Item A: Judicial Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

appropriately. 24.The judge skillfully identifies and analyzes issues relevant to court system effectiveness. 25.The judge effectively anticipates new issues and emergent events, and helps implement operational changes to deal with them. 26.The judge is pro-active and effective spokesperson to the community to build public awareness for municipal court operations and issues. 27.The judge is responsive to changing needs of the community by establishing special programs. 28.The judge selects well qualified and competent associate and assistant judges. 29.The judge promotes consistent standards, behavior, and approach among associate and assistant judges, so that there is no undue disparity among like cases heard and decided by different judges. 30.The judge provides appropriate coaching and performance feedback to associate and assistant judges. 31.The judge’s selection and supervision practices show no bias based on race, gender, economic status, or other factors not relevant to an individual judge’s performance. REVIEW OF COURT ACTIVITY, PERFORMANCE & SURVEYS As in 2006, the 2010 judicial evaluation committee reviewed court activity data for the four years included in the evaluation period, 2006 through 2010. The data included statistics on number of case filings and how cases were terminated in each of the four major case types: major traffic (driving under the influence, hit and run, and other traffic crimes), minor traffic (speeding, equipment violations, etc), ordinance offense (theft, trespass, underage alcohol offenses, etc.), and animal offenses (barking dog, dog at large, etc.). Disposition of terminated cases could be by trial or otherwise (plead, forfeit/no contest, etc.) and may result in a dismissal, not guilty finding or guilty finding. Other data reviewed by the committee were the number of bench and jury trials scheduled and held, the number of cases appealed to Lane County Circuit Court, the average number of cases per judge FTE, and the collection rate on financial judgments. Copies of these data are attached to the report. The committee reviewed compiled responses from defendant surveys conducted in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Each survey was sent to 2000 defendants, and the average response rate was 8.6%. Each survey shared some common questions, as well as other questions which varied from year to year regarding ease of access and safety, visibility/audibility in the courtroom, and the advice of rights. A summary of the survey results are attached. Similar to the 2006 evaluation, all judicial complaints were requested from the City Manager’s office from 2006 to the present. No complaints related to judicial performance were filed during this period of time. Several general court related complaints we’re filed but were determined to be unrelated to the judicial evaluation process or Judge Allen’s performance. The Judicial Evaluation Committee elected to perform a supplemental survey for 2010 that focused on human rights and equity. The survey was released on June 28th to Human Rights Commission members. No responses were received. A summary of the survey questions are attached to this report. JUDICIAL SURVEY PROCESS As in past Eugene judicial evaluations, the committee conducted a survey of court participants to obtain input on Judge Allen’s performance. The survey, conducted in May, used questions related to the six performance criteria areas listed above, and asked respondents whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed that Judge Allen’s performance met the standard as described. The audience for the 2010 survey was: