[00:00:01]
AFTERNOON.IT IS NOW 1:04 PM ON MAY 12TH, 2026, AND I AM CONVENING THE AD HOC JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE MEETING.
OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024 AD HOC JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION MINUTES.
ANY DISCUSSION OR CORRECTIONS? HEARING NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM A, UNDER BRIEFING ITEMS, THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE, INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE AND ASSOCIATE JUDGE POSITIONS.
IS MR. MCDOUGALL IN THE AUDIENCE? AH, PLEASE COME DOWN TO THE MICROPHONE.
SO, MR. MCDOUGALL, ARE YOU HERE TO PRESENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION? YES.
AND I, I CAN ALSO HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE DISCUSSIONS, DELIBERATIONS REGARDING ANYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIST PROVIDED.
WELL, COULD YOU START BY RECOUNTING THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE COMMISSION MADE ITS RECOMMENDATIONS? YEAH, SO AS THE CHAIR, I EMBODIED THE BOARD MEMBERS TO VOTE ACCORDING TO A 20 POINT SCALE.
AND I HAVE A, I HAVE A LIST THAT I CAN SHOW YOU AS WELL TO THE COUNCIL, WHICH BROKE DOWN FOUR CATEGORIES FROM A NUMBER FROM ZERO TO FIVE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INTERVIEW PERFORMANCE, ZERO TO FIVE LEGAL EXPERIENCE, ZERO TO FIVE, CRIMINAL LAW BACKGROUND AND TRIAL EXPERIENCE, ZERO TO FIVE JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND JUDICIAL AND OR COURT EXPERIENCE ZERO TO FIVE.
SO FROM FROM THAT, THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING THAT DAY WERE ALLOWED TO GIVE A TOTAL NUMBER BASED OFF EVERY CANDIDATE THAT WE SAW OR APPLICANT.
AND WE TOTALED THOSE NUMBERS UP AND THE LIST PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
THIS AD HOC COMMITTEE WAS BASED ON THAT, THE NUMBERS FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST.
AND THIS, UM, PROCESS OF ASSIGNING POINTS FO UH, FOLLOWED INTERVIEWS OF ALL OF THE CANDIDATES.
IS THAT CORRECT? LIVE INTERVIEWS? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THREE DAYS IN A ROW WE INTERVIEWED FIRST DAY ALL THE, YOU CAN SAY INCUMBENTS OR THE SITTING JUDGES.
AND THEN THE SECOND DAY WE INTERVIEWED ASSOCIATE JUDGES.
THEN THE THIRD DAY WE INTERVIEWED INDIVIDUALS OF THE COMMUNITY OR THROUGH THE STATE WHO WANTED TO APPLY FOR POSITIONS.
AND, UH, DID YOU OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMISSION MEMBERS TO OBSERVE THE INCUMBENT JUDGES AT WORK ON THE BENCH? YES, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
I, I'VE, I HAVE CHARGED THE COMMITTEE BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND NOT ONLY MUNICIPAL COURT WEEK, WHICH I FREQUENTLY ATTEND TO JUST REGULAR DOCKET HEARINGS, TO TALK TO CITIZENS WHO COME IN AND OUTTA COURT.
SO I'VE, YOU KNOW, I'VE CHARGED THEM AND ASKED THEM AND PLEADED WITH THEM TO DO SO.
I THINK A COUPLE MEMBERS HAVE, UH, FROM DISTRICT TWO, DISTRICT THREE I, I RECOGNIZE THEY, THEY'VE TOLD ME AND, UH, RECENTLY DISTRICT SIX AND THEY'VE HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE CURRENT JUDICIARY MAKEUP AND ALSO LOOK AT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROVIDED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.
SO THERE ARE 15 MEMBERS OF YOUR COMMISSION.
ARE ALL OF THOSE, UM, POSITIONS FILLED? NO, SIR.
SO ON APRIL 26TH, 2026, MR. NATHAN BREN, WHO I BELIEVE IS DISTRICT 10 RESIGNED.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT THERE ARE 14 MEMBERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS? NO, ONCE AGAIN, NO.
