[Senate Hearing 113-442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-442
NOMINATIONS OF SHERRY M. TRAFFORD AND STEVEN M. WELLNER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF SHERRY M. TRAFFORD AND STEVEN M. WELLNER
TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGES, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________
MARCH 27, 2014
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-522 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey
John P. Kilvington, Acting Staff Director
Deirdre G. Armstrong, Professional Staff Member
Jason A. Smith, Counsel, Subcommittee on Emergency Management,
Intergovernmental Affairs, and the District of Columbia
Keith B. Ashdown, Minority Staff Director
Christopher J. Barkley, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Andrew C. Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel
Sarah Beth Groshart, Minority Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Lauren M. Corcoran, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Begich............................................... 1
WITNESSES
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia........................................... 2
Sherry M. Trafford, to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Biographical and financial information....................... 15
Steven M. Wellner, to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Biographical and financial information....................... 34
NOMINATIONS OF SHERRY M. TRAFFORD AND STEVEN M. WELLNER
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:43 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich,
presiding.
Present: Senator Begich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH
Senator Begich. Thank you all very much for being here this
afternoon. Let me first call this hearing to order, and again,
I appreciate everyone being here.
Congresswoman, always good to see you. I will have a few
comments and then I will turn to you for introduction, but let
me say it is always a pleasure to have you here. You have
become a regular, or we are having lots of meetings. I am not
sure which it is. Hopefully, they are meetings with results,
and so I want to thank you for being here.
Today, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee meets to consider the nominations of Sherry Moore
Trafford and Steven Wellner to be Associate Judges of the
District of Columbia Superior Court, and again, welcome to both
of you for being here.
I am also pleased, as I mentioned, to introduce and have
here once again Congresswoman Norton. As always, we appreciate
your representation for this District, but also to be here this
afternoon.
I also would like to extend a warm welcome, because I know
you cannot do these jobs without your family and friends, but
your family, especially, because of the commitment you take on
with these new positions that require at times unusual hours
and stress in the family. So, again, to your families, thank
you for being here.
This Committee consistently receives excellent candidates
nominated by the President and recommended by the nonpartisan
District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission. This
process is critical to ensuring that we have candidates who are
experienced and have the appropriate temperament for this
position.
As we know, judges have critically important duties in our
society. Judges must uphold and interpret the law, resolve
disputes equitably, and protect the rights and liberties of our
citizens. If confirmed, I trust you both will fulfill these
responsibilities with respect, character, and deference
befitting the court.
As many of you already know, Ms. Trafford currently serves
as a Staff Attorney in the Mental Health Division of the Public
Defender Service. For many years, she has devoted her time and
effort to ensuring that some of our society's most vulnerable
have adequate representation during important proceedings. For
the past 10 years, Ms. Trafford has represented individuals in
mental health proceedings, largely dealing with civil
commitments. She first joined the Public Defenders Service in
1999, helping individuals facing juvenile delinquency charges
receive the social service benefits they needed.
Ms. Trafford, I have reviewed your biographical
questionnaire and look forward to discussing your
qualifications to serve as an Associate Judge for the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia.
Judge Wellner currently serves as Principal Administrative
Law Judge for the Unemployment Insurance Jurisdiction of the
District of Columbia, a position he has held since 2011. Judge
Wellner was elevated to the bench in 2006 and has served with
distinction since then. During his service, he has adjudicated
more than 2,700 contested cases in a wide variety of areas,
from unemployment eligibility to petitions and tax appeals. The
bulk of his career has been in private practice at the
distinguished firm of Kirkland and Ellis, where he became a
partner in 1993. His practice focused on environmental
counseling, handling diverse issues from permitting to
hazardous materials management and corporate transactions. For
9 years, he directed his firm's pro bono program, ensuring
access to justice for those who otherwise could not afford it.
Judge Wellner, I have also reviewed your biographical
questionnaire and again am looking forward to discussing your
nomination to become an Associate Judge for the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Wellner. Thank you.
Senator Begich. You are welcome.
I look forward, again, to the testimony from both of you,
and before I do that, let me turn to Congresswoman Norton.
Again, as always, thank you for joining our Committee here, and
once again, we have done it. We are close to on time. There are
always votes--I do not know what it is. It is, like, 95 percent
of the time when we have this hearing, somehow, we are having
votes. But, we are honored to have you here. Please, if you
have a few remarks, and then I will turn to the two nominees.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELEANOR HOLMES
NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Senator Begich. Actually,
I will give but a thumbnail sketch since you have laid out, I
think quite well, the qualifications of these two quite able
and experienced candidates to be Associate Judges of our D.C.
