CHAPTER 53
HB 568 - FINAL VERSION
5Jan2000.....2122h
2000 SESSION
HOUSE BILL 568
AN ACT establishing a program for performance evaluations of judges.
SPONSORS: Rep. Soltani, Merr 10; Rep. Marple, Merr 11; Rep. Christiansen, Hills 23; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9
This bill requires the supreme court, in consultation with the administrative judges of the superior, district, and probate courts, to design and implement, by court rule, a program for performance evaluation of judges.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
5Jan2000....2122h
99-0530
09/01
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand
AN ACT establishing a program for performance evaluations of judges.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
53:1 New Paragraph; Complaints; Committee on Judicial Conduct. Amend RSA 490:30 by inserting after paragraph III the following new paragraph:
IV. In all cases, whether a complaint is dismissed or not, complaints received by the committee on judicial conduct shall be made available to the administrative judge of the court in which the judge complained against holds office. Furthermore, all complaints against judges received by the administrative judges of the superior court, the district court, and the probate court shall be forwarded to the committee on judicial conduct.
53:2 New Subdivision; Judicial Performance Evaluations. Amend RSA 490 by inserting after section 31 the following new subdivision:
Judicial Performance Evaluations
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 courts, 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 include, but shall not be limited to, review of records of the supreme court's committee on judicial conduct which are public records under supreme court Rule 40; 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 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.
IV. The chief justice of the supreme court shall evaluate the administrative judges of the superior, district and probate 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 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 judicial evaluation standards after 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.
(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 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.
53:3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
(Approved: April 17, 2000)
(Effective Date: April 17, 2000)
LBAO
99-0530
Amended 2/1/00
HB 568 FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT establishing a program for performance evaluations of judges.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Administrative Office of the Courts indicates this bill, as amended by the House, may increase state general fund expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2000 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on county and local expenditures or on state, county and local revenue.
METHODOLOGY:
The Office has stated that much of what is required in this bill is already in place. There may be additional administrative costs due to the preparation of the Supreme Court report, however, such costs would be minimal.