Table of Contents Board on Judicial Standards

Similar documents
Table of Contents Board on Judicial Standards. Agency Profile...1 Expenditures Overview (REVISED)...3 Financing by Fund (REVISED)...

Table of Contents Workers Compensation Court of Appeals

Table of Contents Marriage and Family Therapy, Board of

Table of Contents Bureau of Mediation Services

Table of Contents Barber Examiners, Board of

Table of Contents Physical Therapy, Board of

Table of Contents Supreme Court

Table of Contents Podiatric Medicine, Board of

Table of Contents Capitol Area Architectural and Planning Board

Table of Contents Nursing Home Administrators, Board of Examiners for

Table of Contents Pharmacy, Board of

Table of Contents Board of Private Detectives and Protective Agents. Agency Profile...1 Expenditures Overview...3 Financing by Fund...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS AMENDED ORDER REQUIRING ELECTRONIC FILING IN CERTAIN COURTS

Table of Contents Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry

Judicial Compensation PRESENTED TO JOINT INTERIM COMMITTEE TO STUDY STATE JUDICIAL SALARIES LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF SEPTEMBER 2018

Examinations for discovery Income Tax Act. Examinations for discovery Excise Tax Act. Consideration on application. Mandatory examination

FY 2018 Revised and FY 2019, and Capital Recommendations House Finance Committee March 29, 2018

FY 2009 Change Request Judicial Branch

CHAM Application Checklist

CITY OF PASADENA CITY ATTORNEY

Legislative Appropriations Request for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019

Budget Agency Fiscal Report ($ in thousands)

IC Chapter 5. Salaries

Table of Contents Minnesota Teachers Retirement Association. Agency Profile...1 Expenditures Overview...3 Financing by Fund...4

Annual Litigation Report

Maryland Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

2003 Collection and Assessment of Fines and Penalties

Revised Summary of Trial Court Budget Requests Fiscal Year

Agency Est. FY Capital Improvements: State General Fund $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 402,778 $ 0 Other Funds TOTAL $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 402,778 $ 0

PAGE R1 REVISOR S FULL-TEXT SIDE-BY-SIDE

Harris County, Texas Justice of the Peace Court Staff Workload Project National Center for State Courts. Justice of the Peace Court Staffing Survey

2017 Updates on Tax Ethics

Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

Life Insurance Council Bylaws

Insurance Coverage Law

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2013 SESSION LAW SENATE BILL 140

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, R.S.N.S. 1989, CHAPTER 418, AS AMENDED, (the Act ) - AND - IN THE MATTER OF

Table of Contents Minnesota Department of Revenue

At a Glance. General. Fund

CLAIMS AGAINST INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS

City of. Carmelita Flagpole, circa 1927

Maryland Statutes, Regulations, & Ethics for Professional Engineers

Methods of Funding Central Panels: The Fiscal, Management, and Policy Implications

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES CITY OF SAN MATEO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Merging DMS Quasi-Judicial Entities Would Not Result in Savings or Increased Efficiencies

Florida State Courts System Office of Inspector General. Annual Report Fiscal Year

Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court

REPORT ON JUDICIAL SALARIES AND TURNOVER. For Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015

Texas Association of Counties. State Budget for the Biennium

Analysis Item 2: Judicial Department Compensation Plan Changes

STATE OF CALIFORNIA. An act to amend Section 6108 of the Public Contract Code, relating to public contracts. BILL NUMBER: SB 578 CHAPTERED BILL TEXT

MEETING AGENDA. 12:00 p.m. to 1 p.m. Friday, July 25, 2014 Via telephone conference call. Number: Code: #

DIRECTIONS IN LEGAL FEES AND COSTS LEGAL FEES REVIEW PANEL: INQUIRY INTO LEGAL FEES

Court Special Services

STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No: 107

Decisions as of. Senate Finance Committee Senator Whitmire, Chair. Members: Senators Hinojosa, Estes, Huffman, Patrick Decision Document

Additional copies of this report are available by calling the Workers Compensation Division at (651) or

Required Filing Fees, In-Lieu Signatures, and Nomination Signatures

FY 2010 BUDGET REDUCTIONS - SUMMARY OF ISSUES DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE GENERAL FUND

Clerk of the Circuit Court

HEALTH CARE STABILIZATION FUND AND KANSAS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAW

HB 2384 Judicial Compensation Written Testimony. House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee March 18, 2019

US insurance coverage litigation: tips for claims adjusters

ACCOUNTING PROFESSION BILL. No. 112

Senate Substitute for HOUSE BILL No. 2026

Better Budgeting Practices

The Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes Effective March 1, 2004

THE MINNESOTA BOARD OF PRIVATE DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE AGENTS

Michael A. Kaplan appeared on behalf of the District IV Ethics Committee.

