Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTompkins County Municiple Courts Task Force 2016July 2016 Acknowledgments and Task Force Membership Section One: The Current System A. The History B. Town and Village Courts in Tompkins County Today Section Two: The Charge and. Methodology A. Charge B. Methodology Section Three: Recommendations (Now) A. For County Legislature and/or OCA B. For Local Courts C. For State Section Four: Recommendations (The Future) Appendices: 1 Governing Documents 2 Agendas 3 Meeting Minutes 4 Stakeholder Input Z 6 12 13 20 22 22 24 28 28 44 49, 52 5 Communication. Among Task Force Members 6 D,ata and Information Regarding Courts in Tompkins County 7 LEAD and Youth Court Information 8 Prior Studies of Justice Courts and Guidance Regarding Court Consolidation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Municipal Courts Task Force (Task Force) was created by resolution of the Tompkins County Council of Governments JCCOG) in 2015. It is a community task force broadly representing local stakeholders. and their often differing views. Rather than simply generating another study that gathers dust in the archives of the county,, the Task Force has worked hard to try to reach consensus on recommendations that are both practical and feasible. Some of the. recommendations can be implemented. in the near term. Others will require further' time, study and political will before they can become part of the local justice system in Tompkins County. t Moreover, the Task.. Force has construed its charge liberally. It is recommending certain systemic changes that reach beyond the.court system in some respects.. -However, the Task Force believes that long-term such changes will _reduce the aggregate .case -load of the local courts and also will result in greater fairness to, those who are called to justice. Accordingly, in Section One the Task Force has'set forth an informative summary of the justice court system and history .in New York, courtesy of the Unified Court System of New York State and its Office of Court Administration. Additionally, Section.One includes the more recent history of the town and village .court system in Tompkins County. Section Two outlines the charge given to the Task Force by TCCOG. It also 3 set forth the, methodology,and resources used .by the Task Force in going about its. wo rk. - In Section Three, the Task Force -identifies specific, .practical changes -that ought to be made in the local justice,co,urt system. Those cha"nges reflect the clear consensus of Task -Force members who often brought, to the discussion markedly opposing views, but nevertheless reached common ground ;with respect to those recommended changes. These recommended changes range from the somewhat dramatic creation of a county -wide. DWI Part of court to. the more mundane scheduling coordination among the courts. Some of these -changes can be implemented by th,e -County- Legislature alone, with the cooperation o.f'the office of Court Administration.. Others require the full cooperation of the local town and village. justices. These recommended changes; including identification of -what, group should take -the initiative in implementing each one, are listed as follows: A.- (1) Establis=h countywide DWI Court (County coordination with New York State Office of Court Administration [sometimes referred to as Unified Court System]); (2) Esta.blish Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program (County, TCCOG,: District. Attorney and police agencies); (3) Establish countywide Youth Court (County and' -school J, districts); (4) Further investigate Mental Health Court, including interim training _(County and local Bar --Association)'; B (1) Improve electronic access and use- more -technology. (local courts with assistance and support of .County); ' I e 1 (2) Coordinate court schedules (local, courts -with assistance of TCCO G) ; (3) Release defendants "ROR" or on realistic bail (local courts); (4) Provide "rap sheets" at arraignment and write decisions (local courts); (5) Use confessions of judgments and allow for partial payments with respect to fines, surcharges and restitution (local courts); (6) Establish an easily accessible website that sets forth' clear policies and standards for plea-bargaining vehicle and traffic violation level offenses (District Attorney). C. (1) Establish a countywide after-hours centralized arraignment program (County', local.courts and Sheriff, with enabling legislation by New .York State); (2) Establish clear bail limits for misdemeanor and lower level offenses (New York State); (3) Provide for automatic transfer of cases to lawyer -trained justices upon request of defendant (New York State). .Finally, in Section Four, the Task Force describes the fundamental - disagreement among its membership. It provides an aspirational model of a single county -wide -criminal court, It also -identifies the more modest alternatives of regional consolidation that currently are available to municipalities that are so inclined. Since '1991, Judge Galbreath has been elected seven times as the Justice in the Village. of Cayuga Heights and is one of three attorneys who serve as Town - Justices in Tompkins County. When not holding court Judge Galbreath teaches trial advocacy, several public interest law clinics, and the externship courses at Cornell law School. He joined the Cornell Law School clinical faculty in'-1986. In addition to teaching and supervising clinic student litigation, he regularly presents lectures and workshops to judges and other -professionals on a wide variety of legal topics -I, He is a graduate of Case Western Reserve University Law, School. Professor Galbreath developed extensive litigation experience in 'his two years as a -staff attorney for the Ohio Migrant Legal Action Program and Toledo Legal Aid. Society .and ten years as Deputy Director for Litigation for Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., an- Ohio legal services organization dedicated to representing IoW' income plaintiffs in federal class action suits involving major impact litigation. He also -has worked with law students at Cornell Legal Aid since 1986. Hon, Jason Leifer, Supervisor, ToWn of Dryden, Jason Leifer is the defense bar member of the Municipal Courts Task Force. He has been practicing law for over 15-years and is licensed in New York, Maryland, and Washington D.C. Jason is a member of the Tompkins County Bar Association, the Assigned Counsel Panel, the Count.y's Advisory Board on Indigent Representation (ABIR) and the County`s Criminal Justice/Alternatives to Incarceration Board (CJATI). Jason has served on the Dryden Town Board since t Judge Poole -is a member in good standing of the NYS Magistrates _ Association, the NYS Magistrate- Court Clerks- Association, and the Tompki`ns County Magistrates Associatio-n. She'has also b,ee.n a member of the CJATI_ Committee and ,- currently a member of the Tompkins County Town and -Village Task' Force. Mark Solomon Mark Solomon has,been an attorney in Ithaca since 1985.'-His practice • focuses on matters of professional responsibility and domestic,"r'e.lations. He has served on the New York State Bar'Association's Committee on Professional Ethics since 1992. ,Mr. Solomon regularly lectures on -issues of legal -ethics and profession al:ism. He has been a lecturer in, Cornell's Trial Advocacy Program -since 1984 and an Adju-nct Professor at:Syracuse University Law School. Mark9raduated from Colgate. University- with a BA a na cu.m.laud e•,in 1967. ' He followed with an- MA at the University of Chicago,in, 1971, and completed his formal education -in 19.84 with a JD degree, magna cum laude, at Cornell Law School-. Hon. Elizabeth Thomas., Supervisor,,- Town of Ulysses p., Born and -raised in Ithaca and Ulysses, Liz Thomas has served on the .Ulysses Town Board since 2008 -and' has served as Ulysses Town Supervisor Since April 2013. Since joining the -Ulysses Town Board Liz has been a Leader in. municipal. collaboration on many issues such as ,broadband, animal control`; arks. and trails, , and hydrofracking. Her professional experience outside of munici pal government is . p ,9 . Rayis. past resident of the Tompkins County Bar Association, former t -f p p p director and current member of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, and. a member of the American Trial Lawyers Association, the New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers, the New York State Bar Association, and the American Bar Association. Ray is also active in the community. He has served on many not -for -profit and civic boards, including those of the Tompkins --Cortland Community College, Planned Parenthood of Tompkins County, Hangar Theatre, the Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC), the Ithaca City Board of Public Works,, the West Hill Civic Association. (WHCA),the Ithaca City Common Council, the. Ithaca City Planning Board, the Tompkins County Democratic Committee, and the Bosnian Student Project. Ray lectures periodically, both in the legal community and in the local ; schools, including the Cornell Law School. Ray is the Chair of the Task Force. Section,'.,One� .The _current --System.' McW-Y r'k�:State= has one of the mosa complicated•, i' i2ffidi nt and: costly. court .........:... A. The Historya. Justice Courts are successor institutions to tribunals that have existed in New York nearly continuously since permanent European settlement began in the early 17th century.:' Justices of the ' peace, magistrate's' courts, police courts and other town and village tribunals, all of which now bear the title of Justice Courts: came down to us from remote times. [They] existed in England before the discovery of America, and [they have] existed here practically during -our entire history, both colonial and state, at first with criminal jurisdiction only, but for more than two centuries past with civil jurisdiction also. * * * [A local court system] * * * Js regarded as of great importance to the people at large, as it opens the doors of justice near their own homes, and not only affords a cheap and speedy remedy for minor grievances as to rights of property, but also renders substantial aid -in the prevention and.. punishment of crime."' Indeed, since New York's colonial inception of the office of local justice, by whatever title denominated, criminal jurisdiction consistently has inhered "in that office. In like fashion as. today's Justice Courts, local magistrates in New York's colonial and early independence eras enjoyed inherent -jurisdiction to "apprehend and commit" (ie. arraign) defendants on all criminal charges and. try non -felony offenses, 2g These early local tribunals. also enjoyed civil jurisdiction over money -recovery actions, though the extent of such civil i See 5 Col Laws NY 209 (1771); 4'Col Laws NY 296 (1758); 3 Col Laws NY 1011 (1754); 2 Col Laws NY 964 (1737), 1Col Laws NY 226 (1691); see generally People ex rel. Burbv v Howland (155 NY [9 EH Smith] 270, 275-276 [1898]). The first recorded selection of a local judge in New York was in 1646, under Dutch rule, by election in the communities of °Bruekelen" and later Manhattan (see Rosenblatt,"The Foundations of the New York State Supreme Court: A Study in Sources," 63 NY St B J 10, 13 [1991], citing Booth, History of the City of New York r1867], at 135-136). British accession to dominion in New York preserved and proliferated the structure of these local tribunals, leading ultimately to their formal codification in 1691 (see id.). .28 Howland (155 NY [9 EH Smith] at 275-276). 13 become disfavored and were abo,lished37 in. favor of today's town and village Justice Court system that the- 1962 Judiciary Article invited theLegislature to. "continue[]" and "regulat.e."38The. Legislature promptly complied, almost in' identical fashion as throughout the prior three centuries, but with two structural differences to reflect modern sensibilities about the separation of powers a.nd -rising dockets of some suburban Justice Courts. First, the. 1962 Judiciary Article invited the Legislature to abolish the. nonjudicia!I funct-ions articularl the legislative functions) of local justices,3� an .invitation the = (an,d -particularly Legislature later accepted. Thus, today no town or village, justice may perform the duties of any nonjudicial 29 See Slutzky (283 NY at 340); Howland (155 NY •[9 EH Smith]; at 276-277). .30 See id. 31 ' See NY Const 1846, art VI, 17 ("The electors of the several; towns shall, at. their annual town meeting, and in such manner as the [L]egislature may direct, elect justices'of the peace, whose term of office shall - be four. -years 32 See NY-Const 1846, art VI, § 18 ("All judicial officers of cities and,. villages, and -all such judicial officers as -may be created therein by law, shall be elected at. such times- and in such manner as the [L]egislature may direct"). 33 See NY Const.186.9, art VI,- §§ 18 (town justices), 19 -(village !,judicial officers).- 34 See -NY Const, 1894, art VI, §§. 17, 18.. 35See NY. Const 1925, art VI, §§-.17f 18. 36, See I 1936, ch 879: 37 See Qenerally N.Y Const 1962., art VI, § 17; UJCA § 2300(b)(1.,). 38 See NY Const 1962, art VI, 17(a)-(b)_. 39 See id., § 17(c), 40 See L`1976, ch 739 (enacting Town Law § 60-a). public offiCe,2 and all local justices are subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct in like fashion as'State-paid judgeS3,--- including the'eth-i:cal mandate to avoid even the appearance of conflicts' of interest with. his or her judicial role.4 Second, th:e- '1962-J�u.diciary Article authorized the Legislature to replace Justice Courts with District Court systems throughout - the State rather than only in Nassau County:, ' a .power the Legislature, has invoked only for towns in western Suffolk. County. other than these two adjustments, the. 1962 Judiciary Article and thus .toddy's State Constitution carefiul.ly .preserved the historical prerogative of each locality to maintain its own ,Justice Court -and prohib-ited. the Legislature -from abolishing .any town tribunal; whether or.not in ..favor of a District. Court, except with express con -sent of town voters..' As. late as 1977, when voters and,. the Legislature centralized judicial administration and correspondingly. diminished focal control of court operations, the - Legislature tacitl.y excluded ,the Justice :Courts from- statutes effectuating state control of court financing -andpersonnel, thus preserving and reinforcing the Justice Courts` local character and autonomy." This. historical -examination demonstrates­that,',with only infrequent and ..minor refinements, New York's'J.Ustice.Courts have -continued largely unchanged for over 300 years, reflecting steadfast .voter. and legislative commitment both to .the continued existence of local .courts and to the unique z See id.; UJCA § '105(d). 3 See generally 22 NYCRR [Rules of the Chief Administrator] Part 1.00. 4 See 22 NYCRR [Rules of the Chief Administrator] '§ 100.4. 