| March 04, 2005 |
|
| |
| Meeting Minutes - March 4, 2005 |
|
|
|
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, Thomas Bowen, Sylvia Brandfon, Robert Clements, Richard Cosgrove, Judge Pendleton Gaines, Barbara Glenn, Gene Goldsmith, Mike Hellon, Marc Lieberman, Rick Naimark, Jeff Nordensson, Judge John Pelander, Mary Beth Pfister, Carl Piccarreta, Judge Charles Sabalos, Claire Scheuren, Dee Sirkis, Tom Smith, Henry Varga, Judge Maria Verdin, Ronald Watson Absent: Judge Ted Borek, Kevin DeMenna, William Martin, Ron Ober, Bill Poorten, Raymond Sachs Staff: Judy Pfau, 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 JANUARY 7, 2005 MEETING MINUTES:
| MOTION: A motion to approve the January 7, 2005 minutes was made, seconded and unanimously passed. 24-0-0. JPR-05-002. |
III. JPR STAFF REPORT:
- The orientations for the 14 judges who are slated for reviews and are new to the JPR review process have been completed.
- The appellate oral argument, attorney opinion, and superior court judge opinion surveys are now being printed in-house using a merge program to combine the surveys with database mailing and case information. The new process has allowed staff to continue using the Commission members names on the cover sheet of the surveys, as names can be updated as changed and surveys are printed individually for each case.
- The surveys for the 2005 survey process are also being printed in-house and survey printing has begun.
IV. 2005 LEGISLATIVE SESSION:
Margaret Kenski reported that a review of the bills filed by the Senate and House was underway by the Supreme Court and Executive Office of the Administrative Office of the Courts. She briefly discussed some of the review items and stated that more information would follow.
V. WORKGROUP PRESENTATIONS:
To ensure clarity, the Commission members agreed that the workgroups should present individually each of the items assigned to them and that a vote would be taken at the end of each of the items: Workgroup CVoting Process: Ron Watson, Chair; Mike Hellon, Dan Barker, Penny Gaines, Marc Lieberman; Rick Naimark.
Should statements from the public include the commentor's relationship to the judge? The workgroup suggested that when a public comment was made regarding a judge the person making the comment should identify his or her association to the judge. The categories of witness, defendant, plaintiff and juror were self-explanatory, but the consensus was that categories should be added as to whether a person observed the judge in court as a member of a group such as Court Watch or was a friend of a party to a case and was an observer in court. It was also felt that a "Did Not Declare" choice should be included in the event someone made a comment and would not reveal his or her relationship to the judge. The choice would give the Commission members the opportunity to discount comments that were not directly applicable to the speaker or author. Staff will design forms for review at the May meeting which include the choices discussed.
| MOTION: A motion was made, seconded and unanimously passed to include the relationship of a speaker or author to the judge on all JPR public comment forms. 24-0-0. JPR-05-003. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
Should public input be allowed at the July public vote meeting? The workgroup suggested that public comments should not be allowed regarding specific judges prior to the public vote at the July meeting, because there is not enough time for the Commission members to adequately consider the comment and evaluate it or look into it. Additionally, it does not give the Commission time to send the comment to the judge and for the judge to adequately respond. If the judge does not have the opportunity to respond, it is inappropriate to consider the comment. There are other opportunities to make comment. It was discussed that although the judge number could be provided to the person wishing to speak, it could compromise the anonymity of the process and result in the judge name and number being linked, which would jeopardize the anonymity of the vote.
Although some members felt that public comment should always be allowed at public meetings, it was concluded that the Chair should explain at the beginning of the public vote meeting that multiple opportunities for input had been provided and that there had been an announced cut-off date for public input on the judges under review. Staff would ensure that an additional press release regarding the methods of public input and the end date for public input would be released three to four weeks before the public vote meeting.
| MOTION: A motion was made, seconded and passed that any public comment regarding a judge under review take place prior to the public vote meeting and that any public comment regarding a judge under review be prohibited at the public vote meeting. 21-3-0. JPR-05-004. |
The decision may require a Rules change.