Benefits for Texas Fiscal

ADR AND CIVIL JUSTICE - INTERIM REPORT OF CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL

4 STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. 5 6 Legislature

Walton W. Kingsbery, III, appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of

Request for Proposal. Legal Counsel to Serve as Fiduciary Counsel

A Practical Guide. to Attorney Trust Accounts and Recordkeeping

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION OPINION 93-2 October 1, Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION

GYMBOREE HOLDING CORPORATION CODE OF ETHICS FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. THE FLORIDA BAR, : CASE NO: SC : LOWER TRIBUNAL: ,017 (02) Complainant-Appellee: FILING DATE: 8/3/2001

To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. This matter was before us on a certification of default,

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

Has the Agency acted correctly with respect to its determination to discontinue the Appellant's Public Assistance benefits?

House of Representatives (May 29, 2013) Changes From Governor's Proposed Budget (in $ thousands)

FY 2018 Governor s Revised General Fund Supplemental Budget Recommendations ($ in millions) March 16 Budget

HONORABLE SERVICE. All Funds

INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION

Oregon Legislative Fiscal Office and State of Oregon Budget. February 2017

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

SEC Proposes Rules To Implement Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provisions

1 SUPREME COURT 2 3 Supreme Court Operations GF 69,517 34,866 34,866 69,732 34,866 34,866 69,732 34,866 34,866 69,732

At a Glance Information is current as of June 30, 2009, unless stated otherwise. Henn Co. Supp Unclass Employees Health Care Savings.

The Thrivent Way Our mission statement guides us in all we do.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1549 IN RE: KEISHA M. JONES-JOSEPH ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

Self-Regulatory Standards and Enforcement Practices

Gregory Keating. Practice Group Leader PRACTICE FOCUS. EDUCATION Boston College Law School JD, 1993, cum laude. Trinity College BA, 1987

8 Professional Conduct and Disciplinary Policy for the LEED for Homes Program

SENATE, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY 218th LEGISLATURE

Agency 407 1/29/2013

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

JULY 15, Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Transcription:

Table of Contents Board on Judicial Standards Agency Profile...1 Expenditures Overview...3 Financing by Fund...4 Change Item: Executive Secretary Retirement Payout...5 Change Item: Employee Salary and Fringe Costs...7

Board on Judicial Standards http://www.bjs.state.mn.us/ AT A GLANCE The Board on Judicial Standards: Investigates complaints of judicial misconduct or disability Seeks or imposes discipline on judges when appropriate Advises and educates judges on proper conduct Has jurisdiction over all Minnesota trial and appellate judges (315 positions), retired judges in active service (90), referees, and other judicial officers. PURPOSE Small Agency Profile The mission of the Board on Judicial Standards is to maintain public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Minnesota judiciary by enforcing the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct and by educating and advising judges how to comply with the Code. A society cannot function without a fair and effective way to resolve disputes. Acceptance of judicial rulings is based on public recognition that the judiciary and the court system are worthy of respect and trust. Public confidence in our judicial system directly depends on the proper conduct of our judges. The Minnesota Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the retirement or discipline of any judge who is disabled or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Legislature created the Board on Judicial Standards to carry out this task. The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the Code of Judicial Conduct which sets forth the standards for judges to follow. The Board has ten members: one judge from the Court of Appeals, three district court judges, two lawyers, and four citizens who are not judges or lawyers. All members are appointed by the Governor and, except for the judges, require confirmation by the Senate. The Board is supported by an Executive Secretary, a Staff Attorney, and an Executive Assistant. The Board on Judicial Standards supports the statewide outcome of efficient and accountable government services. BUDGET Source: BPAS Source: Consolidated Fund Statement State of Minnesota 1 2018-19 Biennial Budget