'See NY Const, art VI, § 16: 6 See L 19.625 ch 811. o 7 See NY Const, art -VI, §§ 16(a)-(c) (District Courts); 17(b) (town Justice Courts). 8 See.L 1976, ch 966; Judiciary Law § 39(1), Town Law § 116; Village Law § 4-410(2). role they play in New York's justice, system. To be sure, the Justice .Courts, like the State -paid court system and most creatures of government,, have not been. without critics, and reformers during -these centuries. During the -last 50 years in particular, observers have expressed dissatisfaction ..with the Iay judge system, asserting that non -attorney judges inherently lack the requisite training to ensure -due process and enforce other critical constitutional and statutory,. protections. other observers have expressed concerns with the part -.- time operation of many Justice Courts, claiming that part-t.ime.-courts raise the prospect of conflicts :of interests for presiding, lawyer -judges; inherently are less efficient than full- time, courts and rarely can mobilize- the full panoply of administrative tools to- manage and account'for collected funds effectively. Still other observers have lamented the -lack-of standardization and s stemwide y oversight,,a'nd'-with it. IocaI discretion to'fund (or underfund) Justice.Court program-s in ways that can undermine- the administration of justice and frustrate the achievement of important State and local public policy goals,. Even .'in the face. -of -these objections, however, New Yorkers, co.n.sistentiy have rejected .broa.d structural changes to their Justice, Courts. In the 1950s, a Temporary Commission on' the 'Courts - (popularly known -as the Tweed Commission) initially proposed -replacing Justice- Courts with county -level District Courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction and Mag-istrate:s'l Courts with - traffic -and other limited criminal jurisdiction —.courts in which :all judges would be lawyers and over which localities would .exercise no control,..9 The Commission's final report, however, rejected --this proposal, instead preserving.- 9 See. aenerally Subcommittee,Temporary State Commission on the Courts (Tweed Commission)," Simplified State-wide Court System" I ' the Justice. Courts with traini-ng and certification requirements for non -lawyer = judges.i° Explaining its rejection of the abolition proposal, the Commission narrated its concern that deep public support for. the Justice Courts could defeat the Commission's entire court -reform effort: These recommendations of the Commission [to replace the Justice Courts with regional Magistrates Courts] were. vigorously opposed, in whole or in part, by present judges of. Town, village. and City Courts, by residents and officials of the area served, by members of the Legislature and by others. Indeed, the Commission found reason to believe that, even if its proposals in this respect were accepted by the Legislature and formed a part of an over-all court reorganization plan, the voters of the State on the required referendum for a Constitutional Amendment might- well defeat the entire plan because of this aspect alone." The following months would -prove the ,Commission's political admonition • r prescient. Responding to Governor Averill Harriman's call to reorganize all of New York States. courts, the Judicial Conference rejected the Tweed Commission's. recommendation and proposed to abolish -the Justice Courts in favor of county -based [district Courts." As the Tweed Commission predicted, Y however, the Legislature firmly rejected this approach and, while approving broad reorganization of other courts, left Justice Courts unchanged except'for io See Temporary State Commission on the Courts (Tweed Commission); Final Report to the Legislature (1958), at 17. 11 Temporary State Commission on the Courts (Tweed Commission), Final Report to the Legislature (1958), at 17-18. 12 See Renerally Judicial Conference of the State of New York, Report to the Legislature (1958). , 18 the Tweed Commission's training and certification requirements for non - attorney justices. '1 3 Likewise during the 1960s, the State rejected numerous opportunities to alter the Justice Courts, even slightly. In 1965, voters rejected a minor constitutional amendment that would have authorized the Legislature to extend the elective terms of town justices. Two years later in 1967, voters rejected the report of a constitutional convention that, among other, proposals, urged the abolition -of Justice Courts subject to legislative approval of their continuation as courts with limited jurisdiction over traffic matters and local ordinance violations. The next 30 years also brought calls for Justice Court reform, but none cleared the Legislature, much less reached the voters. In 1973, yet another study commission, the Dominick Commission, proposed abol-ishing village courts and 'stripp 9 , in town courts of trial jurisdiction over* misdemeanors.14 That report went nowhere, as did a 1979 analysis by the New York'State Bar Association that merely suggested future consideration of merging local courts into regional tribunals.15 Such periodic calls echoed throughout the 1980s and 1990s, -and as late as 2006, the State Comptroller's Office called on the Legislature.to combine the operations of low -caseload Justice Courts for the sake of efficiency and more effective financial auditing.l6 Not a single piece of legislation effectuating, any of these proposals received favorable �3 See NY Const, art VI, § 20(c). See Temporary State Commission on the State Court System (Dominick Commission),"... And Justice for All" (1073), at ¶¶ 83-85. 1' See New York State Bar Association,"Report of Action, Unit Report No, 4; Court Reorganization" (1979), at 73. t6 See Renerally OSC Justice Courts Report (2006). • ( 1 Groton Town Court - 2 part-time justices Ithaca Town Court - 2 part-time justices z Lansing Town Court ­2 part-time justices Newfield Town Court - 1 part-time justice - Ulysses Town Court - 2 part-time justices TOTAL; 18 part-time justices Although the number of town and village justices is at least 10% less than the number of such justices more than 40 years ago, the total caseload for all towns and villages in Tompkins County has increased noticeably according to anecdotal evidence and the only available data (that is concededly, incomplete). Finally,. the important role of the Ithaca City Court -- Tompkins County's only city court -- must be identified and acknowledged in any analysis of the delivery of grass roots justice in the County. In contrast to the town and village courts, the Ithaca City Court is part of the State Court System. As such, it is subject -to many of the structural and administrative changes that were authorized by. the 1962 constitutional and state legislative initiatives.. '.On the other hand, because the City Court handles the same kinds of cases as are handled by the town and village r courts, there is an opportunity for the County to look to the resources of the Ithaca City Court in fashioning a system of more efficient and even-handed justice throughout the County at the grass roots level. �1 L = w o Sect'ion T The Charge 1 to :the Task Force,anc� its Method®lo9Y - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - -i is-Y This analysis arises from the need to explore ways to economize in the . provision and maintenance of basic services provided by local governments, while ensuring quality. Following the imposition of the statewide property tax cap, local governments have been challenged to consider structural realignments that could result in greater efficiencies and higher levels of effectiveness through consolidations, mergers and shared services. The TCCOG formed a Shared Services Committee to explore the approaches the County might take in this regard with respect to the local justice courts. Unlike City .and County Courts, the cost of operating a town or village court is borne by the host municipality., Costs that cannot be offset by court -related fees are. supported by town and village property taxes. For example, in every town of this county, the court -generated revenues do not cover the 'direct operating costs of the local courts. In 2014, these operating deficits ranged from $23,500 (Caroline) to $65, 657 (Lansing), with the except of two outliers in the extremes -- Town of Ithaca ($311,702') and Cayuga Heights ($4,924-) (Appendix 6).