U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

89–522 PDF 2014

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 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

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 
(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 con-
2 

firmed, 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 
3 

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. 
4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Trafford appears in the Appendix on page 13. 

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. 

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 21⁄2 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 
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Wellner appears in the Appendix on page 14. 

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 dayto-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. 

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, 
6 

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. 
7 

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 wellworn 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. 
8 

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 
9 

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-today 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 
10 

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. 
11 

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. 
12 

1The biographical and financial questionnaires appear in the Appendix on page 15. 

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. 

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.] 
(13) 

A P P E N D I X 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

Æ