Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Mid-Point Evaluation for Judge Allen ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Mid-Point Evaluation for Judge Allen Meeting Date: September 24, 2008 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Kristie Hammitt www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5019 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session provides an opportunity for the council to hold a discussion with Presiding Municipal Judge Wayne Allen on the findings of the 2008 mid-point judicial evaluation, and other topics relevant to judicial performance. BACKGROUND Presiding Judge Wayne Allen was appointed by the council in 1994. Judge Allen’s last formal evaluation was conducted in 2006 and he was reappointed to another four-year term. He is currently in the second year of his four-year contract period. 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 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 court, Eugene Charter and Eugene City Code. The judges are part-time independent contractors, not employees of the City. The Presiding Judge is appointed by the City Council. Eugene Code Sections 2.011 (2) outlines the four-year evaluation process. The two-year (mid-point) is an informal evaluation that includes a completed self-appraisal and collection of evaluation input from members of the Eugene Police Department, City Prosecutor’s Office, defense counsel, and court staff. The survey information was completed in June 2008. Evaluation input collected indicates those surveyed strongly agree or agree that Judge Allen continues to meet the performance standards in the six categories assessed. A summary of the evaluation results is included in the attached memo (Attachment B). COUNCIL OPTIONS No action is required. Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080924\S080924B.doc CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. SUGGESTED MOTION No motion required. ATTACHMENTS A. Judge Allen’s Self Appraisal B. 2008 Mid-Point Evaluation Summary FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kristie Hammitt Telephone: 682-5019 Staff E-Mail: kristie.a.hammitt@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080924\S080924B.doc ATTACHMENT A CITY OF EUGENE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW Municipal Judge Self-Evaluation Name of Judge: Wayne E. Allen Date: September 15, 2008 Number of Years on Bench: 37 Date Appointed: 1971 Number of years as Licensed Attorney: 40 Additional professional background information: I began my legal practice in 1968, working for a business law firm. I next worked as a prosecutor for the City of Eugene for two years, and then as a criminal defense lawyer for over twenty years. I also maintained a general civil practice which emphasized the areas of business, dissolution, estate planning and probate. I ceased to practice law four and half years ago in order to devote more time to the court. I first served as a pro tem Municipal Court Judge in 1971. My involvement gradually increased and I became the Assistant Judge when Pierre Van Rysselberghe was appointed to the Circuit Court Bench in 1983. I was appointed Acting Presiding Judge in June of 1993. I have been the appointed Presiding Judge since February of 1994. I have attended many continuing legal education courses and meetings, a forty hour mediation course, and continue to review all applicable legislation and cases which have relevance to Municipal Court proceedings. I am a past member of numerous local and State Bar Committees. I am a member of the Bar of the State of Oregon, the U.S. District Court, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Section I: Legal Ability It is, of course, very important that the judge’s legal abilities be developed and maintained. I have more than three decades of experience as a civil and criminal trial lawyer. The litigants who appear in this court should be confident that the judge understands the law and that his or her decisions are based upon a correct reading of the law and a correct perception of the facts. A judge must be able to apply the facts of a particular case to the appropriate rules of the law. Those rules are often subject to change by the City Council, the legislature or the Appellate Court process. A judge must be current and knowledgeable regarding any changes which may have been made to the law. As Presiding Judge, it is also my responsibility to be sure that the other judges are alerted to those changes and to rulings of their fellow judges in the Municipal Court so that we can act on a consistent basis. 