Meeting Notice - September 16, 2005
	Meeting Agenda - September 16, 2005

Friday, September 16, 2005
Francisco Grande Hotel & Golf Resort
26000 West Gila Bend Highway
Casa Grande, Arizona

MEETING MINUTES

Present: Margaret Kenski (Chair), Judge Ted Borek, Thomas Bowen, Sylvia Brandfon, Robert Clements, Judge Pendleton Gaines, Barbara Glenn, Gene Goldsmith, Mike Hellon, Marc Lieberman, Rick Naimark, 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: Roberta Voss (Vice Chair), Judge Daniel Barker, Richard Cosgrove, Kevin DeMenna, Ron Ober, Raymond Sachs

Staff: Eric Carlson, Vanessa Haney

I. CALL TO ORDER:

Margaret Kenski called the meeting to order at 9:04 a. m. A total of 23 voting members were present, which constituted a quorum under Rule 2(d) of the Rules of Procedure for Judicial Performance Review.

II. APPROVAL OF MAY 6, 2005 MEETING MINUTES:

III. JPR STAFF REPORT:

Eric reported that the survey season is underway and that in August  200+ court staff were trained on how to administer the surveys. The process went smoothly and there were no serious problems in distributing the surveys. Any glitches were related to misunderstandings and those situations were quickly remedied. On-time printing makes the process more efficient.

IV. STUDY COMMITTEE:

Concern was expressed regarding possible rule changes and a three-tiered voting system. Margaret Kenski explained that the Chief Justice established the committee to garner input from the public about the JPR process and then make recommendations to the court based on that input. She indicated that the Committee has been given a broad mandate from the Court:Are voting standards informative and appropriate? What additional information would be helpful to voters? Her concern for this process is thatpublic meetings do not draw average voters. Focus groups and polling were suggested as alternative means of gathering the requested information.

Mike Hellon indicated that the public hearings are being held at mid-day and therefore will exclude a significant portion of the population. He recommended that evening meetings be held as well.

Margaret Kenski responded that while she agrees in principle, in the past very few members of the public come to hearings regardless of the time. All kinds of groups have been contacted and invited, and lunchtime is as good a time as any, especially given the tight timeframe the Committee has to work with.

Eric Carlson noted that the Committees report is due by December 1st.

Claire Scheuren asked what is meant by the term clear and appropriate in the committees establishing order. Eric Carlson responded that appropriate means appropriate to the task that needs to be done.

William Poorten then asked if that was not already the job of Judicial Performance Review and wondered if the Commission is being scolded by the Supreme Court. Margaret Kenski responded that the Supreme Court saw JPR closely divided on a three tiered voting system and wants outside input as the Court is under pressure from the legislature.

Judge Sabalos commented that the Supreme Court/AOC is taking advantage of JPR to appease those attacking the Court. Most complaints are about the Supreme Court. Margaret Kenski noted that many activists see Superior Court judges as making policy also and that the job of JPR is to make the process as good as possible.

Judge Gaines added that judges are attacked based on specific decisions, not whether they are good judges.

Henry Varga commented that discussing alternatives is good, but the entire process is under attack, and he hesitates to give in and stresses confidentiality.

V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

Proposed Data Report Format

Jim Riggs of Research and Information Specialists, the contracted data center for JPR survey data, presented and explained the current data report format and discussed proposed changes.

Ronald Watson suggested removing data such as peer judge/justice and percentages to make the report more user friendly.

Rick Naimark explained that there is value to having all the numbers there due to polar extremes and Henry Varga agreed that the raw data is needed. It was recommended that perhaps the raw data be left in, but the zeros be reported as a hyphen instead.

Henry Varga suggested on line surveys. Eric Carlson explained that internet surveys have been attempted by staff but the software needed to control multiple votes, etc. is too expensive. Mr. Varga then indicated that someone could make a photocopy of a survey, but Jim Riggs said that the surveys are color coded and copied/violated surveys are not accepted.

Judges Gaines indicated concerns over the accuracy of the report citing mistakes on his own report as an example. Jim Riggs apologized for the mistakes and said that the reports are normally accurate.

Redesign of JPR Website

Eric Carlson reported that vendors are being considered and within 30-60 days we should have samples of new designs for the workgroup. The goal is to have a more dynamic format with a more user friendly e-mail sign-up process. The current . pdf format will be redesigned using database software. The site should be done and ready for approval in 75 days.

Publicity Campaign Strategy

Jeff Nordensson explained that for the JPR process to matter to the public, the public must a) know that JPR exists; b) care that JPR exists; and c) understand the process. He suggested a campaign to spark emotional positive awareness for the public, for example:Who judges the judges? You do, and we can help! The campaign would be designed to empower voters and make them responsible. He further suggested the target audience of the campaign consist of voters, legislators and the judiciary. The message could go out via the media and perhaps a 25-minute civic presentation to be held throughout the state.

Tom Smith agreed that the 25-minute presentation is an excellent idea and Henry Varga announced his willingness to be a part of the Presentation.

Voting Process Workgroup

Margaret Kenski indicated that the Commission should wait to learn the outcome of the Supreme Court Rules Committee before discussing the voting process.

Judge Gaines noted that the Court wants any changes recommended by the Rules Committee in place before the legislative session begins.

Rule Change:Judicial Disciplinary Records

Margaret Kenski explained that effective January 1, 2006, informal sanctions and reprimands as well as formal sanctions will be available to the public.

Judges Sabalos asked what JPR will do with this new public information and Margaret Kenski indicated that it is important to have the information and Henry Varga added that JPR must use it if the public can have access to it.

Judge Borek commented that JPR must address the issue because the public is interested in the conduct of the judges.

Judge Gaines said he understood it was already decided that JPR will get the information from the Commission on Judicial Conduct but will not print it in the voter pamphlet. Margaret Kenski stated that the Commission should explain that JPR considers the public information regarding judicial conduct, etc. , in the front of the voter pamphlet.

Judge Borek expressed concern that judges be told whether or not CJC information is the reason he or she was not recommended for retention.

Tom Smith said that informal information should never be used as the basis for not recommending a judge for retention.

Margaret Kenski commented that if a judge is already marginal, informal complaints or reprimands could be a tipping point  one of many factors Commission members can use. The Commission can not make policy that binds members to a particular decision making process.

It was suggested that if JPR is to use information from the CJC, it should rethink whether to allow judges under scrutiny to appear before the Commission.

It was further suggested that when the CJC comes across an issue that doesnt warrant removal of a judge from the bench, but is an issue nonetheless, it can pass the information over to JPR to make a recommendation and let the voters decide, creating an interesting dynamic between the two commissions.

Margaret Kenski then indicated that it has been her experience that judges who frequently (not that there are many) come up in CJC tend to get lower scores in JPR in general.

Judge Borek indicated that he wants to revisit the issue of how the information will be used and Judge Gaines reiterated that it had been decided in the March meeting that the information will come from CJC, but not be printed in the pamphlet.

Judge Borek explained that if the information is to be used by the Commission in the decision making process, they should decide how it will be used in advance.

VI. NEXT MEETING:

November 4, 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 11:35 a. m.