HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Judicial Evaluation Committee Report
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Judicial Evaluation Committee Report
Meeting Date: May 22, 2006 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Central Services – Municipal Court Staff Contact: Marilyn Nelson
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5580
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session item is an opportunity for the council to review and accept the report submitted by the
2006 Judicial Evaluation Committee as part of the formal evaluation of Presiding Municipal Judge
Wayne Allen. Eugene Code 2.011(10) requires a formal citizen review of the Presiding Judge’s
performance in the last year of the judge’s four-year term.
BACKGROUND
Presiding Municipal Judge Wayne Allen was appointed by the council in 1994, and is in the fourth year
of his current four-year term. The last formal evaluation was conducted in 2002, at which time the
council reappointed Judge Allen and directed City staff to renew his contract for another four-year term.
On January 23, 2006, the council appointed the members of the 2006 Judicial Evaluation Committee.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Municipal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with Lane County Circuit Court for violations and
misdemeanor crimes in Oregon statute and in Eugene City Code, including all traffic offenses.
Municipal Court has sole jurisdiction over all parking offenses which violate City Code. Municipal
judges have the authority to adjudicate cases, impose fines and other sanctions, issue warrants, summon
jurors and perform all other judicial functions, according to Oregon statute governing justice courts,
Eugene Charter and Eugene City Code. The judges are part-time independent contractors, not
employees of the City. The Presiding Judge is appointed by City Council.
Eugene Code sections 2.011(9) and (10) govern appointment and evaluation of the presiding municipal
judge. In the fourth year of the judge’s term, a formal evaluation by an ad hoc citizen advisory
committee and public hearing are required. The advisory committee is required to be at least five
members, with at least one member of the Human Rights Commission, two attorneys familiar with
municipal court, and two other persons generally familiar with the judicial system. On January 23,
2006, the City Council appointed the following individuals as members of the 2006 Judicial Evaluation
Committee to conduct the formal evaluation:
1. Mary Ann Bearden: Judge in Lane County Circuit Court
2. Don Diment: Local defense attorney with considerable experience in municipal court
3. Greg Hazarabedian: Executive Director of Public Defender Services of Lane County
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060522\S060522B.doc
4. John Kilcullen: Local defense attorney with experience in municipal court, and service as an
associate municipal court judge until 2005
5. Kip Leonard: Judge in Lane County Circuit Court
6. Carmen Urbina: Current Chair of the Eugene Human Rights Commission.
The Judicial Evaluation Committee conducted a survey of defense attorneys, prosecutors, interpreters
and advocates, police traffic officers, other judges and court staff. The compiled survey responses are
included in the attached report and show that these stakeholders strongly agree or agree that Judge Allen
continues to meet performance standards in the six categories assessed. In addition, the committee
reviewed court performance data, defendant survey responses, complaints filed, and had a discussion
with Judge Allen about court issues and accomplishments since 2002. A summary of their findings is
included in the attached report.
Judge Allen’s four-year contract expires June 30, 2006. A public hearing is scheduled for the City
Council meeting immediately following this work session. Another work session is scheduled June 14
for the council to discuss the evaluation report findings and public hearing comments with Judge Allen.
At the June 26 City Council meeting, an action item is scheduled for the council to consider
reappointment of Judge Allen or to direct staff to begin a recruitment process for a new Presiding Judge.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council has the option to accept or not accept the 2006 Judicial Evaluation Committee’s report.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the council accept the 2006 Judicial Evaluation Committee’s report
on Judge Wayne Allen’s performance.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion is required for this item.
ATTACHMENTS
A. 2006 Judicial Evaluation Report
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Marilyn Nelson
Telephone: 682-5580
Staff E-Mail: Marilyn.D.Nelson@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060522\S060522B.doc
ATTACHMENT A
May 16, 2006
TO: Mayor Piercy and City Council
FROM: Judicial Evaluation Committee
SUBJECT: 2006 Municipal Court Judicial Evaluation
This memo with attachments is our report to you on the 2006 formal performance
evaluation of Eugene Municipal Court Presiding Judge Wayne Allen.
OUR CHARGE
The process for selecting and evaluating a presiding municipal court judge is governed by
Eugene City Code Section 2.011(9) and (10), which the City Council adopted in June
1996. The City Council selects a presiding municipal judge to serve a four-year term.
During each term there are three levels of evaluation:
1. A self-evaluation, submitted to the city council;
2. An informal evaluation, including peer feedback, submitted to the city council
after two years; and
3. Aformal evaluation conducted by an advisory evaluation committee during the
fourth year of the term.
Wayne Allen was appointed presiding municipal court judge in 1994. In January 2006
the City Council appointed the six-member evaluation committee to carry out the formal
performance evaluation for Judge Allen's current term. City Code requires the formal
evaluation committee to be composed of "not less than five persons, including at least
one member of the human rights commission, two attorneys familiar with the municipal
court, and two other persons generally familiar with the judicial system." Our
backgrounds and qualifications for the evaluation committee are as follows:
1. The Honorable Mary Ann Bearden: Lane County Circuit Court Judge;
2. Don Diment: Private defense attorney who regularly practices in Eugene municipal
court;
3. Greg Hazarabedian: Executive Director of Lane County Public Defender Services;
4. John Kilcullen: Private defense attorney who recently worked as an assistant Eugene
municipal court judge;
5. The Honorable Kip Leonard: Lane County Circuit Court Judge; and
6. Carmen Urbina: Current chair of the City's Human Rights Commission.
EVALUATION PROCESS
The evaluation process began in January 2006, when the City Council appointed the
evaluation committee. We first met as a committee on February 1,2006. Initially the
committee reviewed the evaluation process and report from 2002 and adopt a process for
the 2006 evaluation, since the Eugene Code states only that the formal evaluation will
include a public hearing. The public hearing will be conducted the evening of the work
session at which this report will be presented to you.
The process adopted for the evaluation involved five meetings between February and
May, and included five components:
. Select a set of criter(~ to use for the evaluation;
· Review court activity data and performance indicators for the years 2002-2006,
including complaints and defendant survey responses, and the responses to the
2004 informal evaluation;
· Survey different populations of municipal court participants for evaluation input;
. Discuss survey results with Judge Allen and get his perspective on court
performance and issues, including what has changed or improved from the 2002
evaluation; and
. Use the survey results, discussion with Judge Allen, court activity data and
performance indicators, and our own municipal court experience to prepare and
present an evaluation report to the City Council.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
We were impressed to learn that Eugene had a judicial performance evaluation
process since the 1980's. This is unusual, as judicial evaluations even at the state and
federa11eve1 have only been discussed in concept for the past 15 years. Judicial
evaluations at any level are rare.
For the 2006 evaluation, standards approved by the City Council in the past were
taken into consideration. The committee also took advantage of work done by the
Federal Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) and the National Center for State
Courts (NCSC) that developed a set of model judicial performance standards now
adopted in several state court systems. We reviewed the criteria used by the
evaluation committees in 1998 and 2002, which was largely based on the BJA/NCSC
model standards applicable to judges, and overall felt the criteria was appropriate for
our use in the 2006 evaluation. By using approximately the same criteria, we felt it
would facilitate comparisons with the prior evaluations. The 31 standards were
organized into six job element sections, shown below:
2006 Judicial Performance Evaluation Criteria
Section I. Legal Knowledge and Ability in Judicial Role
1. The judge's actions in court demonstrate knowledge of substantive law.
2. The judge's actions in court demonstrate knowledge of the rules of evidence.
3. The judge's actions in court demonstrate knowledge of rules of procedure.
4. The judge makes decisions based on law, facts, and sound legal reasoning.
5. The judge's sentencing decisions demonstrate knowledge of sentencing laws and
appropriate use of available sanctions.
Section II. Case and Courtroom Management
6. The judge complies with recognized guidelines for timely case processing,
keeping current with incoming case10ad.