* In addition to the direct costs of operating a court, taxpayers also bear the indirect costs of the - current decentralized town and village court system, including inmate transport and distant and .repeated appearances'b.y assigned defense counsel and district attorney staff --- most of which is underwritten by Tompkins County, taxpayers. * These deficits derive in large measure to the state -mandated distribution of fines and surcharges among the state, the county and the local municipalities. In 2014, the town and village courts countywide generated $1,487,282.04 in total revenue, of which $991,151.46 was turned over to New York State and $110,650.60 was - paid to the County (to fund the STOP DWI program), leaving only $385,479.98 for all of the local towns and villages. i a L In this regard, the Task Force: J * Has met in open session 25 times between June 2015 ,and. June 2016; the minutes of these meetings are included. in App'endix.3. * Has. taken the (unsworn). testimony of, 33 individuals including : judges (Town, Vill-age; City and County -- law trained and non -law- trained); defense and other attorneys; prosecutors; assigned counsel personnel; Nassau District Court personnel;. NYS Defender's . Association -representatives; NYS Magistrates' Association representatives; Opportunity Alternatives Resources (OAR) Director; Ithaca .City School District Superintendent; law enforcement and' jbil' personnel; Legal Assistance -of Western New York (LAWNY) personnel; and members -of the, general public. * Has solicited the views of many other constituencies, including landlord and, to -Want groups, the •Tompkins County Probation Department, town -- -and village officials, the Tompkins County Department of Mental Health, the New York -State Office of Court Administration; the media, and the Tompkins County Bar Association. * Has received and reviewed dozens of letters, ema,ils and written submissions from members of the. public. * 'Has received public comment at many of its meetings. * Has collected and reviewed Action Plan for .the Justice Courts (NYS Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration 2006)• 'Action-.Pla.n: 'fo'r the._,:J'u-sti,ce'.Courts: TWO -Year Update (.NYS Unified 1 . 1 (a) Recommendations that may be implemented either by the County Legislature alone, or in cooperation with the New York State Office of court Administration; and (b) -Recommendations that may be implemented by the local town and village courts on a voluntary basis; and (c) Recommendations that will require New York State legislation. Additionally, the Task Force has included in Section Four ,of this report a summary of the differing views of its membership with .respect to recommendations for any fundamental change of the system that would require special state legislation and likely amendment of the New York State Constitution. L /7 L 77­ • 1. The most significant recommendation is the consolidation of -all _s misdemeanor and violation level Driving Whi-le, Intoxicated cases and Driving While Impaired by Drugs cases ("'DWI -cases")*, !into a single, countywide part (court) of the Supreme Court,Tompkins,county. This so- called "'DWI Court" is supported unanimously by the Task Force and by several of the existing town and village justices. It has. its roots in -an- initiative that- was promulgated - by the New York State Office of Court, Administration for all felony DWI cases and some misdemeanor .DWI cases. in New York, State. In 2014, New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippma.n,-- implemented the creation• ofspecialized DWI courts throughout the state. Judge Lippman instituted these specialized DWI parts in 'order to create .a statewide uniform process to address the causes of -DWI. Judge Lippman'expl-aired ***DWI• recidivism remains a persistent-- and serious problem. The National - Highway and Transportation -Safety Administration• estimates that 30 percent - of all drivers adjudicated for .a DWI offense are repeat offenders. DWI recidivists carry. a higher risk .not only of future DWI arrests but .also : involvement in alcohol related crashes. Although the court sY stem. has experimented with. different approaches to DWI cases, we have' never had -a uniform, statewide plan. Today, I am• announcing a comprehensive plan to address this.p•roblem. *For purposes of this report, all references to. ."DWI cases" refer to all misdemeanor and, violation level alcohol and drug -related offenses, arising under Article 31, -including Section 1192, ,of,the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law. We will establish dedicated DWI parts in the superior'court in every county, so than a single judge will preside. over-all felony DWI cases. The judges will receive special training and provide' more consistency in the handling of these difficult. cases. As experts. have recognized, a kev component of achieving deterrence in DWI cases is :certain,consistent.and coordinated sentencing. Consolidating these cases into one court part, with a dedicated judge, will lead to consistency in sentencing. It will also enable the judge to develop expertise in this complicated and technical area of law, as well as an understanding of the effectiveness;. of the statutory tools at his or her disposal, such as license suspensions, alcohol monitoring systems, and ignition interlock devices. As for misdemeanor DWI cases, in most parts of the state the cases are mixed in with the overall case inventory. They are calendared with a host of other cases and handled by different judges. As with felonies, isolating DWI cases in a single court part before,a single judge (or in countieswith the most DWI cases, before two judges) will allow the judge to develop an expertise in this area and will send, the message that these cases are different. The qoal of the* misdemeanor parts will be to prevent future traqedies by attackingthe root causes of DWI. Judges presiding in these parts will have training and access to all of the necessary tools and resources so that sentences are .individually tailored to the specific needs of the offender. The judges will ensure that all defendants are screened to identify alcohol or substance abuse dependency. Treatment will be mandatory, for offenders who have such a dependency and who therefore present a high risk ,of recidivism. The new parts will be in place by June 1e. Drunk driving kills! We must ensure that these cases are treated in a more orderly, consistent, and timely fashion in the courts of the state of flew York. Action is required now to save lives- and. assure public safety. 