''In reviewing Article VI to draw a blueprint for a more effective Judiciary, I urge you to explore what the basic structure of the Michigan Court system should be. Should there be a single trial bench with special divisions? Regional courts? Family courts? How many judges should there be? Which cases should they hear? Where should they be located? And ultimately, who should fund them?''

Then Senate majority leader John M. Engler answered the challenge by sponsoring a resolution creating an Article VI Commission and in 1990, the commission Chief Justice Riley called for was formed, with the support of Governor Blanchard, House leadership, and the State Bar of Michigan. The Commission on the Courts in the 21st Century recommended the phased-in establishment of a single-level trial court, and the immediate implementation of at least three pilot projects to test the practical implications of the operation of a single-level trial court.

Since the publication of the Commission's report, ''Michigan's Courts in the 21st Century,'' there has been active consideration of court reorganization in Michigan. In the last two years, interest in court reorganization has grown dramatically. In September of 1994, Chief Justice Michael F. Cavanagh initiated a statewide strategic planning effort, the Michigan Justice Project, involving extensive outreach to users of the court system. In September of 1995, Chief Justice James H. Brickley addressed the state Legislature on the need for comprehensive reform of the structure, administration, and funding of the state's trial court system, and presented the Supreme Court's ''Program for Reforming the Judicial Branch of Government'' (reproduced in the November, 1995 Bar Journal).

As of the date this article was written (early December, 1995), two legislative proposals on court reorganization are pending: A package of bills centered around HJR S and HB 5158 sponsored by the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Michael Nye, and a court reform model proposal by the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. William Van Regenmorter. (Both proposals were also reproduced in the November, 1995 Bar Journal.) Passage of some form of court reorganization in 1996 is possible, although, because all the current proposals require a constitutional amendment, it appears that none of the proposals could take full effect before January, 1997.

The impetus of the current momentum toward court reform is fiscal. Currently, the funding and administration of Michigan's trial courts is somewhat chaotic. Some court personnel are funded locally, other personnel are funded by the state. The ratio of local to state funding of the courts varies widely from county to county. Indeed, there is not even consensus on what the elements of trial court funding are, since every jurisdiction has a different arrangement of services and costs funded within its budget.

The administration of each court is equally varied. It is not unusual for a single county to have several separate court administrative entities and funding authorities; in the largest county, there are 27 separate administrative entities and 39 funding authorities.

The inefficiencies and inequities of the current system have long been recognized. In 1980, the state assumed a larger share of the cost of operation of three trial courts_the 3rd Circuit, Recorder's Court, and a newly-created 36th District Court, and created a timetable for phased-in state assumption of 100% of all court operational expenses, which were left undefined. The House Legislative Analysis Section analysis of the act that initiated these changes, Public Act 438 of 1980, observed:

''The need for state government to streamline the operations and assume the costs of the state's judicial system has been recognized for some time now. Increase in case backlogs throughout the state and the lessened ability of local units of government to meet the costs of court operation point toward the desirability of such an approach. However, nowhere is the need for court reorganization and state assumption of the costs of court operations more urgent than in the Detroit-Wayne County area.''

The funds to implement 100% state funding of trial court operations have yet to be appropriated. In September of 1988, eight counties filed a class action suit against the state to compel it to fully fund local courts. Grand Traverse County v State of Michigan, the Governor, the State Legislature, and the Auditor General.

In 1993, the Legislature enacted Public Act 189, which replaced the statutory provision calling for 100% funding of all court operational expenses with a new formula that resulted in increased state funding for some local trial court funding units. If anything, Public Act 189 intensified the search for a more satisfactory funding formula.

The data or real experience with alternate court organizational models in Michigan is limited to five pilot projects.

Following the passage of Public Act 189, the need for a new structure for the courts became increasingly implicated in the funding debate. The 1994-95 General Government Appropriations Act established a Joint Legislative Committee on Funding and Structure. The State Bar formed a 21st Century Courts Committee charged with formulating a plan to implement the recommendations of the Commission on the Courts in the 21st Century. And Chief Justice Michael F. Cavanagh announced the Michigan Justice Project.

In September of 1995, the Supreme Court decided the Grand Traverse case, rejecting the counties' claims for 100% state funding for the courts.

Shortly after the Grand Traverse case was decided, the Supreme Court's program for court reform was announced. The Supreme Court's program called for a much stronger role for the Supreme Court in court administration, the immediate merger of the probate and circuit courts, the phased-in creation of a single, resident general jurisdiction trial court judge in each of the state's smallest counties, and a series of demonstration projects to explore reorganization based on a single-level trial court, (merging the district, probate and circuit courts into a single-level trial court).

What is surprising is that the court reorganization debate has progressed as far as it has_to the brink of enactment_largely on a theoretical level. The data or real experience with alternate court organizational models in Michigan is limited to five pilot projects funded by the Legislature in the wake of the recommendations of the Commission on the Courts in the 21st Century, and administered through the State Court Administrative Office. A short description of each pilot project provided by the State Court Administrative Office reveals that the funding and statutory limitations have meant that the scope of these projects has fallen far short of the consolidation contemplated by all of the court reorganization plans under active consideration.

Berrien County

The Berrien County courts formed a Judicial Council in 1991 for the purpose of presenting a unified voice in all communications with other agencies, including the funding unit, and initiating ongoing dialogue among the three courts to streamline current practices. The Judicial Council consists of each chief judge and court administrator in the probate, circuit and district courts, and the friend of the court.

Judicial Council activities include implementation of judicial cross-assignment to streamline the removal and transfer process: arraignment and plea-taking by district judges in felony cases; and trial of certain criminal felony cases by district and/or probate judges on assignment. Other activities include establishment of a drug court; coordination of labor contract negotiations of all bargaining units for court employees; participation in countywide criminal justice system committee; and implementation of integrated justice system computer system; coordination of court budgets for presentation to the funding unit; and participation in countywide review of all aspects of agency interrelation and operations, known as the ''Re-engineering Project.''

Funding provided the Berrien County Judicial Council through the 21st Century Commission on the Courts appropriation enabled the establishment of the Tri-Court Services Division. Serving as the probation division for all courts within the county, Tri-Court Services concentrates its work effort on increasing revenues through the aggressive collection of court-ordered assessments. Enforcement officers conduct background financial investigations and pursue collection of attorney reimbursement, district court fines and costs, bond forfeiture, out of state child support arrearage, and defense cost reimbursement under Public Act 272 (Department of Corrections). Tri-Court Services also includes a certified drug and rehabilitation specialist to provide services in the district court. A centralized cashiering division has recently been established which will streamline accounting practices and increase public access.

Calhoun County

The Calhoun County courts formed a Judicial Council to improve understanding and cooperation among the courts. The council is comprised of chief judges and administrators from the circuit, district and probate courts. The entire Council meets monthly, administrators meet bi-weekly, and all judges meet quarterly. Through coordinated input to the County Commission, the Council has been effective in ensuring coordination of resources.

The Council serves as employer for a unified clerk position that coordinates all clerk services across courts and for a jury coordinator that services all three courts. The council has been effective in creating these positions which serve all three courts and which would not be economically feasible on an individual court basis.

Judicial Council activities have included development of uniform standards and policies across courts and the development of a shared library of statutes on CD-ROM.

A unified clerk position, under the employment of the Judicial Council, was created when the courts moved into the new Calhoun County Justice Center and were housed at a central location. The unified clerk cross trains staff from the circuit, district, and probate courts. Court users can now receive service from any court clerk staff regardless of the statutory jurisdiction. The unified clerk program has made service more convenient for users, reduced the total number of needed clerk staff, resulted in uniform procedures across courts, made case processing more efficient and resulted in greater staff flexibility.