Superior Court. May I thank you always and especially for the
attention you have given to the District of Columbia. I know
how busy you are, and here is some business that comes at you
from the District of Columbia, not alone these judgeships, but
the other very important business that is before you.
Sherry Trafford, as you indicate, has served as a Staff
Attorney for the Mental Health Division, and before that for
the Civil Legal Services Division. This has given you a wide
breadth of experience in dealing with many cases of the kind
that she will get if she is confirmed. She served as Staff
Attorney before that at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health.
She is a graduate of Indiana University in Economics with
honors and has her law degree from Yale Law School. She clerked
for the Honorable William B. Bryant of the United States
District Court for whom our Courthouse Annex is named.
Steven Wellner has been twice appointed an Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) and now is the Principal Administrative Law
Judge with a team of 10 Administrative Law Judges serving under
him. He was a partner in a distinguished law firm with a
practice that was centered on counseling corporations and trade
associations and other clients in corporate transactions.
Before that, he worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) as an attorney advisor. Mr. Wellner is a graduate
with high distinction from the University of Virginia and
received his law degree from the University of Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I submit these
two candidates to you with every confidence that they would
serve very well and with the highest distinction on our
Superior Court for the District of Columbia.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, and I
know you would not be here otherwise. I appreciate you being
here and introducing these two nominees to us. Thank you very
much.
We have Committee rules that require that the witnesses at
nominations hearings give their testimony under oath, so if I
can have both nominees stand, if you do not mind, Ms. Trafford
and Mr. Wellner, and would you both please raise your right
hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give
to this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Trafford. I do.
Mr. Wellner. I do.
Senator Begich. Great. Please have a seat. Thank you very
much.
I also have three required questions which I would like to
ask you both, and I will ask the question and then I will start
with Ms. Trafford and then ask for each answer from both of
you.
Is there anything you are aware of in your background that
might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the
office to which you have been nominated?
Ms. Trafford. No, sir.
Mr. Wellner. No, sir.
Senator Begich. Do you know of any reason, personal or
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have both been nominated?
Ms. Trafford. No.
Mr. Wellner. No.
Senator Begich. Do you know of any reason, personal or
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from serving the
full term for the office to which you have been nominated?
Ms. Trafford. No.
Mr. Wellner. No.
Senator Begich. Very good. Again, thank you very much. Let
us go ahead and start with your testimony, and Ms. Trafford, we
will start with you and then we will go to Mr. Wellner. Please.
TESTIMONY OF SHERRY M. TRAFFORD,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE AN
ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Trafford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. It is my honor to appear before you today as a
nominee to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court for the
District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Trafford appears in the Appendix
on page 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to thank the District of Columbia Judicial
Nominations Commission and especially its Chair, Judge Emmet
Sullivan, who is here today, for forwarding my name for
consideration by the White House, and President Barack Obama
for nominating me to serve on the Superior Court, and thank
you, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, for introducing me
this afternoon and for your service to the citizens of the
District of Columbia.
My daughter, Ann Elise Trafford, is a graduate of the
District of Columbia Public Schools and she is now a student at
the University of Wisconsin. She was not able to be here today
for this hearing, but I am certain that she will get a full
report later this evening. My mother, Ann Moore, and my
brother, John Moore, traveled from Indiana to be here today. My
brother followed in my father's footsteps as a public school
teacher, and his spring break happened to coincide with this
hearing, so I could not be more proud to have him and my mother
here today. My father passed away 2\1/2\ years ago, but would
have also been proud to be here, I know. My sister, Laura
Sabatelli, is also a teacher, but more importantly, she manages
a household of four children, three of whom are teenagers, and
you can understand that she could not be here today. Members of
my D.C. community who have made up my extended family here in
this community are here today and I want to thank them, my
former minister, John Wimberly, my role model and friend,
Suzanne Wells, and my law school classmate and friend, Eric
Angel, who continues to inspire me in his current work as the
Director of the Legal Aid Society for the District of Columbia.
I come from a family of public school teachers and was
inspired to go into public service over many dinner-time
conversations about how to best inspire young people to reach
their best potential. I also had the good fortune to cross
paths and work for several people whom I consider to be giants
in the law. When I was an undergrad at Indiana University, I
was a teaching assistant for Thomas Ehrlich, who was the first
Director of the Legal Services Corporation. After law school, I
had the extraordinary opportunity to work as a law clerk for
Judge William Bryant, who, as Delegate Holmes Norton mentioned,
his name now yields itself to our District of Columbia Federal
Court Annex a few blocks away from here.