9 . New York Court, -of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman state of Judiciary 2014. In.' 2oi5, Tompkins County Court created a felony DWI part where all felony DWIs are presided over by a single County Court judge. Additionally, Ithaca City Court created a DWI part for all misdemeanor and preliminary felony DWIs, overseen by one of -the City Court'judges. While the County Court DWI part has a 1)o jurisdiction over all felony DWIs that occur anywhere within the geographic area of Tompkins County, the Ithaca City Court DWI part has full jurisdiction only over misdemeanor DWIs that occur within the City of Ithaca's geographic limits. According to Tompkins County Stop -DWI, DWI arrests by jurisdiction can be broken down as follows:. DWI ARRESTS IN TOMPKINS COUNTY Jurisdiction 2013 2014 2015 ` Caroline 4 4 4 Danby 4 7 6 Dryden (including Freeville) 54 57 43 Enfield 4 8 6 Groton 15 .9 3 City of .Ithaca 96 144 118 Town of Ithaca (including Cayuga Heights) 71 83 80 Lansing 42 44 43 Newfield 15 10 13 Ulysses 17 20 20 Total .322 386 336 - Ithaca City Court DWI cases amount to approximately 1/3 of the entire DWI cases throughout the county. Approximately two-thirds of DWI cases are not heard in a unified DWI part, but are presided over by eighteen (18) town and village * These.data derive from the annual reports of each of the town and. village courts that are filed in the New York State Office of Court Administration and include all alcohol and drug related DWI and DWAI cases: - 31 . justices. In short, the vast majority of DWI d'.efendants, in Tompkins .County do not have their cases heard in a uniform DWI part. This can and often does lead' to noticeably uneven results across the county, depending solely on where the .underlying arrest occurred. Further, the extensive paperwork and related rules and regulations associated with. processing a DWI case are complicated and time-consuming. Just to create and to disseminate the paperwork for a single defendant at the time of disposition (typically, entry of a, guilty plea) takes about forty-five minutes in the town and village courts. Some of this time relates'to the use of paper records and - some of this time arises, from the need of the local justice to familiarize himself/herself with the ever -changing and complex rules that are unique to those cases. Additionally, there is some evidence that there is a therapeutic, impact for group -processing of. DWI cases. -DWI cases uniquely cut across the sociological spectrum, often involving defendants who otherwise are generally law-abiding members of the community. For..DWI defendants to have their cases heard in the presence of similarly -situated individuals highlights the gravity of the problem in the community, reinforces that everyone is being treated equally and. fairly regardless of personal circumstances and becomes a powerful deterrent -to re- offending. So, the question is whether. and how it would be possible to create a unified DWI part where a single judge could preside over all DWI cases that occur in the towns and villages throughout. the county, • J L Procedural Mechanism .for Creating a, County -Wide" D-WI .Part for DWI Cases "• Presently there .are jurisdictional impediments which prevent- town, and village DWI cases from being heard before 'a single judge in a designated DWI part. County Courts, in the absence of an indictment by a -grand jury, or superior court information, do not possess trial jurisdiction over DWI cases. Criminal Procedure Law §210.05 provides: The only methods of prosecuting an offense in a superior court are -by an indictment filed -therewith by a grand jury or by a superior court information filed therewith by a district. attorney. Grand jury proceedings are time -consuming -for both the police ,witnesses and the prosecutor., and therefore generally ,impractical far misdemeanor-, and violation DWI cases. Moreover, the filing of a superior court information gene -rally requires the consent of the defendant. Hence, misd-emeanor and violation'level DWI cases will remain within the. local town,or. village courts, as currently, unless an alternative -procedure for consolidating those cases in front of a single. judge countywide is implemented. There does exist precedent for transferring misdemeanor sand violation level cases from local courts within a county to a single Supreme Cou,rt'judge. In January 2004,' after consultation with the Administrative Board of the, Unified Court ,System and with the consent- of the Court of Appeals, the" Chief Judge" of the State of New York promulgated part 41 of the Rules of the Chief Judge providing for the - establishment of Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Parts in Su",preme Court, The. • rule directed" that the specialized. part _.. - .. .._._— •+. - _...-.ice -...__..... _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ � _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ "be devoted to the hearing a-nd determ,ination,' in a single forum, of cases that are simultaneously pending in the courts if one of them is a -domestic violence case in a criminal court and the other is 'a case in Supreme or Family Court that involves a party or witness in .the domestic violence case; or if one is a case in criminal court, Family Court or Supreme. Court and the other is a case in any other of these courts -having a common party or in which a disposition may affect the interests of a party in the first case" (22 NYCRR 41.1[a][1] ) Accordingly, the Tompkins County Integrated Domestic Violence Court (IDV) was created in Supreme Court, Tompkins County and has jurisdiction over all local domestic violence misdemeanor criminal cases which have a Supreme Court matrimonial or Family Court overl-apping matter. The local criminal misdemeanor and violation cases do not .require grand -jury action; but rather, a simple transfer order signed by the. IDV judge is all that is required to transfer the case -from local court to , th.e IDV court. The legality of th:e. creation -of IDV courts by administrative action as opposed to express statutory, enactment has -been definitively tested. In People v. Correa (15 NY3d 213 [2010]), the New York Court of Appeals held that Judiciary Law §211(1)(a).explicitly authorizes the Chief Judge, in consultation with the Administrative Board and with the consent of the Court of Appeals, to "establish standards and administrative policies for general application to the unified court system throughout the state, including b`ut not limited to standards and administrative policies relating to ... transfer of judges and causes among the courts." Thus, the Legislature .included' the transfer of cases as one of the administrative actions that could betaken by. the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge (Id, a 224). The Criminal Procedure Law generally contemplates that violations and misdemeanors will be tried in local criminal .courts and that felonies, which may be initiated by the filing of an information or complaint but must 'ultimate-ly be prosecuted by indictment or superior court information, will be tried in -a superior.. court -County Court or Supreme Court. The issue presented in- Correa was whether misdemeanor cases that typically remain in local courts may be transferred for adjudication to a Supreme Court by mere administrative order, rather than indictment. The Court of Appeals cited the N.Y. State Constitution which. expressly states, "supreme court shall have general original jurisdiction in law and equity and the appellate jurisdiction herein provided" (N.Y. Const., Art. VI, 7[a] }. Under this provision, Supreme Court "is competent to entertain all causes of action[ ] unless its jurisdiction has been specifically proscribed." Correa at 228. The creation of IDV courts by mere promulgation of an administrative rule of the Chief Judge has been upheld. The Correa decision requires a Supreme Court Judge (or Acting Supreme Court Judge) to preside over the integrated part. Notably, this broad jurisdictional reach is limited. to Supreme Court, not County Court,. because of the language of the .1962 constitutional amendments regarding Supreme Court jurisdiction. However,,.a. County Court judge may be designated as an Acting Supreme Court Justice by administrative order of the office of Court Administration. Accordingly, the Tompkins County IDV court -is presided over by a County Court judge who has been designated Acting Supreme Court Justice for that purpose. 