Meeting Notice - May 5, 2006
	Meeting Agenda - May 5, 2006

Francisco Grande Hotel

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, Eugene Goldsmith, Mike Hellon, Marc Lieberman, Jeffrey Nordensson, Ron Ober, Judge John Pelander, Mary Beth Pfister, Carl Piccarreta, William Poorten, Judge Charles Sabalos, Claire Scheuren, Dolores Sirkis, Tom Smith, Henry Varga, Judge Maria Verdin, Ronald Watson

Absent:  Kevin DeMenna, Rick Naimark

Staff:  Annette Corallo, Eric Carlson

I.    CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS:

      Margaret Kenski called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.

      APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES:

      MOTION:  A motion to approve the February 3, March 15 and March 22 minutes was made, seconded and unanimously passed.  26-0-0.  JPR-06-002.

II.   JPR OVERVIEW:

      Annette Corallo updated the commission members regarding activities since the February meeting:

* Revised Rules of  Procedure:   A new set of revised Rules were handed out which incorporate the amendments approved by the Supreme Court in January 2006.  The Rules will become effective June 1, 2006.

* Revised 2006 Calendar:   A new JPR Event Calendar for 2006 was handed out.  The new calendar reflects updated meeting locations for the remaining 2006 meetings and the filing period for judges standing for retention in 2006. 

* 2006 Voter Pamphlet Design:   A copy of the format for the 2006 Voter Guide was handed out.  Ms. Corallo reminded the members that the format was approved in 2005 at the recommendation of a workgroup.  JPR information for the 2006 Voter Guide must be submitted to the Secretary of State's office by July 21 to meet printing deadlines.

III.  RULE 6(e)(1) / REPORTS TO PRESIDING JUDGES:

      Margaret Kenski reported that staff had identified a conflict within the current rules as to the timing of distribution of JPR data reports and narrative comments to the presiding judges.  While Rule 6(e)(1) calls for those items to be sent to the presiding judges in April, Rule 7 provides that the identity of the judge being reviewed shall be coded and encrypted until the Commission has completed its public vote.  The rules further provide that the presiding judges shall receive each judge's self-evaluation and self-improvement plan at the conclusion of the conference team process.  Ms. Kenski suggested that the apparent conflicts or inconsistencies as to the timing of JPR data provided to the presiding judges be addressed at the Commission's meeting in November 2006, when the process will be reviewed.  Any potential rule changes that may be required to bring clarity on this matter can be addressed with any other changes the Commission may want to propose before the 2008 cycle.

IV.   DISCUSSION OF REVIEW PROCESS:

       Eric Carlson reported that members have been divided into two workgroups, with each workgroup assigned specific judges to discuss.  At the conclusion of the workgroup sessions, each workgroup will report its recommendations as to those judges who should be asked for additional information.  Letters will be sent to those judges whom the full Commission identifies.  For the benefit of new members, Mr. Carlson explained that the judges who receive a letter from the Commission have the option of responding in writing and/or by appearing before the Commission at the June 23 meeting, or may choose not to respond at all.  Judge Verdin asked that judges who receive letters be asked to respond to the letters at least 10 days before the June 23 meeting, to allow time for members to review any responses.

V.    REVIEW OF DATA REPORTS ON 2006 RETENTION JUDGES:

       At 9:30 a.m., it was moved, seconded and passed unanimously that the Commission go into executive session to review the data on the judges and justices standing for retention in 2006.    

       At 11:45 a.m., it was moved, seconded and passed unanimously that the Commission return to public session.      

       The Commission briefly listed a few items to be included on a discussion list at the November 2006 meeting:

       * How should we address the declining number of surveys returned by attorneys?  Should the Commission propose an ethical rule that would require attorneys to return surveys?

      * Reliability/accuracy in data, surveys and compilation - What is the confidence factor?  Error rate?  Should an auditor be hired to review the Data Center's operation?

      * Should any of the survey questions be changed before the 2008 cycle?

      * When should JPR reports be sent to the presiding judges?  How to resolve the conflict?

      * Is it feasible to place locked receptacles in the court facilities for JPR survey returns?

      * How should the Commission proceed on the voter education plan?

VI.   CALL TO THE PUBLIC:

      No members of the public were present.

VII.  NEXT MEETING DATE/MEETING LOCATION:

Date:       Friday, June 23, 2006

Time:       1:00 p.m. - Review of Judge Responses and Judge Appearances

Location:   Tohono Chul Park Education Center, 7366 N. Paseo del Norte, Tucson              

XIII. ADJOURNMENT:

      At 12:15 p.m., it was moved, seconded and passed unanimously that the meeting be adjourned.