Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Remote Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commenters urge flexible remote‑participation rule, warn against strict 30‑mile limit
Summary
Referees, court staff and district judges told the Michigan Supreme Court that a proposed rule limiting where judicial officers may preside remotely (including a 30‑mile rule) would bar many referees, risk labor-law conflicts and undermine access to justice; they urged chief‑judge discretion and conduct‑based oversight.
Referees, court administrators and district judges urged the Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday to reject or substantially revise a proposed administrative order and rule amendments (ADM 2019‑40) that would restrict where judicial officers may participate remotely.
Referee Daniel Ferenczy, speaking for the Referees Association of Michigan, told the court the proposal would “prohibit[] presiding remotely solely because of where [referees] live,” noting many referees live more than 30 miles from the courthouses they serve or even in other states. “Accountability must be conduct‑based, not location‑based,” he said, and he warned the change could conflict with state labor laws and collective‑bargaining agreements.
Aaron Lincoln, deputy court administrator and friend of the court for Michigan’s Third Circuit, said the proposed 30‑mile limitation would prevent some referees from holding remote hearings at home and could force adjournments or cancellations that would worsen pandemic‑era backlogs. “Remote hearings offer convenience as parties can attend to their court business without the need to pay for parking, find transportation, take time off of work, or find child care,” he said.
Judge Reads, representing the District Judges Association, urged the court to preserve remote proceedings as a tool that promotes access to justice and efficiency. He described using remote access while at a conference to resolve time‑sensitive matters and called a strict 30‑mile rule “arbitrary and impractical.” He recommended giving chief judges discretion to tailor remote‑work policies and suggested the court revisit the policy after collecting implementation data.
Justices asked whether the central purpose of remote proceedings should be to benefit litigants rather than judges and explored compromise options, including limiting remote work to within a judge’s jurisdiction or allowing chief judges to approve a bounded number of remote days without broader notice.
No formal action was taken; the court heard public comment and questioned witnesses before moving to the next agenda item. The court will consider public comments and written submissions with the proposed amendments to MCR 2.407 and 8.110 and the rescission of administrative order 2012‑7.
