Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Judicial Performance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Wyoming State Bar to revert to previous judicial poll for 2026 amid low participation and cost concerns

Wyoming State Bar Board of Officers & Commissioners · August 1, 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

Citing falling response rates and higher costs for the newer Judicial Performance Assessment, the Board voted to revert to the prior judicial poll for 2026 and told the Court the Bar will not continue the current assessment beyond that year.

The Wyoming State Bar Board decided Aug. 22 to revert to its earlier judicial poll for 2026 after hearing staff and judicial stakeholders report declining participation and higher costs for the newer Judicial Performance Assessment.

Executive Director Sharon Wilkinson summarized response rates: roughly 42.5% participation in 2020 compared with about 22–25% in more recent polls, and she said changes in the 2022 methodology increased costs while adding demographic questions that reduced responses. Board members debated options: a hiatus while a working group studies alternatives, having the Supreme Court take over the survey, or reverting to the prior poll.

Vice President Alison O. Gee moved to revert to the older poll for 2026 and to notify Chief Justice Boomgaarden that this will be the last time the Bar conducts the Judicial Performance Assessment. Commissioner Anne K. Wasserburger and others discussed budgeting for the larger dollar amount if the Board reverted. Bar Counsel Mark W. Gifford recommended a two‑step approach: roll back to the prior poll while signaling to the Court the Bar’s intent to stop conducting the assessment unless funding or a new approach is identified. The Board carried the motion.

Board members also emphasized they want to remain at the table for future discussions about assessment design and that more robust assessments used elsewhere would require substantially greater funding.