Marquette

The Marquette County courts have formed a Judicial Council comprised of all of the judges and the 21st Century Project coordinator. The council was implemented via a letter of understanding defining membership, officers, mission and responsibility. The council has been successful in coordinating internal court matters and interacting with the county board, the local bar, area agencies and the media.

A primary objective of the Marquette project is to implement an integrated automated information system across courts. Equipment installation began during 1995. All three courts will be operating SCAO/

OSM software.

The Judicial Council has developed a local court rule for concurrent jurisdiction between the circuit and probate courts. This allows the judges in both courts to process joint child custody and support matters more efficiently.

The court is using cross-assignment of judges. District judges are being assigned to preside over felony arraignments and accept pleas at the time of bind over. Scheduling and records access problems are being discussed and resolved.

Several other major projects are also being developed as part of the 21st Century Pilot. An automated law library will be implemented which will eliminate duplicate libraries for the three courts. A centralized jury system is being designed which will reduce the number of jurors required, coordinate jury service among courts, and reduce overall juror costs. Uniform collection procedures using automation are being investigated which should increase revenue collection and reduce the number of delinquent accounts. Uniform guidelines for the assignment of council are being developed which are expected to result in cost per case savings and increased assigned council reimbursement.

Muskegon

Muskegon, previously dependent on a manual information system, has implemented a court automation information system. The Office of System Management Information System has been used. The probate court was automated in 1993 and currently all probate cases are being processed on the system. All court-required notices and reports are now being generated by the system.

District court case processing efficiency has improved with the use of the automated system. Between 1992 and 1993, revenue collection increased by 16% and increased by approximately 40% by the end of 1994. The circuit court information system implementation is in progress.

Cross-assignment of judges is ongoing. This has allowed the district court to rework the preliminary examination schedule and has also allowed all courts to provide adequate vacation, sick leave and conference/seminar coverage. Case delay has been reduced and correspondingly the jail population has been reduced resulting in cost savings.

The Muskegon courts are working to form a judicial council that would improve coordination among the courts and result in more efficient resource management. Although the council has not been officially formulated, preliminary discussions among the chief judges have already improved the coordination among and operation of the courts.

Washtenaw

The overall goal of the Washtenaw project has been to create a single level trial court, consolidating the current circuit, probate, and independent district courts.

The Washtenaw project aims to consolidate administrative functions, integrate information systems, consolidate dockets and improve access to justice. Pilot activities are being introduced in three phases.

Prior to the project, preliminary examinations were held in five district court locations. As part of the project a single site was chosen where all in-custody arraignments and preliminary examinations were centralized. Judges have been cross-assigned to preside over circuit, district, and probate matters. Magistrates have been authorized to make probable cause determinations and conduct arraignments. All felony cases are now filed directly in the circuit court. District judges may sign any felony complaints regardless of where the offense occurred. District judges are assigned on a rotating basis to conduct preliminary exams. The centralized location has proven to be more convenient for court users.

In order to ensure communication between the Bar Association, local law enforcement, prosecutors, individuals, agencies and the courts, a number of committees have been formed. These committees have formalized and improved communication among the various groups participating in the justice system.

A reimbursement compliance office has been created to enhance the collection of reimbursable attorney fees. Defendants requesting assigned council are reviewed for ability to pay and payment plans are established.

The circuit-probate-district structure that has existed since 1963 is not sufficiently flexible to provide for the level of efficiency demanded by court users and taxpayers. During the 1993/94 year, the Washtenaw County District and Circuit courts began using a common operating system. The probate court will be added to the system in 1995. It is hoped that the two independent district courts will be moved to a central system in 1997. The shared computer system has reduced maintenance and increased access to case information.

Washtenaw is also in the process of developing and testing a procedure that provides for the filing of all general civil cases and negligence cases as circuit court general civil cases are assigned randomly to all circuit and district judges. All divorce cases are now randomly assigned to the Circuit and Estates and Mental Health Division probate judges. Finally, a single civil case mediation program would be used by all courts.

