| November 15, 2007 |
|
| |
| Meeting Minutes - May 4, 2007 |
|
|
|
PRESENT: Roberta Voss (Chair), Mike Hellon (Vice Chair), Judge Daniel Barker, Judge Ted Borek, Rohan Braithwaite, Sylvia Brandfon, Richard Cosgrove, Judge Pendleton Gaines, Barbara Glenn, Eugene Goldsmith, Marc Lieberman, Mary Beth Pfister, Judge John Pelander, Carl Piccarretta, Josephine Polk-Matthews, William Poorten, Judge Sarah Simmons, Dee Sirkis, Tom Smith and Ronald Watson
ABSENT: Edna Aragon-Morris, Dr. Catherine Eden, Rick Naimark, Jeffrey Nordensson, Ron Ober, Shirley Sandelands, Claire Scheuren, Henry Varga, Judge Maria Verdin
STAFF: Annette Corallo and Niki O'Keeffe
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Roberta Voss called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Niki O'Keeffe welcomed visiting observer Sharon Sawicky.
II. APPROVAL OF MARCH 9, 2007 MEETING MINUTES:
|
MOTION: A motion to approve the March 9, 2007, minutes was made, seconded and unanimously passed. 20-0-0. JPR-07-11 |
III. JPR COMMISSION OVERVIEW:
Niki O'Keeffe reported that there is nothing currently happening at the legislature that would affect the JPR process or merit selection. She added that legislators are working on the budget process.
Annette Corallo reported that Miller, Allen and Company will perform the Data Center audit and were asked to audit to a 95% degree of confidence. She added that there is time to get the audit report back before Jim Riggs' contract expires.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Subcommittee Report: Survey Process
Carl Piccarretta reported on the Subcommittee's recommendations.
2008 Juror Process: Subcommittee recommends that the Commission revise the juror survey process. Judicial staff will distribute the surveys to jurors after they have reached a verdict and while they are waiting for the court to reassemble for the verdict. After completing the survey, jurors will be given an envelope addressed to the Data Center and asked to seal their completed survey inside. Judicial staff would then collect and mail the surveys to the Data Center in a larger sealed envelope. Jurors would retain the right to take the survey form with them and mail it directly to the Data Center at a later time.
2008 Litigant Witness Process: Subcommittee recommends the Commission approve the concept of using collection boxes in the court facilities if the logistics are feasible and survey integrity can be maintained.
Annette Corallo agreed to research the cost and logistics of drop boxes for surveys in the courtrooms.
Revised Brochures for Jurors and Litigants/Witnesses: Subcommittee recommends the Commission approve the proposed brochure drafts, which include suggestions from the last meeting to appeal to the respondents' interest in participating in a democratic process and to inform them about the purpose of JPR in maintaining a quality judiciary.
Online Attorney Poll: Subcommittee recommends that the Commission proceed with a poll of attorneys in at least Maricopa and Pima counties to solicit feedback on the survey process.
Judge Borek expressed concern about giving the judge discretion about when to hand out juror surveys.
Sylvia Brandfon recommended making the survey process part of the juror process, i.e., as a professor evaluation is in a college classroom. Judge Gaines then expressed concern about forcing jurors to complete the surveys onsite.
Barbara Glenn expressed concern about collusion of jurors in the jury room.
Judge Pelander inquired about the current response rate of jurors in Arizona. Annette Corallo responded that Arizona's response rate is 50%, but other states that use the recommended procedure have a 90% response rate.
Judge Barker recommended having jurors leave surveys in the jury room rather than give them to the bailiff before they are discharged. Annette Corallo explained that the envelopes are sealed.
Judge Simmons recommended asking jurors to keep their survey responses confidential.
|
MOTION: A motion to accept the recommended procedural changes to the juror survey process with the caveat that the judge can direct the timing of distribution of forms at his/her discretion was made, seconded and unanimously passed. 20-0-0 JPR 07-12 |
|
MOTION: A motion to accept all other recommendations of the Survey Process Subcommittee as to collection boxes in the courthouses, brochure revisions and an online attorney poll was made, seconded and unanimously passed. 20-0-0 JPR 07-13 |
Roberta Voss thanked the Subcommittee for their work.
Subcommittee Report: Survey Questions
Barbara Glenn summarized the changes the subcommittee recommended as to the surveys. Changes included on the appellate attorney survey form are an alternate cover letter, eliminating question numbers four, six and seventeen and revising the section of text pertaining to narrative comments.
