DAR File No. 39244
This rule was published in the April 15, 2015, issue (Vol. 2015, No. 8) of the Utah State Bulletin.
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration
Notice of Proposed Rule
DAR File No.: 39244
Filed: 03/26/2015 12:07:01 PM
Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:
The amendment will move a provision currently applicable only to attorney survey respondents so that it can also apply to other respondent groups.
Summary of the rule or change:
Currently, attorney respondents can receive no more than nine surveys. Other respondents can receive an unlimited number of surveys. By moving the attorney provision and broadening its language, the limit can then apply to other survey respondent groups.
State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:
- Sections 78A-12-201 through 78A-12-208
Anticipated cost or savings to:
the state budget:
This change has no impact on the state budget because it affects only the way surveys are distributed by the third party contractor. It does not impact the state contract with this entity; it simply changes the contractor's internal rules for distributing surveys to potential respondents.
The commission has no authority with respect to local government and no dealings with local government. Consequently, this change has no fiscal impact on such entities.
The commission has no authority with respect to small businesses and no dealings with small businesses. Consequently, this change has no fiscal impact on such entities.
persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:
The only persons affected are the third party contractors who determine who gets a survey. While this change directs the contractor about how to distribute surveys to potential survey respondents, this is a small internal change that has no impact on the state contract with this entity.
Compliance costs for affected persons:
There is no compliance cost associated with this change. The original contract with this vendor remains unaltered. This is simply a change to the internal sampling protocol.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
This change has no fiscal impact on any businesses.
Joanne 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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:
This rule may become effective on:
John Ashton, Chair
R597. Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration.
R597-3. Judicial Performance Evaluations.
(1) General provisions.
(a) All surveys shall be conducted according to the evaluation cycles described in R597-3-1, supra.
(b) The commission may provide a partial midterm evaluation to any judge whose appointment date precludes the collection of complete midterm evaluation data.
(c) The commission shall post on its website the survey questionnaires upon which the judge shall be evaluated at the beginning of the survey cycle.
(d) The commission may select retention survey questions from among the midterm survey questions.
(e) Periodically, reviews may be conducted to ensure compliance with administrative rules governing the survey process.
(f) The commission may consider narrative survey comments that cannot be reduced to a numerical score.
(2) Respondent Classifications
(i) Identification of survey respondents. Within 10 business days of the end of the evaluation cycle, the clerk for the judge or the Administrative Office of the Courts shall identify as potential respondents all attorneys who have appeared before the judge who is being evaluated at a minimum of one hearing or trial during the evaluation cycle. Attorneys who have been confirmed as judges during the evaluation cycle shall be excluded from the attorney pool.
(ii) Number of survey respondents.
(A) For each judge who is the subject of a survey, the surveyor shall identify the number of attorneys most likely to produce a response level yielding reliability at a 95% confidence level with a margin of error of +/- 5%.
(B) In the event that the attorney appearance list from the Administrative Office of the Courts contains an insufficient number of attorneys with one trial appearance or at least three total appearances before the evaluated judge to achieve the required confidence level, then the surveyor shall supplement the survey pool with other attorneys who have appeared before the judge during the evaluation cycle.
(iii) Sampling. The surveyor shall design the survey to comply with generally-accepted principles of surveying. All attorneys with one trial appearance or at least three total appearances before the evaluated judge shall be surveyed.
(iv) Distribution of surveys. Surveys shall be distributed
by the third-party contractor engaged by the commission to conduct
the survey. The contractor shall determine the maximum number of
survey requests sent to a single attorney based on an analysis of
the Administrative Office of the Courts appearance data at the time
of the survey. In no event shall any attorney receive more than
nine survey requests.
(i) Identification and number of survey respondents. All jurors who participate in deliberation shall be eligible to receive an online juror survey.
(ii) Distribution of surveys. Prior to the jury being dismissed, the bailiff or clerk in charge of the jury shall collect email addresses from all jurors. If email addresses are not available, street addresses shall be collected. The bailiff or clerk shall transmit all such addresses to the surveyor within 24 hours of collection. The surveyor shall administer the survey online and deliver survey results electronically to each judge. Paper surveys may be sent to those jurors who do not have access to email.
(c) Court Staff
(i) Definition of court staff who have worked with the judge. Court staff who have worked with the judge refers to employees of the judiciary who have regular contact with the judge as the judge performs judicial duties and also includes those who are not employed by the judiciary but who have ongoing administrative duties in the courtroom.
(ii) Identification of survey respondents. Court staff who have worked with the judge include, but are not limited to:
(A) judicial assistants;
(B) case managers;
(C) clerks of court;
(D) trial court executives;
(G) law clerks;
(H) central staff attorneys;
(I) juvenile probation and intake officers;
(J) other courthouse staff, as appropriate;
(K) Administrative Office of the Courts staff.
(d) Juvenile Court Professionals
(i) Definition of juvenile court professional. A juvenile court professional is someone whose professional duties place that individual in court on a regular and continuing basis to provide substantive input to the court.
(ii) Identification of survey respondents. Juvenile court professionals shall include, where applicable:
(A) Division of Child and Family Services ("DCFS") child protection services workers;
(B) Division of Child and Family Services ("DCFS") case workers;
(C) Juvenile Justice Services ("JJS") Observation and Assessment Staff;
(D) Juvenile Justice Services ("JJS") case managers;
(E) Juvenile Justice Services ("JJS") secure care staff;
(F) Others who provide substantive professional services on a regular basis to the juvenile court.
(iii) Beginning with juvenile court judges standing for retention in 2014, juvenile court professionals shall be included as an additional survey respondent group for both the midterm and retention evaluation cycles.
(3) Anonymity and Confidentiality
(A) "Anonymous" means that the identity of the individual who authors any survey response, including comments, will be protected from disclosure.
(B) The independent contractor conducting the surveys shall provide to the commission all written comments from the surveys, redacted to remove any information that identifies the person commenting. The contractor shall also redact any information that discloses the identity of any crime victims referenced in a written comment.
(C) The submission of a survey form containing an anonymous narrative comment does not preclude any survey respondent from submitting a public comment in writing pursuant to the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission Act.
(ii) Confidentiality: Confidentiality means information obtained from a survey respondent that the respondent may reasonably expect will not be disclosed other than as indicated in the survey instrument.
(iii) The raw form of survey results consists of quantitative survey data that contributes to the minimum score on the judicial performance survey.
(iv) The summary form of survey results consists of quantitative survey data in aggregated form.
KEY: judicial performance evaluations, judges, evaluation cycles, surveys
Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [
August 8, 2014]
Notice of Continuation: February 17, 2014
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 78A-12
More information about a Notice of Proposed Rule is available online.
The Portable Document Format (PDF) version of the Bulletin is the official version. The PDF version of this issue is available at https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bull-pdf/2015/b20150415.pdf. The HTML edition of the Bulletin is a convenience copy. Any discrepancy between the PDF version and HTML version is resolved in favor of the PDF version.
Text to be deleted is struck through and surrounded by brackets ([
example]). Text to be added is underlined (). Older browsers may not depict some or any of these attributes on the screen or when the document is printed.
For questions regarding the content or application of this rule, please contact 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@example.com. For questions about the rulemaking process, please contact the Division of Administrative Rules.