DAR File No. 41623

Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration

Section R597-3-1

Evaluation Cycles

Notice of Proposed Rule

(Amendment)

DAR File No.: 41623
Filed: 05/12/2017 01:18:39 PM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The change updates the evaluation cycles for judicial performance evaluation to make them consistent with the judicial retention election filing deadlines changed by the Utah Legislature during the 2017 General Session under H.B. 191.

Summary of the rule or change:

The Legislature changed the judicial filing deadlines from April 15th of a general election year to July 15th of a general election year. The proposed rule amendment lengthens the evaluation cycles for judges an additional three months, consistent with the legislative filing deadline changes.

Statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

• Sections 78A-12-101 through 78A-12-207

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

The change has no impact on the state budget because it only changes the length of evaluation cycles for judicial performance surveys. It does not change the number of judges evaluated, which is a central factor in determining the cost of the evaluations.

local governments:

The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission has no dealings with local government, so there is no cost or savings to those entities as a result of this change.

small businesses:

The Commission has no authority with respect to small businesses and no dealings with small businesses; consequently there is no impact on such entities.

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

The only affected persons are judges who will receive a longer evaluation period for judicial performance evaluations. There is no cost or savings to them because the change only prescribes the period during which the Commission will collect performance data about them.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

There is no cost to judges who will receive a lengthier performance evaluation.

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

The amendment has no fiscal impact on businesses.

John Ashton, Chairperson

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Office 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:

• Jennifer Yim at the above address, by phone at , by FAX at , or by Internet E-mail at jyim@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:

07/03/2017

This rule may become effective on:

07/10/2017

Authorized by:

John Ashton, 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]September 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]September 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]September 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]September 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]September 30th of the year preceding the year of the justice's next retention election.

(3) 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 six months of the retention cycle.

 

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

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [February 17], 2017

Notice of Continuation: February 17, 2014

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