Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Judiciary topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee backs code change to allow pro tem judges from outside Snohomish County

2244676 · January 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Edmonds Municipal Court judge requested an ordinance amendment to allow pro tem judges who do not reside in Snohomish County; the committee moved the ordinance to the consent agenda, and staff said the change would have no fiscal impact.

The Edmonds City Council committee moved to send an ordinance amending ECC 2.15.0.06 (judges pro tem) to the consent agenda after Judge Neil Weiss asked the council to allow pro tem judges to reside outside Snohomish County.

Weiss told the committee the current code requires pro tem judges to hold the same credentials as an appointed judge and to be county residents; he asked the code be amended so pro tems need not be Snohomish County residents. Weiss said allowing out-of-county pro tems expands the pool of qualified candidates, preserves institutional knowledge from experienced pro tems who live outside the county, broadens diversity of practice and background among pro tems, supports the educational role of pro tem service for new judges, and carries no fiscal impact.

Weiss named several practitioners who have served as pro tem and would be excluded by the residency requirement; he also described ethical and contracting limitations that narrow the local pro tem pool (e.g., public defender office contracting and an advisory ethics opinion limiting attorneys who regularly appear before a court from presiding over that court). Council Member Chris Eck moved to place the ordinance on the consent agenda; Council President Neil agreed. Council Member Susan noted the ordinance's legislative history and a prior 2006 update referenced in state law (RCW).

Committee members described the draft ordinance as cleanup and consistent with elected-judge procedures. The motion to send the ordinance to the consent agenda passed by committee consensus; no fiscal changes were proposed in committee.