7. The judge conducts court proceedings punctually.
8. The judge makes rulings and renders decisions promptly.
9. The judge maintains a dignified demeanor and proper control in the courtroom.
10. The judge encourages appropriate settlement negotiations and promotes
negotiation without coercion or threat.
Section III. Equality, Fairness, and Integrity
11. The judge shows courtesy and respect to all participants in court proceedings.
12. The judge shows fairness and impartiality to all parties in a case and avoids any
action that appears to prejudge the outcome of the case.
13. The judge's actions and decisions show no bias based on race, gender, economic
status, or other factors external to the facts of a case.
14. The judge's overall conduct is free from impropriety or the appearance of
impropriety and promotes public confidence in the court.
15. The judge deals effectively and appropriately with non-English speaking
defendants, and shows respect.
Section IV. Oral and Written Communication
16. The judge explains court procedures clearly and simply for all court participants.
17. The judge listens attentively and actively to all court participants.
18. The judge's oral and written directions and decisions in court clearly and
unambiguously address the issues presented and the compliance actions required.
Section V. Judicial System Administration and Representation
19. The judge works effectively with the municipal court administrator, other judges,
court staff, court participants, city council, and other agencies to maintain and
enhance court system effectiveness.
20. The judge participates appropriately and effectively in reviews of court policy
and procedure.
21. The judge ensures that mandated changes in statutes, case law, and court
procedure are promptly implemented.
22. The judge participates effectively and resourcefully in administrative problem
resolution.
23. The judge establishes a clear focus for administrative projects and monitors
progress 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 a 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.
Section VI. Selection and Supervision of Associate/Assistant Judges
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 DATA AND PERFORMANCE
As in 2002, the 2006 judicial evaluation committee reviewed court activity data for
the four years included in this evaluation period, 2002 through 2006. 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
offenses (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 a 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 this report.
The committee reviewed compiled responses from defendant surveys conducted in
October 2002, 2003 and 2004. Each survey was sent to 2000 defendants, and the
average response rate was over 10%. 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 ofrights. Copies of the
compiled responses and the latest survey questions are attached to this report.
The committee also wanted to review any complaints that had been filed regarding
municipal court from 2002 to the present time. During these four years there were 27
complaints on record. All 27 complaints had been filed with the City Manager's
Office. No complaints were filed during this period with the Human Rights Office.
The committee reviewed each complaint and its disposition, and determined that there
was no complaint that was specific to judicial performance. Furthermore, the
committee was in concurrence with how the complaints had been handled. Copies of
the complaint disposition sheets are available for review by councilors upon request,
but for the privacy of the complainants are not attached to this report.
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
March, 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. Space was
provided in the survey instrument for respondents to make written comments on
Judge Allen's performance in each area and on what they saw as major issues for the
municipal court. The survey audience for the March 2006 survey was:
1. Defense attorneys appearing in Eugene Municipal Court at least four
times during the past four years,
2. City prosecutors,
3. Court interpreters and volunteer advocates who have worked in Eugene
Municipal Court during the past four years,
4. Eugene Police traffic officers,
5. Other Eugene Municipal Court judges, and
6. Eugene Municipal Court staff.
SURVEY RESULTS
Detailed results are shown in an attachment to this report. Overall the survey return
rate was 24.1 %, with 203 surveys sent and 49 returned. This compares favorably
with the survey return rate in 2002 of 21.9%. The greatest number of surveys
received were from defense attorneys (15), followed by court staff (13).
Survey respondents assessed Judge Allen's performance as very positive, with the
majority either strongly agreeing or agreeing that he met all of the performance
standards described in the survey. The overwhelming majority of comments about
his performance as presiding judge were very positive. Some examples of these
comments are listed here:
"Extremely knowledgeable, very capable."
"He started Paso a Paso program, bilingual videos-shows special interest in
minorities. "
"He always demonstrates integrity and fairness in all his court cases."
"I have heard and seen Judge Allen keep remarkably cool and collected, even in the
face of extremely hostile and irrational people. In cases where some defendants live
outside the margins of society, the courtroom is the one place where they are treated
with dignity and respect."
"Judge Allen promotes consistent standards, behavior and approach among the other
judges."
"1 find Judge Allen to be consistently impartial to all parties, show excellent
communication skills, and his overall conduct promotes public confidence in the
court justice system."
"It's easy to be somewhat biased when you work with someone with so much respect
for the law and someone so dedicated to serving the community in a fair and
equitable manner. Judge Allen evokes trust in the system and this is felt and
commented on even by defendants."
The few negative comments from survey respondents related to: supervision of one
judge, lack of community outreach efforts, and judicial demeanor.
Comments regarding major issues for the court included:
· expansion of case types heard in municipal court due to service reductions at
the DA's office and Circuit Court,
. lack of and cost of jail space,
· lack of adequate court space for jurors and staff,
· staffing levels to keep pace with police hiring,
· desire from prosecutors and police for more civil compromises and diversion
alternatives,
· planning to eventually meet the criteria to be a court of record.
All of the comments received are included in the compiled survey responses attached.
Judge Allen was asked to respond and comment when the committee met with him.
DISCUSSION WITH JUDGE ALLEN
On April 19 the committee met with Judge Allen to discuss the survey results with
him. He shared with us his goals as presiding judge, his assessment of changes over
the past four years to address areas of improvement in the court, and his reaction to
the survey data and comments. Below is a summary of the main points of our
discussion:
Areas of Improvement Since 2002
. Implementation of Mental Health Court diversion program has greatly
improved the court's ability to deal effectively with defendants' underlying
problems and to prevent recidivism.
. Update of the court's Spanish Informational Video with a new production that
involved over a dozen community people and produced two videos--one for
educational purposes in the community explaining the court process, and one
to use at the Paso a Paso Spanish arraignment sessions.
. Implementation of several technology enhancements to improve service to the
community who need to conduct business with the court, such as paying
parking fines on-line.
Significant Issues Since 2002
. The most significant issue faced by the court since 2002 is the impact of
service reductions and case filings of serious, non-violent misdemeanors by
the DA's office into Circuit Court. In 2005 City Council adopted new
offenses into the City Code to allow some of these cases to be filed in
municipal court.
Key Issues for the Court
. On-going funding for Mental Health Court is part of the FY07 Proposed
Budget under consideration.
. The need for Spanish interpreter services is growing and the available local
pool of State-certified court interpreters is small. The law allows "qualified"
interpreters in some situations, but does not define "qualified" or set
standards. Eugene Municipal Court is exploring the possibility of setting its
own standards, and developing a selection and training program to develop a
pool of qualified Spanish interpreters to meet the court's needs.
Response to 2006 Survey
· In response to the comments expressing the desire for Judge Allen to do more
community outreach, Judge Allen and the committee discussed the May 1
Law Day open public forum which, at that time, was being planned. The
committee pointed out how difficult it is for a judge to do community
outreach when they must always be perceived as being neutral.
· Judge Allen discussed the coaching and counseling he has provided to the
judges who report to him.
Maior Issues for the Court from 2006 Survey
. Judge Allen pointed out it will be a big change for the court when the current
Court Administrator retires.
· The change in case type and complexity continue to be a concern for Judge
Allen as well as the survey respondents. As potentially more serious cases are
shifted to the municipal court, the ability of the court to deal effectively with
community quality oflife issues may be compromised.
. Regarding lack of space for the court, Judge Allen pointed out that the court
has been involved in the City's efforts to define future space needs and plan
for a new City Hall, as well as possible interim court space.
. There was interest expressed in survey responses for the court to become a
court of record. Given that there are so few appeals, Judge Allen and the
committee did not feel the cost of the staff and technology would warrant this
effort at this time.
Where Is Municipal Court Heading?
