Bill Text: MN SF2718 | 2013-2014 | 88th Legislature | Engrossed
Bill Title: Judicial standards board monthly district judge review requirement
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-0)
Status: (Passed) 2014-05-08 - Secretary of State Chapter 202 05/06/14 [SF2718 Detail]
Download: Minnesota-2013-SF2718-Engrossed.html
1.2relating to judiciary; modifying the review process of district judge disposition
1.3for compliance with 90-day disposition requirement;amending Minnesota
1.4Statutes 2012, section 546.27, subdivision 2, by adding a subdivision.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 546.27, is amended by adding a
1.7subdivision to read:
1.8 Subd. 1a. Applicable compliance procedures. Unless different procedures for
1.9ensuring compliance with subdivision 1 are set by the Rules of the Board on Judicial
1.10Standards, the procedures in subdivision 2 shall be used.
1.11 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 546.27, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
1.12 Subd. 2. Boardof on Judicial Standards review. At least annually, (a) The chief
1.13judges of the judicial districts and the Board on Judicial Standards shall review the
1.14compliance ofeach district judge judges with the provisions of subdivision 1 as provided
1.15in this subdivision. To facilitate this review, the director of the state judicial information
1.16system shallnotify the executive secretary of the state Board on Judicial Standards when a
1.17matter exceeds provide monthly reports to the chief judges identifying matters that have
1.18exceeded 90 days without a disposition.The board shall notify the commissioner of
1.19management and budget of each judge not in compliance. If the board finds that a judge
1.20has compelling reasons for noncompliance, it may decide not to issue the notice. Upon
1.21notification that the first 90-day infraction, the director shall notify the chief judge of
1.22the judge's district that a judge is not in compliance, the commissioner of management
1.23and budget shall not pay the salary of that judge. The board may cancel a notice of
2.1noncompliance upon finding that a judge is in compliance, but in no event shall a judge be
2.2paid a salary for the period in which the notification of noncompliance was in effect. The
2.3chief judge shall take appropriate action to remedy the infraction. Upon a second 90-day
2.4infraction occurring on or before five years from the date of the first infraction by the same
2.5judge, the director shall again refer the matter to the chief judge. Within 45 days of the
2.6referral, the chief judge shall develop a written plan with the judge to remedy the 90-day
2.7infraction and avoid future 90-day infractions and notify the Board on Judicial Standards
2.8of the development of the written plan. At a minimum, the written plan must include
2.9measures taken to release timely decisions, timelines for substantial compliance, and audit
2.10procedures to monitor progress. If at any time the judge fails to follow the written plan,
2.11the chief judge shall notify the Board on Judicial Standards for further action. Upon a
2.12third 90-day infraction on or before five years from the date of the first 90-day infraction,
2.13the chief judge shall notify the Board on Judicial Standards, which shall take appropriate
2.14action. This section does not affect the chief judge's duty under the Minnesota Code of
2.15Judicial Conduct to take appropriate action in response to violations of the code. Should
2.16the board receive a complaint alleging a serious violation of this section, the board's
2.17authority to review and act shall not be limited.
2.18(b) If an infraction under paragraph (a) involves the chief judge, the notification
2.19must be made to the assistant chief judge who shall take on the responsibilities that would
2.20otherwise be the responsibility of the chief judge under paragraph (a).
1.3for compliance with 90-day disposition requirement;amending Minnesota
1.4Statutes 2012, section 546.27, subdivision 2, by adding a subdivision.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 546.27, is amended by adding a
1.7subdivision to read:
1.8 Subd. 1a. Applicable compliance procedures. Unless different procedures for
1.9ensuring compliance with subdivision 1 are set by the Rules of the Board on Judicial
1.10Standards, the procedures in subdivision 2 shall be used.
1.11 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 546.27, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
1.12 Subd. 2. Board
1.13judges of the judicial districts and the Board on Judicial Standards shall review the
1.14compliance of
1.15in this subdivision. To facilitate this review, the director of the state judicial information
1.16system shall
1.17
1.18exceeded 90 days without a disposition.
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22the judge's district that a judge is not in compliance
1.23
2.1
2.2
2.3chief judge shall take appropriate action to remedy the infraction. Upon a second 90-day
2.4infraction occurring on or before five years from the date of the first infraction by the same
2.5judge, the director shall again refer the matter to the chief judge. Within 45 days of the
2.6referral, the chief judge shall develop a written plan with the judge to remedy the 90-day
2.7infraction and avoid future 90-day infractions and notify the Board on Judicial Standards
2.8of the development of the written plan. At a minimum, the written plan must include
2.9measures taken to release timely decisions, timelines for substantial compliance, and audit
2.10procedures to monitor progress. If at any time the judge fails to follow the written plan,
2.11the chief judge shall notify the Board on Judicial Standards for further action. Upon a
2.12third 90-day infraction on or before five years from the date of the first 90-day infraction,
2.13the chief judge shall notify the Board on Judicial Standards, which shall take appropriate
2.14action. This section does not affect the chief judge's duty under the Minnesota Code of
2.15Judicial Conduct to take appropriate action in response to violations of the code. Should
2.16the board receive a complaint alleging a serious violation of this section, the board's
2.17authority to review and act shall not be limited.
2.18(b) If an infraction under paragraph (a) involves the chief judge, the notification
2.19must be made to the assistant chief judge who shall take on the responsibilities that would
2.20otherwise be the responsibility of the chief judge under paragraph (a).