2008 JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW-1 In the event of a challenge to the constitutionality of a particular ordinance, it is my expectation that the judge who is ruling on the issue be fully knowledgeable and informed before the ruling is made. I am available to discuss those or other rulings with the other judges. Section II: Integrity As our community becomes more diverse, the challenge of making each litigant feel that they received equal treatment by the court, regardless of their race, gender, or economic status, becomes increasingly more important, and probably more difficult. Above all else, the people who appear in this court must feel that they were treated with a sense of fairness and impartiality. There can be no appearance of impropriety, or that a case or defendant has been pre-judged, or treated differently than a similarly situated defendant. The “Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System” confirmed what I have long known; that is, that there is not always equal treatment in our court system. I have done and will continue to do anything within my ability to eliminate any perception of that being true in this court. This is truly a “people’s court.” By that I mean that the majority of citizens who have contact with a court system have that contact in this court or one like it. Most people do not appear in the higher trial courts. Their perception of how our system works is based upon their appearance in courts such as Eugene Municipal Court. I am proud of our legal system and the way in which this court demonstrates the basis fairness of that system. On behalf of the City, I employ five other judges. I have stressed to each of them, individually and collectively, that our decisions need to be consistent. That is, a person should receive approximately the same sentence or fine from each of the judges, within reasonable limits. To that end, I have prepared suggested schedules of fines and sentences for the various offenses which come before this court. Divergent sentences affect the integrity of the court. We have regular judges meetings so that we can discuss the issue of consistency and fairness. Section III: Communication Skills Communication skills are important for the following reasons: First, people are often intimidated or upset while they are in court. Accordingly, their ability to listen and recall is often limited. The judge must take the time to explain in clear and logical ways the decision, the basis for that decision, and the sentence which has been imposed. Secondly, many terms in the legal system have no meaning to the normal citizen. Alternate phrases should be used or the terms fully explained. To that end, I have prepared a video tape which advises defendants of their constitutional rights. I did so to make the advice more clear to each person to be sure that everyone is consistently advised of the same thing. The tape has been reviewed and updated regularly. We also have translated all our forms into Spanish and have prepared a Spanish informational video which is designed to communicate clearly with our citizens. All of our signs are bi-lingual. The last thing we want is a person who does not understand their rights or options 2008 JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW-2 or who is confused. The goal of this court is to be sure that each person leaves the court having understood what their rights were, what happened, and the basis for the judge’s decisions. Another part of the communication issue is the ability of the judge to listen carefully so that everybody is able to be heard completely and accurately. Many times I have appeared as a litigant in other courts and been disappointed in the court’s failure to listen carefully and completely to a person’s testimony or statement. Long ago I vowed that would not be the case in this court. Section IV: Judicial Temperament & Conduct Each person who appears before the court should be treated with respect and courtesy. I try to insure that I am courteous and respectful to all. I want the perception of the court to be a good one. Many time there are circumstances and statements to which one could react. It is often difficult not to do so, but I try hard to refrain from reacting. One the other hand, the court has to control the proceedings and a firm but fair hand is occasionally necessary. The court expects the litigants and attorneys to be punctual. They have the right to expect the same. Therefore, we make every effort to begin our proceedings on time. The parties also have the right to a prompt decision. Hopefully the decision can be made at the time the parties are before the court. I try to avoid taking matters under advisement unless necessary. It is occasionally necessary to do so when the legal issues are complex and reflection and research must be given to them. In those circumstances, I try to rule on the case immediately, while the issues are fresh in my mind and so that the litigants can have a prompt decision. I know from my experience as a private attorney that it is frustrating for litigants to go to court and not learn of the court’s decision for weeks after that appearance. I encourage all of the assistant judges to also rule promptly. I feel that the court should be dignified but I also feel that it should be approachable. People should not be so intimidated that they cannot fully present their case or understand the court’s ruling. Therefore, I try to maintain a balance between being approachable and fulfilling the role of the judge who is in control of the courtroom. Section V: Administrative My role in the administration of the Court has increased significantly in the last few years. I now attend Management Team meetings and other Management Team functions on a regular basis. Either myself or the other Judges are involved in many of the processes of the Court such as the evaluation