The next four years will very likely provide the City Council with the opportunity to
further define the kind of court it wants its municipal court to be, as on-going budget
reductions at the State and County level further reduce the ability of the District
Attorney and the Circuit Court to handle misdemeanor offenses. The court and Judge
Allen consistently get high ratings on their performance because of the size, resources
and collaborative nature of this court to be innovative and responsive to community
concerns. With more serious and complex cases added to an already full caseload, it
will be less and less possible for the municipal court to deal with quality of life issues,
offer educational diversion programs, and provide extra services to marginalized
populations. Eugene Municipal Court has just completed a year-long effort to
develop a shared vision for the court to the year 2015. This vision statement was
shared with the committee, and its development involved judges, staff and key
stakeholders within and outside the City organization.
COMMITTEE FINDINGS
The committee expresses its appreciation to Judge Allen for his service as presiding
judge for the past four years. In particular, he should be recognized for the work he
has done to address issues of the mentally ill and the Spanish-speaking community.
The committee would like to point out how progressive the municipal court is, with
such programs as Mental Health Court, Paso a Paso, and several educational
diversion programs, and how helpful the court's responsiveness is in meeting the
community's changing needs.
The committee was impressed with the remarkably high performance ratings received
in response to the survey. We agree with these survey responses and strongly agree
that Judge Allen meets the performance standards outlined earlier in this report. No
areas of concern were noted. The committee recommends to the Eugene City Council
that Judge Allen be reappointed for another four-year term.
A TT ACHMENT "A"
EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURT - 2006 JUDICIAL EVALUATION
DISTRIBUTION - SURVEY GROUP
PART 1: PRESIDING MUNICIPAL JUDGE
Question 1: Identify Survey Group
PARTICIPANTS
Defense Counsel
Prosecutor
Eugene Police
Court Interpreter or Advocate
Eugene Municipal Court Judge
Eugene Municipal Court Staff
TOTAL COMPLETED EVALUA TIONS
SENT RETURNED RETURN RATE
148 16 10.8%
6 5 83.3%
13 10 76.9%
8 4 50.0%
5 2 40.0%
23 13 56.5%
203 50 24.1%
If you are a defense attorney, please indicate below if you have appeared before Judge Wayne Allen since 2002.
No, I've only appeared before other judges
Yes, but only 1-3 times
Yes, 3-10 times
Yes, more than 10 times since 2002
2
4
9
Question 2: Legal Knowledge and Ability in Judicial Role
The judge's actions in court demonstrate knowledge of substantive law, rules of evidence, rules of procedure.
2a. The judge makes decisions based on law, facts, and sound legal reasoning.
i~!!()f1gJY,t\.ar'~~
l.t\.are~_______
LQi~<19J"~_ .__. ___.._.. mm _ _ _ mm _ __m __. ___.m __.___ ____.
[Strong lyj)isC!9r.~f!___.___ ___.
i Insufficient Information to Rate
111111111111111111111111111111111111111 76.00%
_ _ __ _ _ ___----<~_^_,~^,..___.__._w___._________...._______.__.._.__________.j
illllllll
i 16.00%
0.00%
0.00%
'1111
8.00%
Total 50
2b. The judge's sentencing decisions demonstrate knowledge of sentencing laws and appropriate use of
available sanctions.
l~t,.<>.~iili Agrei~--- .
_,t\.9!~~
_I:!~sagree _~___
~!!()'!91y Disagree__
'Insufficient Information to Rate
. . .rlllll 11111 I1111 11I11 1I111 illlllilll III 7600%
---------!-'..- ---~-'-------I
'1111111 ' 14.00%
I 2.00%
0.00%
illll
8.00%
Total
50
Comments on Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Defense * Extremely knowledgeable, very capable
Interpreter * In my opinion, he is always fair and willing to listen to all parties explanations during
court proceedings.
Prosecution * Superior
Page 1 of 9
ATTACHMENT "A"
EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURT - 2006 JUDICIAL EVALUATION
Question 3: Case and Courtroom Management
3a. The judge complies with recognized guidelines for timely case processing, keeping current with incoming
caseload.
[~!..<?rigl~~iire~-[[iIIlDllliliill III!IIIIII III
~~9!~_~ : 1111111111111
.-. j .. ........--.--..
Disagree il
. St~~1'191}'l:)i~~g~~~__ _ . . ___L
: Insufficient Information to Rate 111111111
, 56.00%
26.00"1.
2.00%
0.00%
16.00%
Total 50
3b. The judge conducts court proceedings punctually; makes rulings and renders decisions promptly.
[~Irojlg-'}'~.9!'!e------ '1IIIIiiliiliillililliiiilliiii-II--i 62.00%
l~g-,,"-~_~ ._______ i111111111111111 _j 30.00%
'Disagree I II 4.00%
! StronglY-Disagree - ------- 11 2.00%
[tnSUfficientil"!f~ri!1~!i<?ijj<?[~~!~-==j""""""""-=-=[[ 200%
Total 50
3c. The judge maintains proper control and a dignified demeanor in the courtroom.
~---------
l~_t!.()l'1gl}'~g~~~ __________
, Agree
[Disagree
: ~t!.()l'1gl}'l:)i~~gr~~_ _ .. .________
: Insufficient Information to Rate
-_-~I-'-""-II-"'-I-"'-'II-"'llIlIlIlIllIi 80.00"/.
!IIIII ' 10.00%
: 11 200"1.
- !
0.00%
____ __1
'1111
8.00%
Total 50
3d. The judge promotes and encourages appropriate settlement negotiations without coercion or threat.
: Strongly Agree
~__._.._..____...,.._______u_._.._.__.__,____._________.____________"
~Agree ____
'Disagree __
Strong~Disa.9.ree ________
I Insufficient Information to Rate
-------------- --------------------TIIII-I--IIII-,IIIIIIIIII--IIII
[ 11111111111111
- ------------------------ -- -- -- ---- -->------------------- ~
I
48.00%
28.00%
2.00%
i 0.00%
111111111111
- ---l 22.00%
___u_ __ _____J
Total
50
Comments on Case and Courtroom Management:
Muni Ct Judge * 3b - Marked both "Agree" and "Disagree." No comments made.
Police * Runs courtroom in a very professional manner.
Prosecution * Excellent and efficient
* At times it is difficult to anticipate what the judge's position is on similar
types of cases or hearings. Attorneys are often surprised when negotiations
are rejected in what appear to be similar cases.
* 3b - Marked "Disagree" and commented,"Jury trials need to be a priority on days they
are scheduled. Otherwise docket runs fine generally."
Staff * Impatient as to his personal needs.
Page 2 of 9
ATTACHMENT "A"
EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURT - 2006 JUDICIAL EVALUATION
Question 4: Equality, Fairness and Integrity
4a. The judge shows courtesy and respect to all participants in court proceedings. The judge shows fairness
and impartiality to all parties in a case and avoids any action that appears to prejudge the outcome of the
case. The judge's actions and decisions show no bias based on race, gender, economic status, or other
factors external to the facts of a case. The judge's overall conduct is free from impropriety or the
appearance of impropriety and promotes public confidence in the court.
l Strongly Ag~~~
i~g~~~~~.
J?J!>_Cl.9 ree _~
~!~C:>Il_gly Disagr~...................................~_
! Insufficient Information to Rate
No Response
111I111111111111111111111111111111111
~ -- - - - ------- ----T--- ^-~.. ----~~---._~
;IIII'.."!I.
I
i.H-
i
73.47%
18,37%
2.04%
0.00"..
-_ni"
1111
6.12%
Total
49
I - Not included in total
4b.
The judge deals effectively and appropriately with non-English speaking defendants, and shows respect.
l~t~C:>1l9IY~~9ree'" '_"~"'~--'--~----:.--ED~~I!I!I.I!I!I.II
!Agree 1111111111
1"-'-" . ... ..... .m_.........n........._.__ i'
!Disagree ... ........ ............................._____L_____
I Strongly Disagree
llnsufflcienflnformation to Rate
I 54.00%
18.00%
0.00%
0.00%
I.
111111111111111
I 28.00%
Total 50
Comments on Equality, Fairness and Integrity:
Defense * Very courteous and fair to parties and their attorneys. I've come to have great respect
for Judge Allen.
