[Ad Hoc Judicial Nominating Committee on June 4, 2024. ]
[00:00:03]
IT IS NOW 1:02 PM ON JUNE 5TH, UH, JUNE 4TH.
AND, UH, I AM NOW CONVENING THE MEETING OF THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL.
OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OUR LAST MEETING OF MAY 26TH, 2022.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.
NEXT ITEM IS BRIEFING ON THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER A 3% INCREASE FOR MUNICIPAL JUDGES.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, MR. MCDOUGALL.
SO, UH, WE'RE ADDRESSING YOUR COMMITTEE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR A 3% INCREASE FOR MUNICIPAL JUDGES.
UH, WHAT, UH, WAS THE THINKING OF THE COMMISSION IN THAT REGARD? ABSOLUTELY.
SO, UH, COUNCILMAN, UH, COUNCILWOMAN, SO OUR, OUR BASIS BEHIND THE 3% RAISE IN 2022, WE, WE AUTHORIZED, OR THE COUNCIL, WE DID THE SAME TYPE OF MARKET SURVEY, AND THE 3% RAISE WAS GIVEN TO THE JUDGES.
SO HERE IN 2024, WE DID NOT HAVE THAT IN 2023.
SO IN 2024, NOW IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS.
OUR JUDGES DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE ANY COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS, PLUS THEY HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
SO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNTING AND GETTING SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE JUDGES.
AND ALSO WE SURVEYED SURROUNDING METROPOLITAN CITIES, UH, FORT WORTH TO DEN TO, UH, ARLINGTON.
AND WE GOT SOME FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE COUNT, THOSE CITIES PAID IN TERMS OF THEIR JUDGES.
UH, SO THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT A FINANCIAL, UH, PART OF THIS EQUATION.
HOWEVER, WE FELT A 3% RAISE DUE TO, UH, COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, NOT HAVING ONE A RAISE LAST YEAR AND ONE, TWO YEARS AGO WITH THE RISING COST OF INFLATION AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE WAS FAIR TO ATTRACT AND KEEP, UH, THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UH, THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MCDOUGALL ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES THE FIRST BRIEFING ITEM.
WE'LL PROCEED TO ITEM B, WHICH IS THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE, INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE AND ASSOCIATE JUDGE POSITIONS.
SO IN TERMS OF, UM, HOW WE ARRIVED HERE, SO AS THE CHAIR STARTING IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, I COMMENCED A BOARD TO HAVE A MEETING WHERE WE OUTLINE THE NEXT STEPS OF WHERE WE WOULD GO IN TERMS OF, UH, THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS AD HOC COMMITTEE.
FROM THERE, WE SUBSEQUENTLY HAD MEETINGS IN THE MONTH OF MARCH WHERE WE DEVELOPED THE TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH THE POSTING OF THE JOB AND HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT AN INTERVIEW PROCESS.
UH, WE POSTED THE JOB, WE DID NOT RECEIVE THE NUMBER OF APPLICANTS THAT WE WANTED OVER A TWO WEEK PERIOD.
SO WE THEN AGAIN, REACHED OUT TO OUR LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATIONS AND, UH, OTHER OUTLETS THAT WE USED TO PUBLISH THE ACTUAL JOB.
AND FROM THERE, WE GOT THE AMOUNT OF CANDIDATES THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR, UH, PURSUANT TO THE CODE.
AND SUBSEQUENTLY, IN APRIL AND MAY, WE, OVER A THREE DAY PERIOD, SO THREE WORKING NIGHTS, PROBABLY ABOUT THREE AND A HALF HOURS EACH NIGHT.
UH, ON, ON THE, WITH THE BOARD, PROBABLY ABOUT 10 TO 12 MEMBERS
[00:05:01]
OF THE HEARING AT THE BOARD WE INTERVIEWED, UH, THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CANDIDATES, THE FULL-TIME JUDGE CANDIDATES, AND THE PART-TIME JUDGE CANDIDATES.AND AFTER THE LAST ROUND OF INTERVIEWS IN, UH, MAY, I BELIEVE MAY 13TH, WE THEN GOT TOGETHER ONE LAST TIME.
AND AT THAT, UM, MEETING, WE WENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE TALKED AND DISCUSSED, UH, AND BASICALLY SOMEWHAT GRADED AND, UH, HASHED OUT WHO WE THOUGHT WAS FAIR IN TERMS OF A RANKING RECOMMENDATIONS.
EACH BOARD MEMBER GOT TO RANK PURSUANT TO THEIR OWN DISCRETION.
WE RANK THOSE PARTICULAR CANDIDATES, WE ADD TALLY THOSE UP.
AND THE ORDER THAT WAS PROVIDED IS SUBSEQUENT TO WHAT YOU RECEIVED.
AND THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CONTAINED IN A JUNE 4TH, 2024 MEMORANDUM, UH, TO MYSELF AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND IT OUTLINES, JUST FOR RECORD KEEPING PURPOSES, IT OUTLINES THREE CANDIDATES FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE POSITION, 15 FOR THE FULL TIME AND ANOTHER 24 FOR THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE.
AND HOW MANY POSITIONS ARE OPEN, UH, AND AVAILABLE FOR EACH OF THOSE DIFFERENT LEVELS? SO THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE IS ONE WHO JUDGE PRESTON ROBERTSON CURRENTLY SERVES IN THAT POSITION.
AND THEN THERE ARE NINE OTHER FULL-TIME JUDGE POSITIONS.
SO IT'S 10 ALTOGETHER FOR THAT COMPONENT.
THEN WE HAVE 18 FOR THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE POSITION.
ANY QUESTIONS, UH, FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, UH, FOR MR. MCDOUGAL? MR. WEST? THANK YOU CHAIR.
UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.
UM, AND, AND JUST KIND OF YOUR COORDINATION OF THE WHOLE, WHOLE THING.
UM, CAN YOU JUST TALK THROUGH, UH, ON THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS FOR SOME OF THE, THE JUDGES WHO HAVE BEEN SERVING PREVIOUSLY AS FULL-TIME, MUNICIPAL JUDGES? UM, WHAT, WHAT WERE THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS CONSIDERED? UM, AND TO WHAT EXTENT WERE THEY CONSIDERED, WERE THEY PART OF THE SCORING METRIC OR JUST PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS? THEY WERE A COUNCILMAN.
SO JUDGE PRESTON ROBERTSON CONDUCTED A EVALUATION THAT WE RECEIVED AS A GENERAL BOARD THAT WE REVIEWED, UH, DURING THE ACTUAL EXECUTIVE SESSION SELECTION PROCESS.
SO I WENT THROUGH EACH INDIVIDUAL WHO'S A CURRENT SITTING JUDGE IN THE CITY AND WENT DOWN A LIST AND SAID, HEY, THIS PERSON RECEIVED, THIS PARTICULAR JUDGE RECEIVED ALL EXCELLENT SATISFACTORY OR NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.
AND THEN WE DISCUSSED IF IT WAS A NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.
WE DISCUSSED WHERE THAT PARTICULAR JUDGE NEEDS SOME IMPROVEMENT THERE, JUDGE PURPOSE AND ROBERTON WAS ALSO THERE FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS TO HIM.
