SF 2718

2nd Engrossment - 88th Legislature (2013 - 2014) Posted on 05/12/2014 10:44am

A bill for an act
relating to judiciary; modifying the review process of district judge disposition
for compliance with 90-day disposition requirement; amending Minnesota
Statutes 2012, section 546.27, subdivision 2, by adding a subdivision.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1.

Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 546.27, is amended by adding a
subdivision to read:

new text begin Subd. 1a. new text end

new text begin Applicable compliance procedures. new text end

new text begin Unless different procedures for
ensuring compliance with subdivision 1 are set by the Rules of the Board on Judicial
Standards, the procedures in subdivision 2 shall be used.
new text end

Sec. 2.

Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 546.27, subdivision 2, is amended to read:

Subd. 2.

Board deleted text begin of deleted text end new text begin on new text end Judicial Standards review.

deleted text begin At least annually, deleted text end new text begin (a) The chief
judges of the judicial districts and new text end the Board on Judicial Standards shall review the
compliance of deleted text begin each deleted text end district deleted text begin judge deleted text end new text begin judges new text end with the provisions of subdivision 1 new text begin as provided
in this subdivision new text end . To facilitate this review, the director of the state judicial information
system shall deleted text begin notify the executive secretary of the state Board on Judicial Standards when a
matter exceeds deleted text end new text begin provide monthly reports to the chief judges identifying matters that have
exceeded new text end 90 days without a disposition. deleted text begin The board shall notify the commissioner of
management and budget of each judge not in compliance. If the board finds that a judge
has compelling reasons for noncompliance, it may decide not to issue the notice. deleted text end Upon
deleted text begin notification that deleted text end new text begin the first 90-day infraction, the director shall notify the chief judge of
the judge's district that new text end a judge is not in compliance deleted text begin , the commissioner of management
and budget shall not pay the salary of that judge. The board may cancel a notice of
noncompliance upon finding that a judge is in compliance, but in no event shall a judge be
paid a salary for the period in which the notification of noncompliance was in effect deleted text end . new text begin The
chief judge shall take appropriate action to remedy the infraction. Upon a second 90-day
infraction occurring on or before five years from the date of the first infraction by the same
judge, the director shall again refer the matter to the chief judge. Within 45 days of the
referral, the chief judge shall develop a written plan with the judge to remedy the 90-day
infraction and avoid future 90-day infractions and notify the Board on Judicial Standards
of the development of the written plan. At a minimum, the written plan must include
measures taken to release timely decisions, timelines for substantial compliance, and audit
procedures to monitor progress. If at any time the judge fails to follow the written plan,
the chief judge shall notify the Board on Judicial Standards for further action. Upon a
third 90-day infraction on or before five years from the date of the first 90-day infraction,
the chief judge shall notify the Board on Judicial Standards, which shall take appropriate
action. This section does not affect the chief judge's duty under the Minnesota Code of
Judicial Conduct to take appropriate action in response to violations of the code. Should
the board receive a complaint alleging a serious violation of this section, the board's
authority to review and act shall not be limited.
new text end

new text begin (b) If an infraction under paragraph (a) involves the chief judge, the notification
must be made to the assistant chief judge who shall take on the responsibilities that would
otherwise be the responsibility of the chief judge under paragraph (a).
new text end