* He started Paso a Paso program, bilingual videos - shows special interest in minorities
Interpreter * He always demonstrates integrity and fairness in all his court cases.
Muni Ct Judge * Judge Allen has worked on programs to assist Latino defendants with their interaction with
Eugene Municipal Court. This includes not only in the courtroom, but with the process of
payments. Judge Allen has worked hard to maintain the integrity of the court.
Police * I've observed numerous belligerent persons in front of the judge, exhibiting behavior and
making comments completely inappropriate for the courtroom. The judge begins with each
person in the same manner; professional and courteous but firm. On the occasions where
persons have become aggressive/hostile, the judge has effectively maintained order in the
courtroom without ever losing his own composure.
Prosecution * At times Judge Allen can be what I would describe as sarcastic or rude to some defendants.
I guess I would say that his judicial demeanor is not always what it should be as presiding
judge.
* Great
Staff * Very Strongly Agree. There is no division of color, gender, social or economic standing with
Judge Allen. Judge Allen's approach is always the high road in terms of respect and fairness.
* Puts numerous people down.
* I have heard and seen Judge Allen keep remarkably cool and collected, even in the face of
extremely hostile and irrational people. In cases where some defendants live outside the
margins of society, the courtroom is the one place where they are treated with dignity and
respect.
Page 3 of 9
ATTACHMENT "A"
EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURT - 2006 JUDICIAL EVALUATION
Question 5: Oral and Written Communication
5a. The judge explains court procedures clearly and simply, and listens attentively and actively to all court
participants.
~" -~-----
~~!~~l'1gly~gre_~n
l~gr~~_
PJsa9l"~e
,?J~()_l'1gIYJ~isagr~~m....m.. .......................
! Insufficient Information to Rate
]Iiliriiiilililllllli.lllliiliillliil ! 70.00%
----- "--"~~~--
'1111111111 20.00%
0.00%
0.00%
'11111
10.00%
Total 50
5b. The judge's directions and decisions clearly and unambiguously address the issues; he explains the
decision made and the compliance actions required.
~trongIY~B~~~---m__. . ... n.--=:}liiIIWilllllllllllliii ITII~C-.i 60.00%
!~.9E~~_____ ..___~IIIII~1I1111111 ' 30.00%
'Disagree ! I 2.00%
Str~ii91:Y:i:}I~igree _ __n~I.~=.n .. munmmu; 0.00%
Insufficient Information to Rate ! 1111 8.00%
Total 50
Comments on Oral and Written Communications:
Defense * Judge Allen is a highly competent judge.
Muni Ct Judge * 5a - Marked "Insufficient Information to Rate" and commented "but assume strongly agree"
Staff * Changes his mind often.
Page 4 of 9
ATTACHMENT "A"
EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURT - 2006 JUDICIAL EVALUATION
Question 6: Judicial System Administration and Representation
6a. The judge works effectively with the municipal court administrator, other judges, court staff, court
participants, city council, and other agencies to maintain and enhance court system effectiveness. The
judge participates appropriately and effectively in reviews of court policy and procedure; ensures that
mandated changes in statutes, case law and court procedure are promptly implemented; and participates
effectively and resourcefully in administrative problem resolution. The judge establishes a clear focus for
adminstrative projects and monitors progress appropriately.
l~t~ongly~gre_~
iAgree
~Q:isag~~~~_
iStrongly Disagree
ilnsufficienilnformation to Rate
i 11111111111111111111 . .---... U] 40.00%
.. Tlllllllil-~-- 18.00%
n_ _ ~^ __________u__ t _,____ __~~.________._
I
2.00%
0.00%
11111111111111111111
--------------------1
! 40.00%
Total 50
6b. The judge skillfully identifies and analyzes issues relevant to court system effectiveness, anticipates new
issues and emergent events, and helps implement operational changes to deal with them. The judge is
pro-active and effective spokesperson to the community to build public awareness for municipal court
operations and issues. The judge is responsive to changing needs of the community by establishing
special programs.
--- --------------------
. Str<>'l'lgly Agree ...
IAgree ....
'Disagree
IStrong1yDisagree
[lii~lJffi~i~.!'iT~I<>'!.R1t1ti<>'I'l_!().J:~ate
No Response
illlll 11111 11111 II
1111111111111
34.89%
24.49%
I 2.04%
I
-j
0.00%
38.78%
Total 49
II
- -1-
1
------1
11111111111111111111
, .-. -- --- _._~~._...~-~-------
I - Not included in total
Comments on Judicial Administration and Representation:
Defense * I called to ask about a court-appointed attorney list more than twice or three times and my
call was never returned. My only complaint!
Muni Ct Judge * 6a & 6b - Both marked "Strongly Agree," with comments "disagree as a spokesperson to the
community"
Police * 6a - Marked "Insufficient Information to Rate" and with the comment, "Object to the
compound question."
Prosecution * I do not work closely with Judge Allen on these aspects of court business. I understand from
others that he is a conscientious administrator of the court.
Staff * Judge could participate in more community outreach
* Could do more with community outreach
Page 5 of 9
ATTACHMENT "A"
EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURT - 2006 JUDICIAL EVALUATION
Question 7: Selection and Supervision of Associate and Assistant Judges:
7a. The judge selects well qualified and competent associate and assistant judges. 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.
______ __00_- ___________
~tr()l1gly_A9!~~~
IA9!ee
iQisa9~~~n_
i Str~_rl9Iy_l?i~~gre~
ilnsufficient Information to Rate
111111111111111
----"--- ---------
'111111111111111111111
TII
111--
, 30.61%
, 42.86%
4.08%
4.08%
1111111111
18.37%
No Response
I - Not included in total
Total 49
Answer 7b only if you are a Eugene Municipal Court judge or a member of court staff.
7b. The judge provides appropriate coaching and performance feedback to associate and assistant judges.
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.
___u_______
IStr()l'1sly_A.9ree_
~ Agr~~
'l?i~_Cl_9~~ ","',,__n
l~!!onglyl?i~agree_ ____
i Insufficient Information to Rate
--~- - -- -~-------- - ~~--~---------
No Response
1111111
111111
II
t
'I
. _!~I-
I - Not included in total
: 40.00%
! 33.33%
-...- -----------------------1
6.67%
6.67%
13.33%
Total 15
Comments on Selection and Supervision of Associate and Assistant Judges:
Defense * Overall does a quality job
* Overall - great court
* Very pleased; Judge Allen does a very good job as Municipal Court Judge; He is fair,
courteous and efficient. (He does a better job than a couple of the Circuit Court judges
who shall remain nameless herein)
* Judge Allen is among our court's top assets - a strong and effective leader.
* I'm not informed of Judge Allen's ability to supervise assistant judges. With that being said,
I feel there are no real consistent standards when it comes to one particular judge. On more
than one occasion, this judge has failed to follow the courtroom procedure, and acted as
defense counsel. There have been some real off-the-wall rulings. I don't know if this is a
supervisor issue or just another thing with this judge.
* My comments regarding Judge Allen result from my position as the Presiding Judge for the
Springfield Municipal Court. Judge Allen and I have occasions to discusss common problems
and potential solutions to those problems, as they affect both of our Courts and cities. I also
meet with Judge Allen occasionally at various judicial conferences. I recognize that he has a
great ability to present new and innovative ideas to other judges in the State of Oregon. The
City of Eugene is very lucky to have a capable, honorable, and intelligent judge in Judge Allen.
* Bright, articulate, fair minded, promotes equal access to the courts
Interpreter/Advocate * In my observations during the past four years, I find Judge Allen to be consistently impartial
to all parties, shows excellent communication skills and his overall conduct promotes public
confidence in the court justice system, in my opinion.
Muni Ct Judge * Wayne always makes himself available to make sure the court, judges, decisions and
attitudes are accurate, appropriate, respectful and within the law.
* Judge Allen promotes consistent standards, behavior and approach among the other judges,
however, supervision of some of the judges seem minimal. His selection and supervision show
no bias based on race, gender, or economic status. His loyalty interferes with his supervisory actions.
