Meeting Notice - February 3, 2006
	Meeting Agenda - February 3, 2006

Friday, February 3, 2006
Francisco Grande Hotel & Golf Resort
26000 West Gila Bend Highway
Casa Grande, Arizona

MEETING MINUTES

Present: Margaret Kenski (Chair), Roberta Voss (Vice Chair), Judge Daniel Barker, Judge Ted Borek, Thomas Bowen, Sylvia Brandfon, Robert Clements, Richard Cosgrove, Judge Pendleton Gaines, Barbara Glenn, Gene Goldsmith, Marc Lieberman, Jeff Nordensson, Judge John Pelander, Mary Beth Pfister, Carl Piccarreta, Bill Poorten, Judge Charles Sabalos, Claire Scheuren, Dee Sirkis, Tom Smith, Henry Varga, Judge Maria Verdin, Ronald Watson

Absent: Kevin DeMenna, Mike Hellon, Rick Naimark, Ron Ober, Raymond Sachs

Staff: Eric Carlson, Annette Corallo

I. CALL TO ORDER:
Margaret Kenski called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.  A total of 24 voting members were present, which constituted a quorum under Rule 2(d) of the Rules of Procedure for Judicial Performance Review.

II. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 MEETING MINUTES:

III. LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES:

Eric Carlson reported several bills have been introduced this year that would impact the judiciary and merit selection but few have made much progress to date.  He referred members to the handout entitled "Judiciary Issues" for specific summaries of the bills.  He noted that HCR 2015 would raise the population threshold for merit selection to 600,000 from 250,000, and that this resolution appears to be making some progress.  Four other resolutions would require the Supreme Court to conduct "pre-filing" reviews of ballot measures for the single-subject requirement.  A few other bills appear to be in place for potential strike-everything amendments later in the session.  HCR 2011 would allow the Legislature or the people to enact substantive, procedural or evidentiary rules for the courts, raises separation of powers issues.  It was reported that the Tucson Chamber of Commerce had preliminarily endorsed this resolution but has now taken a neutral position, as have the State and Phoenix Chambers of Commerce.  Judge Pelander suggested that this resolution raises very serious separation of powers issues and urged members to talk with their legislators in opposition to this effort.  It was noted that this may turn out to be a relatively 'quiet' session with respect to bills impacting the judiciary because many are distracted by the upcoming elections. Eric Carlson advised that members will be contacted if any legislation of concern that would affect JPR appears to be moving through the process, and that members may be asked to contact legislators about the bills.

IV. JPR COMMISSION OVERVIEW:
 
Revised Rules of Procedure:

Eric Carlson reviewed the rule changes recently adopted by the Supreme Court.  He reminded members that the Court was acting in response to a petition filed by the Commission as well as a competing petition filed by some Commission members.  He reported that the Court basically adopted the changes proposed by the Commission with one exception, which would be noted later in his report.  The competing petition that proposed a multi-tiered rating system was not approved by the Court.  He then reviewed the specific changes:

• Rule 2(d):  Removes the requirement for a majority of "total Commission membership" when the Commission votes on whether a judge meets or does not meet performance standards, and amends the requirement to a simple majority of members present and voting on the matter.
• Rule 2(e):  The Supreme Court did not approve the Commission's recommendation that all communication between the Commission and a judge regarding his/her performance be in writing.  The proposal would have removed the judge's ability to appear in person, which generated numerous comments opposing that change.  Instead, the Court revised the rule to require that an executive session in which a judge appears be held before the Public Vote Meeting.  As verbal commentary, the Court has expressed the intention that the Commission hold the executive sessions with judges at a meeting 'removed in time' from the Public Vote Meeting, as was the practice for several years.
• Rule 2(g)(3):  Clarifies that no further public comment on judges will be taken at the Public Vote Meeting, given that Public Hearings and other opportunities for public input are provided earlier in the process.
• The other rule changes approved by the Court basically codified current Commission practices.

The rule changes approved by the Court will go into effect on June 1, 2006.  Members will be provided a full set of the amended rules at the next meeting.  In response to a member's question, Eric Carlson indicated that members may participate in the Public Vote Meeting by telephone.

Revised 2006 Calendar:

Annette Corallo referred members to an updated JPR Event Schedule for 2006, which reflects a meeting on Friday, June 23, 2006, for judges to appear and address the Commission in response to questions raised by the Commission about the judge's performance.  She noted that this will be a mandatory meeting, as are the May and July meetings. 

Status of 2005-2006 Survey Process:

Annette Corallo referred members to a sheet summarizing 2005-2006 survey distribution as of January 31, 2006.  She noted that over 52,000 surveys were distributed for this cycle.   Reminder letters were mailed to 5,442 attorneys.  The survey receipt cut-off date for this cycle will be March 17, 2006.  She reported that a few staff and attorneys have expressed concern that their names are printed directly onto the survey form and have raised questions about whether anonymity can be assured if names are printed on the forms.  Members agreed it will be useful to compare this cycle's response rates with those of previous cycles, to determine if printing the recipient's name directly onto the form has an impact on the response rate.  

Conference Team Recruitment:

Annette Corallo reported that staff will begin conference team recruitment shortly and asked members to contact her if they are interested in serving on a conference team this year.  She also encouraged members to recruit other judges, attorneys and members of the public  to serve on conference teams. 

