3 6 2 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y P UB LI C I NF ORM AT I ON ACT C OUR T S AN D J UDGES

) S T ATU S OF R ECORDS R ELAT ED T O J UDI CI AL E VALU AT I ONS

M ay9, 1994

M r. G eorge B

. R igg i n, Jr. St at e C our tA dm i nis tr at or A dm in istra tive O

ffi c e o f th e C o u rts Y o u h av e re q u ested o u r op inion w h ethe r ce rt ai n r ecor ds r el at ed t o t he eva l uat i on of j udges w oul d be s ubj ect to publ i c i ns pect i on undert he M ary l and Publ i c I nfor m at i on A ct

. For t he r eas ons s t at ed b e lo w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e se m a ter ials w o u ld n o t b e o p e n to p u b lic in s p e c tio n .

I

Judi ci al E val uat i on P rogram O n M ay 9, 1991, t he Subcomm i t t ee on J udi ci al E val uat i ons of th e Ju d ic ia l A d m in istra tio n S e c tio n C o u n c il o f th e M a ry lan d S tate B ar A s s oci at i on i s s ued i t s fi nal r epor t r egar di ng a pi l otpr ogr am for t he eva l uat i on of j udges

. T he s ubcomm i t t ee c oncl uded thatt he pi l ot pr ogr am had been a s ucce s s and r ecomm ended thatan on- goi ng p ro g ra m o f

ju d ic ia l e v a lu a tio n s b e in s titu te d

. Y o u r lette r in d ica tes th a t C h ief Ju d g e M u rp h yh a s d e c id e d to acc eptt hi s r ecomm endat i on and i ni t i at e s uch a pr ogr am. U ndert he pl an, one- four t h of al l of the j udges i n t he St at e w oul d be eva l uat ed an n u all y , so th a t all jud g es w il l hav e b ee n ev alua ted o n ce o v er a four

- y ear cy cle. Y ou expl ai n t hat“[d] at a fora j udge’ s eval uat i on w i l l be obt ai ned fr om ques t i onnai r es pr ovi ded t o at t or ney s w ho have a c tu a lly a p p e a r e d b e f

o re th a t ju d g e in a c o n te s te d p ro c e e d in g . A pr oj ectm anage rors ervi ce bur eau, u n d er cont r actw i t h t he A dm i nistrati ve O ffi ce of t he C ou rt s, w i l l send the qu est i on nair es, r ece i ve t he r es pons es , and ent ert he dat a . . . ” i nt o a comput er . A ft er t he dat a ar e assembl ed, an eva l uat i on w i l l be pr epar ed foreac h ju d g e . “ T h a t ev a lu a tio n w ill b e f u rn ish e d o n lyto th e ju d g e w h o is th e su b jec t o f th e e v a lu a tio n a n d to C h ief Ju d g e M u rp h y , an d , in C hi ef J udge M urphy ’ s di s cr et i on, t o hi s des i gnee, for t he purpos e ofG en. 362] 363 havi ng t he des i gnee r evi ew t he eva l uat i on w i t h t he j udge eva l uat ed. T h e d e sig n e e m a yb e th e a d m in istra tiv e ju d g e o f th e c o u rt, d istric t, orci r cui tof the part i cul arj udge eva l uat ed, ora r et i r ed orsen ior j udge. ” T h e q u esti o n n aire u sed in the p il o t pro g ram fo r circuit cou rt jud g es, fo r ex am p le, ask ed fo r an asse s s m e n t o f th e jud g e’s per for m ance on 32 fac t or s , i ncl udi ng “know l edge of r el evant s u b s ta n tiv e la w ,” “ a b ility to id e n tif y a n d a n a lyze re le v a n t is s u e s ,”

