No. 40497 (Amendment): Section R356-101-10. Evaluation Criteria  

  • (Amendment)

    DAR File No.: 40497
    Filed: 06/15/2016 02:15:17 PM

    RULE ANALYSIS

    Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

    This amendment clarifies the evaluation criteria to be considered by judicial nominating commissions when evaluating applicants for judicial office.

    Summary of the rule or change:

    This amendment provides that judicial nominating commissions shall consider: 1) applicants' experience with issues facing children and families when evaluating applicants for juvenile court; and 2) applicants' ability to give and receive criticism of opinions without taking offense when evaluating applicants for appellate courts. This amendment further provides that judicial nominating commissions may consider the background and experience of applicants in relation to the current composition of the bench for which the appointment is being made when all other qualifications appear to be comparable.

    State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

    Anticipated cost or savings to:

    the state budget:

    This amendment clarifies existing practices of judicial nominating commissions. It will not require the expenditure of any additional state resources.

    local governments:

    This amendment governs only the operations of state judicial nominating commissions and will have no impact on local government.

    small businesses:

    The current rule and amendments govern the operations of state judicial nominating commissions and have no impact on small businesses.

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

    This amendment clarifies existing practices of judicial nominating commissions. The amendment will not result in any cost or savings to any other person.

    Compliance costs for affected persons:

    This amendment clarifies current practice by judicial nominating commissions. It will not result in additional costs to any person.

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

    This amendment will have no fiscal impact on businesses.

    Ron Gordon, Executive Director

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

    Governor
    Criminal and Juvenile Justice (State Commission on)
    Room Suite 330 Senate Building
    State Capitol Complex
    420 N State Street
    Salt Lake City, UT 84114

    Direct questions regarding this rule to:

    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:

    08/01/2016

    This rule may become effective on:

    08/08/2016

    Authorized by:

    Ronald Gordon, Executive Director

    RULE TEXT

    R356. Governor, Criminal and Juvenile Justice (State Commission on).

    R356-101. Judicial Nominating Commissions.

    R356-101-10. Evaluation Criteria.

    (1) In addition to criteria established by the Utah Constitution and the Utah Code Annotated, commission members shall during the nomination process consider the applicants':

    [(1)](a) integrity;

    [(2)](b) legal knowledge and ability;

    [(3)](c) professional experience;

    [(4)](d) judicial temperament;

    [(5)](e) work ethic;

    [(6)](f) financial responsibility;

    [(7)](g) public service;

    [(8)](h) ability to perform the work of a judge; and

    [(9)](i) impartiality.

    (2) When evaluating applicants for a juvenile court judge position, commission members shall consider the applicants' interest in, understanding of, and experience with the issues and problems facing children and families.

    (3) When evaluating applicants for an appellate court position, commission members shall consider the applicants' ability to give and receive criticism of opinions and arguments without taking offense.

    (4) When deciding among applicants for any judicial position whose qualifications, taken as a whole, appear in all other respects to be comparable, it is relevant to consider the background and experience of the applicants in relation to the current composition of the bench for which the appointment is being made.

     

    KEY: judicial nominating commissions, judges

    Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [July 1, 2010]2016

    Notice of Continuation: June 26, 2015

    Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 78A-10-103(1)

     


Document Information

Effective Date:
8/8/2016
Publication Date:
07/01/2016
Type:
Notices of Proposed Rules
Filed Date:
06/15/2016
Agencies:
Governor, Criminal and Juvenile Justice (State Commission on)
Rulemaking Authority:

Subsection 78A-10-103(1)(a)

Authorized By:
Ronald Gordon, Executive Director
DAR File No.:
40497
Summary:
This amendment provides that judicial nominating commissions shall consider: 1) applicants' experience with issues facing children and families when evaluating applicants for juvenile court; and 2) applicants' ability to give and receive criticism of opinions without taking offense when evaluating applicants for appellate courts. This amendment further provides that judicial nominating commissions may consider the background and experience of applicants in relation to the current composition of ...
CodeNo:
R356-101-10
CodeName:
{37852|R356-101-10|R356-101-10. Evaluation Criteria}
Link Address:
GovernorCriminal and Juvenile Justice (State Commission on)Room Suite 330 Senate BuildingState Capitol Complex420 N State StreetSalt Lake City, UT 84114
Link Way:

Ronald Gordon, by phone at 801-538-1432, by FAX at 801-538-1024, or by Internet E-mail at rbgordon@utah.gov

AdditionalInfo:
More information about a Notice of Proposed Rule is available online. The Portable Document Format (PDF) version of the Bulletin is the official version. The PDF version of this issue is available at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bull-pdf/2016/b20160701.pdf. The HTML edition of the Bulletin is a convenience copy. Any discrepancy between the PDF version and HTML version is resolved in favor of the PDF version. Text to be deleted is struck through and surrounded by brackets ([example]). ...
Related Chapter/Rule NO.: (1)
R356-101-10. Evaluation Criteria.