistical data elements that are reported by the appellate courts to identify any additional or inadequate reporting elements. In June 2001, the Council formed the Committee on Judicial Data Management (Committee), to provide valuable input and make policy recommendations to the Council. Any recommendations or proposed changes to the annual report of the Texas judicial system will be forwarded to OCA.

D. Other Council Activities

1. Committee on Judicial Training. Currently, a number of judges, magistrates, and juvenile referees do not receive any judicial education or training. However, these individuals are serving in a judicial capacity and are subject to judicial sanctions. In June 2001, the Council formed the Committee on Judicial Training (Committee), to study and make recommendations regarding the need for judicial education and training of associate judges, magistrates, and juvenile referees. The Committee will begin its work on this initiative early next year.

2. Committee on Prosecutors in the Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts. In June 2001, the Council formed the Committee on Prosecutors in the Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts (Committee) to identify, study, and make recommendations regarding those municipal and justice of the peace courts that do not have a prosecutor. The committee, which will begin its work early next year, will also address the economic factors associated with any recommendations.
�
3. Committee on the Judicial Voter Information Guide. As a result of the passage of House Bill 59 by Representative Robert Puente regarding the making of a voter information guide for judicial elections,⁽³⁷⁾ the Council formed the Committee on the Voter Information Guide (Committee). Chief Justice Phillips has offered to the Secretary of State the assistance of this Committee regarding the development and implementation of the voter information guide.
�
4. Strategic Planning. In 1996, the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency found that the "Judicial Branch currently lacks any permanent, coordinated process for long-range planning."⁽³⁸⁾ As a result of this finding, the Commission recommended that a strategic planning function be established as an arm of the Office of Court Administration operated under the direction of the Texas Judicial Council.⁽³⁹⁾ To support that process, the Council in September 1998 established the Committee on Strategic Planning and asked the Committee to examine the strategic planning efforts of other states and to develop recommendations for a strategic plan for the Texas Judicial Branch.⁽⁴⁰⁾ A draft of the Committee's plan is pending before the Council.
�
5. Hate Crime Reporting. House Bill 587 by Representative Senfronia Thompson relating to the investigation and prosecution of certain hateful acts. HB 587 which was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in May 2001, became effective on September 1, 2001. To comply with the reporting requirements in the bill, the Judicial Council and the Office of Court Administration (OCA) developed a reporting form entitled "Report of a Request for a Hate Crime Finding."⁽⁴¹⁾ This form, along with a cover letter, was forwarded to each district and county clerk in August 2001. In the first 3 months of reporting (September 1, 2001 to December 1, 2001), the OCA has received 29 reports.

6. 72^nd Annual Report of the Texas Judicial Council. As previously noted in this report, the Texas Judicial Council's 73^rd Annual Report on the Texas Judicial System, which is published by the Office of Court Administration, will be available in January 2002. The Annual Report, which contains detailed statistical data about the Judiciary, has historically been a valuable source of judicial information for courts, government agencies, legislators, and the public.
1. See �� 71.031-71.035, Government Code.
2. See Appendix A for a complete list of meetings held by the Council and its committees.
3. See Appendix A for a complete list of meetings held by the Council and its committees.
⁴Governance of the Texas Judiciary: Independence and Accountability, Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency, V.2, p.33 ( January 1997).
⁵ See Chapter 72, Subchapter E, Government Code.
6.
7. See Appendix B, Article IV of HB 1, the General Appropriations Act, 76 R.S. (1999).
8. See Appendix C, Performance Measures: Texas District Courts, Texas Judicial Council (2000) and Performance Measures: Texas Courts of Appeals, Texas Judicial Council (2000).
9. See Appendix B, Article IV of SB 1, the General Appropriations Act, 77 R.S. (2001).
10. Governance of the Texas Judiciary: Independence and Accountability, Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency, V.1, p.19 (November 1996).
11. See Appendix D.
12. See Appendix D. The rider follows the recommendations of the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency. Also see Governance of the Texas Judiciary: Independence and Accountability, Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency, V.1, p.19 (November 1996).
13. See Appendix D for more discussion of the Law Clerk Recruitment Committee's recommendations.
14. The Committee also recommended that the Council work with the courts of appeals to develop "for credit" externships in the appellate courts.
15. See Appendix E, Senate Concurrent Resolution 23, 76^th R.S. (1999).
16. See Appendix E, Uniform Court Rules for Coverage of Judicial Proceedings in Texas Trial and Appellate Courts.
17. Judicial Attitudes Towards Jury Reform, Judicature, Vol. 83, Number 6, pg 299 (May-June 2000).
18. See Appendix F, Senate Concurrent Resolution 15, 76^th R.S. (1999). SCR 15 was developed from recommendations by the Supreme Court Jury Task Force and the Senate Jurisprudence Committee.
19. See Appendix F, Senate Bill 395, 77^th R.S. (2001).
20. See Appendix G, (Misc. Docket No. 99-9112, Page 1, citing Order in Misc. Docket No. 98-9179, Par.1).
21. See Appendix G, H.B. 59, 76^th R.S. (2001)
22. See Appendix G, H.B. 167, 77^th R.S. (2001)
23. See Appendix G, S.B. 823, 77^th R.S. (2001)
24. See Appendix G, S.B. 720, 77^th R.S. (2001).
25. See Appendix G, H.B. 1117, 77^th R.S. (2001).
26. See Appendix G, H. B. 59, 77^th R.S. (2001).
27. See Appendix G, S.B. 719, 77^th R.S. (2001).
28. See Appendix G, S.B. 822, 77^th R.S. (2001).
29. See Appendix G, H.B. 2884, 77^th R.S. (2001).
30. See Appendix H, S.B. 263, 76^th R.S. (2000).
31. See Appendix H, S.B. 397, 77^th R.S. (2001).
32. See Appendix I, S.B. 412/S.J.R. 20, 76^th R.S. (2001).
33. See Appendix I, H.B. 1473/H.J.R. 61, 77^th R.S. (2001), S.B. 394/S.J.R. 15, 77^th R.S. (2001).
34. See Appendix B, Article IV of SB 1, the General Appropriations Act, 77 R.S. (2001).
35. See Appendix B, Article IV of SB 1, the General Appropriations Act, 77 R.S. (2001).
36. See Appendix B, Article IV of SB 1, the General Appropriations Act, 77 R.S. (2001).
37. See Appendix G.
38. Governance of the Texas Judiciary: Independence and Accountability, Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency, V.1, p. 25 (November 1996).
39. Id.
40. See generally, The Texas Judicial Council: 1997-1998 Report of Activities and Recommendations, p. 9.
41. See Appendix J, Report of a Request for a Hate Crime Finding, Office of Court Administration (2001).