3� xz Preliminary estimates include the following: County Court- Judge .$1831000 Law.Clerk $ 7610.00 Secretary $ 50,000 Court Clerk/Assistant $ 47,000 Additional Court Securities Officers (2). $122,000 Salaries .$47810:00 Fringe Benefits $239110-00 Total Personnel $717,0,00 Supplies, Equip, Travel, etc: $ 71,7.00 Total' Operating Costs $788,700 Rent. (.local cost) $ 20,000 ' Total Estimated Cost $.808f 700 Potential Additional Costs Court Reporter (if. recording device not -used) $ 721.000 Offsetting these costs are the following .savings: - (a) Avoided City Court costs for, current ; -DWI caseload. $1721Q00, .. ....'Presently,. Ithaca City Court processes 115 to 120 DWI cases • per year, consuming approximately 25% of the time of one -full-time. judge, law clerk, court security officers (and..potential court reporter), and 50% of the time of, one., full-time court clerk. This. number reflects the- value of that .-time. Moreover, as noted below, because ,, such personnel . already are part of- the unified court system, clerks, security 'officers and the court reporter readily 37 can be incorporated into -the DWI part, and the judge can be assigned other County Court duties, thereby freeing -up the County., Court judge ' who is appointed Acting Supreme Court .justice. J (b) Avoided. assigned- counsel -travel and court.waiting'time. $5.41,000 It is expected that this DWI Part. will be centralized in the''City of Ithaca where virtually all .of the attorneys who `do assigned counsel cases have their .offices and. where the courtroom and chambers of the -presiding justice will be located. Furtherf the removal of DWI cases from the local courts also will -serve to expedite the processing of other assigned counsel criminal cases in the local courts, producing further savings, to the program because of such additional avoided court- wait time, This number is a -'best estimate as provided by- the office of Assigned Counsel. (c),.Avoided law enforcement (primarily Sheriffs Department) travel and waiting time. $ (insignificant), There will be' no meaningful transport and waiting time savings. (d) Avoided local court costs -.(judges and clerks). $ 35,Oo0 By transferring an average of 240..DWI :cases out of the. town and village courts into this DWI. Part,. the combined ''Savings in the aggregate time. of the. town and. village justices and clerks _calculate, approximately t6 the equivalent - - of, one town., justice.. and one.. clerk, given their,, part-time ' %status. and.. the estimate of_time spent per ve"e"k on all cases, including. DWI cases. However, any such savings 'only can .be realized : if the, local municipalities reduce the number -of town and village justices either. by consolidation of courts or by reduction in" budgeted positions. 38 " (e)- Use of existing City Court space for chambers and clerks.', offices. $ •"20,000 Total Offset: $2811,000 -However, as noted, even the most optimistic calculatioh o•f, savin•gs will only offset: about a third .of the cost of a centralized DWI Part. So, :how will . the balance of this position be�funded? The short answer is, the state. To understand why,, one must look to the historical record of the allocation of County Court level judges (County, Court, Family Court and Surrogate's Court) in Tompkins ,County in comparison to neighboring counties,. especially Chemung County. Fifty years -ago-, there were three County .Court level; judges in Chemung County, which then had a population of approximately 100,000; At -that same time, there .were two County Court level judges in Tompkins County, with a population o approximately . 66,000. Today, -Chemung 'County still has., ,three such - judges, although its population has . dropped to approx"im'ate'ly 88,000. And,, Tompkins County still has two such -judges`, notwithstanding that "its population has increased to approximately 1051000 - now well exceeding that of Chemu hg county,,* Simply Out,, it is time- that the state acknowledged -this, growing d"isparity and funded. a third. County Court level judge in Tompkins County, Moreover, : the" argument to. - the state is supported by the economics -of vehicle and traffic fine -splitting as well.` In 2014 Tompkins County -town an-d village courts..alone (,not including the Ithaca C.ity `Court) generated $1,487'28'2.-04 in * Per U.S. Census data, the respective populations of Chemung and Tompkins Counties'have been/are: ' 1960 - 98,706/66,1.64; 1970 - 1011537./77;064; 2010 - 881830/101,564; 2014 - 87,770/104,691. - r a training, medical treatment, mental health treatment, and other human services. As of 2014, after, five - years of operations. the Seattle program has ,redu-ced -recidivism -among participants by 58%'. , (htto: /,/www.defensenet.orQ/news/Ore-., arrest-diversion-the-seattle- lead -proiect).. A successful •pr;ogram -also., is in' operation in Santa Fe, N-ew Mexico. -.And, -most recently,• the: Albany, New York community has adopted its version of the same. LEAD, arises- from the fact that - historically- a relatively, small number ..-of individuals with high needs demand a great deal of' police time and resources. They cycle in- and out of jail or prisons without treatment of their underlying, -issues, such as --mental illness a-nd substance ,abuse problems; homelessness, urnemployment- -and ,inadequate -m.edical care. This population also tends to be ;high utilizers --of the hospital emergency room, which - is costly_ and is not -designed. 'to provide preventative or regular health care. LEAD focuses on addressing some of those underlying problems and stopping the cycle of costly and ineffective arrests and incarceration (http.://www.katalcenter.ora/news/2'016/3/31/`albanvleadlaunch-press release).. By 'diverti.ng eligible .individuals to services, LEAD improves public safety and public order and reduces the. criminal behavior of people who participate in . the program. It relies to some extent o-n the discretion of law enforcement in the field who are informed both- by -training -and•, esta-b.lished standards of eligibility, as well as the Local array of available health and human services. In Seattle,; the "LEAD. Program Evaluation:' Criminal Justice and Legal System Utilization and Associated Costs (11 p p yJune 2015 report compared LEAD to a "s: stem as usual" control - with respect to ;---� J 41 j Although it is envisioned that each Youth Court. will., have county -wide _ jurisdiction, it is recommended that the youth and adult volunteers upon which the system relies be drawn from the ranks of the respective school districts in the county for the cases specific to those geographical areas. Care -must be taken to ensure that such a program is available to all youth in all school districts of the - county. Staffing - both professional and volunteer - a-nd adjudication. must reflect the socioecon.omic population and culture of the defendant pool of the entire county. The benefits of Youth Court are multiple. As the several articles and studies set forth in the 2011 NYSBA Journal establish, peer -to -peer justice works. There is no stigma of involvement with the criminal justice system -- not even a record of i'charges" -- for the individual youth (that often becomes a burden for future school and job opportunities). The processing .time for law enforcement, and related costs, -are reduced significantly. The local courts never see the case, meaning lower caseloads (Appendix 7). 