|
|
STRATEGIC OUTCOMES |
ACTION |
|
Department: |
☐ Safe & Prosperous |
☐ Motion |
|
Municipal Court |
☐ Active & Appealing |
☐ Resolution |
|
|
☒ Respected & Responsible |
☒ Ordinance - Introduction |
|
Division: |
☐ Connected & Engaged |
☐ Ordinance - Adoption |
|
Administration |
☐ Unique & Creative |
☐ Public Hearing |
TITLE:
title
Yuma City Code Amendment: Chapter 39 - Appointed Judicial Officers within the Municipal Court
end
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Summary Recommendation
Amend Chapter 39 of the Yuma City Code to separate Appointed Judicial Officers into categories by subsection to align with Court rules. (Municipal Court) (Del Miller)
end
STRATEGIC OUTCOME:
Amending Chapter 39 of the Yuma City Code to maintain distinction between the categories of Special Judicial Officers appointed by City Council (Judge Pro Tems) and administratively appointed Special Judicial Officers (Associate Judges, Court Commissioners, Special Magistrates, and Hearing Officers) furthers the City Council’s strategic outcome of Respected and Responsible. The proposed code changes align with guidance established by the Administrative Office of the Arizona Supreme Court.
REPORT:
This amendment to Yuma City Code Chapter 39 categorizes the Municipal Court’s appointed judicial officers to align with Arizona Office of the Court guidelines, the City Charter, and Supreme Court order.
With the proposed change, there will be two categories of Special Judicial Officers, City Council appointed Judge Pro Tems and administrative appointments made by the Presiding Municipal Judge. Pursuant to the City Charter, Judge Pro Tems must be admitted to practice law in Arizona whereas administratively appointed Special Judicial Officers (SJO), such as Associate Judges, Court Commissioners, Special Magistrates (a concurrently sitting judge or magistrate in another Municipal Court within Yuma County or a retired judge or magistrate) and Hearing Officers must meet the same requirement of a Justice of the Peace and must possess the requisite training mandated by the Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative officers of the Municipal Court are eligible for appointment as Special Judicial Officers, but other City employees are not eligible for such appointment.
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS:
|
CITY FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
BUDGETED: |
$ 0.00 |
|
STATE FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER: |
$ 0.00 |
|
FEDERAL FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
IN CONTINGENCY: |
$ 0.00 |
|
OTHER SOURCES: |
$ 0.00 |
FUNDING ACCOUNT/FUND #/CIP: |
|
TOTAL |
$ 0.00 |
- |
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
There are no costs associated with this proposed Ordinance. Utilization of Appointed Judicial Officers to manage caseload, conflict cases, emergency overflow and other assigned matters results in significant annual savings to the City.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
NONE
IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?
☐ Department
☐ City Clerk’s Office
☐ Document to be recorded
☐ Document to be codified
|
Acting City Administrator: |
Date: |
|
John D. Simonton |
|
|
Reviewed by City Attorney: |
Date: |
|
Richard W. Files |
|