UH, SO EVALUATIONS WERE PART OF THE, UH, PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS WERE PART OF THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT.
COULD YOU TALK ME THROUGH SOME OF THE OTHER SCORING METRICS THAT, THAT YOU CONSIDERED? SO OTHER SCORING METRICS, UH, INCLUDED.
SO IT WASN'T A PARTICULAR RUBRIC, BUT, SO WE HAD A LIST OF QUESTIONS, WHICH INCLUDED JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT.
WE ALSO HAD A LIST OF EXPERIENCE, WENT INTO THE EQUATION.
UH, TRIAL EXPERIENCE PARTICULARLY WAS ONE KEY THAT WE LOOKED FOR, ESPECIALLY FOR, UH, POTENTIAL NEW HIRES WHO WERE SEEKING FULL-TIME POSITIONS.
SO IF THEY HAD, UH, EXPERIENCE IN THE DA'S OFFICE FOR A LONG TIME, BUT NO ACTUAL JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE THAT PLAYED A KEY.
UH, WE, WE LOOKED AT, UM, JUST FAMILIARITY WITH THE COURTROOM.
THERE WAS ALSO, UH, SOME DIFFERENCE GIVEN TO THE CURRENT JUDGES AS WELL IN TERMS OF, UH, THEIR DOCKETS AND HOW THEY MOVE ALONG CASES AND, UH, DIFFERENT, UH, MEMBERS OF, LET'S JUST SAY THE CITY OF DALLAS IN TERMS OF FEEDBACK GETTING POTENTIALLY GIVEN TO THEM.
SO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, REACHED OUT TO THEIR COLLEAGUES, THAT NETWORK TO SEE HOW CURRENT JUDGES WERE DOING.
HOW WAS THEIR, UM, MAKEUP OR JUST IN TERMS OF THEIR IMPRESSION THEY WERE GIVEN OFF.
UH, I PHYSICALLY WENT TO, UH, THE, THE WARRANT ROUNDUPS MYSELF PERSONALLY, AND JUST OBSERVED FOR HOURS ON A COUPLE SATURDAYS JUST REVIEWING THEM.
UH, WE ALSO LOOKED INTO JUST THE GENERAL BODY MAKEUP IN TERMS OF HOW LONG PEOPLE HAVE SERVED CURRENTLY, UH, ON THE BOARD INCUMBENTS, SORRY, I GUESS FOR LACK OF BETTER WORDS, THOSE CURRENTLY BEEN SITTING FOR
[00:10:01]
MULTIPLE, UH, TERMS. AND WE WENT THROUGH THAT IN THE BA CASE BY CASE BASIS.NOW, ON THAT LAST PART, ON THE, THE, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT GENERALLY IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME SERVED, WAS THAT SEEN AS A POSITIVE OR AS A WE NEED TO SHAKE IT UP AND GET SOME NEW BLOOD IN HERE AND NOT I'M NOT, LOOK, THERE'S NO LIKE RIGHT ANSWER.
I'M JUST CURIOUS ON, I WOULD SAY NO TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UH, AS THE CHAIR, UH, NOW FOR THE SECOND ROUND OF THIS, I WOULD PUSH BACK OF ANY NOTION THAT, YOU KNOW, SERVING TOO LONG IS A BAD THING.
SO, I, I I SHOULD STEP BACK AND SAY THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW MATTERED TOO, WHEN WE INTERVIEWED THESE CANDIDATES, HOW THEY RESPONDED, CERTAIN THINGS THEY SAID IN TERMS OF IMPROVEMENTS THEY NEED FOR THE CITY THAT MATTERED WITH THE PARTICULAR JUDGES.
SO WHETHER THAT SWAYED SOME INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS TO, YOU KNOW, LEAN ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, PROBABLY IMPACTED THAT MORE THAN THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS BECAUSE ALL THE FULL-TIME JUDGES RECEIVED, UH, EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS.
SOME OF THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES HAD NEEDS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
UM, I THINK, UH, CHAIR, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS, UM, FOR, FOR THIS SPEAKER.
BUT I'D SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT IF WE'RE GONNA ASK JUDGE ROBINSON TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK, I WILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR HIM.
UH, MR. RESENDEZ, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO, CHAD ASKED, WELL, I'M SORRY.
COUNCIL MEMBER WEST ASKED MOST OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I, THAT I, THAT I WOULD'VE DELVED INTO.
I MEAN, WHEN, WHEN THE JUDGES, THE ONLY THING I'M WONDERING ABOUT IS WHEN THE JUDGES WERE RANKED, WERE THEY RANKED LIKE INDIVIDUALLY WHERE PEOPLE WERE TAKING VOTES? SO HOW, HOW THEY WERE RANKED WHERE IT WAS A, A RANKING WHERE THERE WAS A, A BASICALLY A SYSTEM, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, 15 NUMBERS, YOU SEE, UH, ONE THROUGH 15, EACH INDIVIDUAL PERSON WAS ABLE TO RANK THEIR HIGHEST PERSON RECEIVING 15 POINTS.
SO BASICALLY WE WENT DOWN A ROOM AND I WOULD GO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, THIS PARTICULAR BOARD MEMBER, WHAT DO YOU SCORE, JUDGE PRESTON, ROBERTSON 15, NOW GO TO THE NEXT PERSON 15, NEXT PERSON TWO, THAT WOULD THEN GET SUMMARIZED AT THE END OF TOTAL.
AND THEN THAT TOTAL, WE DID THAT FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PERSON.
SO THIS MEETING PROBABLY TOOK ABOUT FOUR HOURS AND WE PUT THE NUMBERS ON THE BOARD.
I DID, WE TALLIED IT UP, WE DOUBLE CHECKED IT, AND THAT'S HOW HE CAME INTO A RANKING SYSTEM.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WAS WONDERING.
AND ARE EITHER OF THE NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE INTERESTED IN ASKING ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILWOMAN, UH, WILLIS, THANK YOU.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION, BUT, UM, MAYBE IT IS.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE'S CONSTERNATION AROUND THIS RECOMMENDATION? I AM.
I'VE, I'VE HAD MANY, MANY CALLS AND, UH, TALKS OVER THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS SINCE THIS, UM, WAS PLACED OUT.
NOT NO, FROM, NO ONE WITH THE ACTUAL JUDICIARY, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, BUT JUST MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, THINGS OF THAT NATURE RELATED TO THIS.
I MEAN, I'VE SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE BEFORE AND THERE'S HOMEWORK TO DO AND ALL OF THAT, BUT IT'S USUALLY NOT AS MUCH OF A BLIP ON THE SCREEN.
IT'S JUST YOU GET IN AND YOU FIGURE IT OUT.
AND THIS HAS BEEN A PRETTY WELL OILED MACHINE, AND WE'VE GOT PEOPLE WITH EXEMPLARY RATINGS.
AND I KNOW THAT I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AND, UM, WHEN SOMETHING IS MOVING, UM, WELL ON SUCH A CRITICAL PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE AND, UH, QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE, UM, IT'S VERY CONCERNING TO ME.
AND, UM, SO I'M, I'M VERY CURIOUS TO HEAR.
UM, WELL, I DEFINITELY THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR SAYING THAT WE WOULD HEAR FROM, UH, JUDGE ROBINSON.
