Commission to Vote on Judges on 2006 General Election Ballot
	Meeting Agenda - July 12, 2006

Arizona State Courts Building

1501 West Washington

Phoenix, Arizona

MEETING MINUTES

Present:  Margaret Kenski (Chair), Roberta Voss (Vice Chair), Judge Daniel Barker, Judge Ted Borek, Thomas Bowen, Rohan Braithwaite, Sylvia Brandfon (written ballot only), Robert Clements, Richard Cosgrove, Judge Pendleton Gaines, Barbara Glenn, Eugene Goldsmith (written ballot only), Mike Hellon, Marc Lieberman, Rick Naimark, Jeffrey Nordensson, Ron Ober, Judge John Pelander, Mary Beth Pfister, Carl Piccarreta (written ballot only), William Poorten (written ballot only), Judge Charles Sabalos, Claire Scheuren, Dolores Sirkis, Tom Smith, Henry Varga, Judge Maria Verdin, Ronald Watson

Absent:  Kevin DeMenna, Catherine Eden

Staff:  Annette Corallo, Eric Carlson

I.    CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS:

Margaret Kenski called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.

II.  DISCUSSION OF VOTER INFORMATION EFFORTS FOR 2006 ELECTION:

Judge Barker presented a proposal to clarify the wording of the footnote that will appear in the 2006 Voter Pamphlet to explain that the Commission considers information submitted by the public and the judge in addition to the data scores.  There was discussion about the value of explaining the basis of the Commission's decisions to the public.  Members also discussed that the current footnote's specific reference to the fact that juvenile court judges do not hear jury trials should be broadened so as not to restrict the footnote to one particular assignment, as there are now judges in specialty assignments in criminal court who do not hear jury trials.  Members proposed and discussed further changes to the footnote language submitted by Judge Barker.

Jeff Nordensson, chair of the Voter Information Workgroup, reported that it is likely few people will read much of the JPR information in the Voter Pamphlet.  His workgroup will meet later in the summer to develop voter education plans.  He reported that is most important to make potential voters aware that the JPR information exists. 

He will urge that the Commission and workgroup take advantage of natural opportunities to interest the media in covering the JPR information, e.g., a press release and/or conference announcing the new simplified website.  He believes the Commission should not rely entirely on the media to make voters aware; it will be important for the Commission to be active in speaking to the community and as funds allow, paying for voter information access.  The workgroup will also consider how to impact citizens who vote by early mail-in ballots, which is a growing number of voters. 

Judge Gaines asked to revisit the format of the JPR Voter Pamphlet with the goal of further simplifying the format.  He commented that most judges will not have data in the "Presiding Judge" column and he believes it will frustrate and confuse the public to see a large number of columns where "N/A" is indicated for every item.  He proposed that the Voter Pamphlet not include the "Presiding Judge" column where a judge does not have those scores.  There was discussion about the proposal.

Judge Gaines suggested that the Voter Information Workgroup consider speaking with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor about her willingness to participate in voter education efforts, as she has been interested in promoting public understanding of merit selection and could be a valuable resource.  Members agreed that Justice O'Connor should be invited to participate in voter education for JPR.

III.  EXPLANATION OF OPTION FINDER VOTING PROCESS:

Margaret Kenski called on staff to explain the use of the Option Finder voting system.  Annette Corallo explained that each judge's number would be called and members would vote "Meets", "Does Not Meet" or "Not Voting" as to each judge.  The Option Finder system would then display the total votes of each type.  Members would then be asked whether they are sure of their vote; if not, the system would allow theCommission to re-vote as to that judge before moving to the next judge.  The Option Finder system does not allow the commission to re-vote on a judge once voting has moved on to another judge.  Annette Corallo also reported that, in addition to the Option Finder system, the vote would be recorded to white boards listing the judge numbers; at the end of the vote, the names of the judges would be revealed next to the judge numbers, so that the public could see the vote on each judge.

The meeting was in recess from 10:50 to 11:00 a.m.

IV.   PUBLIC VOTE ON JUDGES:

The Commission members voted on the individual judges and justices standing for retention in 2006.  Members Sylvia Brandfon, Eugene Goldsmith, Carl Piccarreta, and William Poorten had submitted written absentee ballots and their votes were entered in the Option Finder system by staff.  Upon completion of the individual votes and recording to the white boards, the names of the judges and justices were revealed.

The Option Finder results were downloaded and copies of the vote tallies and individual Commission member votes were available to the public.

V.    NEXT MEETING DATE/MEETING LOCATION:

Margaret Kenski reminded members that the Commission voted to cancel the September meeting and will next meet in November.  She encouraged members to speak about JPR in as many venues as possible but reminded them that when speaking to the media or community groups they should clearly indicate that they are speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the Commission.

Date:       Friday, November 17, 2006

Time:       9:00 a.m. 

Location:   Francisco Grande Hotel

26000 West Gila Bend Highway

Casa Grande, Arizona

VI.      ADJOURNMENT:

At 11:50 a.m., it was moved, seconded and passed unanimously that the meeting be adjourned.