(1) No later than the first Tuesday in June of each year, the judicial performance commission shall submit to each judge of the municipal court a confidential evaluation of the judge's official performance. At the same time, copies of these evaluations shall be submitted to the presiding judge.

(2) No later than 20 days following the submission of an evaluation in accordance with subsection (1) of this section, any judge who so desires may submit to the judicial performance commission a written response to the commission's evaluation of the judge, and such written response by the judge shall become a permanent attachment to the commission's evaluation of the judge.

(3) No later than the first Monday in July of the final year of the term of any judge who desires to be appointed to another term, the judicial performance commission shall certify to the city council electronic copies of all of the commission's evaluations of the official performance of the affected judge that have been completed during the current term of the affected judge and shall publish and make available to the public an aggregate report of the evaluations of the official performance of the affected judge that have been completed during the current term of the affected judge. The aggregate report shall include whether the affected judge presided over jury trials during each year of the judge's term. The judicial performance commission's aggregate report of the evaluations shall be accompanied by an aggregate report of the commission's recommendation as a whole regarding the appointment of the judge to another term on the bench of the municipal court. The recommendation shall be stated as "reappoint," "do not reappoint," or "no opinion" and shall be accompanied by an explanation.

(4) The evaluations and recommendations made by the judicial performance commission regarding the municipal court judges of the city shall be based solely upon the following criteria: integrity; knowledge and understanding of substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law; communication skills, preparation, attentiveness, and control over judicial proceedings; consistency and applicability of sentencing practices; docket management and prompt case disposition; administrative skills; punctuality; effectiveness in working with participants in the judicial process; and service to the legal profession and the public.

(5) The judicial performance commission shall develop surveys for the evaluation of judges in accordance with the criteria listed in subsection (4) of this section. Such surveys are completed by individuals who interact with the court, including but not limited to attorneys who are employed by the criminal justice division of the city attorney's office and the public defender's office and private defense attorneys, jurors, law enforcement officers, probation officers, and the presiding judge of the municipal court (except in regard to the evaluation of the presiding judge). Additionally, such surveys may be completed by court personnel and others who have direct and continuing contact with municipal court judges, and consultations with state and district commissions on judicial performance regarding evaluation criteria, techniques, and sources.

(6) The judicial performance commission shall determine the validity of completed surveys developed pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, report to city council on the validity of the surveys and prepare alternatives to surveys where sample populations are inadequate to produce valid results.

(7) The surveys developed in accordance with subsection (5) of this section are to be distributed primarily through electronic means, and the judicial performance commission shall make efforts to locate electronic mail addresses for the parties identified in said subsection.

(8) The judicial performance commission shall publish and make available to the public such procedural rules as it may adopt for the conduct of its business. (Code 1979, § 8-404; Ord. No. 2023-49, § 4, 10-23-2023; Ord. No. 2005-12, § 83, 4-11-2005)