Revision: Jan. 6, 2012, midnight
HB 344-FN – AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE
4Jan2012… 2713h
2011 SESSION
09/04
HOUSE BILL 344-FN
AN ACT relative to judicial performance evaluations.
SPONSORS: Rep. Rowe, Hills 6; Rep. Mirski, Graf 10; Rep. Itse, Rock 9
This bill changes certain procedures for judicial performance evaluations.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
4Jan2012… 2713h
11-0100
09/04
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT relative to judicial performance evaluations.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Judicial Performance Evaluations. Amend RSA 490:32 to read as follows:
490:32 Judicial Performance Evaluations.
I. The chief justice and a majority of the supreme court, in consultation with the administrative judges of the superior[, district] and [probate] circuit courts and other nonjudicial branch officers as established by court rule, shall design and implement by court rule, a program for performance evaluation of judges. The sole purpose of this program shall be the improvement of the performance of individual judges and of the judiciary as a whole. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all information compiled through this program shall be confidential, except as otherwise provided in this section.
II. The program for performance evaluation shall be as inclusive as practicable and shall include, but shall not be limited to, a questionnaire, to be designed by the supreme court, and a self-evaluation form to be completed by the judge. The supreme court shall strive to achieve uniformity among court evaluation questionnaires, recognizing that the questionnaires for each court may differ due to the jurisdiction of the courts. Questionnaires shall be [distributed] available to [a representative sample of] attorneys, parties, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, and others who have appeared before a judge during the evaluation period, for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the judge. The questionnaire shall include, but shall not be limited to, questions relative to the judge’s performance, temperament and demeanor, judicial management skills, legal knowledge, attentiveness, bias and objectivity, and degree of preparedness. Completed forms shall be returned to the administrative judge, unsigned, within 30 days of issuance. All responses shall remain confidential.
III. The program for performance evaluation shall ensure that each judge is evaluated a minimum of once every 3 years. If a judge fails to achieve an overall satisfactory judicial evaluation, a follow-up evaluation shall be conducted in 18 months.
IV. The chief justice of the supreme court shall evaluate the administrative judges of the superior[, district] and [probate] circuit courts.
V.(a) The chief justice and a majority of the supreme court, in consultation with the administrative judges of the superior[, district] and [probate] circuit courts, shall establish judicial evaluation standards, and shall design or determine appropriate programs for judges who need improvement in achieving the judicial evaluation standards. The supreme court shall establish disciplinary rules and may initiate disciplinary action when appropriate. If a judge fails to achieve an overall satisfactory judicial evaluation [standards after] in the second of 2 consecutive evaluations, or purposely fails to complete assigned programs, the judge’s right to confidentiality shall be waived.
(b) Upon consideration of nomination for another judicial appointment, a judge’s evaluations shall be made available to the governor upon request. Upon nomination, such evaluations shall be made available to the executive council upon request. The contents of such evaluations shall be kept in strict confidence by the governor and executive council except as otherwise provided in this section.
(c) Judicial performance evaluations shall be retained by the judicial branch for the duration of the judge’s tenure.
VI. The supreme court shall prepare a report on the implementation of the performance evaluation program described in this section within one year of the effective date of this section and submit such report to the governor, the speaker of the house, the president of the senate, and the chairpersons of the house and senate judiciary committees. Such report shall be made available to the public. [Beginning in 2001,] The supreme court shall annually file a report on the evaluation process, including, but not limited to, the number of evaluations performed by each court, the percentage of responses received, and, [without identifying individual judges,] a summary of the overall evaluation results for each judge evaluated and all actions taken to correct inadequacies and deficiencies. The annual report shall be submitted on or before June 30 of each year to the governor, the speaker of the house, the president of the senate, and the chairpersons of the house and senate judiciary committees. Such report shall be made available to the public.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
LBAO
11-0100
Revised 06/14/11
HB 344 FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to judicial performance evaluations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Administrative Services, the Department of Information Technology, and the Judicial Branch state this bill will increase state expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on county and local revenue or expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
This bill establishes a judicial performance review commission and requires each district court and superior court judge and marital master to be reviewed by the commission every three years and authorizes the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Information Technology to assist the commission in certain areas. This bill also permits the commission to adopt procedural rules and hire necessary staff. The Department of Administrative Services states the proposed legislation requires the Department at the request of the commission to assist in matters related to personnel and benefits administration, purchasing, telecommunications, financial data management, and property management. The Department notes the manner in which the commission will conduct its performance reviews or the nature and number of staff the commission will employ is not specified. Without such information the Department is unable to estimate the potential increase in state expenditures that will occur as a result of the proposed legislation.
The Department of Information Technology notes the proposed legislation requires a report of each review to be made available for public inspection on an internet page maintained by the commission. The Department assumes the responsibilities associated with the establishment of and maintenance of said website will be assigned to the Department. Based on similar projects, the Department estimates the initial website development would consume approximately 100 hours of a system developer specialist IV and the ensuing website maintenance approximately 25 hours per month. Based on an estimated rate of $43.28 per hour in FY 2012 and $43.86 per hour in FY 2013, the Department estimates the proposed legislation would increase state expenditures by $17,312 in FY 2012 (400 hours x $43.28 p/hr (100 hours for development plus 25 hours per month for maintenance)) and by $13,104 in FY 2013 (25 hours per month at $43.68 p/hr).
The Judicial Branch notes although the proposed legislation states the commission shall have its own funding and that the funding shall be from sources other than those appropriated for the Branch, the costs associated with the time spent on the commission by the three judges required to be on the commission may impact Judicial Branch expenditures. The Branch is unable to estimate the amount of time commission membership would require of the three judges and therefore unable to estimate to what extent this requirement might increase Judicial Branch expenditures.