of the Court appointed Attorneys, the Prosecutor’s Office, the jury system, etc. I have greatly enjoyed the increased administrative role and believe that it is appropriate that it should continue. I strive to have a good relationship with the judges whom I supervise, the staff, the agencies who interact with the court, and the attorneys who appear before the court. I have had a large agenda of projects. Many of those projects have been completed. I have reviewed most policies and 2008 JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW-3 procedures of the court and have revamped and improved those which needed work. Most of those projects have dealt with doing a better job of incorporating the diversity in our community and in improving an understanding of the court and its processes. I associate change with improvement and I find the best part of this job to be in suggesting or participating in improvements to the court. Throughout my tenure, the court has implemented diversion/education programs. The Court has implemented diversion-education programs for first time offenders who are charged with theft related offenses, minors charged with alcohol related offenses, and those charged with possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. These programs require defendant to enter a guilty plea but no sentence is imposed. Rather, there is a period of time during which the defendant must attend classes, pay a diversion fee, and refrain from similar activity. The theft related diversion also requires an attendance by the defendant at the court arraignment session in the Lane County Jail. In the event the defendant successfully completes the diversion program, the case is dismissed. The court also has an optional class for young driver improvement, and a mandatory class requirement for High Risk Drivers and for those minors who have multiple alcohol related offenses. We have also scheduled a specific court session for Spanish speaking citizens, Paso a Paso, at which we have interpreters and advocates for our Spanish speaking citizens. Each of these programs recognizes the expanding role of the court and the need for the court to be involved in education of the citizens of the community. Hopefully the educational portion of the program can be of significant benefit to both the defendant and the community. Unfortunately, the court does not have the ability to continue to implement diversion programs. I have a number of programs in mind that I would like to see explored and perhaps developed, but the court is at a point where it must grow in order for that to be a reasonable expectation. Section VI: Settlement Activities The settlement of cases is important. We would be clogged with cases in the event they could not be settled. We are fortunate to have prosecutors and defense counsel who can usually agree upon an appropriate disposition of the cases. We have implemented many specific court sessions to try to resolve cases which are traditionally resolved on the eve of trial. To settle those cases has allowed us to maintain our trial delay within reasonable limits. The special court sessions have proven to an effective aid in settling cases and keeping our docket current. Despite the increased volume of difficult cases which have come to the court by reason of the County’s financial difficulties, we have a current docket through extraordinary efforts by the Prosecutor and Defense Counsels offices. I should make clear however, that I do not always approve every proposed plea bargain. I believe one of my functions is to assure that individuals who are in approximately the same situation should receive approximately the same sentence from the court. There are always extenuating circumstances which must be taken into consideration, and rarely is one case a mirror image of another. If a plea bargain is proposed which is unduly harsh or lenient, when compared with similarly situated cases, I will not approve it. It does not promote confidence or respect for our court system for litigants to learn that others were treated differently. I have provided the Public Defender’s Office for the City and the City Prosecutor’s Office with suggested sentencing 2008 JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW-4 guidelines for specific cases. I have done so in order that they might know what sentences are imposed when they are not present so that plea bargains will be accepted. Section VII: Availability to City Council and Previous Evaluations I am employed by the City Council. I believe it is important that the Council be aware of the Court’s functions and its importance to the community. I do not appear regularly before the Council and it is my suggestion that that process be changed. The Council should receive regular verbal reports from the Presiding Judge. At present, the judicial system is in the state of flux and it is important for the Council to be informed of the court’s current developments and needs. Throughout the course of my employment as the Presiding Judge, I have been evaluated many times. Copies of those evaluations are available through the Court Administrator, Kristie Hammitt. While the evaluation of judges does not occur in any other jurisdictions in Oregon, I welcome