Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Retiree Evaluations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate courts panel questions retired judges after low performance scores during re-certification interviews
Summary
The joint courts committee heard three retired judges seeking continued service; committee chair and members pressed them about low scores on judicial performance evaluations and clarified limits on recalled service.
At a joint courts meeting, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee questioned three retired circuit judges seeking continued recall service after recent judicial performance evaluation responses showed below‑typical ratings.
Retired Circuit Court Judge Melvin Hughes told the panel he could not explain why his reviewer scores were lower than expected and emphasized his decades of experience on the bench. “I consider myself pretty knowledgeable in the law,” Hughes said, noting he has sat as a retired judge more than 70 times in the last year and that rural court staffing can limit resources.
Senator Scott Servell, chair of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, told Hughes the committee had received 44 responses to his evaluation and highlighted several low marks: “On ‘judge displays knowledge of the law,’ only 59% of the respondents said that you displayed knowledge of the law all the time or most of the time,” Servell said. Servell also cited lower scores in effective communication and clear decision‑making.
Retired Judge Robert O’Hara, appearing next, said he learned of his evaluation only days earlier and described his work since retiring in 2004 as concentrated on settlement conferences and occasional recall assignments. O’Hara told the committee he wishes to continue serving primarily on settlement conferences and that he had not previously been through the evaluation process.
Judge Rockwell, who identified mobility issues and said he uses a powered wheelchair for travel, acknowledged surprise at some low ratings but described the scheduling pressures and docket constraints judges face. Rockwell told members he has chosen lighter dockets in recent years and said he will continue to prioritize opportunities where facilities are accessible.
Committee members said they will convey the evaluation results to the Supreme Court when certification decisions require split authority. The meeting later moved to votes to certify retired judges and to record authorization limits; the committee approved retired‑judge certifications in block votes while noting that two retirees were to be authorized only for settlement conferences, not full recall service.
The panel’s questioning emphasized the evaluation percentages and asked each judge to explain or respond; several judges described deliberate courtroom pacing and rural docket limitations as possible factors in lower scores.
The committee took no disciplinary action; the process focused on whether to recertify retired judges for recall or limited assignment.
Members frequently framed the evaluations as a "report card" and sought candidates' plans to address the concerns raised in reviewer feedback.