UM, SO I'M, I'M REALLY JUST SCRATCHING MY HEAD TO UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE I KNOW WE, SOMETIMES YOU HEAR COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT THINGS AT THE COUNTY, UM, IN THE PROCESS.
BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN CONTROL AS THE CITY.
AND WHEN IT GETS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THAT COURT AND THE WAY IT RUNS, UM, I'M JUST REALLY LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER ON WHY THERE WOULD BE ANY DISRUPTION THERE.
SO MAYBE THAT WILL REVEAL ITSELF IN THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING.
[00:15:01]
I, I'M SORRY THAT I MISSED YOUR, YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT I, I'VE ALSO BEEN APPRISED TO THE, UH, CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE HAP HAPPENED OUTSIDE.AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, AND, AND FIRST JUST SAY THAT I AM REALLY APPRECIATIVE OF THE WORK THAT THE COMMISSION HAS PUT IN.
I SEE DISTRICT SEVEN, UM, COMMISSIONER HERE AS WELL, UM, SARAH MARTINEZ.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE PUT IN.
UH, I, I DEFINITELY DID SOME FOLLOW UP.
I WOULD AGREE IN, IN, I WOULD AGREE A LOT OF WHAT I HEARD, UM, UM, UH, MS. WILLIS SAY, OTHER THAN I, I, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT STATUS QUO IS WHERE WE HAVE TO BE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL TOOK VERY SERIOUS IN THE PROCESS THAT Y'ALL HAD.
UM, I THINK IT'S REALLY AN IMPORTANT, I THINK THAT, UM, WE HAVE AN OUTCOME THAT MAY BE HARD PILL TO SWALLOW FOR A LOT, AND A LOT OF MY DISTRICT, QUITE FRANKLY.
UH, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT, UM, WE APPOINT PEOPLE TO DO THE WORK THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO DO.
UH, AND, AND I KNOW THAT A LOT OF WORK WAS PUT INTO IT.
I I BELIEVE A LOT OF DUE DILIGENCE WAS PUT INTO IT.
UM, AND SO I APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Y'ALL HAVE PUT FORTH.
AND I, UH, AM AM PERSONALLY, UH, ON THE SIDE OF WANTING TO, UM, HONOR THE WORK THAT Y'ALL DID, UH, AND SEE THAT, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS YOU'VE PUT FORTH THROUGH.
UM, I DO WANT TO HEAR FROM JUDGE ROBINSON.
I WAS GONNA ASK, UM, QUESTIONS, BUT I, I JUST HEARD FROM CONTEXT THAT I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT HE'LL BE UP HERE, SO I'LL WAIT FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY.
BUT, UM, I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR Y'ALL'S WORK, UM, UH, FOR, UM, ACTUALLY GIVING US, UM, MORE TO THINK ABOUT THAN A RUBBER STAMP.
BECAUSE IF THAT HAS BEEN, UM, THE MOTIONS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH IN THE PAST, UH, I, I, I FOR ONE, DON'T WANT TO JUST BE A RUBBER STAMP.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S, UM, WHAT WE ARE LEFT WITH, WITH THIS CONVERSATION IS SOMETHING NEW TO CONSIDER.
AND THERE MAY BE REASONS BEHIND THAT.
SO I LOOK FORWARD IN, UH, THE CONVERSATION TO DIG INTO WHY WE ARE, ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
AND TO ADD CONTEXT, UH, TO, TO EVERYONE, UH, AS SERVING AS THE CHAIR LAST CYCLE, IT WAS A PARTICULAR RUBBER STAMP.
I THINK THIS GENERAL BODY IN TERMS OF, WE GOT SOME NEW BOARD MEMBERS ON THIS PARTICULAR CYCLE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LITTLE MORE DISSENT INVOLVED THIS TIME AROUND, JUST IN TERMS OF THEM MAYBE PUSHING BACK TOWARDS, NOT NECESSARILY JUST SAY THE STATUS QUO, BUT IT WAS MORE, UH, ASKING THOSE TOUGH QUESTIONS SAYING, ARE WE REALLY ASSESSING IT? IS THIS THE RIGHT BODY? AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA SAY NEW BLOOD BECAUSE THREE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN TERMS OF THE, TO MOVE UP TO FULL TIME, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ASSOCIATE JUDGES.
THEY'RE NOT LIKE OFF THE STREET OR ANYTHING.
THEY'VE BEEN SERVING IN ASSOCIATE JUDGE CAPACITY SOME FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, THESE DECISIONS WERE HARD AS THE, THE CHAIR IN THE ROOM.
I THINK CONSISTENCY, UH, MATTERS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE A JUDICIARY AND WE HAVE THINGS LIKE VETERANS COURT, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT, JUVENILE COURT, UH, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
I JUST WANT THE COUNCIL BODY TO BE AWARE THAT I THINK THIS PARTICULAR TIME WAS DIFFERENT, SEEING JUST THE GENERAL MAKEUP OF OUR BOARD.
THEY JUST PUSHED BACK A LITTLE MORE AND ASKED A LITTLE MORE TOUGH QUESTIONS THAN WHAT I'VE WITNESSED IN THE PAST.
COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, UH, THANKS CHAIR.
AND JUST, UH, MR. MCDOUGLE, JUST ONE FOLLOW UP, UM, ON THIS, AND I'M GONNA ASK SIMILAR QUESTION TO JUDGE ROBINSON WHEN HE COMES UP, IS DID IN YOUR EVALUATION, UH, CATEGORIES THAT YOU LOOKED AT, AND YOU LISTED SEVERAL, UM, THAT YOU GUYS CONSIDERED, AND I'M NOT GONNA ASK YOU TO GO SPECIFICALLY CANDIDATE BY CANDIDATE ON THIS, BUT DID YOU TALK ABOUT, DID THEY DISCUSS THE FACT THAT THERE IS A PERCEIVED ISSUE IN ANY PARTICULAR COURT THAT THIS THIS COURT, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE COURTROOM VERSUS ANOTHER, MIGHT, MIGHT NEED A CHANGE BECAUSE OF SOME SPECIFIC REASON THAT MAYBE THEY DISAGREED WITH AN EVALUATION? NO.
UH, ALL THE, AND JUDGE PRESTON ROBINSON CAN ATTEST TO THIS.
ALL THE FULL-TIME JUDGES HAD STELLAR REVIEWS.
UH, IT WAS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
SOMETIMES WE HAVE CANDIDATES WHO APPLY FOR BOTH POSITIONS.
SO WE HAVE A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE WHO GOT RECOMMENDED FULL-TIME.
HE APPLIED FOR ASSOCIATE JUDGE AND A FULL-TIME JUDGE POSITION.
HE HAD A STELLAR INTERVIEW, STELLAR RESUME EXPERIENCE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO, THERE WASN'T A PARTICULAR, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO GO ATTACK THIS PARTICULAR JUDGE, OR THIS JUDGE JUST HADN'T BEEN DOING WELL.
I THOUGHT IN, IN HOW I VOTED, I'M ONLY ONE VOTE.
I THOUGHT ALL OF THEM WERE SPECTACULAR.