Page 6 of 9
ATTACHMENT "A"
EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURT - 2006 JUDICIAL EVALUATION
Police * Fine
* Judge Allen is a proven asset - The City should retain him as long as he allows.
* 7a - Marked "Agree" with comments, "Exception, one judge is not competent. Knowledge of
the law, court procedures and judicial discretion/impartiality is lacking.
* For me this has been the one point of concern regarding Judge Allen. One judge that was appointed
made rulings that seemed to be based upon personal feelings and not the facts. Concerns were
raised but minimal changewas observed.
* I have seen improvement with the performance of a particular judge. I believe this improvement was
made by Judge Allen's coaching.
* Respect, consistency, fairness. This sums up Judge Allen!!
Prosecution * Mostly
* They have improved greatly
* Judge Allen has continued to provide strong and effective leadership as presiding judge of the court
* It's a hard job and he does it well.
Staff * The caliber of judges and their training reflects in the way all similar cases are handled in a like and
equitable manner by all judges. The consistency of the court process does not change or deviate
from judge to judge. Again, a reflection of the great training from all judge staff and the input and
discussions held at judge's meetings where supervisory staff provide input and discussion.
demonstrates poor decorum inside and outside the courtroom.
Page 7 of 9
ATTACHMENT "A"
EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURT - 2006 JUDICIAL EVALUATION
Question 8: Overall Comments on Judge Allen's Performance:
Defense * Keep him!
* The City of Eugene is well served to have Judge Allen as its presiding judge. He is fair,
respectful and knowledgeable. If I had one piece of constructive criticism, it would be that he
should consider allowing prosecutors more freedom in doing civil compromises and
non-DUllrrheft/MIP Diversions.
* Court is bursting at the seams with more cases involving added complexity - this trend poses
the highest challenge to the courts.
Muni Ct Judge * Judge Allen fulfills his role as presiding judge very well. Generally, he has good
communications skills. He works very hard to keep Eugene Municipal Court on the cutting
edge. The only major criticism would be with his handling of some judges. It would also help if
if he were at court more days.
Police * On a sale of 1-10, ten being best (8)
* I've always been impressed by Judge Allen's calm demeanor, even with difficult people. He
has been easy to work with and supports the officers even when they are under fire from angry
defendants.
* The need for possible traffic court for adults with good driving record. Chance for them to have
citation dismissed if comply with education program.
Prosecution * 1) Continued access to adequate jail space
2) Progressing toward Municipal Court as a court of record
3) Continued expansion of the kinds of cases filed in court as a result of state and county
budget woes
Staff * I think Judge Allen is very fair to the defendants. A lot of the defendants comment on how
nice all of our judges are here at the court. He has always been nice to me, and is very
professional. In my opinion, he treats everyone equally whether they are a transient or a
school teacher.
* Judge Allen is great to work with. He always maintains a professional appearance and really
cares about community issues.
* It's a pleasure to work with Judge Allen. His knowledge, ideas and respectfulness towards
staff keeps continuity and a feeling of value in the organization.
* It's easy to be somewhat biased when you work with someone with so much respect for the
law and and someone so dedicated to serving the community in a fair and equitable manner.
Judge Allen evokes trust in the system and this is felt and commented on even by defendants.
In my tenure at Municipal Court, Judge Allen has maintained an open door policy and a
willingness to listen to staff and supervisory staff in order to make Eugene Municipal the
leading municipal court in Oregon. His leadership style, for my opinion, is one of quiet
confidence in himself and his judicial and court staff.
* Judge Allen has many strengths and few faults. He has done an admirable job on the bench
and I wish he would stay many more years.
* Judge Allen makes an effort to interact with staff in social settings
* He was an appreciated participant in the filming of the revised Spanish/Paso a Paso video.
Page 8 of 9
ATTACHMENT "A"
EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURT - 2006 JUDICIAL EVALUATION
PART TWO: Your Observations on Major Issues for the Court - Present or Future:
Defense * You must allow attorneys to review court files -- of their own cases and any related cases.
recently was obstructed by court staff from seeing my own client's case file. To my
recollection, no other court in Oregon even tries to restrict attorneys' access to court files
which, by law, are public information.
Police * Unknown
Staff * I think the court is already trying to deal with issues, such as having a Mental Health Court
and changing some crimes to violations. I wonder if there's not a better way to deal with
homeless people instead of charging them with Violation of Park Rules and Criminal Trespass.
I don't have any suggestions, though...
* Lack of building space - jurors and courtroom
* Size and accessibility, and maintaing staff at a level to provide the kind of service the
community deserves and that we as a court staff want to provide. Improvement in all areas
come from a cohesive effort from all parties in order to maintain the rhythm and integrity of the
courtroom.
* 1) Space - Desperately need more courtrooms and jury space
2) Turnover of key adminstrators
3) Need to keep staffing level in perspective with police increases to keep system running
well.
4) New case types as state and county face budget cuts
5) Growing cost of much-needed jail space
Page 9 of 9
.8 .8 .8
<0 .E .f: .E
0 .f: Q) .f:
-- .... Q) c m Q)
r-- c ro Q) c ro
.,- Q) 0::: 'u 0::: Q)
-- 'u '0 0:::
"<t <;:: ~ .8 ~
- ::l
::l rJ) ::l
rJ) .f: rJ)
.f: c
Q)
~
>> Q) >> Q) Ol
ro
C>> ~ C>> Q) rn
'-
C Ol C Ol is
e ro e ro
rJ) rJ) >>
U5 is U5 (5 C>>
c
e
U5
Q) Q) (J)
Q) Q) ~
en '-
Ol Ol
ro co ro
rn rJ) rn
is (5 is
CJ)
:!::
::l
CJ)
(])
0::::
c
0
:;::;
ro
::l
ro
>
UJ
ro Q)
:Q '0
"0
::l 0::
--,
<0 .~
0 (.)
0
N "C
::s
I- ...,
0:::: s::
::)
0 ~
()
......l :c
<( <3:
0..
() "C
s::
Z CU
::) Q)
~ 0)
UJ "C
Z Q)
UJ ~
<.9 0
::) s::
UJ :::.:::
CU
0)
Q)
..J
Q)
Q)
en
<(
(J)
(J)
en
<(
>>
C>>
c
e
U5
*,;f??F.cf!.cf?*-cF.cF.**
0000000000
O)<x)I'-<DIO"<t<,)N~
cf?cf?cf?
000
000
000
cf?cf?
ON
o ..-
ON
(J)
Q)
'-
Ol
<(
~
Ol
c
e
U5
cf? ~ cf? ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0
..- 0 0 0 0 0
(j) 0 0 l.() l.() l.()
N 0 0 (V) N 0
- N
s::
Q)
E
Q)
0)
cu
s::
cu
:E
E
0
0
...
1::
::s
0
()
"C
s::
cu
Q)
II)
cu
()
(J)
~
Ol
<(
(J)
(J)
en
<(
(J)
(J)
en
<(
~
Ol
c
e
U5
~**cf!.,*,*,*?f2-?f!,
000000000
CO,.....C'OLO..qC'0N~
~ ~ ~
0 0 0
(V) (j) N
CD I'- ..- 0
0 (V) 00 ..-
0 CO ..-
N
~ ~
0 0
CO CO
CO N
I'- '<:t
N
~ ~ ~
0 0 0
'<:t (V) l.()
N 00 (j)
l.() 0 N
I'- N
~
'i:
0)
Q)
-
s::
"C
s::
cu
II)
II)
Q)
s::
...
cu
LL.
~
:!::
cu
::s
0"
W
(])
01
ro
0..