STRATEGIES To accomplish its mission, the Board uses the following strategies: The Board promptly reviews complaints alleging judicial misconduct or disability, conducting investigations when necessary. The Board uses fair and open procedures that respect the judge s right to due process. If the Board finds misconduct, the Board may issue a public reprimand or private discipline if the misconduct is isolated and non-serious. In serious cases, the Board files a formal complaint against the judge, which can result in a public hearing by a panel and a recommendation to the Minnesota Supreme Court for discipline such as censure, suspension, or removal from office. The Board and its Executive Secretary advise and educate judges on applications of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Board is not a substitute for appeal. The Board does not review judicial decisions for legal error unless the judge acts in bad faith. Beginning in fiscal year 2014, the Board successfully reduced its expenditures for litigation by increasing its educational activities and through the thorough preparation of cases before seeking public discipline. The Board continually strives to become more transparent to the judges, the public, and the Legislature. In 2013 the Board created a new website with greatly revised and supplemented content to display more information about the Board s activities and to provide better guidance on ethics issues faced by judges. RESULTS Type of Measure Name of Measure Previous Current Dates Quantity Formal advisory opinions (published) 2 2 2014-2015 Quantity Informal advisory opinions to individual judges 93 83 2014-2015 Quantity Supreme Court discipline 1 1 2014-2015 Quantity Public reprimands 2 1 2014-2015 Quantity Private admonitions, letters of caution, 7 4 2014-2015 deferred dispositions Quality Beginning in 2014, informal advisory opinions that were formerly rendered orally are now usually rendered in writing, with more thorough citations and analysis. blank blank 2014-2015 Performance Measures Notes: The data shown is for calendar years 2014 (previous) and 2015 (current). The Board s activities in previous years are described in the Board s Annual Reports, available at the Board s website at http://www.bjs.state.mn.us/. The Minnesota Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the retirement, removal, or other discipline of any judge who is disabled, incompetent, or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Minn. Const. Art. 6, Sec. 9. The 1971 Legislature created the Board on Judicial Standards to carry out this task. M.S. 490A.01-.03, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=490a&view=chapter&year=2013&keyword_type=all&keyword=490a.01 The Board operates under the Rules of Board (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/rule.php?name=prstan-toh) on Judicial Standards adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court. State of Minnesota 2 2018-19 Biennial Budget

Judicial Standards, Board on Expenditures By Fund Actual Actual Actual Estimate Forecasted Base Agency Expenditure Overview (Dollars in Thousands) Governor's Recommendation FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19 1000 - General 516 454 378 689 486 486 531 496 2000 - Restrict Misc Special Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 516 454 378 689 486 486 531 496 Biennial Change 97 (95) (40) Biennial % Change 10 (9) (4) Governor's Change from Base 55 Governor's % Change from Base 6 Expenditures by Program Program: Judicial Standards Board 516 454 378 689 486 486 531 496 Total 516 454 378 689 486 486 531 496 Expenditures by Category Compensation 234 230 280 299 299 299 344 308 Operating Expenses 281 214 98 389 186 186 186 187 Other Financial Transactions 9 1 1 1 1 1 Total 516 454 378 689 486 486 531 496 Full-Time Equivalents 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 State of Minnesota 3 2018-19 Biennial Budget

Judicial Standards, Board on Agency Financing by Fund (Dollars in Thousands) 1000 - General Actual Actual Actual Estimate Forecast Base Governor's Recommendation FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19 Balance Forward In 0 93 95 203 0 0 0 0 Direct Appropriation 756 456 486 486 486 486 531 496 Cancellations 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures 516 454 378 689 486 486 531 496 Balance Forward Out 87 95 203 0 0 0 0 0 Biennial Change in Expenditures 97 (95) (40) Biennial % Change in Expenditures 10 (9) (4) Gov's Exp Change from Base 55 Gov's Exp % Change from Base 6 Full-Time Equivalents 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2000 - Restrict Misc Special Revenue Actual Actual Actual Estimate Forecast Base Governor's Recommendation FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19 Receipts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biennial Change in Expenditures 0 0 0 Biennial % Change in Expenditures (100) (100) State of Minnesota 4 2018-19 Biennial Budget