“ c o u rt e s y t o p a rt ic ip a n ts ,” a n d “ a b s e n c e o f b ia s a n d p re

ju d ic e ....” Foreac h of thes e cha r act er i s t ic s , t he att or neyw oul d chec k a bl ock fo r a rati n g ran g ing fro m “e x ce ll en t” to “p o o r. ” T h e q u esti o n n aire a ls o h a d s p a c e f

o r o p e n -e n d e d c o m m e n ts

. T h e p u rpo se o f th e ev alua ti o n p rojec t, y o u stat e in y o u r l ett er, “i s t o i m pr ove the qual i t yof j udi ci al per form ance byenabl i ng in d iv id u a l ju d g e s to se e h o w th e y a re p e rc e iv e d . T h e e v a lu a tio n w ill al s o enabl e ea ch j udge t o compar e how t hatj udge w as eval uat ed on v a rio u s a sp e c ts o f

ju d icia l p e rf

o rm a n c e w ith a c o m p o site o r p ro f ile o f th a t ju d g e ’ s p e e r s. W h e n a c y c le th ro u g h th e e n tire ju d icia ryis r epea t ed, a j udge w i l l al s o be abl e t o compar e th at j udge’ s curr ent eval uat i on w i t h t he pr i orone. ” A s St at e C our tA dm i ni s t r at or , y ou w i l l be the cus t odi an of the compl et ed ques t i onnai r es , t he dat a as s embl ed fr o m them , and the e v a lu a tio n re p o rts the m se lv e s. Y o u a sk w h e th e r y o u w o u ld b e a b le t o m ai nt ai n t hes e r ecor ds i n confi dence

. If n o t, t hen the pr ogr am w ill b e d if

f ic u lt o r i m p o s s ib le to c o n d u c t.

II A ppl i cat i on of

P ubl i c I nf

orm at i on A ct T h e sta rtin g p o in t in a n a ly z in g a n yiss u e u n d e r th e P u b lic In f o rm a tio n A c t is th e g e n e ra l e n tit lem e n t o f m e m b e rs o f th e p u b lic to g o v e rn m e n t r e c o rd s : “ E x c e p t a s o th e rw is e p ro v i d e d b yla w , a cus t odi an s hal l perm i t a per s on or governm ent al uni t t o i ns pectany p u b lic re c o rd a t a n y re a so n a b le tim e .” § 1 0 -6 1 3 (a ) o f th e S tate G o v e rn m e n t ( “ S G ” ) A rt ic le , M a ryla n d C o d e . See a l so SG §10- 612. T he Publ i c I nfor m at i on A cti t s el f contains a number of pr ovi s i ons t hat“otherw i s e pr ovi d[e] byl aw ”

)t hati s , pr ovi s i ons t hatei t herauthor i ze orr equi r e the cus t odi an of r ecor ds t o deny3 6 4 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y publ i c i ns pect i on. O ne of thes e i s t he exe m p ti on for“per s onnel re c o rd s,” S G § 1 0 -6 1 6 (i):

(1 ) S u b jec t to p a ra g ra p h (2 ) o f th is s ubs ect i on, a cus t odi an s hal l denyi ns pect i on o f a p e r so n n e l re c o rd o f a n in d iv id u a l, i ncl udi ng an appl i cat i on, per for m ance r at i ng, o r s c h o la s tic a c h ie v e m e n t in f o rm a tio n . ( 2) A cus t odi an sha ll per m i ti ns pect i on b y: (i ) th e p erso n in interest; o r ( i i ) an el ect ed orappoi nt ed off i ci al w h o su p e rv ise s th e w o rk o f th e in d iv id u a l. T he pr i m aryfocus of thi s exempt i on i s undoubt edl yt r adi t i onal p e rs o n n e l f

ile s o f g o v e rn m e n t em p lo y e e s . See, e. g. , 65 O pi ni ons of the At t or ney G ener al365 ( 1980) ; 60 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al559 ( 1975)

. B ut t he prot ect i on aff or ded byt he exe m pt i on i s br oader : “The obvi ous purpos e of thi s [exc ept i on] i s t o pr es erve th e p riv a c yo f p e rso n a l in f o rm a tio n a b o u t a p u b lic e m p lo y e e th a t is acc um ul at ed during h is orherempl oym ent

