Return to the projo.com homepage
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Home
News
Opinion
Sports
Your Life
Weather
Classifieds
About Us
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
 
11.23.2000
Chief justice defends leadership
Candidates to succeed Joseph R. Weisberger as the state's chief justice have cited a number of areas that need improvement in the court system.

By Christopher Rowland
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -Responding to criticism leveled by candidates for his job, Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph R. Weisberger defended his administrative leadership yesterday and cited a number of steps he has taken to improve the court system's image.

Weisberger intends to retire in February after six years as chief justice, and court observers have credited him with restoring integrity to the court after previous chief justices, Joseph Bevilacqua and Thomas Fay, were forced out by scandals.

But at hearings this week to find a replacement, several judges who have applied for the powerful post said the court system must do more to improve its image, fix decrepit courthouses, update technology and reach out to the public, particularly members of racial minorities.

Under state law, the chief justice not only settles legal disputes, but also sits as the chief executive of the entire court system. So the judges' statements could be taken as implicit criticism of Weisberger's leadership.

In one example, Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. said $750,000 in repairs to the Garrahy Judicial Complex were put off because the Supreme Court administration did not get a contract signed in time. Superior Court Judge Francis J. Darigan described court computer systems as "woefully inadequate" and some of the state's courthouses as "drab places of despair."

In a letter to The Journal and in an interview yesterday, Weisberger said he has taken a number of steps to update court facilities and improve the system's public image. And plans are in the works to do more, the chief justice said.

"I agree we can never do enough," he said. "It's always a work in progress."

Specifically, Weisberger cited these efforts:

* Architectural plans are being drawn up to replace the Kent County Court House, a building that has been the subject of complaints by court personnel, lawyers and citizens for more than a decade.

* Another set of plans is being drafted for a new Traffic Tribunal to replace the current traffic court headquarters on Harris Avenue in Providence.

* New computer systems have been installed in the Superior, Family and District Courts and the Traffic Tribunal. Those computer systems will be integrated with a statewide law enforcement network "within a very short time."

* The court system has led efforts to improve its relations with the media with an Oct. 29 conference that included representatives of the press and broadcast media, judges and members of the bar. This followed a conference in April on the subject of enhancing public trust and confidence in the legal system.

A number of committees made up of judges, lawyers and residents has been working on these problems. Weisberger cited the work of the User-Friendly Court Committee, the Permanent Advisory Committee on Women and Minorities in the Courts, the Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Independence, the Future of the Courts Committee, the Court Media Committee and the Interpreter Task Force.

Weisberger acknowledged ongoing problems at the existing courthouses. The fortress-like Garrahy complex in downtown Providence, he said, is overcrowded. But construction of the new traffic court and Kent County Court House ultimately will relieve pressure on Garrahy, he said.

As for complaints about the computers, Weisberger expressed puzzlement.

"The computer system is brand new," he said. "If there are problems with it, it is probably because it is brand new. As far as I know, the Superior Court had been making the adjustment very successfully."

Darigan could not be reached yesterday to explain his specific complaints about the computer system. Jeremiah, reached by telephone, said the system is unsatisfactory because it does not allow lawyers to call up court dockets on a Web site.

Jeremiah suggested that the Supreme Court administration is not as familiar with the system's problems as judges in the lower courts.

"It may be that I'm more sensitive to the lower court needs than the chief justice is, because I'm here day to day, experiencing what's going on," he said. "You have to remember, I get the complaints daily."

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Copyright © 2001 The Providence Journal Company
Help CenterPrivacy policyTerms of service Make this your home page



 

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

 

 

[an error occurred while processing this directive]