Board on Judicial Standards FY18-19 Biennial Budget Change Item Change Item Title: Executive Secretary Retirement Payout Fiscal Impact ($000s) FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 General Fund Expenditures 45 0 0 0 Revenues 0 0 0 0 Other Funds Expenditures 0 0 0 0 Revenues 0 0 0 0 Net Fiscal Impact = 45 0 0 0 (Expenditures Revenues) FTEs 0 0 0 0 Recommendation: The Governor recommends a one-time appropriation of $45,000 to pay for the projected severance payment to the Executive Secretary. Rationale/Background: Because the Board has a relatively small budget, the anticipated retirement and severance payment to the Executive Secretary during the next biennium will have a significant effect on the budget. However, this effect will occur in only one year of the biennium. It is estimated that the severance payment will be approximately $45,000 in FY18. Proposal: The change item will permit the Board to maintain the same high level of services it now provides. IT Related Proposals: The change item does not include any IT-related proposals. Results: If the change item is accepted, the Board will continue to provide services at the same high level it currently provides. If the change item is not accepted, the Board will probably have to lay off staff, significantly reducing the Board s level of services and potentially harming the Board s ability to serve the public and to provide oversight and education of judges and judicial officers. Type of Measure RESULTS Name of Measure Previous Current Dates Quantity Formal advisory opinions (published) 2 1 2015-2016 Quantity Informal advisory opinions to individual judges 83 105 2015-2016 Quantity Supreme Court discipline 1 0 2015-2016 Quantity Public reprimands 1 1 2015-2016 Quantity Private admonitions, letters of caution, deferred dispositions 4 3 2015-2016 Performance Measures Notes: 1. The data shown is for calendar year 2015 (previous) and calendar year 2016 (year-to-date 10/11/16) (current). The Board s activities in previous years are described in the Board s Annual Reports, available at the Board s website. State of Minnesota 5 2018-19 Biennial Budget

2. Beginning in 2014, informal advisory opinions, which were formerly rendered only orally by phone, are now usually rendered in writing and based on thorough research and analysis. Judges have increasingly relied on this service by the Board. Statutory Change(s): The proposal will not require a statutory change. State of Minnesota 6 2018-19 Biennial Budget

Board on Judicial Standards FY18-19 Biennial Budget Change Item Change Item Title: Employee Salary and Fringe Costs Fiscal Impact ($000s) FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 General Fund Expenditures 0 10 10 10 Revenues 0 0 0 0 Other Funds Expenditures 0 0 0 0 Revenues 0 0 0 0 Net Fiscal Impact = 0 10 10 10 (Expenditures Revenues) FTEs 0 0 0 0 Recommendation: The Governor recommends $10,000 to pay for increases in salary and fringe costs. Rationale/Background: The Board has a relatively small budget. Compensation (salary and fringe) comprise the majority of this budget. Consequently, salary increases and significant increases in fringe and benefits are a significant factor in the Board s capacity to maintain its high level of service to the state, the judiciary, judges, and judicial officers. The Board projects that it will be able to cover these costs in FY18, provided the additional funding is approved for the Executive Secretary s retirement payout. However, it is projected that a modest increase will be needed in FY19. It is estimated that rent and costs of equipment and supplies will increase only modestly. Proposal: The change item will permit the Board to maintain the same high level of services it now provides. Equity and Inclusion: The change item does not disproportionately affect any protected groups. IT Related Proposals: The change item does not include any IT-related proposals. Results: If the change item is accepted, the Board will continue to provide services at the same high level it currently provides. If the change item is not accepted, the Board will probably have to reduce staff hours, significantly reducing the Board s level of services and potentially harming the Board s ability to serve the public and to provide oversight and education of judges and judicial officers. State of Minnesota 7 2018-19 Biennial Budget

Type of Measure RESULTS Name of Measure Previous Current Dates Quantity Formal advisory opinions (published) 2 1 2015-2016 Quantity Informal advisory opinions to individual judges 83 105 2015-2016 Quantity Supreme Court discipline 1 0 2015-2016 Quantity Public reprimands 1 1 2015-2016 Quantity Private admonitions, letters of caution, deferred dispositions 4 3 2015-2016 Performance Measures Notes: 1. The data shown is for calendar year 2015 (previous) and calendar year 2016 (year-to-date 10/11/16) (current). The Board s activities in previous years are described in the Board s Annual Reports, available at the Board s website. 2. Beginning in 2014, informal advisory opinions that were formerly rendered only orally are now usually rendered in writing and based on thorough research and analysis. Judges have increasingly relied on this service by the Board. Statutory Change(s): The proposal will not require a statutory change. State of Minnesota 8 2018-19 Biennial Budget