Judge Pelander said the goal should be to simplify the forms as much as possible and asked if all of the questions related to equal treatment are necessary.
Mary Beth Pfister reminded the Commission that the subcommittee was charged with making small changes to the forms for the 2008 process. She further explained that the subcommittee intends to recommend more extensive changes for the next survey period, when there is more time to tighten the questions.
|
MOTION: A motion to delete sections III and IV from the appellate attorney survey form (regarding oral arguments), accept the remaining Subcommittee recommendations for the appellate survey forms and move the instructions for submitting comments to the Commission below the section about how the survey comments are used was made, seconded and unanimously passed. 20-0-0 JPR 07-14 |
Barbara Glenn then explained the Subcommittee's proposed changes to the Superior Court survey forms. Changes proposed on the Superior Court attorney survey form are an alternate cover letter, eliminating question numbers 5, 6, 7, 16, 17 and 30 through 34. Other changes included rewording question numbers 26 through 29.
The Commission discussed the proposed changes. It was suggested that question #29 be returned to how it was originally worded and that question #30 be changed to read: "Appropriately promoted or conducted settlement."
|
MOTION: A motion to accept the recommended changes to the Superior Court survey forms, with the exception of returning #29 on the attorney survey form to its original wording and changing #30 on the same form to read "Appropriately promoted or conducted settlement," was made, seconded and unanimously passed. 20-0-0 JPR 07-15 |
Subcommittee Report: Voter Awareness
William Poorten reported that the Subcommittee has established goals: to affect behavior (measured by ballot completion rate) and affect attitude toward judges and merit selection positively. He added that the Subcommittee has no specific recommendations at this time but will continue to meet this summer and take into consideration any suggestions of the Commission.
Judge Barker questioned whether it is the job of the JPR Commission to promote merit selection. William Poorten noted that even those people who do not agree with the concept of merits selection can be informed that they do have the opportunity to make informed votes on judicial retention using available JPR information. Eugene Goldsmith cautioned that it is the job of JPR to inform rather than advocate for merit selection.
Niki OKeeffe noted that after discussion with AOC legal counsel, she has learned that it is acceptable to produce a JPR video in partnership with the League of Women Voters. The Commission then discussed its ability to accept private funds. Judge Barker asked for an AG opinion on the matter before proceeding.
Ronald Watson recommended that the chair and staff determine whether funds appropriated by the Legislature for JPR are available to fund the video production.
Conference Teams/Judicial Self-Improvement
Sylvia Brandfon asked that the Commission review the guidelines for the conference teams and/or discuss how to assure compliance with the existing guidelines, e.g., selecting a chair and secretary. She suggested discussion about the sufficiency of the guidelines and whether or not there is a conflict of interest inherent in the existing guidelines.
William Poorten suggested handling the issues during conference team training. There was discussion about whether there are a sufficient number of judicial team members available to assure that judges are not in a position of meeting with close colleagues. Sylvia Brandfon, Judge Pelander and Ron Watson agreed to work together to look at whether there are systemic challenges with the conference teams and offer any suggestions to improve the conference process.
|
MOTION: A motion to include direction in the conference team training that a judge's self-improvement plan may reflect differences of opinion among team members was made, seconded and unanimously passed. 20-0-0 JPR 07-16 |
Judge Barker questioned the appropriateness of JPR members serving on conference teams. Annette Corallo explained that JPR members serve only on conference teams meeting with judges undergoing a mid-term review.
|
MOTION: A motion to create a subcommittee to address conference team issues and rules to include Sylvia Brandfon, Judge John Pelander and Ronald Watson was made, seconded and unanimously passed. 20-0-0 JPR 07-17 |
Judge Borek recommended preparing an action plan for incorporating Pinal County into the merit selection process when it meets the population threshold.
|
MOTION: A motion to send a report to the Chief Justice at the end of each calendar year indicating Commission members who attended less than 50% of the JPR Commission meetings was made and seconded, but withdrawn. |
Roberta Voss requested that the attendance issue be placed on the next meeting agenda.
The Commission agreed to cancel the July, 2007 meeting and meet next on September 14, 2007.
V. CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Roberta Voss noted that there was no public in attendance.
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE/MEETING LOCATION:
Date: September 14, 2007
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Location: Francisco Grande Hotel
26000 West Gila Bend Highway
Casa Grande, Arizona
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
At 11:32 a.m., it was moved, seconded and passed unanimously that the meeting be adjourned.
|