Should judges be able to vote for themselves at the July public vote meeting? The workgroup reported that it will enhance the public image of the Commission if the judges do not vote for themselves. The 2002 process whereby the judges decided not to vote for themselves at the public meeting, and the method used to set out the information in the voter pamphlet using the raw numbers and percentages, with a banner stating the judge did not vote, was reviewed. After further discussion the members agreed that in the future judges would not be able to vote for themselves on a retention vote.
| MOTION: A motion was made, seconded and unanimously passed that Commission judges may not vote for themselves on a retention vote, and that the voter pamphlet will reference that the judge could not vote for himself or herself. 24-0-0. JPR-05-005. |
The decision will require a Rules change.
Should Commission judges be recused from voting for members of their bench? The workgroup reported that it was unable to reach a consensus on the issue. Discussion followed that recusing the judges would, in effect, make them ex-officio non-voting members of the Commission. Because of the size of the Maricopa bench, the Maricopa judges would be unable to vote for a majority of the judges on the ballot. It was felt that members of the Commission were there to make a determination on the judges being reviewed for retention. Due to the anonymity built into the process, the judges do not know the actual identities of the judges being voted on and should be able to vote based on the data provided.
| MOTION: A motion was made, seconded and passed that judges will continue to vote on members of their benches. 23-1-0. JPR-05-006. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
Should there be a meeting on a date prior to the Public Vote meeting to review responses from judges who have been sent letters due to scores identified as below thresholds? It was the view of most of the members present that an interim meeting, between the May workgroups meeting and July public vote meeting, should be held to review responses from judges who were sent letters regarding data scores. At the interim meeting the Commission could discuss any additional public comment that had been received and the judge responses, and ascertain whether additional letters needed to be sent to judges regarding questions not answered by the first letters.
| MOTION: A motion was made, seconded and unanimously passed that the Commission have an interim meeting between the screening of the data reports and the public vote meeting, and at the interim meeting the Commission will consider the written responses from judges who have received letters of inquiry and any additional public input received. 24-0-0. JPR-05-007. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
Should judges who received letters from the Commission requesting additional information be allowed to make personal appearances or be limited to written responses?
Some members felt that if the public was prohibited from speaking regarding a retention judge at the public meeting because of the lack of time to properly consider the statement, judges should not be allowed to appear in public at the public vote meeting for the same reasons. Instead, it was suggested that the judges be allowed to appear in person before the Commission at an interim meeting, which would waive anonymity but also place a period of time between the judges appearance and the public vote on the judge for the Commission to assess the statements made in person. The time between an interim meeting and the public vote meeting would also limit the emotional response by the Commission members in considering their votes.
Some members felt that waiving anonymity was not in the public interest and that the Commission represented the public. They preferred creating another opportunity for judges to respond by asking a judge to provide additional information in a second letter.
Some members felt judges should maintain anonymity as it might place lawyer members in jeopardy when they had to appear in a judges courtroom and the judge had appeared before the Commission. It was offered that anonymity was supposed to take the personal appeal away from the process, and the second letter option was better because it would give a member time to consider the response. Further discussion centered around the fact that the second letter would give a judge a vehicle to better present his or her case, and could resolve any issues without losing the anonymity of the process.
Others felt that if a Commission member was uncomfortable having a judge appear in person, it was still a part of the job of being a Commission member, and it should be up to a judge whether to appear in person or not.
Members felt that the data reports and public comment received were adequate to make a decision regarding a judge.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and passed that in order to maintain the integrity of the anonymity of the process no judge may appear in person before the Commission in response to a letter of inquiry, but that after reviewing judge responses at the interim meeting the Commission may send a second letter of inquiry to any judge with remaining unanswered questions. A second response will be reviewed by the Commission members in Executive Session prior to the public vote. 16-8-0. JPR-05- |
The decision will require a Rules change.