4. Mental Health Court, The Task Force recommends that the idea of mental health. court be further investigated and considered. Mental health courts: currently operate in a handful of communities in New. - York -(Auburn and Rochester are nearby examples).' They are similar 'to drug court, being heavily dependent, on. knowledgeable a,nd committed judges -and qualified treatment teams.. However, it does. not follow that defendants who are eligible for mental health court respond to the same kinds of intervention that are employed in 43- w. the prosecutor and the defense attorney. (and --the, defendant) for routine pre --trial status conferences --,and- similar - ap•'pearances. Currently, most,. courts. require monthly physical appearances in court- by defendants and defense. counsel for such matters, often resulting in unnecessary and costly travel and Waliting time for both,, . "Software and training are available to., accomplish some; of these functions, primarily in the area of filing, organizing . and maintaining electronic records. The potential for. streamlining court 'processing time, reducing court waiting time, minimizing scheduling conflicts' ' (es p.eci a I ly -for attorneys- and,, jail personnel and, other law enforcement). a.nd' ensuring accuracy and accountability .is ''even greater with the implementation of even, more comprehensive systems o f electron'i.c access., The role of. the county is to enco.u.rage such implementation by identifying funding, by providing training.,and tech support, and by, Ievera in facilities (e.g..'- secure electronic story-ge. facilities), among other things. ..Z, Coordinate Court. Schedules. : The various courts. should work together. to spread out and- . to coordinate - their 'respective: court days and times in order to.' avoid simultaneous 'court sessions. This is especially problematic in geographically disparate .parts of the county. -Such l coordination will .a'vo-id/minimize 'conflicts .for attorneys .'and law ,-enforcement will ..reduce the county's cost for transporting jailed defendants,.' and will increase public' access to the justice system, TCCOG should... -take the. lead in creating a matrix. of all available times and i facilities for all local courts and recomrrmending and negotiating a ,mutually `--� `-k' J 4. Provide Rap Sheets at Arraignment and Write Decisions. The • court's provision of "rap sheets." (an official record of the defendant's prior involvement' with the. criminal justice system) to defendants at arraignment with defense counsel is mandatory and should occur as a matter of• course (CPL§160.4Q[2]). This will allow an early informed decision by all • parties with respect to bail and possible case disposition, reducing jail, holds and the number of future appearances required of' the defendants and their counsel. There •is -a corresponding reduction in .court processing and congestion. And, there is savings to the taxpayers both in jail costs and assigned counsel fees. l Similarly, local justices should render their decisions in. legal matters, in written decisions with. sufficient clarity to allow for intelligent appellate review if -necessary. Such legal matters ,incl.ude motion decisions -and bench trial verdicts. Although appeals to County Court are rare, one major concern is. -the lack -of a sufficient record for the appellate court to review, thereby leading to reversal and remand' to the local court for further proceedings (Appendix, 3, Meeting Minutes 9/16/15). 5. Use Confessions of Judqment and -Allow for Partial Payments with Respect to Fines, Surcharges and Restitution. There is. no place fordebtor's prison in the 21st century. All courts should give every convicted defendant, ample time and. opportunity to pay fines,. surcharges and restitution. If an. individual still does not pay, what is owed, then • i _ the court simply should direct entry of judgment for the outstanding amount and let the -civil enforcement process run its course. In no instance should a defendant be resentenced to jail for non-payment. RECOMMENDATIONS THAT REQUIRE. NEVI! YORK STATE LEGISLATION. 1. After -Hours Centralized Arraignment: Thee Task Force unanimously recommends the creation. of a centralized part of the local courts for al.l after-hours arraignments. Delay in the arraignment of an individual in custody is. contrary to the most fundamental tenets of our. jurisprudence. A centralized program for after-hours arraignments not only, will speed up that process, but also will save money. What is envisioned is a single part of court that will be centrally located, that will be staffed by on -call town justices,on a rotating basis (one justice each night) and that will operate between the hours of 5:00 p.m, and 9:00 a.m. on weekdays, and 24/7. on weekends-. Ideally, this part will be situated - in a publicly accessible. and neutral facility that either is annexed to or is nearby -the Tompkins. County Public,. Safety building. This change will result 'in substantial financial savings to law enforcement,. jail personnel and assigned counsel. It also will reduce the demands 'on local justices. And, it will foster consistent application of release and bail --setting - .standards. Based on the anecdotal evidence, rough estimates of such annual savings .include: Law Enforcement (30 hours/month in transport time) $17 -000 Assigned, Counsel (40% of current expenditures for, travel, court waiting time, and mileage) J $'56,000 Total $731000 Further; such a centralized arraignment part can work in ,tandem with . a nearby centralized. holding facility.,for detained defendants. However, the Task Force is strongly opposed to the, use of such a hol,din, g facility without prompt after- hours pp 9 Y p .p hours arraignment of all defendants. As recommended above (.Section Three [B] [31), prompt arraignment, coupled. with. the normative ROR for non -felony cases, should mean that most defendants will not .be detained. The Task Force recognizes' .that it maybe necessary to -detain some felony defendants, and -- in.a handful of rare cases -- some misdemeanor level defendants. The good news is that state legislation that enables the- county to'.implement such a program` now is on the Governor's desk awaiting his approval. 