SO IT, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, IT ACTUALLY KIND OF BURNED ME A LITTLE BIT PROVIDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS, BECAUSE I ACTUALLY KNOW
[00:20:01]
THESE JUDGES AND I'VE SAT WITH THEM AND I'VE VISITED THEIR COURTROOMS. SO NO, THERE WASN'T A, UH, PARTICULAR POINTING OUT OF THIS ONE JUDGE OVER ANOTHER, SIMPLY, THERE WAS A RANKING.HOW A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, VOTED BY THIS COUNCIL TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD, HOW THEY VOTED.
THE NUMBERS JUST CAME OUT AS THEY WERE.
AND WE PUT THOSE IN THE ORDER THAT I PROVIDED YOU.
LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU TURN, LOOK AT NUMBER 10 VERSUS, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY.
NUMBER 10 VERSUS 11, I BELIEVE WAS TWO POINTS.
IT DOESN'T, YOU WON'T SEE THAT HERE, BUT I, AND I BELIEVE 10 VERSUS 12 WAS MAYBE FIVE OR SEVEN POINTS.
SO THESE ARE SMALL NUMBERS THAT COULD SWING WHETHER THEY RECEIVED A 14 FROM THIS PARTICULAR PERSON, AND MAYBE YOU RECEIVED A SEVEN FROM THIS PARTICULAR PERSON THAT COULD SWING IN TERMS OF YOUR VOTE IN TERMS OF HOW, HOW SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY PERCEIVED YOU.
THAT LEAVES, LEAVES SOME RANGE IN THERE FOR MOVEMENT FOR SURE.
AND, AND WAS, WHAT WAS THE TOTAL SCORING AMOUNT PER PERSON? SO THE TOTAL SCORE AMOUNT, I BELIEVE A PERFECT SCORE WOULD'VE BEEN 150.
IF, IF, IF YOU RECEIVED, IF YOU RECEIVED A 15 FROM ACROSS EVERY BODY MEMBER, NOBODY RECEIVED THAT.
BUT I, I, I CAN STATE THAT, UM, THE LONGEST TENURED JUDGE DID RECEIVE THE HIGHEST RANKING VOTE, AND THAT'S WHY HE'S LISTED NUMBER ONE.
AND HE'S BEEN ON, HE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY FOREVER, AND HE RECEIVED STELLAR VOTES.
SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT KIND OF PUSHES BACK AGAINST THE NOTION OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BOARD WAS ANTI TENURE.
OR, YOU KNOW, BY THAT PARTICULAR PERSON.
I JUST BELIEVE THEY LOOKED AT EVERYTHING IN THE TOTALITY.
WELL, THANK YOU, MR. MCDOUGALL.
UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND FOR YOUR SERVICE AS THE CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION.
NOW, UH, JUDGE ROBINSON, WOULD YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE? THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, JUDGE ROBINSON.
AND, UM, DO ANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE ROBINSON? UM, SURE.
UM, WOULD YOU, UH, SO YOU, WERE YOU THERE PRESENT AND, AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS? I WAS THERE AND PRESENT FOR QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDING, EXCEPT FOR THE DISCUSSION ABOUT FULL-TIME JUDGES.
I WAS ASKED TO LEAVE THE ROOM BECAUSE THEORETICALLY I'M A CANDIDATE FOR A FULL-TIME POSITION.
SO ONE OF THE MEMBERS, UH, SUGGESTED THAT I LEAVE THE ROOM.
AND SO WHEN I CAME BACK, THAT WAS THE ONLY PORTION I WAS NOT PRESENT FOR.
AND THE TASK FORCE IS RECOMMENDING THAT YOU ARE SELECTED AGAIN AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THAT YOU, YOU ALSO CAME IN SECOND FOR THE FULL-TIME JUDGE POSITION AS WELL, RIGHT? CORRECT.
UM, SO THE PROCEEDINGS THAT YOU DID, YOU WERE ABLE TO SIT IN FOR, UM, WAS YOUR PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION, UM, CONSIDERED, I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THAT TO THE LAST SPEAKER, BUT, UH, WERE YOU ABLE TO, UH, PROVIDE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SLATE IF, WHEN IT CAME TO ASSOCIATE JUDGES? I WAS ASKED MY OPINION ABOUT JUDGES OR ASKED ABOUT THEIR WORK ETHIC OR WORK PRODUCT, AND I WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION FOR THEM.
WHAT ABOUT FOR THE OTHER FULL-TIME JUDGES, OR YOU WEREN'T, YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE THAT? NO.
CAN YOU JUST COMMENT GENERALLY ON THE, UM, UH, ON THE, I GUESS WE'D CALL 'EM INCUMBENT JUDGES AND YOUR THOUGHTS ON JUST HOW, HOW THE, THIS SORT OF SHOOK OUT WITH THE TASK FORCE? 'CAUSE IT'S, UH, TO, TO MS UH, COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS' POINT, LIKE WE WEREN'T EXPECTING, OR I WASN'T AT LEAST EXPECTING TO HAVE A, UM, A REAL SHAKEUP IN SOME OF THE, THE JUDGES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME.
AND I'M NOT SAYING IT DOESN'T NEED TO HAPPEN.
I'M JUST, THIS KIND OF CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD UNTIL I STARTED GETTING PHONE CALLS.
UM, OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS, I THINK THAT THE COURT'S BEEN FUNCTIONING PRETTY WELL, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING WHERE WE CAME FROM.
WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE IT THROUGH COVID WITHOUT ISSUES AND ABLE TO MAKE IT OUT WITHOUT A BACKLOG.
SO I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE FULL-TIME JUDGES THAT ARE WORKING.
AND WHEN I WAS ASKED BY THE COMMISSION, I'VE NEVER, OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, I'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT JUDGES AND I HADN'T RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT COUNSEL, WHICH I EXPLAINED THAT THAT'S TYPICALLY THE WAY THAT, UH, COMPLAINTS ARE LODGED ABOUT JUDGES.
THEY EITHER COME THROUGH COUNSEL, MEANING THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF YOUR DISTRICT REACHED OUT TO YOU OR THEY COME IN THE FRONT DOOR AND FILL OUT A COMPLAINT FORM.
[00:25:03]
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE TELLING US THAT THINGS ARE, IN YOUR OPINION, WORKING WELL AT THE MUNICIPAL COURTHOUSE? YES.UM, ON THE JUDGES THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY NOT, UM, DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE TOP 10 RANKING.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING THERE'S FOUR PREVIOUS FOUR JUDGES THAT ARE INCUMBENTS, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
UM, I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY OF, THE CHAIR WILL ALLOW IT FOR YOU TO, TO COMMENT ON THOSE FOUR JUDGES.
'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, AS A COMMITTEE, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL ON IF, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SLATE PROVIDED OR IF, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO RECONSIDER THOSE OTHER JUDGES.
AND I THINK WE, I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU AND YOUR THOUGHTS ON THEM.
I'LL GO, IS THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION? YEAH.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, CAN YOU JUST SAY THAT ON THE RECORD,
WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE UP AN EXECUTIVE SESSION QUESTIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES.
UM, COUNCILMAN RESENDEZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UM, JUDGE, JUDGE ROBINSON, IN YOUR ROLE AS ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, UM, ARE, ARE YOU, DO YOU EVALUATE THE OTHER FULL-TIME JUDGES? I DO.
AND AND DID THE COMMITTEE HAVE ACCESS TO, TO YOUR EVALUATIONS? THEY DID.
AND SO THEY, I'M ASSUMING THEY UTILIZED THAT WHEN THEY DECIDED THE, THE RANKINGS FOR THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES.
I KNOW THEY DID FOR THE FULL-TIME JUDGES.
I WASN'T IN THE ROOM, BUT LISTENING TO THE CHAIR OF THE JNC, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY DID.
THAT THOSE ARE, THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION.
AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP, UM, JUDGE ROBINSON, YOU RANKED ALL OF THE INCUMBENT JUDGES ON YOUR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS, EXEMPLARY, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
BASED ON THE ACTUAL EVALUATION AND THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED, WERE THEY ACTUALLY ACHIEVING AND DOING THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO? AND THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS? UM, COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS, UH, SO DID YOU PREPARE A PRESENTATION ON THE COURTS FOR THE COMMITTEE? I DID.
WERE YOU ABLE TO GO THROUGH THAT PRESENTATION? I THINK I GOT THROUGH ABOUT THREE SLIDES OF IT.
HOW LONG WAS IT? ABOUT 57 SLIDES.
SO YOU WENT THROUGH THREE SLIDES OF THE DECK.
YOU PREPARED TO GIVE A BASELINE AND, UH, JUST TO READ ON HOW THE COURT WAS FUNCTION.
I MEAN, WHAT DID THE, WHAT DID THE PRESENTATION INCLUDE? THE PRESENTATION JUST INCLUDED A RECAP OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS IN TERMS OF STATISTICS, UM, THAT THE COURT HAD.
IT ALSO INCLUDED PROGRAMS THAT THE COURT HAS PARTICIPATED IN.
AND IT ALSO INCLUDED PICTURES OF JUDGES IF THEY PARTICIPATED IN THOSE PROGRAMS AS WELL.
DID YOU GET TO GO THROUGH THOSE STATISTICS? PART OF THE, I GOT THROUGH THE STATISTICS, WHICH WAS THE FIRST TWO SLIDES, AND AFTER THAT I WAS INSTRUCTED THAT THE BOARD HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR ME.
AND BUT THE REMAINDER AFTER THE STATISTICS WAS JUST ABOUT SHOWING THE OTHER WORK OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM THAT WAS DONE? CORRECT.
AND THERE WASN'T INTEREST IN THAT? I KNEW IT HAD BEEN A LONG NIGHT, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THERE WAS AN INTEREST IN THAT, NO.
DO YOU THINK IT WOULD'VE BEEN A VALUE? I THINK IT WOULD'VE BEEN A VALUE ELSE.
I WOULDN'T HAVE WASTED TWO WEEKS, UH, PUTTING IT TOGETHER FOR THEM TO SEE WHAT, WHAT THE COURT IS ACTUALLY DOING AND THE WORK THAT THE JUDGES ARE DOING AS WELL.
SO OUR ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PREPARED A PRESENTATION THAT THE COMMITTEE SAW, YOU KNOW, A A 15TH OF OR SOMETHING.
WELL, I JUST WANTED, I MEAN, YOU OBVIOUSLY PUT A LOT OF TIME INTO THAT, SO I JUST AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ROOM.
UH, JUDGE ROBINSON, COULD YOU PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT SLIDE DECK TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS? I CAN.
DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES.
UM, JUDGE ROBINSON, DO YOU, UM, YOU, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU PREPARED THE SLIDES.
UH, WAS THAT DECK MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO YOUR MEETING? NO, IT WAS NOT.
I HAD THE PRESENTATION, UH, TO PRESENT DURING MY TIME OF MY SLOT, MY EVALUATION SLOT OR INTERVIEW SLOT.
AND DID YOU SEND IT TO THEM AFTERWARDS? NO.
SO YOUR ONLY EXPECTATION FROM THEM TO TAKE A 57 SLIDE DECK WAS TO LISTEN AT THE BRIEFING WHILE ALSO WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS? UH, NORMALLY WE GET MATERIALS BEFOREHAND SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY STUDY THEM.
SO TO MS. WILLIS' POINT, I THINK THAT IT WOULD'VE PROBABLY BEEN VALUABLE FOR THEM TO OBTAIN THEIR OWN COPIES OF THAT IF IT WAS MEANT TO BE A STUDYING MATERIAL.
[00:30:01]
YOU HAVE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT, UM, THAT IT WAS, THAT YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM, I THINK WAS YOUR, YOUR WORDING WITH, UM, THE JUDGES.UH, YOU HAVEN'T MADE ANY SIMILAR COMMENT TO THE SLATE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED NOW.
CAN CAN YOU GIVE ANY TYPE OF, UH, COMMENTARY TO THAT AS YOU DID TO THE SITTING JUDGES? NOW I CAN.
I, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE SLATE BEING PRESENTED TODAY.
NOT BECAUSE THE JUDGES THAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING FOR THE FULL-TIME POSITIONS OR NOT DESERVING, AND NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT DONE THE WORK, BUT FOR THE SAKE THAT THE JUDGES THAT ARE NOT BEING RECOMMENDED TO BE UNIPORT HAVE BEEN THERE AND HAVE DONE THE WORK AND HAVE SACRIFICED TIME INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM.
EVEN THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES THAT ARE BEING RECOMMENDED, I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM ABOUT THAT.
I THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE GREAT ASSOCIATES.
I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN IN THIS TERM, OR IT MAY BE THE NEXT TERM WHEN SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS.
SO I THINK THAT'S A FULLER EXPLANATION.
AND, AND WHEN YOU APPLY TO GET ONE OF THESE APPOINTMENTS, WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION OF LONGEVITY? UH, OF, OF THIS ROLE? WHICH, UH, POSITION? YOU SAID ONE OF THE REASONS THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED WAS THAT THERE'S SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME.
UH, I, TO ME, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S REALLY MUCH OF A REASON.
'CAUSE I'M, I, I ISN'T THIS MEANT TO BE AN, AN ANNUAL APPOINTMENT? I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S MEANT TO BE AN ANNUAL APPOINTMENT.
SO WHAT IS Y'ALL'S EXPECTATION WHEN APPLYING TO BE CHOSEN OR AND APPOINTED IN ONE OF THESE ROLES? WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? HOW LONG DO YOU EXPECT TO BE IN THIS SEAT? AS LONG AS YOU'RE DOING THE JOB AND DOING THE JOB SUCCESSFULLY? NOT PER TERM.
YOU'RE NOT, NOT PER, YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH A TERM LIMIT AT ALL.
BECAUSE I MEAN, I, I'M ASKING 'CAUSE I, I HOPE TO BE A COUNCIL MEMBER FOR EIGHT YEARS, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT WHEN I GO AND ASK THE VOTERS TO VOTE ME IN, THAT I'M COMING IN FOR A TWO YEAR JOB.
SO WHAT IS Y'ALL'S CLEAR EXPECTATION OF THE JOB THAT YOU'RE APPLYING FOR? THAT FOR EVERY TERM THAT YOU APPLY, THAT IF YOU ARE DOING THE JOB CORRECTLY, THAT YOU'LL BE REAPPOINTED IN THEORY, RIGHT? IN THEORY, JUST LIKE FOR THE ELECTION.
BUT THERE IS NOT AN EXPECTATION OF GUARANTEE THAT YOU GO BEYOND THE TERM THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY APPOINTED FOR AT THAT TIME? NO.
SO IT, THIS WAS ALREADY MEANT TO BE A TERM BY TERM.
I'M, I'M JUST ASKING THAT FOR CLARITY BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO USE, UH, REASONING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD STAY BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME.
WHEN I, I I THINK THAT THAT'S AN ARGUMENT THAT WE COULD MAKE AS ELECTEDS AS WELL, YOU KNOW, BUT WE HAVE, WE HAVE TERMS FOR A REASON.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, RESET AND SEE IF THERE ARE CHANGES THAT CAN BE MADE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO, TO FIND OUT, UH, THAT THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTARY ON THE NEW SLATE, UH, AS WELL.
UH, AND I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT YOU SEND YOUR DECK TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, NOT JUST THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
ANY COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
ANY OTHERS COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? SEE, OH, UH, MR. MCGOO, WOULD YOU, UH, LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COMMITTEE? YES, PLEASE.
UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT THE COMMITTEE.
UM, I REALLY PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.
UM, I GUESS I LIVE IN DISTRICT 10.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE SOMEWHAT OF A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.
UM, WHEN I WAS FIRST CAME TO THE CITY ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO, UM, I WAS A PROSECUTOR, SPENT TIME IN OUR MUNICIPAL COURTS QUITE A BIT OF TIME.
AND IT WAS, I, I WANNA FIRST SAY THERE WERE SOME JUDGES THEN, AND OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEARS THAT I RESPECT TREMENDOUSLY.
UM, HOWEVER, THE WORKINGS AT THE COURTHOUSE WERE, TO PUT IT NICELY IN DISARRAY.
UM, THERE WAS LOTS OF STRUGGLES OVER THE YEARS, AND A LOT OF IT CULMINATED IN WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE THIS PROCESS.
UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF COMPETITION, THERE WAS A LOT OF ANTAGONISM BETWEEN JUDGES.
THERE WAS, UM, LOTS OF, OF, OF REALLY HURTFUL CONVERSATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE THAT ENDED UP HARMING, HARMING OUR CITIZENS.
WERE COMING THROUGH THE, THE COURTS.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M REALLY PROUD OF DURING THE TIME OF SERVING WAS BEING ABLE TO SIT WHERE YOU ARE NOW ON THIS COMMITTEE AND WORK WITH, UM, SPECIFICALLY JUDGE ROBINSON AS WE, IT WAS A TIME TO MAKE A A SHAKEUP.
AND, UM, I CAN TELL YOU THAT SINCE, UM, AND A LOT OF IT IS BECAUSE OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HERE AND THE MEN, THE CULTURE THAT HE'S CREATED AT THE COURTHOUSE
[00:35:01]
OF A TEAM MENTALITY.UM, NOT TO WHERE ANYBODY'S GUARANTEED ANYTHING TO YOUR POINT, BUT AS THEY'RE WORKING WITH THE SAME SORT OF GENERAL MOTIVES IN MIND, THEY'RE, THEY'RE PICKING UP FOR EACH OTHER.
THEY ARE SUPPORTING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE ALTERNATIVE COURTS FROM COMMUNITY COURT TO, UM, THE, THE JUVENILE COURT TO ALL THE OTHER DRUG COURTS, VETERAN COURTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I HAVE SEEN ON A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE, THE WORKINGS OF THIS COURTHOUSE BE IN, IN ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE BRIGHT LIGHTS OF WHAT OUR CITY IS DOING.
UM, I CAN SAY THAT PERSONALLY FROM PREVIOUSLY SITTING IN THEIR ROLE, BUT ALSO PERSONALLY BECAUSE MY, UM, MIDDLE SON JUST GOT A SPEEDING TICKET NOT TOO LONG AGO.
AND NAVIGATING THAT AS A DEFENDANT AND WATCHING THE WAY THE JUDGES TOOK CARE OF THE PEOPLE THAT COME THROUGH THE PROCESS, IT IS A, IT IS A REALLY A SPECIAL THING IN DALLAS.
UM, AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE ARE TIMES FOR SHAKEUPS FOR VERY VALID REASONS.
AND THERE, AND I'M JUST PLEADING WITH YOU THAT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TIMES THE JUDGES THAT ARE THERE ARE DOING REALLY GOOD WORK.
THEY HAVE EXEMPLARY, UM, RATINGS.
UM, I'VE SEEN THEIR WORK PERSONALLY.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO, AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO OF WHAT THE JUDGES ARE DOING AND THE WORK THAT OUR ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE IS LEADING AND HOW THAT'S WORKING IN OUR COURT SYSTEMS. THE OTHER THING I'D SAY IS, IS, UM, I THINK THIS GOES ALSO TO COUNCIL MEMBER BA'S POINT.
UM, YEAH, THERE'S NO, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE.
BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE A JUDGE, I WOULD SAY THERE NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION IN DEALING WITH THEM.
'CAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING IN A TON OF WORK, WHICH THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, THAT'S PART OF THE JOB.
UM, BUT THERE SHOULD BE A REASON THAT YOU'RE REMOVING THEM AND THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AND, AND, AND HOPEFULLY, UM, DEALT WITH, WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS.
AND, AND THE JUDGES THAT I KNOW UP THERE NOW HAVE BEEN DOING A REALLY IMPRESSIVE JOB, UM, BOTH IN THE WORKLOAD THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO AND ALSO HOW THEY TREAT THE COMMUNITY AND HOW THEY TREAT THE, THE DEFENDANTS THAT COME THROUGH OUR COURT SYSTEM AND ARE IN MANY WAYS A FRONTLINE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.
THAT'S THE ONLY INTERACTION THEY HAVE WITH OUR CITY EVER, IS THROUGH OUR COURTS.
AND, UM, I JUST WANNA ENCOURAGE YOU TO, UM, MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO AND LET THIS NOT BE THE TIME WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE BIG CHANGES.
AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANNA LOOK TOWARDS, THEN YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO.
SO LET'S, LET'S, LET'S SEE WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE.
IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS THAT ARE BROUGHT UP, LET'S START LOOKING AT WHAT THOSE ARE AND TALKING WITH THE JUDGES SPECIFICALLY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE AND SAY, HERE, THIS IS OUR EXPECTATIONS THAT AREN'T BEING MET AND LET'S, LET'S FOCUS ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.
UM, BUT MY ENCOURAGEMENT TO YOU, UM, AS HUMBLY AS I CAN IS PLEASE, UM, KEEP THE STATUS QUO.
DON'T MAKE THESE CHANGES AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
RECOMMEND TO COUNSEL WHAT IT HAS BEEN.
AGAIN, I KNOW THAT AT THIS POINT Y'ALL ARE EXPERTS AT NAVIGATING THE DIVISIVENESS OF THESE KIND OF ISSUES.
UM, BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ONE, ONE OF THOSE, UM, THIS USED TO BE A, AN ISSUE THAT THAT VERY MUCH HURT, UM, THE COUNCIL RELATIONS BECAUSE OF HOW THINGS PLAYED OUT FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT PERSONAL REASONS AND, AND, AND THAT I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE THE CASE MOVING FORWARD.