Inspired by those mentors and many other colleagues, I have
spent my legal career in public service here in the District of
Columbia. For the past 15 years, I have been an attorney for
the Public Defenders Service for the District of Columbia, 10
of them working in the Mental Health Division. My work has
provided me with a great appreciation for the vital role of
Superior Court in the life of this city and the importance of
having a judiciary that understands not only the law, but also
how the law can impact the day-to-day lives of the citizens who
appear before it.
It would be my honor to serve the people of this city as an
Associate Judge of the Superior Court, and I would strive to
honor the legacy of the people who have taught me so much, my
colleagues, supervisors, judges, opposing counsel, as well as
countless individual clients over the years.
I am happy to answer any questions that the Committee has.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Mr. Wellner.
TESTIMONY OF STEVEN M. WELLNER,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE
JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Wellner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today as a nominee for Associate Judge of the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Wellner appears in the Appendix
on page 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to thank the District of Columbia
Judicial Nomination Commission and its Chair, Judge Sullivan,
who is in the back, for recommending me to the White House, and
President Barack Obama for nominating me. I sincerely
appreciate, also, Congresswoman Norton's kind introduction, and
I am grateful to the Committee Members and staff for their
attention and courtesy throughout the confirmation process.
I would like to introduce family members who are here with
me today. My wife, Amy Saltzman, is behind me. My mother,
Carole Wellner, my daughter, Rebecca Wellner, who is home from
spring break, and my sister, Lisa Wack and her husband, Robert
Wack. I also want to recognize friends and colleagues who are
in attendance. My son, Jacob, was unable to make it back from
the University of Michigan, but I know he would have enjoyed
being here with us, too. I would not be here without the
support and encouragement of everyone I have just mentioned.
I have lived and worked in the District of Columbia for
nearly 30 years. I have spent most of my career as a lawyer in
private practice, but for the last 8 years, I have served as an
Administrative Law Judge with the D.C. Office of Administrative
Hearings. I enjoy the day-to-day work of being a judge. In my
current position, I rule on motions, conduct evidentiary
hearings, and issue written decisions, simple and complex, on a
broad range of subject areas, most of which were entirely new
to me when I first became an ALJ in 2006. I deal with litigants
of varying degrees of sophistication, including many who are
self-represented. As Principal Administrative Law Judge for
Unemployment Appeals, I have successfully coordinated
operations for a team that handles more than 2,000 contested
cases a year and is subject to stringent Federal standards for
timeliness and quality.
For me, the job of a judge is a perfect mix of public
interaction, intellectual challenge, variety, and logistics. My
work as an Administrative Law Judge complements a very
different experience I had earlier in my career as a law firm
associate and partner. I left private practice for my current
position in 2006 because I wanted to be more directly involved
in public service and, in particular, efforts to improve access
to justice in the District of Columbia.
My work at the Office of Administrative Hearings has
convinced me that being a judge is a good fit for my interests
and my skills. It would be a privilege and an honor to continue
my public service as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to
answering any questions.
Senator Begich. Thank you both very much. First off, you
get extra credit because you did not consume your 5 minutes
each. [Laughter.]
No disrespect to lawyers, usually, they consume it all, so
that means you will have efficient courts, I can feel it.
Mr. Wellner. That is a good sign.
Senator Begich. That is a good sign.
I have a couple of questions, if I can, Mr. Wellner. I know
you mentioned your accomplishments as an Administrative Law
Judge. The one thing you listed was how you were able to
decrease your case log and make it more efficient. I have a
feeling--you only used 60 percent of your 5 minutes, so I can
get a sense already what happened here.
But, I am curious, what were you able to do there, and do
you think that is something that can be transferrable to the
Superior Court Judge system? As someone here in this position
who sees a lot of folks both from homeland security and
government services, but from the judicial end, is there
something that you can translate over?