AND I, AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION I HAVE, WHICH I HAVE THE, NOT ONLY THE VOTES, BUT I HAVE THE VOTING RECORD OF EACH INDIVIDUAL, UH, MEMBER, UH, WE HAD 10 MEMBERS VOTE, SO WE HAVE A CURRENT MAKEUP OF 14, BUT 10 VOTED.
WHY DID ONLY 10 VOTE? ONE MEMBER SAID HE WAS UNAVAILABLE.
ANOTHER, ANOTHER MEMBER JUST CHOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS AT ALL.
THEN A NUMBER MEMBER WAS SELECTED PRETTY
[00:05:01]
RECENT IN THE PROCESS AND CHOSE NOT TO, UH, PARTICIPATE AS WELL.AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD A CONFLICT THAT NIGHT OF VOTING.
SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BASED UPON THE VOTES OF JUST 10 MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? THAT'S CORRECT.
10 OUT OF 14 THAT CURRENTLY SERVE.
NOW, THE, UM, I'D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SYSTEM OF VOTING.
UM, YOU IDENTIFIED FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION MEMBERS EVALUATED THE CANDIDATES, AND, UH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY, UM, CAST A TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES FOR ALL FOUR CATEGORIES AT THE SAME TIME, RATHER THAN BEING REQUIRED TO BREAK DOWN THEIR VOTE IN EACH CATEGORY.
IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, THE MEMBERS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, SO AT, AT POINTS DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, SOME SAID, HEY, I'M GIVING THIS FOR THIS, I'M GIVING X AMOUNT, OR I'M GIVING A TOTAL.
SO IT WAS, IT WAS UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE VOTING PROCESS.
I TOLD ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER YOU CAME IN ONE DAY OR ALL THREE DAYS OF THE INTERVIEW PROCESS, WHETHER YOU CAME IN NONE AND JUST VETTED THEM THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS MATERIALS, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO VOTE ACCORDING TO HOW YOU WOULD LIKE, WE WON'T ASK YOU FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, WHY YOU VOTED A CERTAIN WAY IF YOU WANT TO VOTE IN TERMS OF EFFICIENCY BY JUST GIVING A NUMBER, FOR EXAMPLE, 17 FOR A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE, WE WOULD DO IT THAT WAY.
BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, JOHN SMITH, FOR EXAMPLE, I GAVE HIM A FIVE ON THIS, SEVEN ON THIS, YOU KNOW, FOUR, THREE, ET CETERA, AND THIS IS WHY.
BUT MOST OF THEM CHOSE TO JUST GIVE THE TOTAL NUMBER.
IS THAT CORRECT? FOR MOST OF THE CANDIDATES, YES.
FOR THE, THE MORE CONTESTED INDIVIDUALS, IT WAS SOME REASONING AND SOME DISCUSSION BEHIND IT.
WELL, MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT SOME OF THESE CATEGORIES WOULDN'T SCORE ANY POINTS FOR CANDIDATES WHO, FOR EXAMPLE, HAD NO PREVIOUS JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE OR WERE NOT OBSERVED IN THE COURTROOM.
IN THE CASE OF INCUMBENTS, MANY OF THEM DON'T HAVE ANY TRIAL EXPERIENCE, AND SO THEY SHOULD SCORE A ZERO IN THAT CATEGORY.
AND YET MANY OF THE CANDIDATES, INCLUDING THOSE WHO DIDN'T HAVE TRIAL EXPERIENCE, SCORED OVER 15 POINTS, WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE IF YOU WERE TO BREAK DOWN EACH CATEGORY AND ASSIGN VOTES TO EACH CATEGORY.
SO I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT WAS FOLLOWED THAT ALLOWED PEOPLE TO WAIT THE VOTES IN FAVOR OF SOMEONE THAT THEY WERE PARTICULARLY, UH, ANXIOUS TO BE NOMINATED WHEN THE POINT SYSTEM BROKE DOWN.