What constitutes a majority (for purposes of determining who Meets and Does Not Meet judicial performance standards) as stated in the Rules? The workgroup reported that they had been unable to reach a consensus on the voting majority and procedure for voting.
Judge members discussed the fact that merit selection in and of itself assured that Arizona had the highest-quality bench and its system of appointing judges was emulated and sought throughout the United States. After discussion, it was felt that nothing should be done at this time pending further research into systems used by other states. Staff was asked to research the issue and provide input to the Chair. Commission members were asked to send their comments to the Chair. The Chair will provide all information received to the workgroup for further review.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and passed that the discussion on the voting majority and options be tabled until further information is presented. 15-7-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-009. |
Should JPR have summary information from the Judicial Conduct Commission (CJC) findings if a Rules change is made to the CJC rules which allows the public to receive information on judge complaints? The workgroup reported that at present JPR only receives information regarding formal findings against judges. The workgroup suggests that if the CJC rules change, we should request a summary of things found to be problematic to CJC, but not request all complaints made against a judge to limit the amount of paper that might be provided in a full request. It was also felt that the information received would be for JPR review only, and not be published or distributed by the Commission.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed to request any information from the Judicial Conduct Commission that can be reviewed by the public which it deems problematic against a judge, and to use the information solely for JPR review purposes. 22-0-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-010. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
Should the JPR Commission members have access to Conference Team reports and the redacted open-end comments on survey forms? The workgroup reported that judges speak frankly to the Conference Teams because they know the reports are used for self-evaluation purposes only and are not given to the Commission for its deliberations on retention judges. The workgroup also reported that the open-end comments on the surveys are not useful as judges are unable to respond to comments that are anonymous. Therefore, the workgroup suggested that the Commission members should not have access to the reports and comments and the current Rules should remain in effect as to these two items.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed that the current Rules will remain in effect and that the JPR Commission members will not have access to Conference Team Reports or the open-end comments on the survey forms. 22-0-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-011. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
Workgroup AVoter Information Pamphlet: Barbara Glenn, Chair; Kevin DeMenna; Gene Goldsmith, Tom Smith.
Should the Commission give out biographical information on judges such as career, education and activities as is done in Colorado? The workgroup recommended that we do not include biographical information in the voter information pamphlet or on the JPR website as there is the possibility of inaccurate information being given to voters. They suggested that a short narrative could be included on the JPR website showing how the Commission arrived at its vote on a judge, what bench the judge was on during the review period, how long the judge had been on the bench, and other relevant information regarding the process as shown in the sample narrative language. The narrative could link to the court websites and data reports.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed that the Commission will (1) not include biographical information on the judges in the voter information pamphlet, but will include references to court websites in the pamphlet, and (2) will provide a short narrative on the JPR webpage regarding how the Commission arrived at its vote, the judges bench and length of assignment, with links to the courts and the judge data reports. 22-0-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-012. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
Should Presiding Judge/Chief Judge data scores be included in the voter information pamphlet? A sample voter information pamphlet was provided for review. The data array showed the inclusion of the Presiding Judge/Chief Judge scores. Often the presiding scores are the only scores for a presiding judge or chief judge.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed that Presiding Judge/Chief Judge data scores will be included in the voter information pamphlet. 22-0-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-013. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
How should we categorize the judges in the pamphlet? A summary of vote results for each court will be provided at the beginning of the information for the specific court to assist in eliminating voter fatigue when using the pamphlet. Depending on their individual needs, users can review the summary information or perform an in-depth review of the data scores. The summary will follow the Commission Rules in setting out data scores on Does Not Meet judges and the information contained in the summary will follow the vote option eventually reached by the Commission.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed to include a summary report for each court at the beginning of the judge data for that court. 22-0-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-014. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
Should we include Judicial Conduct Information on the judges? The workgroup suggestion of limiting judicial conduct information to Commission members followed the recommendations made by Workgroup C (See: Decision JPR-05-101). It was felt that the public should go directly to the Conduct Commission to request judge information.