I would be very curious, because it is always a concern we
hear from people, that the backlog is increasing. I know in my
home State, some of the courts have increased so much, the
judges that dealt with civil issues are now taking on criminal
issues because the criminal caseloads are just overloading and
more are picking trial than settlement, so----
Mr. Wellner. All right. Sure. I think the strategies that
we used in our context could translate to any other context,
judicial or outside a judicial context. I think the Superior
Court is currently, in fact, developing and implementing
strategies to do just that. I think it is a matter of
identifying and articulating goals, getting appropriate buy-in
from everybody who is involved in executing whatever the plan
is and participating in developing the plan. I think you have
to have a way to measure steps toward the goal, as we did. It
is important to work with clean data, to have some good way of
calculating what the steps are toward the goal.
I think while we were doing that, and I think this also
would translate, you have to look for new and innovative ways
to do things more efficiently, in shorter time. And so we did
that, and I think that is directly translatable to what could
be done in Superior Court, and as I said, I think they are
doing that.
Senator Begich. What do you think in the Superior Court--
looking from the outside into it, is probably one of the bigger
challenges that the Superior Court has right now? And I am not
here to profess I know what those are. I am just curious from
your perspective what they might be.
Mr. Wellner. Well, I think scheduling always is, and I
think that is, again, one of the issues that the Superior Court
has dealt with directly over the past few years. How can you do
a better job of predicting how long particular cases are going
to take? When do you tell litigants to come in? When do you
tell jurors to come in? And I think that is very tricky, but I
think that can be done with better collection of information,
and ultimately, you can predict better what those timings are.
I think that is the biggest challenge, though.
Senator Begich. Let me ask you this. I say it is my last
question, but I think it is, and I will ask probably both of
you this same question. So, you have, let us say, you have a
litigant confronting you. They are not using an attorney, and
why I say this, I have been one of those that go in front of
the courts. I had to do a lot of forcible entry and detainers
(FEDs) in Alaska for buildings that I owned and operated. I
give no disrespect to the attorneys, but I did not want to pay
the fee, and so I represented myself, very successfully, I will
say, but---- [Laughter.]
Some may come in front of you. When I would go in front of
the judge and the folks that I was having to deal with, they
should have representation. I am not there to tell them they
should, but I watched sometimes how a judge handled that
situation. I will ask both of you this same question, because I
think it is an important question, because you will have people
like that, they are in front of you, and you know as a judge
they need some representation, but you cannot say it, how would
you handle that?
Mr. Wellner. Well, I mean, if they really need
representation, you could suggest that.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Wellner. If you have----
Senator Begich. You cannot dictate it to them.
Mr. Wellner. Right----
Senator Begich. That is what I should have said.
Mr. Wellner. If they have decided they want to proceed
without representation, or it does not seem like there is
representation available, which certainly happens, then I think
there are well-worn strategies that can be used to deal with
that. I think it is the judge's responsibility to make sure
that everything is explained clearly, that plain language is
used not just by the judge, but by everybody, that the
procedures are explained ahead of time very clearly, very
carefully. The judge also has the ability during the--if it is
a hearing where there is a taking of evidence--to ask certain
kinds of neutral questions.
Senator Begich. Yes.
Mr. Wellner. The judge has the ability to change the order
in which evidence comes in to make it fit what is actually
happening in real life. I think it is the judge's
responsibility to then explain what happens if a decision is
made right then and there. It is the judge's responsibility to
explain that clearly and carefully, and then explain whatever
the next steps are. So, I think it is a matter of using plain
English, explaining things completely and carefully, things
that benefit not just the litigant, but if there are members of
the public in the room, they can follow better. It is all of
these things, I think, that benefit not just the immediate
parties, but everybody in the process.
Senator Begich. Very good. Ms. Trafford.
Ms. Trafford. Thank you. I will add to the excellent
suggestions that Judge Wellner just made by saying that my
career has been devoted to working with individuals, and lots
of times individuals who may not have the level of education or
sophistication that attorneys bring into a courthouse. And so I
do feel that one of the resources that I can bring to the court
is an understanding of how to listen and the importance of
listening to what people are trying to say. The challenge a
judge faces in these circumstances is finding the balance
between listening to what a person has to say and making sure
that the proceedings are moving along, that the matter that the
court is to resolve, or that is brought to the court, is
actually what the focus of the proceedings is rather than
issues that cannot really be resolved in the court.
I think that the other piece of insight that I would offer
is that people's experience with the court often depends on how
they are treated, whether they feel that they have been treated
with respect, that they have had a fair opportunity to present
their issues or their arguments, and to have explained to them
what is going on so that they understand the proceedings.
Oftentimes, the satisfaction with the judicial process and the
interaction with the court depends less, in fact, on the
outcome than on people's feelings about how they were treated
during that process.