BECAUSE IT WASN'T CATEGORIZED BY THE FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES THAT YOU DEVISED.
IN OTHER WORDS, I, I THINK THIS WAS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE BEST LAID PLANS DIDN'T WORK OUT.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN WITH THAT, AND I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THIS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS WELL, WE HAD SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO I THOUGHT HAD SOME VENDETTAS OR SOME BONNA PIGS WITH INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES, AND THAT ALLOWED THEM THIS, THIS FORM, EVEN THOUGH I TAKE IT AS BEING A STANDING ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, COURT, YOU KNOW, LICENSED ATTORNEY, STAY WITH THE BOARD.
THE SAME WAY WITH MANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS ON THIS BOARD, WE HAD MEMBERS WHO SOMEWHAT MOCK MOCKED THE INTEGRITY OF THE VOTING PROCESS IN ORDER TO CREATE A SHAM OR MANIPULATE THE VOTING PROCESS.
AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT I HAVE THEIR, THOSE, THOSE VOTES TALLIED.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY I TOOK IT IN A TRANSPARENCY AND CONSISTENT WAY.
SO I ALLOWED THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD TO SEE THAT AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS, WHY THEY VOTED THAT WAY, WHO GAVE A LOT OF ZEROS, WHO GAVE TWENTIES FOR CANDIDATES THAT PROBABLY WEREN'T DESERVING OF A 20, JUST SO YOU CAN TAKE THAT BACK TO YOUR INDIVIDUAL, UH, REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE ON THIS BOARD SO WE CAN HAVE A LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS BEHIND IT AND INTEGRITY THAT THIS BOARD DESERVES.
BECAUSE AS THE CHAIR FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS ON THIS BOARD, THIS BODY THAT WE'VE HAD MOST RECENTLY, THERE WERE INDIVIDUALS WHO DELIBERATELY TRIED TO MUCK UP THE PROCESS IN A TARGET CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.
WHAT I, WHICH I DON'T THINK WAS WARRANTED BASED OFF THE TIME AND CONSIDERATION THAT IT GOES TO LOOKING INTO OBSERVING THE JUDGES THAT I, AS THE CHAIR HAVE HAS DONE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS AND OTHERS ON THE BOARD THAT THEY HAVEN'T.
SO YOU MENTIONED, UH, ONLY TWO MEMBERS, I BELIEVE, OF THE COMMISSION WHO ACTUALLY OBSERVED JUDGES THE INCUMBENTS OR SPOKE TO PEOPLE IN THEIR COURTROOMS. THAT'S CORRECT.
[00:10:01]
CHAIR.SO WE RECENTLY HAD SCOTT HART VALVE WHO CAME ON WHO HE, HE'S CAME ON THE BOARD IN THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS AND HE EVEN WENT AND OBSERVE RECENTLY WITH JUDGE PRESTON ROBINSON ADMINISTRATIVE RECENTLY AT THE COURT.
AND I'VE ASKED MEMBERS BODIES TO DO THIS FOR YEARS MM-HMM
AND HE WAS ONE WHO CAME ON AND IMMEDIATELY SAID, HEY, HOW CAN I GET A BADGE? HOW CAN I GO OBSERVE? SO INDIVIDUALS LIKE THAT I, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE AS BEING VERY DEDICATED TO THIS PROCESS.
OF COURSE, IT'S OTHERS WHO HAVE, YOU KNOW, TAKEN A POINT TO DO THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN ADVISED NOT TO DO, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF WHETHER IT'S THE RECORD AND I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THAT AS WELL.
UH, BUT IT'S A SHAME THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HAVE TAKEN THEIR TIME TO, YOU KNOW, DELIBERATELY MOCK UP THIS PROCESS WHERE I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY IN TERMS OF CITY OF DALLAS JUDICIARY.
WELL, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE LAST STATEMENT, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU IN FUTURE TO MODIFY THE VOTING SYSTEM SO THAT IT CAN HOLD THE COMMISSION MEMBERS MORE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE ACTUAL MERITS OF THE JUDGES RATHER THAN THEIR PRE-CON CONSERVED NOTIONS, VENDETTAS, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, WHATEVER, UH, PERHAPS THERE'S A VOTING SYSTEM THAT WOULD KEEP THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTUAL VOTES.
MR. CHAIR AND I TOOK A LOT OF TIME THIS CYCLE AROUND LAST TIME WE HAD SOME PUSHBACK, SOME POSITIVE FEEDBACK WHERE LAST TIME WE JUST GAVE A A SCALE OF ONE THROUGH 18 AND YOU SAW INDIVIDUALS GIVE A 18 AND SOME GIVE ONE MANIPULATED THIS TIME AROUND IS WHY I CREATED THAT FOUR, UH, CATEGORY LIST.
SO YOU CAN SEE, HEY, THIS PERSON HADN'T EVER SERVED ON A BENCH OR HAS NO CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, HOW DID THEY GET A 20? AND THEN YOU CAN, Y'ALL HAVE, YOU KNOW, THIS BODY HAS THE DOCUMENTS AND APPLICATIONS AND YOU CAN GO AND SEE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO RECEIVED A 20 FROM A PARTICULAR BOARD MEMBER WHO HAS NO REQUISITE EXPERIENCE.
I TRIED TO CREATE A BETTER TRANSPARENCY, BUT I DO TAKE THAT, UH, TO HEART AND I, I DO WANT TO CREATE A MORE TRANSPARENT PROCESS.
IT'S HARD WHEN ALL THE MEMBERS DON'T ATTEND IN PERSON, AND SO THIS MEETING ALREADY LASTS FOUR TO FIVE HOURS.
SO TRYING TO HAVE SOMETHING WHERE YOU SAY, HEY, GO DOWN EACH INDIVIDUAL ZERO TO FIVE, WHY HAVING, YOU KNOW, A REASON IS HARD FROM A, JUST A RESOURCE STANDPOINT, BUT I DO THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO GROW HERE FROM ACCOUNTABILITY STANDPOINT AND I WILL, UH, DO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND, UH, THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION PUT TOGETHER A TWO PAGE MEMO THAT IDENTIFIES THE CANDIDATES THAT IT RECOMMENDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE FULL-TIME AND ASSOCIATE JUDGE CANDIDATES.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I BELIEVE ALL OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE THAT MEMO.
THEN AT THIS POINT, OH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES, PLEASE.
UH, COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR? YES.
WELL, ONE ON THIS LIST, UM, I BELIEVE WE NOMINATE 10 CANDIDATES FOR THE FULL-TIME POSITION, ONE OF WHICH IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.
AND SO, BUT THIS IS SAYING WE'RE GONNA TAKE, I THINK WE WOULD ONLY TAKE NINE, I GUESS BASICALLY FROM THIS SECOND LIST IS FROM THE FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE CANDIDATES LIST.
WE WOULD ONLY TAKE NINE OUT OF THAT LIST BECAUSE THE OTHER, THE 10TH WILL BE UP HERE IN THE, UH, AS THE RIGHT, AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.
SO WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 10 WITH ADMINISTRATIVE.
AND THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE ISSUE.
SO IF YOU SEE IT'S 15 CANDIDATES, AND NORMALLY WE HAVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES IN THAT SAME LIST.
HOWEVER, DUE TO SOME MOCKING UP THIS PROCESS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES ALL WOULD FALL UNDER THE NUMBER 15 BASED OFF OF NUMERICAL COUNTY.
AND I CAN PROVIDE THAT TO YOU AS WELL.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE IT BROKEN OUT TO WHERE THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE SOME INDIVIDUALS CHOSE TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY TO MAKE THE NUMBERS STRATEGICALLY BE SO BAD THAT THEY'RE NOT ON THE LIST.
SO THAT BRINGS ME TO ANOTHER POINT.
I, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME PEOPLE VOTED, UM, WITH ZEROS AND THEN SOME PEOPLE ABSTAINED.
