No. 38440 (New Rule): Rule R597-4. Justice Courts

(New Rule)

DAR File No.: 38440
Filed: 04/15/2014 04:18:36 PM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The purpose of this rule is to establish classifications and criteria for those classifications for the performance evaluation of all justice court judges.

Summary of the rule or change:

The rule establishes three classification categories for the purpose of evaluating justice court judges. It establishes the criteria that will be used to place each judge in a category. It articulates standards for dealing with judges who serve in multiple jurisdictions and stand for retention election in multiple years.

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

• Sections 78A-12-201 through 78A-12-206

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

This rule is promulgated to supplement the 2014 amendment to the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission Act. The amendment was supported by a general fund annual appropriation of $83,000 to the commission, which will cover the cost of all justice court evaluation.

local governments:

There is no anticipated cost to local government. All costs of justice court evaluation will be borne by Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC).

small businesses:

No impact because the commission has no authority with respect to small businesses and no dealings of any kind with them.

persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:

Only justice court judges are affected by this rule, and there are no costs to them.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

There are no compliance costs. If there were, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) would assume them.

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

The rule will have no fiscal impact on businesses.

Joanne C. Slotnik, Executive Director

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission
Administration
Room B-330 SENATE BUILDING
420 N STATE ST
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

• Joanne Slotnik at the above address, by phone at 801-538-1652, by FAX at 801-538-1024, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

06/02/2014

This rule may become effective on:

06/10/2014

Authorized by:

Anthony Schofield, Chair

RULE TEXT

R597. Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Administration.

R597-4. Justice Courts.

R597-4-1. Classification of Justice Court Judges.

(a) As used in this section, a qualified attorney is an attorney with at least one trial appearance or three total appearances before the evaluated judge during the evaluation cycle.

(b) Classification Determination. Each judge's classification shall be made by the commission following the judge's retention election, except that newly-appointed judges shall be classified upon appointment.

(c) Basis of classification.

(1) Classification shall be based on weighted caseload data and attorney appearance data provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts for the 12 months preceding the judge's most recent election or appointment.

(2) Notwithstanding section R597-4-1 (b) and (c)(1), for judges standing for retention in 2018, classification shall be based on weighted caseload data and attorney appearance data provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts for the calendar year 2013.

(3) If the data specified in subsection R597-4-1(c)(1) is unavailable or inapplicable, classification shall be based on the best data available from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(d) Once classified, the judge retains the classification for the judge's term of office.

(e) Judicial classification categories. Justice court judges shall be classified into one of three categories for purposes of judicial evaluation, based on the timeframes specified in section R597-4-1(c).

(1) Full Evaluation Judges must have a total of 50 or more qualified attorneys in the combined jurisdictions in which they serve.

(2) Mid-level Evaluation Judges must have fewer than 50 qualified attorneys in the combined jurisdictions in which they serve and a weighted caseload, as defined by the Administrative Office of the Courts, of .2 or more in at least one jurisdiction.

(3) Basic Evaluation Judges must not qualify for full evaluation and must have a weighted caseload of less than .2 in every jurisdiction in which they serve.

 

R597-4-2. Justice Court Judges Serving in Multiple Courts.

(a) For judges serving in multiple courts:

(1) Once a judge is classified, the judge may be evaluated in any court in which the judge serves, regardless of retention year.

(2) Evaluation data gathered from different courts served by a single judge shall be aggregated into a single midterm evaluation and a single retention report.

(b) For judges serving in multiple courts who stand for retention election in multiple years:

(1) Each judge shall be assigned to a single controlling evaluation cycle.

(2) The retention evaluation report compiled pursuant to the controlling evaluation cycle shall be used for all other subsequent retention elections for which that judge stands within the controlling cycle.

 

KEY: justice court evaluations, justice court multiple jurisdictions, justice court classifications, justice court multiple election years

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: 2014

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 78A-12-201 through 78A-12-206

 

---