DAR File No. 42159
This rule was published in the October 15, 2017, issue (Vol. 2017, No. 20) of the Utah State Bulletin.
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration
Administration of the Commission
Notice of Proposed Rule
DAR File No.: 42159
Filed: 09/27/2017 01:44:52 PM
Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:
The purpose of the rule is to establish administration procedures of the Commission. Section R597-2-5 is added to the rule to address data publicity of the Commission.
Summary of the rule or change:
Section R597-2-5 is added.
Statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:
- Section 78A-12-203
- Section 78A-12-201
- Section 78A-12-202
- Section 78A-12-205
- Section 78A-12-204
Anticipated cost or savings to:
the state budget:
There are no anticipated costs or savings to the state budget. The addition to the rule only addresses data publicity of the Commission.
There are no anticipated costs or savings to local governments. The addition to the rule only addresses data publicity of the Commission.
There are no anticipated costs or savings to small businesses. The addition to the rule only addresses data publicity of the Commission.
persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:
There are no anticipated costs or savings to persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governments. The addition to the rule only addresses data publicity of the Commission.
Compliance costs for affected persons:
There are no anticipated compliance costs for affected persons. The addition to the rule only addresses data publicity of the Commission.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
There are no anticipated fiscal impacts that the addition to the rule may have on businesses. The addition to the rule only addresses data publicity of the Commission.
John Ashton, Chairman
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
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 801-538-1652, by FAX at , 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.
R597-2. Administration of the Commission.
R597-2-1. Internal Operating Procedures.
(1) The commission may adopt procedures governing internal operations relating to judicial performance evaluation and meeting protocol, consistent with state statute and these rules.
(2) Proposed amendments to internal operating procedures shall be submitted in writing to all members of the commission in advance of the next regular meeting, at which time a majority of the commission is required for the adoption of the amendment. Amendments become effective immediately upon ratification.
R597-2-2. Disclosure, Recusal, and Disqualification.
(a) Commissioners shall make disclosures at the monthly commission meeting prior to the first scheduled meeting at which the retention evaluation reports for a given class of judges will be discussed or, in any event, no later than the beginning of the meeting at which a particular judge's evaluation is considered.
(b) Each commissioner shall disclose to the commission any professional or personal relationship or conflict of interest with a judge that may affect an unbiased evaluation of the judge.
(c) Relationships that may affect an unbiased evaluation of the judge include any contact or association that might influence a commissioner's ability to fairly and reasonably evaluate the performance of any judge or to assess that judge without bias or prejudice, including but not limited to:
(i) family relationships to a state, municipal, or county judge within the third degree (grandparents, parents or parents-in-law, aunts or uncles, children, nieces and nephews and their spouses);
(ii) any business relationship between the commissioner and the judge.
(iii) any personal litigation directly or indirectly involving the judge and the commissioner, the commissioner's family or the commissioner's business;
(d) A commissioner exhibits bias or prejudice when the commissioner is predisposed to decide a cause or an issue in a way that does not leave the commissioner's mind open to exercising the commissioner's duties impartially in a particular case.
(e) Disclosures made with respect to a judge subject to evaluation constitute a protected record pursuant to Subsection 78A-12-203(5)(e).
(a) As used in this rule, recusal is a voluntary act of self-disqualification by a commissioner.
(b) Recusal encompasses exclusion both from participating in the commission's evaluation of judge and from voting on whether to recommend the judge for retention.
(c) After making a disclosure, a commissioner may voluntarily recuse if the commissioner believes the relationship with the judge will affect an unbiased evaluation of the judge.
(a) A commissioner may move to vote on the disqualification of another commissioner if:
(i) the other commissioner makes a disclosure and does not voluntarily recuse, and that commissioner's impartiality might reasonably be questioned; or
(ii) the other commissioner does not make a disclosure, but known circumstances suggest that the commissioner's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) A commissioner may not be disqualified from voting on whether to recommend that the voters retain a judge solely because the member appears before the judge as an attorney, a fact witness, or an expert, pursuant to Subsection 78A-12-203(5)(e)(i).
(c) A motion to disqualify must be seconded in order to proceed.
(d) During the discussion concerning possible disqualification, any commissioner may raise any facts concerning another commissioner's ability to fairly and reasonably evaluate the performance of any judge without bias or prejudice.
(e) A two-thirds vote of those present is required to disqualify any commissioner.
(f) Disqualification encompasses exclusion both from participating in the commission's evaluation of a judge and from voting on whether to recommend the judge for retention.
R597-2-3. Reporting Improper Attempts to Influence.
A commissioner shall report to the executive committee any form of communication that attempts to influence the evaluation process by improper means, including but not limited to undue pressure, duress, or coercion.
(1) The commission enacts this rule to avoid the risk of inconsistent statements by commissioners and to maintain the credibility of the commissionand the integrity of its work product.
(2) Only the commission's designated spokesperson may publicly discuss the evaluation of any particular judge or justice.
(3) No commissioner may publicly advocate for or against the retention of any particular judge or justice.
(4) Notwithstanding other provisions of this subsection, commissioners may publicly discuss the evaluation process, including but not limited to discussion of respondent groups, survey instruments, and the operation of the commission.
KEY: internal operating procedures, reporting improper attempts to influence, conflicts of interest, confidentiality
Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [
July 1], 2017
Notice of Continuation: April 13, 2015
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 78A-12-201 through 78A-12-206
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/2017/b20171015.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 Jennifer Yim at the above address, by phone at 801-538-1652, by FAX at , or by Internet E-mail at email@example.com. For questions about the rulemaking process, please contact the Office of Administrative Rules.