SUBJECT:      RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT OF JUROR APPRECIATION WEEK AND EXTENSION OF APPRECIATION PROGRAM TO EMPLOYERS

Background

Juror Appreciation Week was declared to be the second full week each May by the California Legislature in 1998 as a result of a legislative resolution authored by Assembly Member Bill Morrow (ACR 118, Stats. 1998, ch.47). Orange County Superior Court led the drive supported by JEM. Juror Appreciation Week is recognized and supported by the Judicial Council.

The purpose of this program is to develop positive public relations with citizens who perform jury duty, and encourage participation from those who do not. The program seeks to remind citizens of the importance of jury duty and the vital role they play in our judicial system.

In an effort to take the program one step further, JEM recommends that courts extend thanks and appreciation to all identified employers who currently support the jury system. Those employers who pay their employees for jury service are making a significant contribution to the administration of justice. By acknowledging our sincere thanks and appreciation for their support, this event will promote statewide ( and countywide) recognition and hopefully encourage new participation.

Problem

Attempts to have the Administrative Office of the Courts provide uniform recommendations for a community-based funding of Juror Appreciation Week have been unsuccessful. Each court interprets “appropriate” community involvement differently. Some courts are presenting very successful, community supported programs. Other courts are not allowing jury staff to seek assistance from the community and the staff are providing the funding from their own pockets.

Action

The JEM Executive Committee appointed Rex Warburton of San Diego and Pebbla Wallace of Los Angeles to draft statewide recommendations for the funding and community support of Juror Appreciation Week. These recommendations are presented as a set standards that should be met by all courts and of alternatives that can be implemented to suit the needs of individual courts.

Standards

1.                                                 Jury duty is a right and obligation of citizenship.

2.                                                 Citizens should be encouraged to participate in jury duty by the entire community.

3.                                                 During Juror Appreciation Week, each court is obligated to recognize jurors and encouraged to acknowledge employers for their support of the jury system.

4.                                                 The funding for Juror Appreciation Week should be provided by the court and/or the community. It should not be provided by individual court staff.

5.                                                 Any requests for support outside the court should be presented as an opportunity to promote good citizenship with no suggestion of a quid pro quo.

6.                                                 Letters sent to prospective participants should offer the opportunity to participate and not ask for direct contributions.

7.                                                 Any goods, discounts or items normally sold or distributed by an organization may be accepted. For example: game tickets (baseball, football), amusement park tickets, museum posters.

8.                                                 Contributions from any organization should be limited to $500, except for Los Angeles which should be $1500.

9.                                                 Controversial items, politically motivated materials, or items that would reflect poorly on the court should not be accepted.

Alternatives

Following are funding and community support alternatives a court can consider.

A.                                                Pay all expenses from the court's budget.

B.                                                 Approach individual businesses for support or in kind donations, mindful of Standards 5, 6,7, 8, and 9.

C.                                                 Partner with a business organization, ex: Downtown Business Association, Chamber of Commerce.

D.        Partner with another public agency (Air Pollution Control District), semi-public agency (Bar Association, Bar Auxiliary), or service club (Rotary).

E.        Partner with media organizations (radio stations, television stations, newspapers).

F.        Support can also be in the form of lectures, speakers, tours from any kind of business or organization (Red Cross, United Way).

G.        Justice agencies, such as the Public Defender’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Sheriff and Police departments, can provide presentations on their role in the justice system.

Rationale for Partnerships

There are good reasons for seeking partnerships when court funding is not sufficient and the community is too small for direct approaches.

∙          It broadens the approach to a community approach.

∙          It removes the appearance of a quid pro quo.

∙          It introduces the court to a broad range of supporters.