the evaluations and feel it is important that they continue. Section VIII: Overall Evaluation I continue to enjoy my position as Presiding Judge. I believe we have excellent staff, administration, and Assistant Judges. In my view, this the most important local Court to the citizens of Eugene and it is the one in which people will most likely have contact and it is the one that is continually asked to deal with behavioral issues that effect the quality of life in our City.I hope the Court will be able to continue to improve in significant and important ways. However, it is clearly at a crossroads. We need additional space and staff. We also need the ability to impose meaningful sanctions in those cases where such sanctions are appropriate. Immediate and Future Issues for Municipal Court Municipal Court is facing a challenging period. The caseload at the court has been slowly shifting over the few years and is experiencing an increase in the number of misdemeanor and ordinance cases and reduction in minor traffic case filings. Misdemeanor and ordinance cases generate a significant workload for the court and put additional strain on an already taxed jail system. As Presiding Judge at Municipal Court I am prepared to support efforts to reduce criminal activity in this community by processing cases in a fair and timely manner, holding offenders accountable to complete sanctions, and providing alternative sanctions when appropriate. Municipal Court plays a key role in addressing the City Council’s public safety goals. The following is a list of critical elements that must be addressed in the near future for the court to efficiently and effectively adjudicate cases: Jail Space 1. – Reductions at the Lane County Jail have significantly impacted Municipal Court sentencing practices. The number of inmates being matrixed has doubled since January, 2008. 2008 JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW-5 Increased Court Space 2. – Limited court space is impacting court efficiency. Areas of primary concern are inadequate courtroom space. The court needs a minimum of three courtrooms. Adequate space for defense attorneys to meet with clients. Improved juror assembly and meeting space. Coordination with Criminal Justice Partners 3. – Increased communication and coordination with criminal justice partners to address community concerns. Work together to find creative solutions to reduce criminal activity in light of budget constraints. Use Technology to Improve Efficiency in Case Processing 4. – Work with court staff to find appropriate technology solutions to streamline case processing. 2008 JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW-6 Central Services Municipal Court City of Eugene 777 Pearl Street, Room 104 Eugene Oregon 97401 (541)682-5400 (541)682-5417 FAX (541)682-5058 TTY M E M O R A N D U M www.eugene-or.gov Date: September 15, 2008 To: Mayor Piercy and City Council From: Kristie Hammitt, Court Administrator, 682-5019 Subject: Summary of Mid-Point Evaluation Input for Presiding Judge Wayne Allen The Eugene City Code, Section 2.011 (2) sets forth a specific process for the Council to review the performance of the Municipal Court Presiding Judge. The Eugene City Code requires a limited survey to solicit feedback regarding the Presiding Judge’s performance at the mid-point of his 4-year contract term. A total of 100 surveys were distributed in May to the City Prosecutor’s Office, the attorneys who provide defense counsel, the Eugene Police Department and to court staff. Fifty-two surveys were returned. All survey responses are anonymous to promote openness. The survey asked for ratings and comments in six areas: Legal Ability, Integrity, Communication Skill, Judicial Temperament and Conduct, Administrative Ability, and Settlement Activities. The evaluation form also asked for comments on Judge Allen’s overall judicial performance. The feedback was very positive for the most part, as the following information indicates. Agreed or Insufficient Strongly Disagreed Information to Evaluation Category Agreed Rate Legal Ability 49 1 2 Integrity 48 3 1 Communication Skill 48 1 3 Judicial Temperament & Conduct 50 1 1 Administrative 30 1 15 Settlement Activities 31 0 18 *Six people did not rate the Administrative Section and three people did not rate the Settlement Activities section. Some comments regarding overall performance provide additional insight. Judge Allen “is fair, impartial and knowledgeable. He is open to discussion both from staff and defendants.” “I appreciate Judge Allen’s judicial temperament. His balance of compassion and duty to hold offenders responsible for their actions is admirable.” Judge Allen is “fair and unbiased. I enjoy appearing in front of him.” “I believe that Judge Allen is a professional and fair judge.” A police officer commented “He is fair, but also holds people, including officers, accountable for their actions and mistakes.” Judge Allen’s “demeanor is appropriate, commands respect and gives it in the courtroom.” “Judge Allen remains a strong asset to the court with his leadership and temperament.” If you have questions or need more information about the evaluation input please contact me at 682-5019 or via email at kristie.a.hammitt@ci.eugene.or.us.