 You're watching FJTN, the Federal Judicial Television Network. Coming up on Court to Court. We never anticipated the amount of travel time and basically production time that we would say by using video conferencing. I like the dress code here. I like wearing a jacket and a tie to work. It makes me feel better about myself. I had to work later for a while. He was interpreting business casuals, wearing sweats with a dress shirt and no tie. This is Court to Court, your connection to what's happening in the federal courts around the country, providing information and ideas that will enhance your job and how the courts function. Now with today's program, Michael Burney. Welcome to Court to Court, the Federal Judicial Center's educational magazine program for all court employees. On today's program, we'll learn how one clerk's office is making video conferencing work in a number of ways. Understand two more Latin phrases used by the courts and we'll hear what some court staff have to say about one of the more elusive topics we've covered, dress codes. Like most electronic technology, video conferencing has improved over the years so that the images and sound are now reasonably clear. Perhaps video conferencing was once thought a glitzy accessory, but the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Ohio knows that it's become a day in and day out workhorse. The bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Ohio has three offices, Columbus, Cincinnati, and here in Dayton. The court is in the process of converting to CMECF and has organized committees from each of the three divisions to work out the details of the conversion. While the cities aren't great distances apart, Becky Mitchell of the Columbus Division knows that getting the committees together is not easy. We are extremely busy right now with our caseload. It has increased a great deal. We really need to be in the office to keep up with our work and to keep up with the caseload. And meetings take time. The old way of getting together face to face, you would lose a day. Now for an hour meeting. The last time we talked about the business process review committee, but that has changed since the court installed video conferencing equipment. By using video conferencing, a one or two hour meeting now takes one or two hours. It gives us a lot of flexibility where we can contact an office, hey, in an hour can you get together for a video conference and we can sit down and discuss the problems. So then do you say that that event is okay or do you say that it's not okay since it doesn't assign a document number? CMECF has really proven the benefits of video conferencing by being able to spur the moment, have a meeting, discuss issues that would have taken okay in a week, we'll schedule a meeting and people will get here. And it's no harder to operate than a VCR. I was able to create 11 events and the minute document event, I initially had that in a notice category, but then after talking to Vicki, I found out that it was supposed to be a court category. So then I went ahead and I created it as a court category and deleted it out of the notice category. Video conferencing was just really something that was a lot of fun for me and my staff. Everybody was really excited about it. We've been able to staff our committees with people from all three cities. And that has a unifying effect. Courts that have divisional offices have a phenomenon, sort of a decentralization focus. Or each divisional office has its own identity, usually its own unique bar. In some ways it's almost like its own court. So in many ways we saw video conferencing as a way of helping us to unify the district to sort of act as one district instead of three separate courts within a district. We are currently looking at the reports that we use in each divisional office so that we can compare those to the ones in Bandcamp for the ones for CMECF. Webb attributes much of their success with video conferencing to the bridging hardware which the court purchased. The court controls the switching apparatus to connect up to four sites at once without having to rely on phone company services. That generally runs $60 an hour. So over time that's going to be some significant cost. It appeared that the bridging technology that we purchased would be well worth the cost. How much did it cost? $18,000. At $60 an hour you do the math. It doesn't take very many hours to be able to make up that cost. If you're curious it's 300 hours. Plus Webb says they don't have to take the time to arrange the service. They just dial up the connection. But the advantages aren't limited to cost and ease of use. The benefit to video conferencing is to be able to see the people you're talking to. You feel like you're sitting in a room right there with them. I guess as soon as we can resolve the problem with the servers we can move a lot faster but in any event we still need to keep moving. When you're trying to communicate different procedures or processes within one of the divisional offices telephone a lot of times won't cut it. You need the face-to-face contact. So I'll create two of those. One for BK and one for AP. Correct. And that to me would go under a miscellaneous event. Right. This is miscellaneous. Yes ma'am. Next one, the request for hearing. I think you can communicate better if you're actually looking at the person compared to a telephone conference where you don't see the people. You can tell by their body language if they are getting frustrated. If they are understanding what you're saying. I understand that request for notice has been created in the notice category. I disagree with that. I think that's confusing. It needs to be into a miscellaneous category for both of them. Stephen says that the first challenge often is to overcome the fear factor. It's almost humorous to watch some of the people initially as they attend their first video conference. They're very poised and worried about how they're going to present themselves in the video conferencing. And as time goes on and they attend a few more video conferences you can almost see the relaxed atmosphere setting in and it's really no different than having a meeting face to face with the people across the table. The system supports a variety of visual sources. We can hook a computer in to show computer graphics to a PowerPoint presentation. We have a document camera we can show it to everyone at the same time. The court purchased portable equipment for more flexibility. Webb says they use video conferencing in many ways including consulting with other clerk's offices. So our courtroom deputies could talk with courtroom deputies in a city that had already implemented CMECF to see what they could glean from the experience. Another use is for job interviews. The judiciary does not ordinarily pay transportation costs to recruit personnel except maybe for the top positions. It's potentially lost so much talent in the past because we insisted on having them come here for an interview. We find that video conferencing interviewing is very effective and for the most part we can qualify a person out simply through video conferencing. The court also has an annual bench bar workshop. And we have a committee of attorneys and judges that get together video conferencing by via video conferencing to do the coordination. The court recently was pleased to offer the system to the bankruptcy appellate panel of the Sixth Circuit for oral arguments. The judges in the panel were willing to travel to Columbus but they thought let's try something new. Let's see if we can video conference people from the litigants from different parts of the circuit and present their oral arguments to the bench and without them having to travel. And it worked. Webb says that in one day the BAP heard the number of oral arguments that otherwise might take two or three days. In fact it's got to a point now where the judges are saying well you know if we can do this why can't we have the judges sit in their own chambers and be able to video conference the judges together. Now that's a little more ambitious but it's got the wheels turning and we're thinking about it. I think the biggest surprise about video conferencing is how effective it actually turned out to be. We never anticipated the amount of travel time and basically production time that we would say by using video conferencing. Carol, John Cook out in Dayton, Ohio how are you today? It's a time saver, it's a money saver. You don't have to travel as much. You do have the personal aspect of being able to know the other employees in the court. Despite frequent use in the news media some Latin phrases in the law might not be well understood while others are so esoteric that even the courts frequently opt for something else. Here with more words to know is my colleague Bob Fagan. The Latin term amicus curiae is a bit of a tongue twister. That's why news reports often use the English translation friend of the court but you'll also hear it referred to in a shortened form simply as amicus, also pronounced amicus. Black's law dictionary defines amicus curiae as a person who's not a party to a lawsuit but who petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. Don't be misled by a reference to a person. Amicus briefs may be filed not only by people but also by organizations and when more than one person or organization is filing amicus becomes amici. Although amicus briefs may take a position in support of one side or the other they also may be presented to inform or educate the court about particular aspects of a case without addressing what the court's final decision should be. Sometimes the court will invite a government agency with special expertise to express its position on certain issues such as the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding securities law. While we most often think of friend of the court briefs in relation to appellate courts they also appear in district court proceedings. Usually amicus participation is limited to filing briefs but occasionally counsel may be allowed to take part in oral argument. The U.S. Supreme Court frequently grants permission to organizations or individuals to submit briefs in cases involving areas of law that are of particular interest to them. For example, during this term the Supreme Court granted certiorari, remember that word, in a case involving a Minnesota regulation. The regulation prohibits candidates for election as judges from announcing their views about disputed legal or political issues. Six amici oppose the regulation including the American Civil Liberties Union and some Supreme Court justices from other states. Nine amici defended it including the American Bar Association and Conference of Chief Justices. One amicus brief supported neither side. Our other word today also is an easy to spell or pronounce, precipi, which is also pronounced precipi. Although it resembles the English word precipice it doesn't have anything to do with the edge of a cliff or the brink of disaster. In Latin it means command. Originally in England, precipi refer to a writ issued by the monarch commanding that someone do something such as release land being withheld from another. Today in the language of many districts it's a request for stuff made to the court. The dictionary definition is a written motion or request seeking some court action, especially a trial setting or an entry of judgment. It typically takes the form of a covering letter from council that formally asks the court to issue an accompanying writ. Although it's an arcane word it's still used from time to time. In practice a precipi scope is quite broad as can be seen by this form. In some clerk's offices it's simply called a memo to the clerk and attorneys can even hand write their request on it. A precipi can also be used to ask the clerk of court to note something. In those situations it's always unopposed. When a precipi is addressed to the court clerk it's usually a request for action such as issuing a subpoena or preparing the record for appeal. When addressed to a judge a precipi is similar to a motion. In other words it's an application for an order, a ruling or a direction. One final note, the precipi itself is kept on file in the court and becomes part of the record. That's our stuff on Words to Know for today. I'll have more on a future court to court. Aristotle once said, in revolution the occasions may be trifling but great interests are at stake. Dress codes in the workplace may or may not be a revolution and may not involve great interests but they certainly are interesting to many. As we visited courts around the country lately we've asked about dress codes and especially about casual office attire. Our admittedly small and unscientific sample of court staff indicates that opinions are as varied as location and the personnel themselves. We especially wanted to know what court staff thought the phrase business casual means. Business casual, informal dress, simply as simple as that. Well, maybe not that simple. It's too hard to go a business casual. I think it's just easier to say you're a dress professional. You know what to do. I think that business casual sometimes misinterpreted as being at a kind of carte blanche to wear anything. Business casual I look at, I see as no tie, no sport jacket. Definitely not sweats or faded out jeans. A pair of cotton twill pants, maybe dockers, a button down shirt, probably long sleeve. Maybe a casual dress or a casual pants suit. Cackies, maybe a polo shirt or four men dress shirt no tie. Cackies, that's fine. But jeans, that's a little extreme. That is not business casual. I think as long as you look professional and nice. Most of us probably agree that there are some clothes that should never be worn to work. But changes in fashion and public behavior do tend to leave confusion in their wake. Now with our society changing and all of our ideas getting shaken up about what's appropriate and what's not appropriate, that whole discussion has now come to the court. What's important to remember is we are the face of the federal judiciary to the majority of the public. I mean it's a place where we really depend upon the public perception for our ability to do what we do. Judge Windmill's judicial assistant agrees. They need to know that we are serious about our work, that we are not in our khaki shorts and our tennis shoes here representing the courts. The court needs to demand respect from the public I think and they're not going to respect the court if the employees look like they don't. Nobody here wants to be the closed police. We want, we think professional duress is related to professional customer service. I think that just shows the public that we care about them and that we care about the work that we do. Yet you don't want to feel superior to the person at the counter but you want to feel that you are in the business atmosphere. People tend to be a lot more open and easy going when you're dressed down just a little bit and that can be good but that can also cause people to be overly friendly and share more information than you probably want. So very quickly the issue becomes what is appropriate and how to determine it. I think a dress code policy is best. I've come from places where there was no policy and then you start getting wide variations. We sort of shy away from actually defining it because it is like hitting a moving target. I think the more flexibility you can give people the better because the productivity, morale, effectiveness is I think closely tied to how comfortable you are. It needs to be in writing for the employees because everybody interprets it differently as to what proper dress attire is. Because everyone has a different opinion of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the work atmosphere. And many opinions are strongly held. Yes, I'd love to talk about dress codes. I am in what I call my big boy clothes. My big boy clothes are appropriate clothes for attire for the office. I'm in a suit and I feel that I'm dressed appropriately. This court does have a dress code. It's dated. It's been around for probably 15 years and never been amended. Hatcher says the dress code requires that men wear ties up the street in the district court. It says neatly and appropriately and I provided absolutely no definitions nor will I as to what those mean. And I'm not going to be the fashion police. It's a waste of my time. We do not have a written policy where we can go to and show them a picture and say this is appropriate, this is not appropriate. And I like that because it does not box us in as managers. I like the dress code here. I like wearing a jacket and a tie to work. It makes me feel better about myself. It's a federal court system and our clerk tends to be conservative in that area so we need to dress up every day. And we prefer to dress down so it is a hot topic. But we love casual day. Now there's a Pandora's box. We're not sure when or how casual attire first appeared in business offices. Maybe it began with men removing their suit coats or women wearing slacks. Several staff we talked with remember the time when women were not allowed to wear slacks in the office. Nor are we sure how it became acceptable to wear flip flops once only seen at the beach but now in some offices. But as we've heard more casual attire is welcomed by many in court offices. Most often this occurs on casual day. Not surprisingly there are also many opinions about what can be worn on that day. Not like something you would wear out shopping on Saturday. Just have a tidy look about you. As long as it's put together and it's clean and it's appropriate. Casual Friday we can wear denim jeans. We can wear I guess basically anything as they've indicated that you wouldn't clean house in. As long as it's neat, it's clean, it's not loud and it doesn't show anything that's offensive to other individuals. We have a casual day once a month and sometimes I would wear pants but most of the time I feel more comfortable in dresses. Some companies have what's called a business appropriate policy in which employees may dress according to whom they meet with that day. But in a clerk's office they wear. Anything that's presentable because we never know what our day is going to bring you know maybe we do have to go upstairs to see a judge or go in the courtroom. This is my third week and I'm kind of watching what everybody else is wearing and to judge then on before I start you know dressing down on Fridays. If you're not going to be dealing with the public I think it would be entirely appropriate for you to be more casual. There are limits. Of course you know there probably shouldn't be any belly buttons or things like that but good judgment about what's appropriate seems to be enough. But whose judgment and how to determine what's good. It started out as being business casual and now I think it's just casual. We've had meetings with the staff actually to decide this issue and pinnings are all over the board. It's a hard one to pin down what appropriate would be. A lot of times circumstances dictate the attire. For example in systems they may be stringing wire under a table or in procurement they may be receiving a shipment of some product or in court services they may be archiving files. But to me I think it's more instead of business casual but business smart that you still have that crisp image that you portray. We give up. Maybe we can't agree on a definition of casual but are there any benefits to allowing casual clothes in the workplace? And I'm glad that they've gone more casual a little to a certain point as I feel it boosts morale. I think the workers feel a lot more relaxed and on Fridays feel a lot more productive because they are more casual. It takes less time to get ready for work so you can sleep in. That's the main reason I think. Because everybody's on time when they dress casual. It's an inexpensive benefit you can give employees and I think that's appreciated. And dress an appropriate dress is in my mind something that is dealt quite easily within the context of quite easily in the context of defining obscenity you know it when you see it. And I know the extremes and so do the employees. And just what clothes do these staff think are too extreme? T-shirts probably wouldn't be a good idea. If they have the holy jeans are short or too tight or the jeans are too tight. Wearing a sweatshirt over a shirt and tie would be inappropriate. No sweats. I had to work later for a while. He was interpreting business casual. I was wearing sweats with a dress shirt. No tie. I had to talk to him. Tennis shoes are terrible. I don't think that anyone should wear tennis shoes to the job. And what image do clothes that are too casual convey? We're just hanging out you know. Oh god you know. Maybe if we have time we'll ask her a question but hey we're more into just hanging out playing around. Items with a court's logo are the de facto clothing for casual day in many courts such as the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the District Court for the District of Nebraska. We haven't even gotten to tattoos and accessories. Perhaps it's just the conservative Midwest we don't get a lot of body piercings or tongue piercings or eyebrow piercings or nose piercings we haven't seen a lot of it. But body piercings are addressed in the Fifth Circuit's dress code. At the Alexandria Division of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia the clerk's office dress code prohibited denim, casual trousers and shirts, no short skirts, and men had to wear ties at all times. There was also a requirement to wear stockings for the women. So the first issue I faced as clerk was a lot of women approaching me saying why do we have this requirement to wear stockings? And I said, I don't know, but do you want to change it? And everyone said yes. So basically talked to the division managers and we all agreed that we would get rid of that. That was the best thing that has ever happened to me in 20 years in the dress code policy. In the summer it is wonderful. It's hot outside and they're very constricting. We love it. We absolutely love it. Oh yes, I was happy to hear that. That we didn't have to wear stockings. Perhaps there's a lesson in making changes such as this. Bad things didn't happen and people still look professional and people still got their jobs done and no one was distracted by it. We knew when we started that we wouldn't be able to cover or resolve all the issues about dress codes nor define business casual. But it's clear that these are topics of ongoing interest in the courts. And as Shakespeare might say, the fashion wears out more apparel than the person. That's our program for today. We want to hear your comments and evaluation of the program and also your ideas about topics you want us to cover. Please contact us at the address on the screen. Click on FJC broadcasts on the FJTN and then click on court to court to select the evaluation form. There are two forms. One can be printed, filled out and mailed or faxed to us. The other can be completed online. Both forms invite your ideas for future topics. On our next program, we'll learn about staff training for courts converting to CMECF. We'll see court staff make a dramatic difference in people's lives. And we'll feature another moment of court history, this time the 19th century Amistad case. In future programs, we'll learn about staff professional development as a means of promotion. And we'll hear about networking to facilitate supervision of cyber crime defendants and defenders. We hope you'll join us. On behalf of everyone here at the Federal Judicial Center, I'm Michael Burney. Thank you for watching today.