AND SO IF THEY VOTE WITH A ZERO THAT REALLY WORKS AGAINST THE TOTAL SCORE, RIGHT.
OF THAT ABSOLUTELY INDIVIDUAL PERSON, IF THEY ABSTAIN IT, IT'S A WAY OF HEALTH HELPING THAT PERSON BECAUSE THERE WILL BE LESS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE TO DIVIDE THE, THE TOTAL BUY.
BECAUSE THEN YOU DO AN AVERAGE OF THAT AMOUNT AND RIGHT.
AND I WILL SAY FOR THE MOST PART, FOR THOSE WHO ABSTAIN, AND THEY HAVE THE REASONS HERE, EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT, BUT I CAN DISCUSS ONCE AGAIN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, THOSE WHO ABSTAIN FOR THE MOST PART SAID, HEY, I DID NOT SEE A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE.
I WAS NOT THERE THAT DAY, ET CETERA.
THE ONES WHO GAVE ZEROS SAW THE INDIVIDUALS AND STILL CHOSE TO GIVE ZEROS AND THEY WOULD GIVE ZEROS TO PEOPLE
[00:15:01]
WHO CLEARLY DO HAVE COURTROOM EXPERIENCE.AND AS, AS YOU'LL SEE WITH THIS DOCUMENTATION, JUST FROM, IF YOU HAD IT FROM AN INTERVIEW PROCESS, ONE LEGAL EXPERIENCE, TWO CRIMINAL LAW BACKGROUND, THREE, FOUR JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND OR JUDICIAL SLASH COURTROOM EXPERIENCE, A INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A CURRENT JUDGE COULD NOT GET A ZERO.
IN MY, UH, BUT DID, BUT DID POTENTIALLY, BUT IT DID.
NO, IT DID, IT WASN'T POTENTIALLY RECEIVE A ZERO AT TIMES.
SO THIS IS OUR SECOND TIME AROUND.
LAST TIME I WASN'T ON THE COMMITTEE, BUT I WAS ON THE PERIPHERY AND, AND PAYING ATTENTION, UM, MR. SHERIFF, WE COULD WORK ON A NEW SYSTEM BECAUSE THIS SYSTEM IS BROKEN.
UM, IT'S ALLOWING PEOPLE TO TAKE GRUDGES OR VEN VENDETTAS OR WHATEVER AND, AND USE THAT IN THIS VOTING, UM, SCHEME.
NOT, NOT SCHEME ISN'T BAD, BUT JUST AS THAT'S THE PLANNED, UM, IN PLACE, UH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST MANIPULATING THIS SYSTEM.
AND I, I FEEL LIKE WE NEED SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND I DON'T, I WOULD RECOMMEND WE PERHAPS LOOK AT OUR SISTER CITIES IN TEXAS AND SEE HOW THEY DO THIS, BUT UM, WE SEEM TO BE IN A BIT OF A PICKLE HERE AGAIN, AND THIS IS WHERE WE HAD THIS, THIS IS NOT NEW, IS ALL I'M SAYING.
OH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
UH, DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROCESS? UH, COUNCILMAN ROB.
UM, UH, HAVE, HAVE ALL THE, UH, NOMINEES, UH, THAT ARE ON THE, HAVE THEY ALL BEEN VETTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY SATISFY THE, THE RESIDENCY QUALIFICATION, THE LEGAL, UH, LICENSE QUALIFICATION? UH, AND, AND WHO, UH, VERIFIES AND DOES THAT VETTING? THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN.
HR VERIFIES THEY, IT WAS ALSO NOTATED IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD A, A NONCOMPLIANT ADDRESS ON THEIR RESUME OR IN VITA THAT WE SAW, I, I ASKED BECAUSE I LEAD THE INTERVIEWS, I ASKED THEM DIRECTLY, DID THEY HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REQUIREMENT NOTATING, THEY HAD FOUR MONTHS POST SELECTION OR APPOINTMENT, AND ALL THE INDIVIDUALS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT IT AND DO, AND ARE THEY ALL LICENSED? DO THEY ALL HAVE THE TWO YEAR EXPERIENCE? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO, WHO, WHO STATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT MOVE OR THEY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT, THEY WITHDREW.
