Meeting Notice - January 7, 2005
	Meeting Agenda - January 7, 2005

The Property
1251 Gila Bend Highway
Casa Grande, Arizona

I. CALL TO ORDER:

Margaret Kenski called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. A total of 23 members were present, which constituted a quorum under Rule 2(d) of the Rules of Procedure for Judicial Performance Review.

II. ADDRESS BY VICE CHIEF JUSTICE RUTH V. MCGREGOR: Vice Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor was introduced and spoke to the Commission regarding JPR issues of interest to the Court. She stated that the Commission on Judicial Performance Review plays an essential role in ensuring that judges are meeting requirements and improving and bettering themselves and the courts they serve. She stressed the importance of keeping the merit selection and retention system in place.

The Vice Chief advised the Commission to keeping looking at its procedures, Rules and processes to see if there are better ways of doing things. She stated that although judges are meeting requirements, we must look at better ways to identify judges who may not be meeting standards.

Some of the areas the Supreme Court has been discussing include:

• Should the standard for meets judicial standards be changed to a 2/3 vote of the Commission?
• Should a three-tier system of review such as that used in the Colorado Model be implemented?
• Would there be an advantage in reorganizing how we rank judges, e.g. from high to low?
• In furtherance of the 2004 Rules change to set out judges who do not meet standards separately in the Voter Information Pamphlet, should the judges be set out separately on the ballot itself? (NOTE: This would require a legislative change, rather than a Rules change.)
• In addition to looking at Commission judges being recused from voting on themselves, should it be extended to Commission judges recusing themselves when voting on other judges on their immediate benches?
• What can be done to better disseminate information and to get people to look at JPR information?
• Should the ballot set out how many Commission members voted for or against a judge? (NOTE: This would require a legislative change, rather than a Rules change.)

Vice Chief Justice McGregor noted that the statewide Judges' Association has approved suggestions regarding a higher vote threshold at the JPR Commission level, and that judges not meeting standards be separated from other judges in the Voter Information Pamphlet. She stated that the Supreme Court is anxious to hear other suggestions from the Commission and asked the Commission to provide input in a timely manner to meet the Court's 2005 Rules Agenda deadlines.

III. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS:

The Chair welcomed the new members and asked everyone to introduce themselves. The new members are Sylvia P. Brandfon, Kevin DeMenna, Mike Hellon, Rick Naimark, Jeff Nordensson, Ron Ober and Tom Smith, all Public members, and William Poorten, Attorney member.

IV. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2004 MEETING MINUTES:

V. 2004 RETENTION ELECTION SUMMARY:

Eric Carlson presented an overview of the results of the 2004 General Election. Highlights included:

• The average retention percentage for all judges on all benches is 77.2%. Compared with previous statistics, more people are voting positively in retention elections.
• There is significant drop off on the number of voters casting votes for judges versus those who cast presidential votes in Maricopa County. Only 45.2% of the voters cast judge votes. Discussion followed whether this was because of the increased number of judges on the Maricopa ballot. It was pointed out that there was very little voter fatigue from the first to the last judge listed on the ballot, even though in prior elections there had been significant voter fatigue when comparing first to last on the ballot.
• Judges who received two or more negative votes from the Commission received a score 6.5% lower than judges with no negative JPR votes. MOTION: A motion to approve the September 10, 2004 minutes was made, seconded and unanimously passed. 23-0-0. JPR-05-001. 3
• The two judges who received negative publicity from an outside source received a 4.7% lower score than the other judges on their bench. The same two judges also received low scores in 2000. The results of their scores were equivalent to six negative votes by the JPR Commission, even with the added impetus of negative TV and written campaigns.
• In Maricopa County it would take 127,500 votes to switch from positive to negative to unseat the average judge.
• Early returns showed judges with negative JPR votes received 3 to 4% lower approval votes than the rankings on election day, while judges with no negative votes received approval ratings 3 to 4% higher, possibly indicating that early voting does have an impact.

VI. 2005 LEGISLATIVE SESSION:

Margaret Kenski reported there were 34 bills regarding the judiciary introduced in 2004. Our role in 2005 will be to look at process improvements and standards such as accountability and user-friendly information to voters. Staff will track the bills and keep the members informed of the status of bills introduced.

VI. WORKGROUPS:

The Commission members were given a history of JPR Commission actions from its inception in 1991 through 2004. Workgroups were asked to review the histories, specifically with reference to the tasks of each workgroup.

Staff presented the issues that had been raised during the 2003-2004 review cycle and by the Supreme Court. At the request of the members, staff will chart the responsibilities of each workgroup, clarify the items in the history which apply to each workgroup, and focus Vice Chief Justice McGregor's comments to each workgroup.

Staff was also asked to clarify the Open Meeting requirements with respect to the JPR workgroups and report back to the members. Members were reminded that staff is to attend workgroup meetings and will be available to assist in coordinating meetings and providing needed background materials. The Chair and Vice Chair will act as roving members of the workgroups. Roberta Voss, Vice Chair, will be the legislative liaison for the JPR Commission.

As a housekeeping item, the workgroups set up during the September 10, 2004 meeting were abolished, with the following workgroup assignments made:

Workgroup AVoter Information Pamphlet: Barbara Glenn, Chair; Kevin DeMenna; Gene Goldsmith, Tom Smith.
Workgroup BSurveys: Henry Varga, Chair; Mary Beth Pfister; Ted Borek.
Workgroup CVoting Process: Ron Watson, Chair; Mike Hellon, Dan Barker, Penny Gaines, Marc Lieberman; Rick Naimark.
Workgroup DVoter Education: Jeff Nordensson, Chair; Ted Borek, Ron Ober; Kevin DeMenna; Dick Cosgrove.
Workgroup EConference Teams: Sylvia Brandfon, Chair: Dee Sirkis; Bob Clements; John Pelander.

VII. NEXT MEETING:

March 4, 2005
The Property
1251 W. Gila Bend Hwy.
Casa Grande, AZ
9:00  11:45 AM

IX. CALL TO THE PUBLIC

No members of the public were present.

X. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.