Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Ombudsman topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chief Justice says ombudsman set up stalled; judicial branch has launched alternative supports
Summary
Chief Justice told the Joint Budget Committee that the independent judicial discipline ombudsman called for in last year’s law has not been stood up because the statutorily‑created selection board has not met; while the independent office remains inactive, the judicial branch has rolled out internal workplace improvements, including anonymous reporting.
Chief Justice and the State Court Administrator appeared before the Joint Budget Committee to explain the status of the newly created judicial discipline ombudsman office and to outline related judicial branch comeback requests.
Chief Justice told the committee that House Bill 23‑1205 created an independent office of the judicial discipline ombudsman with a selection board and separate oversight from the judicial branch by design. She said the selection board was appointed in late 2023 or early 2024 but has not met, and the statutory deadline for appointing an ombuds passed more than a year earlier. Because the law places selection outside the Supreme Court’s control, the Supreme Court and State Court Administrator have not been able to stand up the ombuds office directly.
While the ombuds selection process remains stalled, Chief Justice said the judicial branch has pursued its own workplace culture initiatives, including leadership training, revisions to reporting obligations, and an anonymous reporting platform that lets employees communicate concerns to human resources confidentially. The chief justice emphasized that anonymous reporting is not the same as an independent, non‑mandatory‑reporting ombuds because mandatory reporters still must escalate some reports to HR; an ombuds would serve as a neutral, non‑reporting resource allowing employees to explore options before triggering mandatory reports.
Committee members asked about scope and the appointment process. The chief justice said under the statute the selection board would hire and provide oversight for the ombuds, and that the court cannot unilaterally implement the independent office while the statutory board remains inactive. She offered to follow up with a plan and additional cost commentary and to meet with committee members to answer more detailed questions about how an internal ombuds would be structured, how costs compare, and whether the judicial branch could provide a limited internal alternative that preserves independence.
The judicial branch also requested comeback funding for a case‑management replacement for a thirty‑year system, and for probation officers to handle filings shifted into state court due to municipal court changes; the committee asked about the scope and timeline of IT projects and the supervised probation ramp‑up. The chief justice and administrator said they were trying to honor the committee’s request to slow the case‑management project while still making progress and that probation staff would be phased in starting July 1 to match the filings schedule.
