In every trial court, there is a complex machinery of people, processes, and expectations working together to deliver justice to the community. For courts the size of Pierce County Superior and Juvenile Courts, which serve nearly one million residents, with more than 260 employees, a biennial budget exceeding $100 million, 23 elected Superior Court Judges, and 10 Court Commissioners, that machinery must be coordinated with both precision and purpose. At the center of this effort is the partnership between the Presiding Judge and the Court Executive Officer. In Pierce County, this “productive pair” model has become one of our most effective tools for navigating daily operations, strategic planning, and, increasingly, communication with the media and the public.
The role of the Presiding Judge in Pierce County is designed to promote shared leadership and continuity. Selected from a five-member elected Executive Committee, the Presiding Judge serves a two-year term. This structure ensures the person in the role brings deep institutional knowledge while also offering opportunities for fresh leadership perspectives. The Court Executive Officer, on the other hand, provides ongoing operational leadership and stability across administrative, juvenile, and superior court functions. When these two roles operate in alignment, the result is a leadership team that can respond swiftly to emerging issues while also executing longterm strategies to strengthen court services.
Daily collaboration is essential. The Presiding Judge and Court Executive jointly guide budget development and fiscal oversight, troubleshoot operational challenges, and work to ensure the court maintains consistent, responsive service for the residents of Pierce County. But in recent years, one area where our productive pair has become increasingly important is managing relationships with the media. This has been especially true during high-profile cases that attract intense local and national attention.
A vivid example occurred during a recent trial involving three local police officers charged in the death of a Pierce County resident. The case drew significant public concern and a substantial media presence. These were circumstances where transparency, access, and consistency of information were critical. It wasn’t only about maintaining public trust, but also about protecting the integrity of the proceedings. As the leadership team charged with safeguarding both values, the Presiding Judge and I worked side by side to create clear lines of communication between the court and the community.
One of our primary roles was to shield the trial judge from an influx of questions so that judicial independence and neutrality remained unquestioned. At the same time, we aimed to provide the media and public with reliable information about courtroom procedures, access protocols, and general expectations for trial coverage. We organized a dedicated Media Day shortly before the trial began, inviting reporters, camera crews, and editors to visit the courthouse, ask questions directly, and receive individualized guidance on logistics. This proactive approach allowed us to create reasonable pooling arrangements, ensure equitable access for all outlets, and clarify expectations well before the courtroom doors opened.
The results demonstrated the value of coordinated leadership. Coverage was more orderly, questions were resolved early, and the public received timely and accurate information. In the aftermath, the Presiding Judge and I were asked to present our approach in both local and national forums focused on improving court-media relations. These opportunities underscored how essential a strong Presiding Judge-Court Executive partnership can be during moments of heightened scrutiny.
This productive pair model has continued to guide our media engagement efforts. More recently, our current Presiding Judge and I hosted a regional Media Day for Puget Sound journalists. The goal was to “peel back the curtain” on court operations. Reporters were invited to learn about every aspect of our administrative and judicial processes, from case management and interpreter services to therapeutic courts, technology, and the court’s interactions with county departments and justice system partners. The session gave journalists a clearer understanding of the complexities behind the daily functioning of a large court and fostered stronger professional relationships.
Our court firmly believes that local media are essential partners in maintaining public trust. When we communicate openly with journalists, we not only facilitate accurate reporting on major trials, but also create opportunities to highlight the hard work and successes of our teams. Those stories matter just as much as the headlines generated by high-profile cases.
The productive pair of the Presiding Judge and Court Executive Officer is a foundation on which these efforts rest. By working together, we can approach media relations with clarity, consistency, and a unified vision. In an era where courts must increasingly operate in the public eye, this partnership has been indispensable.