2. Bail Limits: The Task Force recommends state. legislation that sets maximum limits for bail in all- misdemeanor cases. Such legislation should make clear: (a.) that.simple appearance tickets and/or. ROR is the norm for all non -felony charges where the. individual has no history of failure to appear; (b) that in those rare cases where bail is warranted, the maximum amount is set by the court at no greater than the maximum amount of any potential fine for the offense, or such lower amount as the defendant can afford; and (0 that in all. cases where bail . is required, the; court_ must. set forth its reasons on the record. 3. Transfer to courts with lawver�trained iustices: CPL§170.15 should be amended to provide for automatic transfer of all misdemeanor cases to a local, court of coordinate jurisdiction. presided over by a lawyer -trained judge upon timely demand by the defendant. Currently, CPL§170.15 authorizes the defendant to make application for such a transfer on limited grounds. However, the final decision is within the discretion of the superior court that hears the application. That discretion should. be eliminated, and the grounds for transfer should clearly include defendant's choice to have the case heard by a law -trained judge. There is a long history of litigation on this issue - local, -state and federal. - arising out of due process concerns. A simple. amendment. of this statute as recommended is the most. expedient way. to resolve the problem, short of revamping the entire constitutional system of lay justices in the town and village _ courts. 1 Section Four Recommendations: The Future A. Although the. Task -Force fhas.- been able to.Work diligently and cooperatively in identifying areas of,concern,- and, in recommending the more manageable increments{ improvements set forth in Section- Three, there is- fundamental disagreement among th-e members with respect to other long-term changes in ,the = system. Stated. another way, all Task Force members agree: (a) that changes, should be made -in the existing .system that will improve the de{ivery of_quality justice, in the IocaI courts and that will reduce.the burden .on. local- taxpayers; and (b) hat implementing some or all ,of the recommendati.ons.set forth in Section Three'will.. improve. -the -delivery of quality -justice in town .-and village courts a,nd,potentially will reduce the burden on local taxpayers; and .(c) Ahat any other major change in the system will require at minimum state legislation and' very likely state constitutional, amendment. That is where, the agreement ends. For some Task. Force members, implementing the Section Three recommendations is 'al.l that should be done. The rratio' nale is that the delivery of grassroots justice in our local town and village courts has worked for more than two hundred years, and there, is no reason to dramatically change the model... The other view is that we can do better. That.view projects a county -wide misdemeanor and violation I.evel court ("misdemeanor court'), presided over by full-., 52 time lawyer judges who - along with their staff are state employees 'as part of the Unified Court System,- Vehicle and traffic cases would be processed administratively and for the most part via computer - under the supervision -of the misdemeanor court. The local justice. court system would continue to resolve ;minor civi[ and Focal law disputes. However., underthis scenario, because -the work load of the. -existing town and village courts would- be reduced significantly, there would be strong incentive for neighboring municipalities to consolidate their justice courts regionally. Further, the misdemeanor court. would. be able to focus a',lmost exclusively on the more p roblemati.c, albeit low level, crimirnal cases. In this regard, LEAD,. Youth Court, Drug Court and possibly Mental- Health- Court all would redu,ce,the flow of es that required formal judicial.interventio`n; and,, the potential criminal -cases q � e administrative processing -of vehicle and traffic tickets mostly accomplished on= line .without the necessity of personal appearances and hearings - would virtually elim-inate that distraction as'well. Such 'a system gives technology an opportunity10 augment fairness. A person should not be required. to -travel to court, to sit there for: several hours. waiting to have his/her case called, and should not be subject (occasio-nally) to - returning a second or third time for vehicle and traffic and other offenses that are essentially administrative in, nature- and impact. - In short, some on the -Task Force see 'a time not. in the far too distant,future _ when the combination of overwhelming case volume, available. technology, and, public. expectation of expediency will produce, a form of black box Ju8ti-ce for all.'`� .1 ' � y York. Only Nassau and Suffolk Counties have District Courts, -and those courts perpetuate. some of the very inefficiencies and- inequities that are driving .t•he -work of this Task. Force. Specifically, these District Courts d'o not.. incorporate many of, the changes and values recommended- by the Task Force in Section Three.. Nor �do they include the -technological streamlining and related efficiencies that 'are included in the aspirational proposal: set forth in this Section Four. B. Even without the creation of a' county -wide misdemeanor court (Qr..District Court), there still.is opportunity for willing municipalities to consolidate and to create- regional courts. Existing state legislation authorizes such consolidation and the- Unified Court System has published an excellent "how to" p:rirrmer -(Justice Courts., ;Manual, 2015 [Appendix 8]). 'r For- example, under .existin•g state law, it would be. possible for the 'Tompkins • County towns and villages to have any number- of configurations, including any. one or more of the following four regional justice courts 1. Towns'of Ulysses, Enfield and Newfield; 2.. Towns of Danby and- Caro Iine; . 3. Town of Ithaca an.d Village of Cayuga'' Heights; and 4. _Towns of Lansing, Dryden, Groton and Village of Freevi•lle. 'Although this opportunity- does not -extend to villages directly, if the village first dissolves its village court -it may participate. in the consolidation.; In this regard., .the voting residents of villages that do not have village courts are -deemed part of the 55 1 .town electorate for purposes of voting on any such consol-idation. The key .ge.ographical determinant is contiguity. That is to say, under existing state, Law, towns that_ are located next to one another -or in a chain with another participating adjacent town -- may consolidate their respective judicial , functions into a single court. 'Therefore, by even b-roader conso-lid'ation, these four regional courts conceivably could be pared•to three,' or possibly even'tw .larger - regional courts that make sense geogra.ph•ically. The process- is complex and time-consuming. It involves- preliminary. planning, the, positive votes of the respective governing bodies- of each municipality, and _- if village courts are included -r dissolution of the village courts, or additio-nal' special state enabling legislation. It also requires the majority ,vote of th-e electorate, of each municipality that chooses to participate in the proposed co,nsolid.aton (Uniform Justice. Court Act, Section 106-a; also, Justice Court. Manual, .2.015, pp 74 -. 90 [Appe.ndi,X'-8.]),. so, regardless- of the• work.of this Task 1=orce, 'n:eighboring m.uni.ci-palities t.h.at are so; inclined are encouraged to join the ranks of several similarly motivated towns and villages 'throughout New York that already ' -re explo :ring this option, [SATED: Ithaca; New York Respectfully submitted, • J' u I" 2016 v Ra y mond M.. SciAlather; Chair. �• o a t