Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration

Rule R597-3

Judicial Performance Evaluations

Notice of Proposed Rule

(Amendment)

DAR File No.: 36671
Filed: 08/16/2012 03:42:36 PM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The reason for the change is to remove outdated information and to add two provisions refining the data collection and reporting process.

Summary of the rule or change:

Sections of the rule that no longer apply are deleted. Two provisions are added, one reserving four months at the beginning of the retention cycle when no data is to be collected, and the other permitting only the content analysis of the courtroom observation reports to be included in the final retention report for each judge.

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

• Sections 78a-12-102 to 78a-12-206

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

Because the rule does not create any new programs but rather articulates requirements and procedures for existing programs, there is no anticipated cost or savings for 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 persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local government entities, there is not anticipated cost or savings to these entities.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

The commission assumes all statutory compliance costs. Affected persons do not assume any compliance costs.

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

This change has no fiscal impact on businesses.

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
Room B-330 SENATE BUILDING
420 N STATE ST
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 jslotnik@utah.gov

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:

10/15/2012

This rule may become effective on:

10/22/2012

Authorized by:

Anthony Schofield, Chair

R597. Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration.

R597-3. Judicial Performance Evaluations.

R597-3-1. Evaluation Cycles.

(1) For judges not serving on the supreme court:

(a) The mid-term evaluation cycle. Except as provided in subsection (3) the mid-term evaluation cycle begins upon the appointment of the judge or on the first Monday in January following the retention election of the judge and ends 2 1/2 years later, on June 30th of the third year preceding the year of the judge's next retention election.

(b) The retention evaluation cycle. The retention evaluation cycle begins the day after the mid-term evaluation cycle is finished and ends two years later, on June 30th of the year preceding the year of the judge's next retention election.

(2) For justices serving on the supreme court:

(a) The initial evaluation cycle. The initial evaluation cycle begins upon the appointment of the justice or on the first Monday in January following the retention election of the justice and ends 2 1/2 years later, on June 30th of the seventh year preceding the year of the justice's next retention election.

(b) The mid-term evaluation cycle. The mid-term evaluation cycle begins the day after the initial evaluation cycle is finished and ends four years later, on June 30th of the third year preceding the year of the justice's next retention election.

(c) The retention evaluation cycle. The retention evaluation cycle begins the day after the mid-term evaluation cycle is finished and ends two years later, on June 30th of the year preceding the year of the justice's next retention election.

(3) Transition Evaluation Cycles

(a) [For judges standing for retention election in 2012:

(i) The mid-term evaluation cycle for attorney surveys shall begin on January 1, 2008 and end on December 31, 2009.

(ii) The mid-term evaluation cycle for all other survey categories shall begin in 2009 and end on January 31, 2010.

(iii) The retention evaluation cycle for all surveys shall begin no later than July 1, 2010, and end on June 30, 2011.

(b)] For judges not on the supreme court standing for retention election in 2014 ,[:

(i) The mid-term evaluation cycle for surveys of attorneys and jurors shall begin in 2009 and finish on June 30, 2011.

(ii) The mid-term evaluation cycle for all pilot program categories shall begin no later than July 1, 2010, and end on June 30, 2011.

(iii) T]the retention evaluation cycle shall begin on June 1, 2012 and end on June 30, 2013.

([c]b) For supreme court justices standing for retention election in 2014 ,[:

(i) The mid-term evaluation cycle for surveys of attorneys shall begin in 2009 and end on June 30, 2011.

(ii) The mid-term evaluation cycle for relevant pilot programs categories shall begin no later than July 1, 2010, and end on June 30, 2011.

(iii) T]the retention evaluation cycle shall begin on June 1, 2012 and end on June 30, 2013.

([d]c) For judges not on the supreme court standing for retention election in 2016:

(i) Except as provided in subsection (3), the mid-term evaluation cycle shall begin on July 1, 2011 and end two years later on June 30, 2013.

(ii) The retention evaluation cycle shall be as described in R597-3(1)(b), supra.

([e]d) For supreme court justices standing for retention election in 2016:

(i) The initial evaluation cycle shall be combined with the mid-term evaluation, beginning in 2009 and ending on June 30, 2013.

(ii) The combined initial/mid-term evaluation cycle for surveys of attorneys shall begin in 2009 and end on June 30, 2013.

(iii) The combined initial/mid-term evaluation cycle for relevant pilot programs categories shall begin no later than July 1, 2010.

(iv) The retention evaluation cycle shall be as described in R597-3-1(2)(c).

(4) Timing of evaluations within cycles. In order to allow judges time to incorporate feedback from midterm evaluations into their practices, no evaluations shall be conducted during the first four months of the retention cycle.

 

R597-3-3. Courtroom Observation.

(1) General Provisions.

(a) Courtroom observations shall be conducted according to the evaluation cycles described in R597-3-1(1) and (2), supra.

(b) The commission shall provide notice to each judge at the beginning of the survey cycle of the courtroom observation process and of the instrument to be used by the observers.

(c) Only the content analysis of the individual courtroom observation reports shall be included in the retention report for each judge.

(2) Courtroom Observers.

(a) Selection of Observers

(i) Courtroom observers shall be volunteers, recruited by the commission through public outreach and advertising.

(ii) Courtroom observers shall be selected by the commission staff, based on written applications and an interview process.

(b) Selection Criteria. Observers with a broad and varied range of life experiences shall be sought. The following persons shall be excluded from eligibility as courtroom observers:

(i) persons with a professional involvement with the state court system, the justice courts, or the judge;

(ii) persons with a fiduciary relationship with the judge;

(iii) persons within the third degree of relationship with a state or justice court judge (grandparents, parents or parents-in-law, aunts or uncles, children, nieces and nephews and their spouses);

(iv) persons lacking computer access or basic computer literacy skills;

(v) persons currently involved in litigation in state or justice courts;

(vi) convicted felons;

(vii) persons whose background or experience suggests they may have a bias that would prevent them from objectively serving in the program.

(c) Terms and Conditions of Service

(i) Courtroom observers shall serve at the will of the commission staff.

(ii) Courtroom observers shall commit to one one-year term of service.

(iii) Courtroom observers may serve up to three one-year terms, subject to annual renewal at the discretion of the commission.

(iv) Courtroom observers shall not disclose the content of their courtroom evaluations in any form or to any person except as designated by the commission.

(d) Training of Observers

(i) Courtroom observers must satisfactorily complete a training program developed by the commission before engaging in courtroom observation.

(ii) Elements of the training program shall include:

(A) Orientation and overview of the commission process and the courtroom observation program;

(B) Classroom training addressing each level of court;

(C) In-court group observations, with subsequent classroom discussions, for each level of court;

(D) Training on proper use of observation instrument;

(E) Training on confidentiality and non-disclosure issues;

(F) Such other periodic trainings as are necessary for effective observations.

(3) Courtroom Observation Program.

(a) Courtroom Requirements

(i) During each midterm and retention evaluation cycle, a minimum of four different observers shall observe each judge subject to that evaluation cycle.

(ii) Each observer shall observe each judge in person while the judge is in the courtroom and for a minimum of two hours while court is in session. The observations may be completed in one sitting or over several courtroom visits.

(iii) If a judge sits in more than one geographic location at the judge's appointed level or a justice court judge serves in more than one jurisdiction, the judge may be observed in any location or combination of locations in which the judge holds court.

(iv) When the observer completes the observation of a judge, the observer shall complete the observation instrument, which will be electronically transferred to the commission or the third party contractor for processing.

(b) Travel and Reimbursement

(i) All travel must be preapproved by the executive director.

(ii) All per diem and lodging will be reimbursed, when appropriate, in accordance with Utah state travel rules and regulations.

(iii) Travel reimbursement forms shall be submitted on a monthly basis or whenever the observer has accumulated a minimum of 200 miles of travel.

(iv) Travel may be reimbursed only after the observer has satisfactorily completed and successfully submitted the courtroom observation report for which the reimbursement is sought.

(v) Overnight lodging

(A) Overnight lodging is reimbursable when the courtroom is located over 100 miles from home base and court is scheduled to begin before 9:30 a.m., with any exceptions preapproved by commission staff.

(B) Multiple overnight lodging is reimbursable where the commission staff determines it is cost-effective to observe several courtrooms in a single trip.

(v) Each courtroom observer must provide a social security number or tax identification number to the commission in order to process state reimbursement.

(4) Principles and Standards used to evaluate the behavior observed.

(a) Procedural fairness, which focuses on the treatment judges accord people in their courts, shall be used to evaluate the judicial behavior observed in the courtroom observation program.

(b) To assess a judge's conduct in court with respect to procedural fairness, observers shall respond in narrative form to the following principles and behavioral standards:

(i) Neutrality, including but not limited to:

(A) displaying fairness and impartiality toward all court participants;

(B) acting as a fair and principled decision maker who applies rules consistently across court participants and cases;

(C) explaining transparently and openly how rules are applied and how decisions are reached.

(D) listening carefully and impartially;

(ii) Respect, including but not limited to:

(A) demonstrating courtesy toward attorneys, court staff, and others in the court;

(B) treating all people with dignity;

(C) helping interested parties understand decisions and what the parties must do as a result;

(D) maintaining decorum in the courtroom.

(E) demonstrating adequate preparation to hear scheduled cases;

(F) acting in the interests of the parties, not out of demonstrated personal prejudices;

(G) managing the caseflow efficiently and demonstrating awareness of the effect of delay on court participants;

(H) demonstrating interest in the needs, problems, and concerns of court participants.

(iii) Voice, including but not limited to:

(A) giving parties the opportunity, where appropriate, to give voice to their perspectives or situations and demonstrating that they have been heard;

(B) behaving in a manner that demonstrates full consideration of the case as presented through witnesses, arguments, pleadings, and other documents.

(C) attending, where appropriate, to the participants' comprehension of the proceedings.

(c) Courtroom observers may also be asked questions to help the commission assess the overall performance of the judge with respect to procedural fairness.

 

KEY: judicial performance evaluations, judges, evaluation cycles, surveys

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [June 1, ]2012

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