PRELIMINARY LESSONS LEARNED

Of the five pilot projects, the project that has come closest to testing the consolidated court envisioned by proponents of a single-level trial court is the Washtenaw County Unified Court Pilot Project.

The two and one half years of trial and error in implementing a unified court system in Washtenaw County have taught those who have participated in the process valuable lessons. We believe these lessons, based on practical experience in implementing court reorganization, should be considered on a statewide level in efforts to restructure the court system and by other communities undertaking initiatives to reorganize their courts.

The participants in the Washtenaw project believe, first and foremost, that court reorganization to a single-level trial court can work and that such a reorganization can effect significant efficiencies in a court system. Skeptics of trial court consolidation are fond of invoking the folk wisdom, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The Washtenaw pilot has proven that a system that is not broken can be made to work dramatically better. Data from the Washtenaw experience demonstrates that reorganization can result in less time from arraignment to trial in felony cases; quicker and more certain trial dates in civil cases; and a more balanced workload among judges.

Second, they believe that, if court reorganization is to work, a new vision of the role of the judiciary is necessary. Judges must see themselves as part of a system of justice, with accountability to their peers and to their communities. This new vision anticipates that judges, individually and collectively, will play an active role in the administration of the court system. This new vision contrasts with an ''old vision'' of judges controlling isolated individual fiefdoms with no responsibilities outside their assigned cases and no accountability except whatever accountability the voters impose at six-year intervals.

Third, the Washtenaw participants have learned that the problems associated with court reorganization are interrelated and complex. They include concerns about judicial efficiency, convenience to the public, court staffing, court funding, information systems, the effect of policy changes on various groups of court users, the quality and structure for the delivery of court-related services to children and families, court facility needs, the funding mechanisms necessary to support the courts, and the quality of justice. These concerns, and more, have all been a part of the ongoing discussions of the Washtenaw project. Court reorganization is not a subject that lends itself to quick fixes and simple solutions. To navigate through the thicket of problems, the Washtenaw participants have been guided by a shared set of principles. These principles include the overarching goals of more effective allocation of existing court resources, increased system accountability, and heightened sensitivity to those who use the courts.

Fourth, the Washtenaw project participants believe that the reorganization process must be open and inclusive. If a group with a significant interest in court functions is not included in planning discussions, the whole process is undermined. The Washtenaw project has included judges, administrators, clerks, attorneys representing all parties, court-related services providers, police agencies, local government officials, and others in its meetings. That process has included meetings to plan the changes and ongoing (post-change) meetings to evaluate and troubleshoot the new system.

_we think that the reorganization of our court system requires some experimentation before a final model is determined_

Fifth, the participants have concluded that the basic jurisdictional structure of our current system must be changed. The circuit-probate-district structure that has existed since 1963 is not sufficiently flexible to provide for the level of efficiency demanded by court users and taxpayers. We believe that where judicial specialization is desirable, a civil-criminal-family law separation (with one level-trial court and cross-assignment of judges) makes much more sense.

Finally, we think that the reorganization of our court system requires some experimentation before a final model is determined, and that the first model must provide for a significant amount of local input and flexibility. We think that the entire state can learn from the experience in Washtenaw; we think that we can all learn from experiments in other communities.

Hon. Timothy P. Connors is the chief judge of the 15th District Court. Bob Gillett is a past president of the Washtenaw County Bar Association and the director of Legal Services of Southeastern Michigan. Judge Connors and Mr. Gillett are the co-chairs of the WCBA Unified Court Committee. Kirk Profit is a practicing attorney; he is a member of the Michigan House of Representatives (D-Ypsilanti), Minority Leader on the House Tax Policy Committee, and a member of the WCBA Unified Court Committee. Janet Welch was the reporter for the Commission on the Courts in the 21st Century. She is an attorney employed as an executive analyst in the office of the Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court.

We believe these lessons, based on practical experience in implementing court reorganization, should be considered on a statewide level in efforts to restructure the court system_