SO, UM, I I, I TRUST OUR ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, UM, THE PROCESS HE'S USED, THE EVALUATIONS THAT HE'S DONE.
AND I WOULD JUST HUMBLY ASK THAT YOU MAINTAIN THAT FOR THIS MOVING FORWARD.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK.
THANK YOU MR. MAGOO, FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
ANY QUESTIONS AMONGST THE, UM, COMMITTEE? ANY, UH, QUESTIONS AMONGST THE NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR APPEARANCE HERE TODAY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WHEN, UH, YOU BEGIN.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION DISTRICT SEVEN.
UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONSTERNATION IN MAKING CHANGES, UH, BUT HAVING BEEN AT EVERY SINGLE MEETING FOR THESE EVALUATIONS, I, I STAND BY THE LIST PROVIDED BY THE JNC.
CHANGES ARE HARD, BUT I AM VERY CONFIDENT THAT THE FORE PERSONS THAT ARE REPLACING INCUMBENTS ARE IMMINENTLY QUALIFIED TO HOLD THESE POSITIONS.
ONE OF WHOM WAS ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED AS A, AS A GREAT FULL-TIME JUDGE BY JUDGE ROBINSON HERE AND OTHERS THAT I KNOW PERSONALLY, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD MAKE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE BENCH.
I ACTUALLY DID OBSERVE SOME OF THESE JUDGES.
AND I'VE WORKED AT MUNICIPAL COURT WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND, UH, I FEEL THAT AT TIMES SOME CHANGES
[00:40:01]
ARE NEEDED.THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT SOME JUDGES AREN'T DOING A GREAT JOB, BUT IF WE FIND JUDGES THAT, THAT THE COMMITTEE FEELS CAN DO A BETTER JOB, THEN I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH USING LONGEVITY OR INCUMBENCY AS A REASON TO NOT MAKE CHANGES.
WE SPENT OVER 20 HOURS REVIEWING ALL OF THESE RESUMES, INTERVIEWING PEOPLE.
AND IT'S NOT JUST ON INCUMBENCY, BUT ALSO YOUR DEMEANOR, YOUR PRESENTATION, WHAT WE BELIEVE WOULD BE BEST FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR EXCELLENCE HERE.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR GREAT SERVICE, WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIVERSITY.
AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE COMMISSION.
IT WAS A COMMISSION OF MEN, WOMEN, YOUNGER, OLDER FOLKS, COMMUNITY FOLKS, ELECTEDS.
SO I FEEL THAT IT WAS A VERY ROBUST DISCUSSION.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS, I DO STAND BY THE LIST PROVIDED BY THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? ANY QUESTIONS? NO, I JUST HAD A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
YEAH, I MEAN YOU, UM, THANK YOU FOR COMING UP TO SPEAK.
YOU MENTIONED CONSTERNATION OVER MAKING CHANGE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE.
UH, I WOULD SAY WHAT'S ACCURATE IS CONSTERNATION OVER MAKING MAYBE AN UNWARRANTED CHANGE.
UM, SO THAT THAT IS, UM, A CONCERN.
AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN STATUS QUO IS NOT A, A POSITIVE, UM, IF YOU KEEP SOMETHING GOING THAT'S NOT WORKING.
AND SO THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE STATUS QUO IS ACTUALLY MANAGING EXISTING OF STATE OF AFFAIRS IS, IS OKAY.
UM, AND I MEAN, PROCESS IMPROVEMENT IS GREAT.
YOU KNOW, EXEMPLARY IS PRETTY GOOD.
SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THOSE POINTS AND I'M, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT MAYBE SOME OTHER REASONS THAT ARE EXISTING HERE, UM, THAT MAYBE WILL COME UP.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN BEZEL? DO IT.
THAT WAS A WEIRD NOISE AT NIGHT.
UM, I WAS
I I PROBABLY MISSED IT FROM MR. CHAIR.
UH, 'CAUSE I, WELL I CAME IN LATE, BUT IF YOU COULD GIVE, 'CAUSE I, I, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST SAID.
UM, I, BUT I, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT IT, IT'S FRAMED THAT THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG IF THERE'S APPLICANTS THAT MAY SCORE BETTER.
AND SO THAT, SO JUST AS MUCH AS SHE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLARIFIED.
AND IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THE SCORING CRITERIA IN THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S NECESSARILY SAYING A CHANGE IS WARRANTED BECAUSE ANYONE WAS, WAS BAD.
UH, BUT IF YOU HAD A, AN UNBIASED SCORING SYSTEM THAT ENDED UP PUTTING SOME APPLICANTS HIGHER THAN SOME WHO ARE INCUMBENTS.
CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THAT PROCESS AND HOW WE ENDED UP WITH SOME THAT WERE SCORED HIGHER? CORRECT.
IT, THEY MIGHT NOT BE DOING A BAD JOB.
AND I'M NOT, AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYBODY DID.
HOWEVER, IT WAS A COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND FOLKS ARE JUDGED BY A VARIETY OF FACTORS, INCLUDING THEIR INTERVIEW, INCLUDING THEIR LEGAL EXPERIENCE, THEIR TRIAL EXPERIENCE, A VARIETY OF FACTORS.
JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SCORED BETTER THAN YOU DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU'RE DOING A BAD JOB.
THESE PERSONS JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE A FEW OTHER QUALITIES THAT WE AS A COMMISSION DEEMED BETTER FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AS A WHOLE.
THIS IS NOT, UH, A REFERENDUM ON ANYBODY'S ABILITY.
IT'S JUST A COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND WE WANTED TO SELECT THE BEST.
AND, AND WAS Y'ALL'S FINAL VOTE ON THE SLATE AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS? WHAT? DO YOU REMEMBER THE VOTE COUNT? I, I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
DO YOU, MR. CHAIR, WHEN YOU SAY FINAL VOTE COUNT, UH, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED TODAY, UH, BY COMMITTEE, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT YOU ALL FINALIZED TO SEND WAS THERE, UM, AN OVERALL VOTE ON THE SLATE AS, UH, PRESENTED? DO YOU WANT THE PARTICULAR NUMBERS? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, YEAH, THE VOTE COUNT.
ARE WE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BY THE WAY? NO, NO.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ME NAMES.
I JUST NEED TO KNOW WAS THIS, WAS THIS AN EIGHT SEVEN VOTE? WAS THIS PRETTY UNANIMOUS, UM, UH, DECISION MADE BY THE COMMISSION? WAS THERE CONTENTION AT Y'ALL'S LEVEL OR DID IT ALL COME FROM OUTSIDE AFTER Y'ALL MADE, UM, YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS? 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT I EXPERIENCED.
IF I MAY ADD, WE DID HAVE A LOT OF DEBATE AMONGST, AMONGST THE MEMBERS AND THERE WAS RIGOROUS QUESTIONS ASKED AND FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ASKED AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO IT, IT WAS A RIGOROUS DEBATE DURING, DURING DELIBERATIONS, CERTAINLY.
