DAR File No. 32423

Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration

R597-1

General Provisions

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE

DAR File No.: 32423
Filed: 03/02/2009, 04:04
Received by: NL

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The purpose of the rule is to provide detail and guidance to the Commission in implementing Section 78A-12-101 et seq., the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission Act.

Summary of the rule or change:

This new rule articulates the Act's purpose and intent, as well as relevant definitions.

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

Sections 78A-12-101 through 78A-12-206

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

This rule only lays out general provisions, including the purpose and intent of the Act and definitions. Therefore, the rule has no associated costs.

local governments:

Because the Commission does not evaluate local government and has no authority with respect to local government, there is no anticipated cost or savings to local government.

small businesses and persons other than businesses:

Because the Commission does not evaluate small businesses or persons other than businesses and has no authority with respect to small businesses or persons other than businesses, there is no anticipated cost or savings to either small businesses or persons other than businesses.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

This rule does not articulate any requirements that have costs associated with them. Consequently, there are no compliance costs or affected persons.

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

The Commission has no authority with respect to businesses. Small businesses are not involved in the judicial performance evaluation process. Therefore, there is no fiscal impact on businesses. V. Lowry Snow, Commission Chair

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission
Administration
Room B-330 SENATE BUILDING
420 N STATE ST
SENATE BUILDING B-330
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

Joanne C. Slotnik at the above address, by phone at 801-538-1652, by FAX at 801-538-1024, or by Internet E-mail at [email protected]

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

04/14/2009

This rule may become effective on:

04/21/2009

Authorized by:

V. Lowry Snow, Chair

R597. Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration.

R597-1. General Provisions.

R597-1-1. Purpose and Intent.

(1) The commission adopts these rules to describe how it intends to conduct judicial performance evaluations.

(2) The purpose of this rule is to ensure that:

(a) voters have information about the judges standing for retention election;

(b) judges have notice of the standards against which they will be evaluated; and

(c) the commission has the time necessary to fully develop the program mandated by Utah Code Ann. 78A-12-101 et seq.

(3) These rules are subject to modification pending the outcome of the 2009 pilot programs.

 

R597-1-2. Definitions.

(1) Closed case.

(a) For purposes of administering a survey to a litigant, a case is "closed":

(i) in a trial court, on the date on which the court enters an order from which an appeal of right may be taken;

(ii) in an appellate court, on the date on which the remittitur is issued.

(b) For purposes of administering a survey to a juror, a case is "closed" when the verdict is rendered or the jury is dismissed.

(c) For purposes of administering a survey to a witness, a case is "closed" when the witness is excused.

(2) Evaluation cycle. "Evaluation cycle" means a time period during which a judge is evaluated. Judges not on the supreme court are subject to two evaluations cycles over a six-year judicial term. Justices of the supreme court are subject to three evaluation cycles over a ten-year judicial term.

(3) Raw data. "Raw data" means factual information that has been gathered for evaluative purposes but not analyzed or interpreted.

(4) Summary data. "Summary data" means information that has been processed and condensed into a form that is usable by the general public.

(5) Survey. "Survey" means the aggregate of questionnaires, each targeting a separate classification of survey respondents, which together are used to assess judicial performance.

(6) Surveyor. "Surveyor" means the organization or individual awarded a contract through procedures established by the state procurement code to survey respondents regarding judicial performance.

 

KEY: performance evaluations, judicial performance evaluations, judiciary, judges

Date of enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: 2009

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 78A-12