Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retention Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews retention process, confidential materials and survey procedures
Summary
Legislative Council staff outlined how judicial retention materials are collected and secured, discussed survey criteria and timeframes, and noted a rare instance in which an attorney requested his comments be publicly attributed in a judge's file.
Legislative Council legal counsel Eric Fitzpatrick reviewed how judges are placed on the ballot for retention and the committee’s process for collecting and securing review materials.
Fitzpatrick told the committee that judges serve six-year terms and must file a declaration with the secretary of state by Sept. 1 if they intend to seek another term. After the secretary of state transmits declarations to Legislative Council, staff gather contact lists from the courts and send anonymous surveys (SurveyMonkey) to attorneys, court staff and others who have worked with the judge during the previous 18 months. Responses and other materials are collated and provided to committee members as part of the retention review.
Fitzpatrick emphasized that certain documents are kept confidential by law. Financial disclosure materials and any Judicial Conduct Board complaints are not placed in the public binder; instead they are stored in a secure electronic file maintained by the committee assistant. Committee members may view those documents in the assistant’s presence — historically by visiting the assistant’s office or, more recently, by a Zoom session during which the assistant displays the materials and disconnects when the member finishes review.
Members raised concerns about the relevance and sensitivity of financial information. Fitzpatrick said that financial disclosure is distinct from the committee’s separate review of a person’s financial stability; the annual judicial financial disclosure is intended to identify conflicts of interest, while the committee’s questions about financial condition are intended to provide context for retention decisions.
Fitzpatrick also noted an unusual, affirmative request: one attorney who completed a survey for a judge asked that his follow-up email be released with his name and that it be circulated to the committee. Fitzpatrick supplied that attorney’s emailed comments in the binders at the request of the attorney; committee members were advised those materials are public records provided at the attorney’s request.
Committee members discussed potential tweaks to the survey — for example, adding questions about equal access to justice and tailoring the questionnaire for the chief superior judge, a largely administrative role that typically draws far fewer courtroom-based responses. Fitzpatrick said that the committee can consider survey and statutory revisions over the summer or fall, but changes would not affect the current retention cycle.