N
"-
o
.8 .8 .8
ill .E .E .E
c .s:
0 c
r::: c (j) c (j) (j)
ro ro c
.,.... (j) 0::: (j) 0::: (j) ro
-- "(3 "(3 "(3 0:::
"<t :E ~
::l ::l tE
C/) C/) ::l
.s: .s: C/)
c
(j) (j) (j)
(j)
0, 2! ~
Ol Ol
CO <1l CO
C/) C/) C/)
0 0 0
2::- >, 2::-
Ol 0,
c c Ol
e e c
e
i'i5 i'i5 i'i5
(j) (j) (j)
(j)
0, 2! (j)
Ol 0,
co <1l co
C/) C/) C/)
0 0 0
(j)
(j)
0,
<(
(j)
2!
Ol
<(
>,
0,
c
e
i'i5
::::R ::::R ::::R ::::R ::::R
0 0 0 0 0
a a a a a
(/) CD a a a a a
..... (;) 1.0 1.0 ..... a (j)
"3 (;) co N
(/) N
Q)
0::::
c
0 ::::R ::::R ::::R ::::R ::::R
~
co 0 0 0 0 0
:J ""'" a f'- a (j)
co "'it CD a N a a
> (;) (") 1.0 N a (j)
w (;) co N
co N
"u
i3
:J ::::R ::::R
-;) 0 0
ill a a
0 a a
0 a a
N
f-
0::::
:::)
0
0
-l
<(
a..
0
z
:::)
~
ill
Z
w
<9
:::)
w
(j)
(j)
~
(j)
(j)
0,
<(
>,
0,
c
e
i'i5
'#.<f!.'#-'#.?ft.?f!.cf?'cf2.'Cf?
000000000
COr--<Ol.O'<t(,)N~
c
o
..
tIS
-
C
G>
l/)
G>
l-
e.
G>
IX:
"
C
tIS
C
o
..
tIS
I-
-
.!!!
c
::::R
o
(j)
(")
(j)
(")
::::R
o
a
a
a
""'"
(j)
(j)
0,
<(
(j)
2!
Ol
<(
>,
0,
c
e
i'i5
~ ~ S ~ ~ ~
10 '<t (') N
l/)
G>
C)
"
::l
...,
+-'
C
tIS
-
.!!!
l/)
l/)
<(
"
C
tIS
G>
+-'
tIS
'0
o
l/)
l/)
<(
-
o
c
o
";)
"~
<I>
Q.
::l
CJ)
"
C
tIS
C
o
..
(,)
G>
"i
CJ)
::::R
o
1.0
co
1.0
.....
N
--
o
N
Q)
0)
co
a..
~
o
>-<
~
'"c:l
fa
"'1'"
o
>-<
~
r')
o
>-<
~
>-<N
E-<O
......>-<
~~
E-< 0
U l:i
<C; 55
E-< 'C
~ g,i5
OS;;:;
0........
UUN
~
o
>-<
~
........ \0
"'1'" Or--........
\Or--ON
~...Or.,.-lr.N
........NO\r--
"'1'"
o
>-<
~
r') 0
"'1'"r--~........
00r--r--"'1'"
o ~r-- ~
~O ~O\
........Noor--
r')
o
>-<
~
\0 0\
........"'1'"........\0
Or--"'1'"N
~ r.('"f') r.
~N ~O\
........NO\r--
N
o
>-<
~
"'1'" "'1'"
........ ~ ........ r--
00 N r') \0
o ~r-- ~
~oo ~r--
........ ........ r-- r--
'"c:l'"c:l
Q)Q)'"c:l
tata~
C,)C,)t+=1
SS~
C':l C':l CI)
"'"' "'"' C':l
....... ....... C,)
"'"' "'"'
o 0 [)
'Cij'.S oS
::E::Eo
........ ...... r--
\O~ ~ ~
0\ r-- 0\ 00 O~
........~ N~ \0 0\ ........ ~
r--O\ ........ 0
........r') 0 0\
0\00 ........~"'1'"0\
....: N 0\ ........ N "'1'"~
"'1'"r-- ~ 0\
N\O "'1'" "'1'"
O\~OO~N O~O \0
........ N ........ ........ r') "'1'"~
00 0\ r--
"'1'"0\ ~
OON~"'1'"~N""""
........NNOON"'1'"~
'"c:l
Q)
........
t+=1
CI)
l:i
o
.,-<
.......
C':l
.......
.,-<
C,)
bJ}
l:i
~
~
.......
Q)
CI)
CI)
...-~
Q) ......
CI) "'"'
CI) .......
~ g
'.5 .;:;
I
~S
>-,Z
,-.
l:i
o
.,-<
.......
'00
o
0..
CI) CI)
l:i~
.9 0
....... .......
C,) CI)
.g ~
~'"c:l
Q)4-<
l:i 0
'"c:l t+=1 [)
.~ @ ..0
....... Q) S
'"c:l CI) ",",;::l
.~ ~ ;::l Z
.......C':l t:Q-
CI) C,) CI) ~
~CCl)SQ)
C':l ;::l ........ ...... '"c:l
C,) ''1' a5 ~
>--l:i 0..- C':l
j...," 0 0...9.c
~Z<C;>E-<
::.?
o
........
\0
r--
::.?
o
\0
\0
r--
::.?
o
0\
N
r--
~
"'1:
"'1'"
r--
CI)
l:i
o
.,-<
.......
C,)
Q)
-
(5
U
CI)
;::l
l::
's
o
00
o
N
'--'
CI)
"'"'
;::l
o
~
o
N
0\
........
,-.
Q)
~
Q)
-
........
"'1'"
~
"'1'"~
........
0"':'::
....... C,)
.,-<
....... CI)
~l=
- 0
C':l ......
.~ ~
;::l C,)
Q"'C':l
Q) :>-
P:..1 "'"'
E-<~
~ CI)
........,.E
~o
.~ ~
CI)
!:l
o
~
\0
........
O\~
r--
........
00
00
"'1'"~
........
N
-
C':l
......
C,)
~
;::l
'''-'
-
C':l
.......
o
.......
o
.......
'"c:l
Q)
8
0..
S
o
C,)
,-.
o::l
>
CI)
;::l
l::
's
'"c:l
fa
OJ)
l:i
;.g
8
~
I
l:i
o
l:i
'--'
CI)
Q)
CI)
C':l
C,)
\0
o
o~
\0
........
*
P:..1
E-<
~
Q)
OJ)
'"c:l
;::l
>-,
"'"'
Q)
0..
CI)
Q)
CI)
C':l
U
-
C':l
.......
o
E-<
Q)
.......
o
Z
*
0::
<(
w
>-
..J
<(
(,)
U)
u.
>-
co
z
o
i=
<(
:!E
0::
o
u.
Z
-
Z
o
t:
U)
o
a..
U)
i3
w
U)
<(
(,)
i--
-"C
.?;oQ)
:: III
:;, .!!!
C) E
- III
0.-
zC
s::
o
+::;
.~
In
is
Q)
In
CU
o
(,)
is
t!
l-
I.
o
s::
:i
In
s::
o
+::;
'in
o
In
is
CI)
In
CU
o
(,)
is
CU
I.
l-
I.
o
CU
:i
::.,.O>'<tNC'i)...-...-I'-I'-CO'<t<O<O
....- 0> 0> 0> C'i) 0> <0 "I 1.0 "I I'- "I I'-
:os 0_ <0_ '<t_ 0_ CO_ C'i)_ 1.0_ CO_ 1'-_ ...-_ 1'-_ "'-
C)OI'-'<tO>COI.OI'-OI.OO>O>I'-
N-c-..:-.,....~.,.-.,....C'\I.,.-.,.-.,.-.,.-
NOI'-OCONN<OCO'<t<01.O
CO 0> 0>"1 CO C'i) 1.0 '<t CO 0> 1'-0>
COI.OC'i)I.ON<O'<tN<O...-C'i)N
NNN...--N"":NriNririri
...