SO THE CANDIDATES A LIST THAT YOU'LL SEE IN TERMS OF THE DOCUMENTATION, SOME OF THOSE APPLICANTS WITHDREW ONCE WE TOLD THEM, HEY, YOU NEED THIS MUCH EXPERIENCE OR YOU HAVE TO MOVE BY THIS DATE.
SO EVERYBODY WAS VETTED BY THE HR DEPARTMENT ALREADY? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SO, AND, AND TO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART'S QUESTION, UM, ARE THE THREE, IF ON THE ADMINIS ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CANDIDATE AND THEN THE FULL-TIME INITIAL JUDGE CANDIDATE, UM, UNDER THE FULL-TIME ADMIN WE'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO, UM, TO NOMINATE 10 PEOPLE TOTAL, ONE OF WHICH IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE OTHER TWO? UM, THE OTHER TWO CANDIDATES THAT ARE UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CANDIDACY, ARE THEY PUT ONTO THE, TO THE FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE CANDIDACY LIST OR ARE THEY, IN OTHER WORDS, ARE THEY PART OF THE 15 OR IS IT REALLY SEVEN? IS IT REALLY 18 PEOPLE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING? FOR THE 10, IT'LL BE 18.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, AND BASED OFF THE NUMBERS, I CAN, UH, DECLARE AND TESTIFY THAT THE THREE OKAY, SO THOSE OTHER TWO, SO WHO, WHOEVER, WHOEVER DOESN'T GET PICKED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE IS ALSO STILL IN THE QUEUE FOR THE, FOR THE MUNICIPAL FULL-TIME JOB, IS THAT CORRECT? LET, LET ME ADDRESS THAT.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CANDIDATES HIGHT SIMMONS AND JAMES LAMARCA, WHO WERE CANDIDATES FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE POSITION DID NOT APPLY FOR THE FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE POSITION, WHICH IS A SEPARATE APPLICATION ONLY PRESTON ROBINSON JR.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WAS MY CLARIFICATION? 'CAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THE, I DIDN'T SEE THE NAMES ON BOTH EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF THAT, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S LIKE THAT.
AND THAT'S WHY IT'S LIKE THAT THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T APPLY.
SO IF, SO THEY'RE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED IN THAT SECOND CATEGORY IF THEY HADN'T BEEN APPLIED SPECIFICALLY.
WELL, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY CAN'T BE CONSIDERED FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE POSITION EITHER, BECAUSE TO BE THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, YOU ALSO HAVE
[00:20:01]
TO BE A FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE.SO THAT LEAVES US WITH ONLY ONE QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.
UM, AND OH, I THOUGHT YOU SAID NO.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I JUST, YEAH.
WELL, I JUST WANTED TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR LOOKING AT THE PROCESS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE TIME YOU PUT IN.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S, I'VE SEEN THESE BIG BOOKS THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE AND I KNOW THAT THEY READ THROUGH LINE BY LINE.
AND SO IT DOES SEEM LIKE HERE WE ARE ANOTHER TWO YEARS LATER AND SOME UNFORTUNATE AND DISAPPOINTING, UM, THINGS HAVE OCCURRED.
AND SO I JUST REITERATE SPORT FOR THE PROCESS AND ALSO WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE EVALUATIONS ARE PART OF THAT AND HOW THEY'RE, HOW THEY'RE WEIGHED.
BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WHO TAKES PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL PRIDE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE COURTS AND UH, IT PUTS A LOT OF TIME INTO THAT.
AND SO I JUST WANNA BE SURE THAT WHATEVER THIS PROCESS IS, IS THAT WE GIVE APPROPRIATE WEIGHT TO THAT WORK AS WELL.
