Committee / Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission
Date
Time
Location / Tuesday, July 14, 2015
9:00am – 11:00 am
CCJJ Large Conference Room
Members Present / Kelsie Strong, John Ashton, Sonya Martinez, Gil Miller, Nate Alder, David Jordan David Roth, Shannon Sebahar, Eric DeRosia. On phone: Di Allison
Members Excused / Bob Fotheringham, Ann Marie Allen, Ron Gordon
Guests / Paul Tonks, Rick Schwermer
Staff / Kelsey Garner, Joanne Slotnik, Liz Cordova
Agenda Item / Welcome John Ashton
Approval of Minutes
Introduction of new commissioner
Notes / John welcomes the group.
Motion: Shannon moves to approve the June minutes. Nate seconds the motion which passed unanimously.
John introduced our newest commissioner, David Jordan, and commission members introduced themselves.
Agenda Item / Audit Update Joanne Slotnik
Notes / Last month it was unclear if we were going to be able to complete the audit on this round of surveys. The contract is now in place and will cost about $6,000. We will not receive a comprehensive written report like last time; rather, the report will focus on results, any discrepancies, and recommendations.
Agenda Item: / Court Staff / JCP Survey Update Joanne Slotnik
Notes: / The survey closes at the end of today. Overall, the response rate is 52%. This is down 5% from last time. However, it looks like those that actually work for the courts are up to 72%. [CORRECTION: Court staff is actually down about 5% over 2013] The juvenile court professionals that include DCFS and JJS are down 5%. Joanne will do more communication work with DCFS and JJS for the next round, including meetings with field administrators to stress the importance of the surveys and respond to questions and concerns.
Agenda Item: / Rules Subcommittee John Ashton
- Discussion and Action Item:
Admin. R597-3-5(6): Public Comments
Should they be limited to first-hand experiences?
ACTION ITEM: / John notes that two months ago we had a robust discussion about public comments. We are discussing this again because we cut the conversation short last time. Shannon feels strongly that we should not limit public comments to only people with “first-hand experience.” Who decides what comments qualify? The comments should be open to all who want to participate, and the commissioners should apply their individual judgment. Some express concern that a campaign could be mounted against a judge for a controversial decision and we could get deluged with comments from people with a particular agenda but no first-hand experience. Nate wants to keep judges insulated from politics, noting that JPEC’s focus is process, not the nature of substantive decisions. Kelsey notes that it is difficult to disregard comments one sees in the process of filtering them. David J. suggests adding a question on the website Public Comments page: Do you have first-hand experience in this judge’s courtroom? The commission acknowledges that this is an important issue. For the upcoming round of surveys, however, public comments will be handled the same as last time (no filtering for “firsthand knowledge;” no letters sent to commenters). We will revisit the issue one more time and make a final decision for post-2016 reports at our August meeting.
Agenda Item: / Survey Subcommittee Discussion & Action Item Eric DeRosia
- Adjective Question: Final format approval
- Margin of error status
- Collection of demographic information – Joanne Slotnik
Notes: / Eric walks the group through the current report form, noting minor changes, and then focuses on the adjective question, which has always been problematic for a variety of reasons. The current version is not easy to use or interpret. One suggestion was to change the scoring from raw numbers to percentages. However, this approach implies that a judge could score 100% on any given adjective, which is at best a remote possibility. With percentages, a very good judge might not look all that good. Eric presented two new charts to address this concern. One proposal is to have a similarly formatted chart with the peer group % next to it (which we do throughout the report) to show that 48% is a good score, for example, compared to a 35% from peers. The bar chart uses an “index” which is taking out the percentage completely, and compares the judge to the peer average without using the numbers.
MOTION: Gil moves to use the second graphic, the “bar graph” for this round of survey reports. Nate seconds the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Eric references the margin of error issue. He feels strongly that it should appear somewhere in the report. Because time is short now, we will leave it out in 2015 but l resolve the issue before administration the 2017 surveys.
Joanne notes that over the years we have discussed gender and ethnicity bias in surveys. Market Decisions analyzed our data for 2013, which was before the entire judiciary had been surveyed. Data based on 100% of the judges would give us a more accurate picture. After this round we will re-look at this issue. Joanne proposes that we gather gender and ethnicity data on attorney survey respondents for 2018 to begin building a more robust data set. Discussion follows.
MOTION: John moves that we gather the information for the 2018 midterm regarding gender and ethnicity and use it as a pilot to see what we get. David J. seconds the motion. Motion passes unanimously.
Agenda Item: / Tom Tyler on Procedural Fairness John Ashton
Notes: / John encourages all members to watch the video by by Tom Tyler, a professor from Yale, on Procedural Fairness. He also intends to pass it on to the judiciary. Here’s the link: http://www.courtinnovation.org/research/why-procedural-justice-matters-tom-r-tyler-community-justice-2012-0
Agenda Item: / Miscellaneous Joanne Slotnik
Joanne report that IAALS in Denver is developing a comprehensive communications plan for JPE commissions in retention election states. The goal is how to effectively communicate this work to the public.
Additionally, we have 43 applications so far for the technical writer positions. Some are from out of state. The commission agreed the individual wouldn’t need to be a Utah resident to get the job.
Adjourn: / Motion made, seconded, unanimously passed.
Next Meeting /
The next Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 11, 9:00 a.m- Noon, in the CCJJ conference room.
3