~~~~~[::::~~~&n;~gj~
<5 N_I.O_C'i)_CO_I.O_'<t_C'i)_C'i)_I'-_I.O_"'-1'-
>>"10><00>0<00> C'i) 1'-...-"10>
III "1...-...-...-"1...-...-"1...-"1 "1...-
i;j
.;: 1.0 0> ...- C'i) "I CO '<t '<t '<t <0 0 I'-
1-...-C'i)C'i)...-o<oo>l'-l.OC'i)COCO
>>I'-I'-I.OI'-<OI.OI.OI'-<OCOCOI'-
III
1Il"C
5l$
ea :-g
(.) .-
S E
::.~
...-'<t 0> C'i) 0>C'i)0>C'i) <0 CO "1...-
CO CO CO 1.0 1'-0> 1'-0...-<001'-
0> "I CO 1.O...-0>0>...-'<tC'i)...-1.O
NcicDci"":cDo>..,fooNrici
"1"1"'-"1"1"'-"'-"1"'-"1"1"1
'OtanCO.....CO<>>O....NM'Otan
<>><>>0)<>><>>0)000000
>>>>>>>>>>>>
u..u..u..u..u..u..u..u..u..u..u..u..
irlo 0<0...-"1 <0 '<t CO...-...-O<O
.- <0 C'i) 0 '<t 1.0 C'i) I'- 0 CO I'- I'- 0>
c5NNNNNC'i)C'i)1.01.01.01.01.O
-
-"C
.?;oQ)
:: III
:;, .!!!
C) E
- III
0.-
zC
'<t'<t'<t...-O><O<O'<tI.O'<t'<tCO
<OC'i)O>O>I'-CO C'i)0 1.01.0 0> CO
C'i)N...-...-NN'<t'<t'<tI.O'<t1.O
...
Q)
:5o>...-<o'<t
00> '<t CO...-
1.O'<tC'i)'<t
>>
III
1.01'-C'i)'<t~~gf2
u:; ~ ~ ~ 0_...-_0_...-_
.,.- .,.- .,.- .,.-
i;j
~~~~~~~~~~~'<t~
>>
III
1Il"C
Q) Q)
1Il-
ea :-g
(.) .-
- E
J! Q)
~1-
'<t'<tON"'-NON~~cg~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 0; 0_...-_0_...-_
.,.- .,- .,.- or-
'OtanCO.....CO<>>O....NM'Otan
<>><>><>><>><>><>>000000
>>>>>>>>>>>>
u..u..u..u..u..u..u..u..u..u..u..u..
CJ)
Z
o
i=
C;;
o
D..
CJ)
C
w
CJ)
<(
o
o
u::
u.
Ci
I-
0:::
o
:l
:i
c:
o
"0
Ql
1il
c
"~
Ql
l-
I/)
Ql
I/)
'"
()
?;
"S
(9
"0
Ql
I/)
I/)
"E
I/)
i:5
.-
:!::
U)
o
c.
U)
.-
C
Q)
U)
ns
(.)
(.)
is
ns
I..
l-
I..
o
c:
.-
:E
0000000
000000
000000
cillicillicilli
C'i)NN"'-"'-
"0
$
III
C
"~
~
I/)
5:!2~~
ro~00?;
'0 ~ > (5 "5
l-alalZ(9
111000.
"0
Ql
I/)
I/)
"E
I/)
is
o 000 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0
-.;t_"'!.~tOC!)-.;tN
.60
1'V"
9;
1'V"
00
1'V"
<96'
1'V"
.96'
1'V"
.66'
1'V"
90A.::I
170A.::I
~OA.::I
ZOA.::I
~OA.::I
OOA.::I
66A.::I
96A.::I
L6A.::I
96A.::I
96A.::I
176A.::I
D::
<(
w
>-
..J
<(
o
(/)
u.
>-
m
z
o
i=
<(
:E
D::
o
u.
Z
Z
o
i=
(j)
o
a.
(/)
2i
w
(/)
<(
o
~~~gO:;(")'o:tCONO>T"""'o:tO
'S 'o:t LO co co 0 0> (") I'- CO T""" N 0
(!) ~T"""-~~O> I'- CO CO 'o:t 'o:t 'o:t 'o:t
~
-"0
~CIl
:=1Il N(,,)
:J.!!.!CO I'-CO(,,)~O:;LOT"""'o:tT"""
(!)ECO;:;:COI'-NNT"""T"""NT"""T"""
'O.!!.!
zC
c
o
::::;
'ii)
o
(I)
C
Q)
(I)
<<I
o
iU
.5
c
<C
I---
-"0
~CIl
:= III
:J .!!.!
(!) E
- III
0,-
zC
c
o
::::;
'ii)
o
(I)
C
Q)
(I)
<<I
o
Q)
(.)
C
<<I
C
'E
o
...
i!o> T""" LOCO
_I'-COO>O>~
o 'o:t_LO_CO_CO_m
~~ ~ ~ ~
co
CON LOCO(")(")(")
:eo_~~;~~
T"""
ii
';:
....u;
>-
co
OCONO>T"""O>COCOO>LOCO
I'-COCON(")(")(")T"""T"""T"""N
III "0
3:s0T"""(")co 0
<<I~(,,)(,,)COLOooI'-CO~'o:tNCOT"""
~.~ ~~-~~O> oo:3co ~ ~ ~;
o CIl
........
'o:t1t)<D....CIOO)O....NM'o:t1t)
0)0)0)0)0)0)000000
>->->->->->->->->->->->-
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
~NLOCONONOLO'o:t'o:tLOO>
-COCOT"""O>LOT"""O>(,,)N'o:tI'-LO
'S (") T""" (") co co co (") co LO 0> (") 0>
(!) <<i <<i 'o:t- <<i Lri Lri <s::i <<i 'o:t- 'o:t- Lri <<i
T"""I'-OI'-COLOO>OCON'o:tCO
COO'o:tLO(")T"""O>CO(")'o:t'o:tCO
O>LOT"""COCOO>(")T"""I'-NCOCO
~NMNLriM<<i<<iNMMM
...
i!'o:tcoO>l'-oo'o:t(")(")NT"""I'-CO
-I'-NO>ONN;gT"""I'-O>COCO
OT"""LON'o:t _(") _cooO>O>co
>-<s::i<s::i"":"":;:o>~cO"":"":cOcO
co
ii
.;: 0> co 0> N LO (") co NOLO N T"""
....CO'o:tLO'o:tOO'o:tOO>O>(")CO
>-T"""T"""T"""T"""NNNNT"""T"""NT"""
co
l(l"O
illS
III ~
(,) ,-
- E
J!! CIl
~....
(,,)NCOO>~I'-~LONCOO>I'-
~ ~ ~;g 'o:t_~ 1'-.00 ~ ~ N ~
<s::i <s::i 1'-. 1'--;: 0> ~ cO ,...: cO 0> cO
~~~:;;~~g~Sg~:g
>->->->->->->->->->->->-
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
"0
~
~
is
(ij 41 ?i'
~ 5 ~ ~
>- >. 0 .5
Q) Q) Z C)
C C C .
c
o
..
'ii)
o
Q.
(I)
C
C)
.!:
i.i:
Q)
(I)
<<I
o
<<I
E
c:
<C
000 0 0 0
00000
~OLO.O.LO
N N
"0
m
~
~
~
is
c:
o
..
III
E
...
.e
.5
c:
o
..
'ii)
o
Q.
III
C
Q)
(I)
<<I
(,)
Q)
(.)
c:
III
C
"0
...
o
10 ~ ~
t= 0 ~ ~
:>. >. 0 '5
lD aJ Z C)
C C C .
000 0 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0
00.00000.
