DAR File No. 43917
This rule was published in the August 15, 2019, issue (Vol. 2019, No. 16) of the Utah State Bulletin.
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration
Rule R597-1
General Provisions
Notice of Proposed Rule
(Repeal and Reenact)
DAR File No.: 43917
Filed: 07/26/2019 09:29:00 AM
RULE ANALYSIS
Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:
The purpose of this rule is to address the general provisions for the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission's administrative rules as authorized by Section 78A-12-101 et seq.
Summary of the rule or change:
The definitions were corrected and/or updated.
Statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:
- Section 78A-12-101 et seq.
Anticipated cost or savings to:
the state budget:
There are no anticipated costs or savings to the state budget.
local governments:
There are no anticipated costs or savings to local governments.
small businesses:
There are no anticipated costs or savings to small businesses.
persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:
There are no anticipated costs or savings to persons other than small business, business, or local governments.
Compliance costs for affected persons:
There are no anticipated compliance costs for affected persons.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
There are no anticipated fiscal impacts that this rule may have on businesses.
Jennifer Yim, Executive Director
The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Office of Administrative Rules, or at:
Judicial Performance Evaluation CommissionAdministration
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 [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:
09/16/2019
This rule may become effective on:
09/23/2019
Authorized by:
David Roth, Chair
RULE TEXT
Appendix 1: Regulatory Impact Summary Table*
Fiscal Costs |
FY 2020 |
FY 2021 |
FY 2022 |
State Government |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Local Government |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Small Businesses |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Non-Small Businesses |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Other Person |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Total Fiscal Costs: |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Benefits |
|
|
|
State Government |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Local Government |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Small Businesses |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Non-Small Businesses |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Other Persons |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Total Fiscal Benefits: |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
Net Fiscal Benefits: |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
*This table only includes fiscal impacts that could be measured. If there are inestimable fiscal impacts, they will not be included in this table. Inestimable impacts for State Government, Local Government, Small Businesses and Other Persons are described above. Inestimable impacts for Non-Small Businesses are described below.
Appendix 2: Regulatory Impact to Non-Small Businesses
There are no anticipated regulatory or fiscal impact that the changes to this rule will have on non-small businesses.
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.
R597-1-2. Definitions.
(1) Closed case.
(a) For purposes of administering a survey to a litigant,
a case is "closed":
(i) in a 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;
(iii) 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.
(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) Survey. "Survey" means the aggregate of
questionnaires, each targeting a separate classification of
survey respondents, which together are used to assess judicial
performance.
(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.
(5) Rebuttable presumption.
(a) A presumption to recommend a judge for retention
arises when the judge meets all minimum performance
standards.
(b) A presumption not to recommend a judge for retention
arises when the judge fails to meet one or more minimum
performance standards.
(c) A commissioner may overcome the presumption for or
against a retention recommendation on any judge if the commissioner
concludes that substantial countervailing evidence outweighs the
presumption.]
R597-1-1. Authorization and Purpose.
(1) As authorized by Section 78A-12-101 et seq., this rule establishes procedures for:
(a) implementing judicial performance evaluations;
(b) informing voters about judges standing for retention election; and
(c) notifying judges of the standards by which they will be evaluated.
R597-1-2. Definitions.
(1) "Controlling cycle" means the single retention election year which, when assigned to a judge, establishes the time frames for performance evaluation.
(2) "Courtroom observation report" means the individual narrative report a courtroom observer authors after observing the judge.
(3) "Courtroom observer" means a volunteer, recruited by commission staff through public outreach and advertising, who has the duties described in R597-3-3(6).
(4) "Court staff" means employees of the judiciary, as identified in R597-3-2(9)(c), who have regular contact with the judge as the judge performs judicial duties. Court staff also includes those who are not employed by the judiciary but who have ongoing administrative duties in the courtroom.
(5) For purposes of administering a survey to a juror, a case is "closed" when the verdict is rendered or the jury is dismissed.
(6) "Disqualification," as used in R597-2-2, means the involuntary disqualification of a commissioner by other commissioners, in accordance with R597-2-2(6) and R597-2-2(7).
(7) "Evaluation cycle" means a time period during which a judge is evaluated. Judges not on the supreme court are subject to two evaluation cycles over a six-year judicial term. Justices of the supreme court are subject to three evaluation cycles over a ten-year judicial term.
(8) "Juvenile court professional" means an individual, as identified in R597-3-2(9)(d), whose professional duties place that individual in juvenile court on a regular and continuing basis.
(9) "Observation instrument" means the form approved for use by courtroom observers to evaluate the judicial behavior observed in court.
(10) "Procedural fairness" means the type of treatment judges should afford people in their courts and includes the principles and behavioral standards identified in R597-3-3(12).
(11) "Recusal," as used in R597-2-2, means a voluntary self-disqualification by a commissioner.
(12) "Survey" means the aggregate of questionnaires, each targeting a separate classification of survey respondents, which together are used to assess judicial performance.
(13) "Survey respondent" means an individual, as identified in R597-3-2(9), eligible to author a survey response.
(14) "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 14, 2013]2019
Notice of Continuation: February 5, 2019
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 78A-12
Additional Information
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/2019/b20190815.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 (example). 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 protected]. For questions about the rulemaking process, please contact the Office of Administrative Rules.