Conference team training will be held on May 11 in Phoenix and May 18 in Tucson.  Training times are expected to be the same as the 2004 cycle, from 9 a.m. to noon.  There was discussion about whether returning conference team members should be required to attend training.  Eric Carlson clarified that experienced members were only asked to attend the last hour of training in 2004, to allow them to meet with their team members.  Members who participated in the 2004 training expressed that for most teams at least one of the members was not in attendance, so the plan to have each team meet to set a schedule and discuss the team process did not in fact take place at the training sessions.  It was suggested that experienced members should receive a summary of any changes in the conference team process for 2006, if any, and that they not be required to attend a training session, although their attendance should be encouraged as a refresher.  Sylvia Brandfon commented that a workgroup spent considerable time reviewing the conference team process and materials after the 2004 cycle, and that it was important for team members to be well-trained.  Some of the feedback from the last training indicated that team members would like the opportunity to 'role-play' the meeting with the judge as part of the training.  The commission also discussed that it was important for attorney and public members to recognize their integral role, and to be comfortable with participating fully in the meetings with judges.  Judge Barker suggested that in the interest of collegiality it would be best for the judge members of the appellate teams to be retired judges or a judge from a different division or court.

V. VOTER EDUCATION WORKGROUP UPDATE:

Jeff Nordensson reported the JPR website is in  the final stages of re-design, with some cosmetic work left to be done, and that the site looks very good.  The workgroup believes that JPR information will be easier for voters to retrieve using the new design.  Members had been sent a link to a prototype of the new site and Mr. Nordensson encouraged members to let him know if they feel the site is missing any information that should be there.  A member suggested that the page that lists all the judges and indicates whether they meet or do not meet the performance standard should also include the Commission's vote on each judge, so the public will be aware that there are some differences in the votes, even if all of the judges are found to meet standards.  Other members expressed that the Commission's website has included links to the individual courts' websites so voters can read the judges' bios and view appellate decisions, and expressed that the new website should have similar links.  There was discussion that any judicial conduct information provided to the Commission for its consideration in reviewing the judges will not be linked to or published on the JPR website, although a general link to the Commission on Judicial Conduct site should be included at the JPR website.  There was also discussion about including biographical information on Commission members at the new site.

Jeff Nordenson further reported that the workgroup feels members can have a role in creating interest in merit selection and JPR by speaking to community groups.  The theory is to educate people who in turn can influence other people.  The workgroup hopes to develop a 12- to 15-minute video that explains the JPR process to be used by members speaking to groups, which could also be used in jury rooms.  He explained that it is important to be careful about making negative generalizations about judicial elections, given that judges in Arizona's outlying counties are still elected, but the downfalls of judicial elections can be discussed using examples from other states.  Mr. Nordensson then read the concept treatment for the video, explaining that the message should be kept interesting, easy to digest and to the extent possible, should "tell stories."  Members commended the workgroup on the concept treatment for the video but expressed concern about the idea of seeking corporate or foundation underwriting for its production costs, which are estimated at $35,000 to $50,000. 

The members agreed the workgroup should proceed with developing the voter education plan but that any plans for funding production costs need further Commission review. 

VI.   DISCUSSION ITEMS:

Public Input Meetings:

Margaret Kenski reported that public input hearings on the judges who will appear on the 2006 ballot will be held in Tucson on March 15 and in Phoenix on March 22, with hearings at 11:30 and 4:30 on both dates.  She encouraged members to attend at least one of the hearings but reported that past hearings have been lightly attended by the public.  The Commission agreed that in light of low attendance at past hearings it would be feasible to reduce the time of each hearing to one hour, although members would certainly remain to take further comment if attendance pushes the hearing past an hour.  Members were asked to advise Annette Corallo about which hearing(s) they plan to attend.

There was discussion that members should not be discouraged by low public participation at hearings.  Margaret Kenski reported that public surveys show a high level of confidence in the integrity, impartiality and efficiency of the courts - and that when the public has reason to doubt those characteristics, they do show interest.  The fact that Arizona's JPR process is not generating a lot of public comment at this time is consistent with preliminary studies that show 96 to 97% of all court users are reporting that they are treated fairly and impartially.

Meeting Date to Review Judge Responses and for Judge Appearances:

Members discussed the fact that this year's annual judicial conference will not conclude until mid-day on June 23 in Tucson, which could be problematic with holding the review meeting on June 23. Other potential dates to hold this meeting were considered but no consensus was reached.  The chair was directed to determine the most feasible date and advise all members of the date selected.  It was noted that the 2006 Calendar of Events should be updated to reflect that meetings held in Casa Grande will be held at the Francisco Grande Resort and not at The Property.

VII. NEXT MEETING:

May 5, 2006:  9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Required Meeting
Francisco Grande Hotel & Golf Resort
26000 West Gila Bend Hwy.
Casa Grande, AZ

Margaret Kenski reminded members that the Commission will be breaking into two workgroups on May 5 to review the survey results and public comment on the judges.  Roberta Voss cautioned that all members need to understand that they are to read the reports on all of the judges before the meeting, not just those of the judges who are assigned to their workgroup on May 5.  She expressed that this is an important task, as all members will vote on all the judges at the Public Vote Meeting.  Staff was asked to provide simple instructions on reading and interpreting the data.

VIII. CALL TO THE PUBLIC

No members of the public were present.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.