by Joanne C. Slotnik
In 2008, the Utah Legislature changed the way Utah’s judges are to be judged. The judiciary’s evaluative process, established for almost two decades and implemented by the Administrative Office of the Courts, had included a broad survey of attorneys and jurors, supplemented by an assessment of judge’s compliance with education, judicial conduct, and case management standards. Beginning with judges standing for retention election in 2012, however, the evaluative process will become far more comprehensive and will be under the aegis of a newly-created and independent Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (the Commission).
The new system of performance evaluation is governed by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission Act, see Utah Code Ann. §§ 78A-12-101, -206 (2008), which establishes a 13-member commission of lawyers and citizens, Republicans and Democrats, to oversee the process. The three governmental branches have each appointed four members, and the Director of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice completes the roster. The group meets at least monthly, with more subcommittee meetings than any of the members ever suspected when they agreed to serve.
Under the new system, the survey groups will be expanded to include litigants, witnesses, and court staff, and a courtroom observation program will be created. The Commission will prepare a written report on each judge from the data it gathers and will vote on whether to recommend each judge for retention. Public comment will be encouraged, and a website will provide easy access for members of the public to discover how each judge fared in the evaluation process.
Fortunately, the Commission is not starting from scratch. In addition to continuing a survey of attorneys and jurors and certain other objective measures of performance, the judiciary’s system of dividing a judge’s term into two evaluation cycles (or three cycles for supreme court justices) will be retained. Data gleaned from the first cycle will be available both to the judge for performance improvement purposes and to the Administrative Office of the Courts for judicial education purposes. Data from the second evaluation (or third for supreme court justices) will provide the primary basis for the Commission’s retention election report and recommendation.
The Commission is now well into the rulemaking process and is simultaneously working to finalize questionnaires for all categories of survey respondents. The creation of a court observation program will follow. Here’s where the Bar can help. If you know of questions on the current survey that do not get to the heart of the matters that concern you, or if you have questions that you think should be included or excluded, please contact the Commission’s executive director. Constructive feedback and input – the more specific, the better – is most welcome.
The Commission is clearly a work in progress. It is moving ahead, feeling its way, and trying its hardest to create both a process and a product that will reflect the integrity that the Bar has come to expect in the judiciary at its finest. The Commission is committed to a fair process, one that will ensure judicial independence and at the same time provide the public with reliable information upon which to make informed voting decisions. The Commission will keep you posted as its work progresses.
Currently serving on the Commission are: John Ashton, William Bohling, Robert Fotheringham, Maria Garciaz, Thomas Hatch, Dave Lambert, Anthony Schofield, Douglas Short, Lowry Snow, David Turner, Russell Van Vleet, Jennifer Yim, and Ron Gordon.
JOANNE C. SLOTNIK serves as the Executive Director of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.