. ” 65 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G ener al at 36 7. S o, for exam ple, i n an op i nion t o y ou l ast y ear , w e conc l uded that SG §10- 616( i ) pr ohi bi t ed the di s cl os ur e of cert ai n r ecor ds of compl ai nt s agai ns t empl oy ees i n a cl erk’ s offi ce. 78 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al2 9 1 (19 9 3 ). A s el ect ed o r a ppoi nt ed publ i c off i ci al s , j udges m aynotbe

“ e m p lo y e e s” in th e c o n v e n tio n a l s e n se , b u t th e ya re su re ly “i ndi vi dual s ” aboutw hom per s onal i nfor m at i on of the ki nd comm onl yfound i n a “pe r s onnel r ecor d” i s m ai nt ai ned. I ndeed, t he e v a l u a t i o n p r o g r a m i s d e s i g n e d t o y i e l d s o me t h i n g c l o s e t o a “per for m ance r at i ng”

) a n e lem e n t o f a “ p e rso n n e l re c o rd ” e x p licitly id e n tifie d in S G § 1 0 -6 1 6 (i). T h e p o in t o f th e e x e rc ise is to e n a b le eac h j udge t o as cert ai n ar eas of s t r ong and w eak pe r for m ance , es peci al l ybycompar i s on t o a composi t e of the eva l uat i ons of other ju d g e s . H ence , w e conc l ude thatt he r es pons es of l aw y er s on t he ques t i onnai r es , w hi ch pr ovi de the r aw dat a fort he per fo rm ance eval uat i on; t he com pi l ed dat a foreac h j udge; and the eva l uat i on r epor t s t hemsel ves foreac h j udge ar e exempt fr om di s cl os ur e underG en. 362] 365

In li ght o f t

his c on c lus ion , w ene e d n ot c on sid e r thee xtent to 1 which any

of this information consti tutes “an interag ency or intra- ag ency le tter o r m e morand

um t hat w ou ld n ot b eavaila

ble by law to a pri vatepa

rt y in liti g ation with the unit.” SG §10-618(b). We also note that if the Court of Appeal s w e r eto a d o p t a r u lee s ta b li s h in gth ec o n f

id e nti a li ty

o f the perf or manc ee valuatio n mat eri a ls, tha t r ulewo uld its e lf pre c lud epu

bli c inspection under th e P ublic Information Ac t. SeeSG §10-615(1). The Court has adopted suc h a rulewith respe ct to the materials of the Commi ssion on Judicial Disabilities. SeeRule 1227e. Whil e a judg e is not sup ervised in the conduct of matters that 2 c omebe fo rethejudg e , th eChi e f J udg eof theCourt

of Appe a ls i s “ re sp on sib lefo r t

hea dminis tratio n o f t

hec ourt s o f t

heState .”Rul e 12 00 a 1. Mo re ov e r, “ [e]a c h circ uit a dminis trativ e judg e sh a ll b eg e nerally responsible for

the administration of the several courts within his judicial circuit, pursuant to these Rules and subjec t to the direction of the Chief Judg e of theCourt of Ap p ea l s.” Rule 1200c2( a). Thus, thelimit ed disclosure of individual evaluations that your letter discusses would be permissible. SG §10- 616( i )

. O nl yt he j udge w ho i s t he s ubj ectof the eva l uat i on 1 an d a jud g e “ w h o su p erv is e s th e w o rk o f th e ind ividu al” a re p e rm itt e d a c c e ss to th e se re c o rd s. H o w e v e r, m e m b e rs o f th e p u b lic 2 w i l l be ent i t l ed t o composi t e dat a and ot her i nfor m at i on t hatdoes not id e n tif yp a rt ic u la r j u d g e s .

III

C oncl usi on I n s um m ary , i ti s ouropi ni on t hatm at er i al s r el at ed to the p e rf o rm a n c e e v a lu a tio n o f in d iv id u a l ju d g e s a re n o t su bje c t to d is c lo s u re u n d e r t h e P u b lic In f o rm a tio n A c t.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce