Judicial retention hearing: judges emphasize communication, access and training amid staffing and remote‑hearing challenges
Loading...
Summary
The Joint Committee on Judicial Retention heard extended testimony from four Vermont Superior Court judges on court communication with attorneys, treatment courts, remote hearings and access for incarcerated litigants. Judges cited staff shortages, recent IT changes and anonymous survey comments as drivers for new training and outreach plans.
The Joint Committee on Judicial Retention on Feb. 25 heard testimony from Vermont Superior Court judges Elizabeth Mann, Megan Shafference, Timothy Tomasi and Chief Superior Judge Thomas Sone, who described efforts to improve courtroom communication, address case backlogs and expand access for litigants including those who are incarcerated.
The judges told committee members they use surveys and informal outreach to identify problems raised by attorneys, staff and litigants, and that recent operational changes — from full rollout of electronic filing to expanded remote‑hearing capability — have changed how the courts get feedback and deliver services.
Judge Elizabeth Mann said formal and informal bench‑bar communication has helped her identify “ripple effects” from courtroom practices and to try new approaches such as brief judicial‑entry orders and more deliberate pretrial conferences to preserve limited hearing time. “My goal each day is to be a better judge today than I was yesterday,” she said, noting anonymous critical comments in survey responses that kept her “awake many a night.” She told the committee she will pilot more proactive outreach to attorneys and court users to reduce miscommunication she said can arise with remote and hybrid hearings.
Judge Megan Shafference described a heavy caseload in the Chittenden Family Division and efforts to improve case processing. She told the committee that Chittenden family clearance rates rose from 61% in April 2024 to 113% in January 2025, a change she credited to scheduling and document‑management work under a period of staff turnover. Shafference said she has worked on better order issuance and scheduling and has taken leadership roles to train newly appointed judges. She urged the committee and the public to use scheduled public comment opportunities to raise problems and praised family‑court treatment programs as models that can inform other dockets.
Judge Timothy Tomasi and Chief Superior Judge Thomas Sone highlighted training, treatment courts and remote‑hearing practice. Tomasi said he had sought feedback after prior retention comments, using roundtable meetings with attorneys, recordings of hearings and VBA midterm reviews; he reported about 80 attorneys responded to his most recent survey and that staff responses were strongly supportive. Tomasi also noted Rule 2.1(a) of the Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct limits what a judge may say about matters pending on appeal and that the committee had advised judges on that restriction when survey comments concerned pending probate matters.
Chief Superior Judge Sone described the administrative side of the job, thanked court operations staff and court administrator Terry Corson by name for keeping operations working through vacancies and flood damage, and urged continued cooperation among the judiciary, the legislature and stakeholders. He recounted long experience sitting in multiple counties and said the retention process helps judges “look in the mirror” and improve courtroom performance.
Across testimony, judges identified a set of recurring operational issues: shortages of judicial assistants and transport officers, the need for better in‑court translation and communication‑specialist services, and inconsistent remote‑hearing access for incarcerated people. Multiple judges described remote and hybrid hearings as valuable for access — for example, allowing litigants who cannot take a full day off work to participate — but said some proceedings still require in‑person presence and that Department of Corrections transport constraints can force ad hoc solutions. Tomasi and others said the judiciary is meeting regularly with the Department of Corrections, the defender general and state's attorneys to try to coordinate transports and remote appearances while recognizing resource limits on each side.
Judges also described planned or ongoing training: procedural fairness and trauma‑informed practice, accommodations for litigants with cognitive or language disabilities, and opioid/substance‑use training tied to available opioid‑settlement funds (noted as becoming available July 1). Judge Shafference and others asked for more peer observation and mentoring; Tomasi reported that retired judges have begun to participate in a peer‑review/mentoring pilot.
Committee chair Representative Angela Arsenault reminded listeners of a separate public comment session scheduled for Feb. 26 at 5 p.m. at the State House for additional remarks to be included in the retention record.
The hearing closed after members questioned judges about specific written comments and administrative measures; the committee did not take a vote during the public session.
The record shows judges juggling heavy dockets, continuing IT and staffing transitions, and a mix of positive and negative anonymous feedback that they say informs targeted changes in courtroom practice and training.