AND THAT, THAT'S REALLY, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A PICTURE PAINTED FOR THE WORK THAT WAS PUT IN, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE
[00:45:01]
JUST AUTOMATICALLY NEGATED BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE PRESSURES THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE OUTSIDE.I, I, I, I THINK PAINTING A PICTURE OF THE WORK THAT Y'ALL PUT INTO IT AND AS A BODY, JUST KIND OF KNOWING WHAT THAT OUTCOME IS, IS VERY HELPFUL.
AND, AND WHERE Y'ALL'S DEBATE ENDED, WHERE IT ENDED, I, I'D SAY WE SPENT ABOUT 20 HOURS IN THIS PROCESS THROUGHOUT THE FOUR MEETINGS.
WE DID HAVE RESUMES IN ADVANCE.
WE DID HAVE GIVE EVERYONE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW.
WE DID HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION, THE EVALUATIONS FROM, FROM JUDGE ROBINSON AND FOLKS THAT HAD PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CANDIDATES ALSO GOT TO SHARE THAT, THAT INPUT.
ANYONE THAT VISITED THE COURT, UH, DURING, DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME CAME BACK AND GAVE FEEDBACK AS TO WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS GOING RIGHT OR WRONG.
SOME FOLKS SPOKE TO CLERKS, ET CETERA.
SO I FEEL THAT, THAT WE DID HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION AT OUR DISPOSAL TO MAKE THESE, THESE DECISIONS.
AND IN REVIEWING THE NUMBERS THAT I'M LOOKING NOW, UH, THERE WAS, I STATED EARLIER WITH, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT NUMBER 10, VERSE 11.
IF YOU START GOING DOWN, THERE WAS A SMALL DISCREPANCY BETWEEN 10 AND 11.
THEN IF YOU GO TO 12 AND 13, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE BLOCKED UP.
THEN 14 WOULD BE A LITTLE LOWER.
AND THEN FROM THERE IT WAS NOT REALLY A, A, A QUESTION IN TERMS OF, UH, WHERE WE WERE WITH THE SCORING.
BUT WERE THESE PASSAGE SUPER MAJORITIES? WERE THEY FULL BODY, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT PASSED EACH OF THESE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED? THEY WERE UNANIMOUS.
THERE WERE, THERE WAS NO DESCENT IN TERMS OF GOT IT.
UH, AND ONCE WE GOT THE NUMBERS, WE, ME AS A CHAIR, I SAID TO THE GENERAL BODY, IS THERE ANY DISSENT? DO WE WANT DISCUSS MOVING ANYONE AROUND? DO WE THINK THIS IS FAIR? AND WE, NO ONE ACCURATE, NO ONE, I MEAN EVERYONE ACCURATE, NO DISSENT.
AND WE WERE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ANALYSIS KNOWING THAT THREE ASSOCIATE JUDGES WOULD BE BUMPING INCUMBENT JUDGES.
AND HOW THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY LOOK BECAUSE THEY SCORED HIGH AS ASSOCIATE JUDGES AS WELL.
SO IF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO KEEP THEM THERE, THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY AS WELL BECAUSE THEY SCORED THERE.
AND THEN THERE WAS ONLY ONE WHO WAS COMING IN, NOT FROM EITHER, WHO WAS SOMEWHAT DISRUPTIVE FOR A LACK OF BETTER WORDS FOR HOW THEY SCORED FROM A FULL-TIME PERSPECTIVE, AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE PERSPECTIVE.
BUT IT WAS UNANIMOUS AS JUDGE MARTINEZ WAS THERE.
I JUST, UM, MR. CHAIR WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT, UM, CONTEXT, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S, IF IT'S BEING FRAMED AS IF SOME SHOULDN'T BE MOVED BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T DOING A BAD JOB.
I THINK THAT THEY HAD AN UNBIASED SCORING PROCESS.
I THINK THAT THEY WORKED DILIGENTLY, UM, A, UH, AMONGST THEIR BODY AND IT SOUNDS AS IF ALL OF THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE FROM THAT BODY AND SENT TO OUR, UH, COUNSEL WAS DONE UNANIMOUSLY.
AND I, I THINK THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE PROCESS.
AND A, A QUICK POINT, UH, JUST, I WANNA BE ON A RECORD AND SAY THIS AS THE CHAIR.
I'VE OBSERVED THE FULL-TIME JUDGES AND I THINK THEY DO AN EXCELLENT JUDGE.
I'VE TALKED TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE AND, UH, THIS RECOMMENDATION, WHICH I KNOW IS, YOU KNOW, LISTED AND STAMPED BY ME, IS NO, UH, INDICTMENT OR ANY TYPE OF, UH, NEGATIVE BLE BLEMISH TOWARDS THEM.
I THINK THEY'RE GREAT INDIVIDUALS.
LIKE I SAID, I HAVE ONE SINGLE VOTE LIKE EVERYBODY IN THE, IN OUR, OH, IN OUR GENERAL BODY.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
I THINK WE HAVE A GREAT, UH, JUDICIARY LED BY JUDGE PRESTON ROBINSON THAT IS CURRENTLY SERVING, UH, COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSSOHN.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ANY OF THE WITNESSES OR ANY COMMENTS? WELL, I GUESS MY COMMENTS ARE THAT I WAS NOT PARTICULARLY AWARE OF HOW THIS PROCESS WORKED PREVIOUSLY.
AND I'M INTERESTED IN PERHAPS CHANGING THE PROCESS SO THAT THERE'S AN EVALUATION OF EXISTING JUDGES AND WE BIFURCATE IT SO THAT EXISTING JUDGES, IF THEY ARE RATED EXCELLENT WOULD JUST BE RENOMINATED AND OPEN SPOTS WOULD GO THROUGH A RIGOROUS EVALUATION PROCESS AND NOMINATION.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE OR OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS? HEARING NONE AT THIS POINT, IT IS 1:49 PM ON JUNE 4TH.
THE AD HOC JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 5 1 0.074 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT TO DELIBERATE THE POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OF ASSOCIATE MUNICIPAL JUDGES.
IT IS NOW 3:32 PM ON JUNE 4TH AND WE ARE BACK
[00:50:01]
FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION.AND WE HAVE TWO ACTION ITEMS REMAINING ON THE AGENDA.
ITEM C, CONSIDERING JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER A 3% INCREASE FOR THE MUNICIPAL JUDGES.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION ON THAT ITEM? I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 3% INCREASE FROM THE MUNICIPAL JUDGES TO FULL COUNSEL.
ANY DISCUSSION? NO HEARING NONE.
NEXT ITEM IS D CONSIDERED JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SELECTION OF FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE, INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE AND ASSOCIATE JUDGE POSITIONS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION WITH REGARD TO ANY ITEM INCLUDED IN ITEM D? YES, CHAIR.
UM, FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CANDIDATE, I, UH, RECOMMEND, UH, TO FULL COUNSEL THAT WE NOMINATE PRESTON ROBINSON, JR.
SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? NO, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
AND THEN ON THE OTHER TWO ITEMS, CHAIR, UH, FOR THE FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE CANDIDATES AND ASSOCIATE JUDGE CANDIDATES, I MOVE THAT WE HOLD THE RECOMMENDATION PROCESS OVER UNTIL A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING THAT WILL OCCUR BEFORE THE END OF JUNE, 2024.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AT THIS POINT.
UH, AT 3 34, THE AD HOC JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE IS ADJOURNED.