Should the Commissions report in the front of the voter information pamphlet be simplified? The workgroup referred the Commission members to the sample voter information pamphlet and the one-page report of the Commission. The report simplifies the term judicial performance review by using the term review of judges performance. It points out on which page each courts review begins and describes how to use the checklist. It links to the JPR offices and website. The footnote remains as in 2004 and describes the scores. The footnote references the courts websites for further information on the judges. Commission member names have been eliminated from the report as unnecessary based on the links to the Commission website.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed to limit the Commissions report as set out on the sample voter information pamphlet. 22-0-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-015. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
Workgroup EConference Teams: Sylvia Brandfon, Chair: Dee Sirkis; Bob Clements; John Pelander.
Should there be changes to the Self-Evaluation Questionnaire? The workgroup suggested that the structure of the report should remain as it is for most items, including having a comment area at the end of each section. The two changes suggested were to (1) combine all of the questions regarding equal treatment into a table format, and (2) add two essay questions to the Other sections of the forms to ask what would assist the judge in performing his or her work efficiently and competently and if there are any current obstacles to his or her obtaining that goal.
Samples of the Appellate and Superior Self-Evaluation Questionnaires were provided for the Commissions review.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed to combine the integrity questions into a table format and add the suggested essay questions to the Other section of the documents. 22-0-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-015. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
Should there be changes to the Structured Report Format? The responses to the conference team questionnaire sent to conference team members by JPR staff regarding the structured report format showed that all except two of the responders felt the format was useful and should continue being used. The format provided a method for the teams to approach the judges and ask appropriate questions and kept everyone on track throughout the interviews and when writing the reports. The resulting reports were more in-depth than in past years.
The only changes to the report suggested by the workgroup were in Section VIIReview of Goals From Last Report Period. The questions were expanded to include a discussion of what steps were taken to achieve goals and what steps would be taken to achieve remaining goals.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed to expand Section VII of the structured report to include discussions of what steps were taken to achieve goals and what steps would be taken to achieve remaining goals. 22-0-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-015. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
What should be changed in Conference Team training? The workgroup reported they had discussed ways of training the teams regarding the judge interviews so that interviews stay on task and team members have questions to ask which will probe and elicit in-depth responses from the judges.
The workgroup suggested that in 2006 a panel of experienced conference team members from the Commission membership assist in the training classes to provide sample questions, share past experiences regarding the team interviews, and provide discussions on new judge versus experienced judge interviews. JPR staff will assist the panel by providing training on using the structured report form.
The workgroup also recommended that recruitment of retired judges to serve on Conference Teams remain ongoing and that Division I judges serve as team members for Division II judges, and vice versa, to maintain collegiality on the two benches.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed to adopt the suggestions of the workgroup regarding conference team training and team membership. 22-0-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-015. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
The workgroup suggested to the Survey Workgroup that the Peer Judge Survey be eliminated to maintain collegiality on the bench and that instead conference team members could call judges on the same bench with a few standardized questions to elicit the same information found in the surveys.
How many years of data on the judges should be given to the Conference Teams to review? The workgroup suggested that three review periods were sufficient to provide enough information on a judge to conduct a proper review. Two samples of restructured data report formats were given to the Commission members to review. The first format shows the current data on a judge based on survey responses. To the right appears the data on the judges on the same bench, and to the far right appears the data on the judges on the full court. The second report shows the judges data from the previous two years reviews side-byside with the new data scores. The applicable benches are listed for the three years.
| MOTION: It was moved, seconded and unanimously passed to adopt the suggested data reports for the 2006 review cycle. 22-0-2 (two members had previous commitments and left the meeting). JPR-05-016. |
The decision is procedural and does not require a Rules change.
VI. NEXT MEETING:
May 6, 2005
Francisco Grande Hotel & Golf Resort
26000 West Gila Bend Hwy.
Casa Grande, AZ
9:00 11:45 AM
VII. CALL TO THE PUBLIC
No members of the public were present.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
|