..tNocxic6..tN
..- ..- ..-
->'0
'1'->-
.60
'1'->-
6'0
'1'->-
~
'1'->-
LO
'1'->-
00
'1'->-
ee
'1'->-
<ge
'1'->-
<e
'1'->-
.ge
'1'->-
->'e
'1'->-
.6e
'1'->-
->'0
'1'->-
.60
'1'->-
6'0
'1'->-
~
'1'->-
LO
'1'->-
00
'1'->-
ee
'1'->-
<ge
'1'->-
<e
'1'->-
.ge
'1'->-
->'e
'1'->-
.6e
'1'->-
City of Eugene Municipal Court
User Satisfaction Survey
Please check the appropriate box
1. What type of citation did you receive?
o Parking 0 Traffic
o Animal/Other
2. How did the staff at the Eugene Municipal Court treat you?
o Very Professionally 0 Professionally 0 Unprofessionally 0 Very Unprofessionally
3. Was the Eugene Municipal Court staff willing to take time to help you?
o Very Willing 0 Willing 0 Unwilling 0 Very Unwilling
4. Was the information you received from the Eugene Municipal Court staff useful?
o Very Useful 0 Useful 0 Not Useful 0 Incorrect or Wrong
5. What other information would have been useful?
6. How easy was it for you to find Eugene Municipal Court?
o Very Easy 0 Easy 0 Difficult
o Very Difficult
7. Once you arrived Eugene Municipal Court, how easy was it for you to find where you needed to go?
o Very Easy 0 Easy 0 Difficult 0 Very Difficult
8. How safe did you feel when in Eugene Municipal Court's lobby/waiting area?
o Very Safe 0 Safe 0 Unsafe 0 Very Unsafe
9. Were you aware of the following:
o Court web site 0 Violations Bureau 0 VISA or MasterCard payments over the phone
www.ci.eugene.or.us/municourtldefault.htm
Did you appear before a Judge?
DYes
D No
If YES, please answer the following questions.
If NO, please skip to question 14.
10. Were you able to hear what was being said in the courtroom?
D Y~ D No
11. Were you able to understand what was being said in the courtroom?
DYes D No
12. Were you able to see what was going on in the courtroom?
DYes D No
13. How safe did you feel when in Eugene Municipal Court's courtrooms?
o Very Safe 0 Safe 0 Unsafe
o Very Unsafe
14. Please provide any specific suggestions to improve service at the Eugene Municipal Court.
Please Return Your Survey in the Enclosed Business Reply Envelope by November 30,2004
(f)
I-
...J
::>
(f)
w
c:::
>-
w
~
::>
(f)
z
o
i=
()
<(
LL.
(f)
i=
<(
(f)
c:::
w
:E
o
I-
(f)
::>
()
'l:t
o
o
N
-
C)
o
M
o
o
N
-
C)
o
N
o
o
N
-
C)
o
T'"
o
o
N
>
o
z
T'"
o
o
N
C
='
...,
o
o
o
N
>
o
z
o
o
o
N
C
='
...,
Q)
Q)
Q)
T'"
>
o
z
Q)
Q)
Q)
T'"
en
='
<(
Q)
Q)
Q)
T'"
I-
C'G
:E
~~~
0<D'O:t
"""......"""
::!!.~~
o NO
enOC),,""
~~::!!.
""" M 0
,,""OC)<D
~~~
'O:t0C)'O:t
,,""I()M
::!!.~~
o 0 <D
I()OC),,""
~~~
enM,,""
"""......"""
~~~
MNI()
"""......"""
~~~
MenOC)
"""<D"""
('.
(1)
>
Ii ';/!.e;e.~
C)'O:tN'O:t
(1)"""......"""
I-
='
o
>.
'0
'0
C
o
+::
~
C)
-
o
(1)
c.
~
~~~
M,,""<D
"""......"""
-
C'G
.cg'()ClS
~~iEE
:u E 'c
T"'c..I-<C
~~::!!.::!!.
'O:t """ 0 0
M<DMN
~~::!!.::!!.
'O:t 'O:t 0 0
N<D'O:tN
~~~~
~m<DO
~~::!!.::!!.
...... <D 0 0
NI()......<D
~~::!!.::!!.
...... 0 0 0
N<DOC)I()
~~::!!.::!!.
,,""OC)O 0
MI()MM
('.
='
o
>.
-
C'G
(1)
I-
-
~~::!!.::!!.
<D0c)0 0
N<D'O:tN
~~::!!.::!!.
OM 0 0
M<D'O:tM
==
C'G
-
t/)
~
='
o
()
~~::!!.::!!.
NOo 0
M<DI()M
...
Q)
.c
+'
o
C'G
C.
.~
C
='
:E
(1)
c
(1)
en
=' ~
W~ ClS
(1) c:
..c ~ ~ .2
- .2 >. iO I/)
'OI/)=C:~
'^ ClS 0_
'0 VI c: .- 0
.! 0 I/) ...
>o.-!!/c.
:> ... I/) .... c:
oc..I/)O~
:c~.! Q.~
Q) e c: Q)
N>c..=>>
~~::!!.::!!.
<DenO 0
MI()'O:t"""
~~::!!.::!!.
<D0c)0 0
MI()'O:tN
~~~~
~~M,,""
~~::!!.::!!.
""" N 0 0
M<D<D"""
~~~::!!.
0...... 'O:t 0
NI(),,""<D
~~~::!!.
enOC)oO
NI(),,""M
('.
='
o
>.
c.
(1)
..c
o
-
(1)
E
+::
~~~::!!.::!!.
=~~~~
~~::!!.~
<D en ~... "'^
M 'O:t .., .-,
(1)
..lII::
C'G
-
o
-
en~~::!!.::..:::oo
CON 0
::M<D'O:t'O:t
.~
==
S
t/)
-~~::!!.~
:;~~~"""
o
()
C'G
.9-
C)
C
='
:E
(1)
C
(1)
en
:J
W
(1) g'
:5g' ==
t/) 0) '3:
_._ c:_
:> :it g'== 5
> ~=='3: ~
Q) .- c: Q)
M>3:=>>
~~::!!.::!!.
OC)MO 0
MI()......N
~~~::!!.
<D ...... 'O:t 0
NI(),,""M
~~::!!.::!!.
...... 'O:t 0 0
,,""<Den,,""
~~~::!!.
M<DOO
N<D,,"""""
~~~::!!.
~~~&>
('.
:J
-
(1)
t/)
:J
==
C'G
-
t/)
~
:J
o
()
~
C'GI()
c.N
C)
C
:J
:E
(1)~~~~
cenenoN
(1)NI(),,""
en
:J
w
(1)
..c
-
~~~::!!.
...... """ M 0
,,""<D,,""M
~::!!.::!!.
I() 0 0
1()000N
~~~::!!.
~NM,,""~
S;;;N<D,,""
o
I-
-
'0
(1)
.2:
(1)~~~::!!.
C)l()enNO
(1)NI(),,""'O:t
I-
:J
o
>.
-
C'G
..c
-
~~~~
~~~N
c
o
+::
C'G
E
I-
o
-
C
(1)
..c ...
-.2 ~o
"'m ';'0
~=>-I/)f
> ~.; ~ 0
. Q) I/) 0 g
'l:t>=>z
0)
c:
o
...
:it
2004 216 Total Responses 11%
1. Parking 30 14%
Traffic 170 79%
Animal/Other 21 10%
2. Very Professionally 68 32%
Professionally 124 58%
Unprofessionally 6 3%
Very Unprofessionally 4 2%
3. Very Willing 70 33%
Willing 115 54%
Unwilling 8 4%
Very Unwilling 4 2%
4. Very Useful 51 24%
Useful 116 54%
Not Useful 28 13%
Incorrect or wrong 5 2%
#5 Comment 0 0%
6. Very Easy 59 28%
Easy 101 47%
Difficult 33 15%
Very Difficult 2 1%
7. Very Easy 53 25%
Easy 113 53%
Difficult 27 13%
Very Difficult 1 0%
8. Very Safe 75 35%
Safe 108 50%
Unsafe 8 4%
Very Unsafe 3 1%
9. Court Web Site 10 5%
Violations Bureau 24 11%
VISA or MasterCard phone 20 9%
10 Yes 104 49%
No 4 2%
11 Yes 98 46%
No 7 3%
12 Yes 103 48%
No 2 1%
13 Very Safe 41 19%
Safe 60 28%
Unsafe 2 1%
Very Unsafe 1 0%