Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration

Rule R597-1

General Provisions

Notice of Proposed Rule

(Amendment)

DAR File No.: 33668
Filed: 05/26/2010 11:59:22 AM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The purpose of this amendment is to provide clarification for the definition of "closed"; to eliminate references to witnesses because of a statutory change; and to eliminate as unnecessary the definitions of "raw data" and "summary data".

Summary of the rule or change:

The definition of a "closed" case differentiates between when a case is closed in district or justice court and when it is closed in juvenile court. The definition of "closed" no longer references witnesses because they have been statutorily eliminated from the statute. The definitions of raw and summary data are superfluous and have also been eliminated.

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

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

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

Because the rule only clarifies the definition of "closed" case and eliminates superfluous language, there is no anticipated cost or savings to the state budget.

local governments:

Because the commission has no authority with respect to local government, there is no anticipated cost or savings to local government.

small businesses:

Because the commission has no authority with respect to small businesses, there is no anticipated cost or savings to small businesses.

persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:

Because the commission has no authority with respect to small businesses, businesses, or local government entities, there is no anticipated cost or savings to these entities.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

The commission assumes all compliance costs. Any affected persons do not assume compliance costs of the statute.

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

Because the commission does not regulate business, there is no fiscal impact on business.

Joanne C. Slotnik, Executive Director

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
420 N STATE ST
SENATE BUILDING B-330
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

• Joanne 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:

07/15/2010

This rule may become effective on:

07/22/2010

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]district or justice court, on the date on which the court enters an order from which an appeal of right may be taken;

(ii) in a juvenile court, on the date on which the court enters a disposition;

(ii i) 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]4) 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: [ May 1, 2009 ] 2010

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