<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Gavel to Gavel &#187; Vermont</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gaveltogavel.us/site/tag/vermont/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gaveltogavel.us/site</link>
	<description>A review of state legislation affecting the courts.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:32:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>VT: Committee approves bill to restructure entire state&#8217;s judiciary</title>
		<link>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/03/18/vt-committee-approves-bill-to-restructure-entire-states-judiciary/</link>
		<comments>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/03/18/vt-committee-approves-bill-to-restructure-entire-states-judiciary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Raftery</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Structure Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vermont]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In early February, I mentioned that Vermont was considering a bill to restructure the state&#8217;s entire judicial structure. The House Judiciary Committee approved that bill, with amendments, on March 16. The full text of the 181-page bill is available here. The bill now goes to the House Committee on Appropriations while the House Judiciary&#8217;s schedule [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="../2010/02/01/vermont-restructuring-an-entire-states-judiciary/">In early February</a>, I mentioned that Vermont was considering a bill to restructure the state&#8217;s entire judicial structure. The House Judiciary Committee approved that bill, with amendments, on March 16. The full text of the 181-page bill is available <a href="http://www.leg.state.vt.us/misc/254364.pdf">here</a>. The bill now goes to the House Committee on Appropriations while the <a href="http://www.leg.state.vt.us/schedule/frame.cfm?CommitteeMeetingID=5954">House Judiciary&#8217;s schedule</a> indicates preparations are being made on March 19 for floor debate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/03/18/vt-committee-approves-bill-to-restructure-entire-states-judiciary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vermont: Restructuring an entire state&#8217;s judiciary</title>
		<link>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/02/01/vermont-restructuring-an-entire-states-judiciary/</link>
		<comments>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/02/01/vermont-restructuring-an-entire-states-judiciary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:00:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Raftery</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Structure Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vermont]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=95</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For nearly a century, the states have debated whether and to what extent their state court systems should be unified. Even the word itself has been the subject of ontological discourse (&#8220;What does &#8220;unified&#8221; mean, anyway?) As the ongoing budget crises force courts to review the way in which they deliver their core services, unification [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For nearly a century, the states have debated whether and to what extent their state court systems should be unified. Even the word itself has been the subject of ontological discourse (&#8220;What does &#8220;unified&#8221; mean, anyway?) As the ongoing budget crises force courts to review the way in which they deliver their core services, unification (however defined) is once again being submitted as a possible solution.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=H.0470&amp;Session=2010">HB 470</a> comes out of the recommendations of the state&#8217;s <a href="http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/MasterPages/WhatsNew-CommissionJudicialOps.aspx">Commission on Judicial Operation</a> which has said on its website that &#8220;<a href="http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/MasterPages/WhatsNew-CommissionFAQs.aspx">Vermonters can no longer afford the inefficiencies of our outdated court system</a>. &#8221; The Commission itself was created at the request of the legislature to &#8220;reduce the judiciary’s budget and enhance the efficient and effective delivery of judicial services.&#8221;</p>
<p>The bill would consolidate judicial functions by eliminating the Probate, Family, and District Courts (<a href="http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/Ct_Struct/state_inc.asp?STATE=VT">click here for current court structure chart, courtesy of the NCSC Court Statistics Project</a>) and &#8220;establish[ing] a unified court system under the administrative control of the Supreme Court.&#8221; This unified systme would consist of the Supreme Court and Superior Court, the later to absorb the Probate, Family and District Courts. This new Superior Court would have four divisions: civil, criminal, family, and probate, which would have the same subject matter jurisdiction currently had by the current Superior, District, Family, and Probate courts. Additionally, the state&#8217;s probate and judicial districts would be redrawn with districts no longer drawn along county lines. Moreover, all judges of the new Superior Court would be required to be attorneys, a qualification currently not mandatory for Probate Court judges. Finally, the state&#8217;s &#8220;assistant judges&#8221; (non-attorneys who may serve as &#8220;side judges&#8221; on cases) would not longer be allowed  any judicial, adjudicative functions.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen whether this legislation will advance, and if so how far, before the legislature <a href="http://www.leg.state.vt.us/misc/faq2.htm#A1">adjourns sometime in late April</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2010/02/01/vermont-restructuring-an-entire-states-judiciary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