And I think that it is incumbent on a judge to make sure
that individuals are all treated with fairness, that they feel
that they have had an opportunity to make their case, to have
their day in court, also to know that the judicial officers and
the members of the court have heard what they are trying to say
and have effectively tried to explain the decision that is made
during the course of the proceedings.
Senator Begich. Very good. I have a couple questions. One,
you started, and it leads me to my next question, but before I
do that, I want to say that I was listening as you were
describing, as your testimony submitted, also, on your
background with your family of teachers.
Ms. Trafford. Yes.
Senator Begich. My parents were teachers. My two sisters
are teachers. My sister-in-law is a teacher. My two brothers
worked in the school system. So, the public school system is an
incredible opportunity for all of us----
Ms. Trafford. It is good work.
Senator Begich [continuing]. And it gives you--and maybe
public educators instill in all of us at some point in our life
that public service is part of the equation of what makes this
country what it is, so I was just noting that, of your
education background.
You started saying, and I want to just elaborate a little
bit more--what is your unique experience, do you think, that
really qualifies you for this position? You mentioned one I
thought was interesting is your listening skills. I will say
that in schools today, they spend a lot of time on
communication skills, but they lack education on listening
skills. It is actually very interesting. When you do
communication, the majority of what people should be doing is
listening, not speaking, but we teach speaking and less
listening. It is the most amazing thing. I have always been
astounded by it.
But you mentioned that, and I thought that was interesting.
But what other of those unique skills that you think you bring
into this role that you believe would be very beneficial for
you, or for the court?
Ms. Trafford. Sure. Thank you. In the course of my work
over the last 15 years in D.C. Superior Court, working for
Public Defender Service, first as a Civil Legal Services
Attorney and then in the Mental Health Division, I have been
fortunate to appear in almost every division of Superior Court.
I have a broad experience with that courthouse as my place of
work and I think that that is a valuable experience that I can
bring to the bench, to this position.
I think, in addition, I have been in every part of this
city in representing my clients. I have visited them in every
ward of this city, in every type of situation or circumstances.
I have visited individuals in shelters, in apartments, in group
homes, in hospitals. I have a very broad knowledge of what it
is like for people living in this city with their feet on the
ground in the city and the day-to-day experiences that they
have.
In addition, in my work in the Mental Health Division, I
had the experience of working on a very regular basis with
experts. Those experts in my context were psychiatric experts,
psychologists, and psychiatrists. But I also have a good
appreciation of the role of experts in court cases and in
helping inform the judicial process and I am not intimidated by
experts, which I think sometimes could be a concern. I can
recognize the role of a judicial officer as compared to the
witnesses who appear before the court and I can bring that
knowledge and experience to this position.
Senator Begich. Very good. I just have two questions left
for both of you, and these are kind of general ones I usually
ask nominees and we will continue on this line. One is, what do
you think will be the top legal issue you might end up dealing
with as a judge, and we will go from one to one, and you may
not know that answer, but I am just curious what people are
thinking, whoever wants to answer first.
Mr. Wellner. The question is the top--I did not hear the--
--
Senator Begich. The top legal issue you might find yourself
embroiled in. Maybe it is nothing major. Maybe it is just
normal course of business.
Ms. Trafford. I think that the answer to that depends a lot
on the calendar to which either of us would be appointed, and
we do not know that in advance. And with respect to the
question, I think that one of the jobs of a judicial officer is
to treat every case as if it could be the most important case
that appears before the judge at any time, because certainly
for the litigants, that often is the case.
Senator Begich. Good point.
Ms. Trafford. I think this city is going through remarkable
changes in a lot of different areas in terms of the growth of
the city and the developments, and so it is hard to predict
what may come in front of the court in coming years.
Mr. Wellner. I agree completely with Ms. Trafford. I do not
have much to add. I mean, I would say that from my own
experience over the last 8 years, it would be hard for me to
identify, even having been through it, what the top issue is,
the top legal issue that I have dealt with. It does vary from
day to day and week to week. Whatever issue I am working on is
at that moment the one that I care most about and the one that
I want to research and get to the bottom of. So, I think that
is otherwise very hard to predict what is going to come up over
the next few years.
Senator Begich. Let me ask you my final question, which
kind of plays off that a little bit, and that is: as you are
part of the judicial system, you will have rotations through
calendars and so forth. What are you looking forward to? What
are you not looking forward to? How is that? [Laughter.]