UM, AND, UH, MR. MCDOUGALL, UH, ONE FINAL COMMENT, AND THIS IS MORE OF A CLERICAL ONE AND I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ANY INFLUENCE OVER THIS, BUT THE NOTEBOOKS THAT WE WERE SUPPLIED WERE APPARENTLY THE EXACT SAME NOTEBOOKS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY WERE ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF THE INTERVIEWS ON THE DIFFERENT DAYS.
I SPENT SOME TIME GOING THROUGH IT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RHYME OR REASON OF THE ORGANIZATION, OF THE RESUMES AND COULDN'T FIND ANY UNTIL IT DAWNED ON ME THAT IT INCLUDED THE SCHEDULES FOR THE INTERVIEWS.
AND SO IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL, AND THIS MAY BE MORE A COMMENT FOR THE STAFF, THAT THE NOTEBOOKS THAT THEY SUPPLY TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS BE ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO THE SEQUENCE OF THE CANDIDATES RATINGS BY THE COMMISSION SO THAT WE, AS WE DISCUSS THEM, CAN FIND THE RESUMES OF THOSE THAT ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION.
SO THAT'S, UH, PROBABLY SOMETHING YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER, BUT IT WOULD SURE ASSIST US IN OUR DELIBERATIONS GOING FORWARD.
I CONCUR, MR. CHAIR AND I RECEIVED THE SAME MATERIALS FROM CITY STAFF THAT YOU ARE REVIEWING, SO, BUT I CONCUR AND GREAT.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT, IT IS NOW 1:27 PM ON MAY 12TH, THE AD HOC JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 5 51 0.074 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEM B, CONSIDERING JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SELECTION OF FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE, INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE AND ASSOCIATE JUDGE POSITIONS AND RECOMMEND CANDIDATES TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO IS IT THREE DIFFERENT NOMINATIONS OR ONE NOM? YES.
WE'RE GONNA START WITH THIS ONE.
UM, AND THEN YOU SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT WE ARE REMANDING THE ISSUE OF JUDICIAL SALARIES TO THE JNC FOR THEM TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS COMMITTEE.
AND WE SHOULD SET A DATE BY MAY 25TH, LET'S SAY.
WELL, WE CAN, IT'S ONLY GONNA TAKE 15 MINUTES SO WE CAN DO, WE SAID IT EARLIER.
THE 27TH WOULD BE A WEDNESDAY, 26TH, 22ND.
THE AD HOC JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE IS COMPLETED.
ITS CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 5 5 1 0.074.
AND AT 2:29 PM ON MAY 12TH, WE HAVE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION.
[00:25:01]
ON ITEM B ON THE AGENDA? YES.WE HAVE AN, UM, A, A, UM, RECOMMENDATION.
UH, COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.
SO THE AD HOC JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PRESTON ROBINSON FOR THE POSITION OF FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE CANDIDATES.
PRESTON ROBINSON, MARK MURRELL, KRISTEN KRAMER, MARSHA TILLMAN, AMY GRAY, DEMETRIUS FLOCK, TANYA GNE, AMAR THRA, DESMOND COOKS, AND JULIE CLANCY.
FOR THE POSITION OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE, WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING, MELODY ARMSTRONG, LYNN RICHARDSON, JAMIE YOUNG, KEVIN BROOKS, ASHLEY MORENO, DANIEL MCDONALD, ALAN RICH, ERIN LAA.
STEPHANIE NEIL, LANA BYRNE, ASHLEY GRADNEY, SANDRA WHITE, CHRISTINA JUMP, BRAD MCCLELLAN, BRAD MCCLELLAN DE DE DRIS, SHAW AND HELEN RISER.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER MOTION? YES, CHAIR.
THE AD HOC JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE IS REMANDING THE ISSUE OF JUDICIAL SALARIES TO THE JNC FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
AND WE NEED THAT RECOMMENDATION BY MAY THE 22ND.
ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
SO AT THIS POINT WE HAVE, UH, COMPLETED THE WORK OF THE AD HOC JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE AT 2:31 PM ON MAY 12TH, AND THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.