Mr. Wellner. That is fine----
Senator Begich. And we will start with you, because----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wellner. There is nothing I am not looking forward to,
and----
Senator Begich. I can tell you, in my job, I can give you a
list. [Laughter.]
Mr. Wellner. I think there are rotations that will be
appealing for different reasons. There are rotations that will
be appealing and interesting because they will be comfortable
fits with what I have done in the past. There is actually some
overlap in jurisdiction between Superior Court and the Office
of Administrative Hearings----
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Wellner [continuing]. Not a lot----
Senator Begich. Not a lot.
Mr. Wellner [continuing]. But there is some overlap in
rental housing and in tax, and I think those rotations will be
appealing because there will be a comfort level and it will be
interesting to see the same issues from a slightly different
perspective.
There are rotations where the law will be new to me, and
that is appealing for the same reason that I found my current
job appealing when I left private practice, because for--I
think many lawyers feel this way--it is very exciting to bounce
from one area of law to another and have to learn everything,
if not from scratch, from----
Senator Begich. It becomes a challenge.
Mr. Wellner. It is, and I think some people love that, and
I think most people who choose to apply for a trial court job
would say that they love that. So, I think that would seem very
appealing.
So, I think it will vary, but there is nothing that I would
dread and I think I will look for the appeal in whatever
rotation I land in.
Senator Begich. Fantastic. Ms. Trafford.
Ms. Trafford. Again, I think we are in substantial
agreement here. Judge Wellner pointed out that the challenge of
learning new material is something that he looks forward to,
and it is certainly something that drew me to be interested in
wanting to pursue a nomination to Superior Court. I am excited
about learning different subject matter, maybe varying over a
number of years the calendar that I can be on and the types of
cases that I will get to decide.
I am looking forward to, also, a changing mix of doing
research and writing and being in a courtroom on--some of the
calendars in Superior Court are very high-volume, many pro se
litigants, as you have pointed out already. I look forward to
the challenge and the variation in those experiences and
challenging myself to figure out how to manage that and engage
in the intellectual rigor, as well as maintaining a focus on
the number one job of providing fair and accurate and just
hearings for the litigants who appear in front of the court.
Senator Begich. Very good. Let me, if I can, I will close
this hearing up, but before I do that, I know you introduced
your family in your openings. Maybe you could introduce them
again and have them stand up so I just can get a sense of who
they are----
Ms. Trafford. Sure.
Senator Begich [continuing]. And maybe Ms. Trafford.
Ms. Trafford. Sure, and I am going to stand, because I am
sitting right in front of them otherwise.
Senator Begich. OK. You are sitting in front of Mom.
Ms. Trafford. Yes. My mother, Ann Moore, is here.
Senator Begich. Nice to see you. Thank you.
Ms. Trafford. And this is my brother, John Moore.
Senator Begich. Very good.
Ms. Trafford. They are here, both from Indiana.
Senator Begich. Very good. Welcome. Thank you.
Mr. Wellner. I will stand for the same reason. This is my
Mom, Carole Wellner.
Senator Begich. Good. Nice to meet you.
Mr. Wellner. And my wife, Amy Saltzman.
Senator Begich. Amy, good.
Mr. Wellner. My sister, Lisa Wack.
Senator Begich. Nice to see you.
Mr. Wellner. My daughter, Rebecca Wellner.
Senator Begich. Nice to see you.
Mr. Wellner. And my brother-in-law, Robert Wack.
Senator Begich. Fantastic. Thank you all again for being
here.
First, thank you both for being here. Thank you for your
willingness, again, to, one, be nominated and go through the
process, and to the families, again, I do not want to
overemphasize it, but I think I should, and that is the
commitment of a family to support someone in public service is
a great deal, so thank you very much for doing that. And
always, because I was raised by my mother, and so seeing two
moms here, thank you. It is great to see you here.
Again, let me close out this meeting, thank you for
appearing in front of the Committee and I appreciate your
candor and your willingness to answer the questions and put
yourself forward in this manner.
Both of our nominees have filed responses to biographical
and financial questionnaires. Without objection, this
information will be made part of the hearing record,\1\ with
the exception of the financial data, which all are on file and
available for public inspection in the Committee office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The biographical and financial questionnaires appear in the
Appendix on page 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the record will be kept open until 5
p.m. tomorrow for the submission of any written questions or
statements for the record.
Again, I want to thank you both, and at this time, the
meeting is adjourned.
Mr. Wellner. Thank you.
Ms. Trafford. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]