DOCSLIB.ORG

Coconino County, Arizona Publicity Pamphlet and Text of Ballot Condado De Coconino, Arizona Folleto De Información Y Texto De L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coconino County, Arizona Publicity Pamphlet and Text of Ballot Condado De Coconino, Arizona Folleto De Información Y Texto De L Coconino County, Arizona Publicity Pamphlet and Text of Ballot Proposition to be submitted to the quali ed electors of Coconino County at the GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 6, 2018 Condado de Coconino, Arizona Folleto de Información y Texto de la Boleta Electoral Propuesta que se les presentará a los electores cali cados del Condado de Coconino en la ELECCIÓN GENERAL 6 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2018 (Spanish version begins on page 12) - (La versión en español empieza en la página 12) TO THE VOTERS OF COCONINO COUNTY FULL TEXT OF Proposition 416 Dear Voters: PROPOSITION 416 This publicity pamphlet provides important information PURPOSE: Referral to the Voters to determine whether regarding the Coconino County Board of Supervisors to change from a partisan election of superior court approved Resolution No. 2018-28 and Resolution No. 2018- judges to a merit selection and judicial retention election 35 invoking Article 6, § 40 of the Arizona Constitution and of superior court judges. calling for a County-wide election to be held November 6, 2018, on the question: Shall Coconino County change from a DESCRIPTION: Shall Coconino County change from a partisan election of superior court judges to a merit selection partisan election of superior court judges to a merit selection and judicial retention election of superior court judges. and judicial retention election of superior court judges. Arizona voters approved merit selection in 1974. At that time, Arizonans voted to discontinue the popular election A “YES” vote shall have the effect of changing from a of appellate judges, Supreme Court justices, and trial court partisan election of superior court judges to a merit selection judges in the most populous counties. A provision was and judicial retention election of superior court judges. included to allow for other counties, with a population of less than 250,000, to choose to adopt merit selection by A “NO” vote shall have the effect of not allowing a change popular vote. To date no other county in Arizona has chosen and continuing the partisan election of superior court judges to invoke this article of the Arizona Constitution. in Coconino County until such time as the population of the County reaches 250,000. This election is an opportunity presented to the voters of Coconino County to determine whether to continue to elect YES superior court judges in partisan elections until such time the County’s population reaches 250,000 (at which time NO merit selection/judicial retention elections will be mandatory pursuant to Article 6, § 37 of the Arizona Constitution) or [At the discretion of the County elections department, choose now to select its judges of superior court as if it had the question set forth above may be presented on the a population of 250,000. actual ballot in summary form, reading substantially as follows:] This pamphlet contains a sample ballot format, information regarding early voting and Election Day polling places, and PURPOSE: Referral to the Voters to determine whether specic information about merit selection of judges and to change from a partisan election of superior court judicial performance review. judges to a merit selection and judicial retention election of superior court judges. Please take the time to read through this pamphlet before casting your vote. One pamphlet has been mailed to the Proposition 416 residence of each registered voter in Coconino County; A “YES” vote shall have the effect of changing from a please make it available to all registered voters in the partisan election of superior court judges to a merit selection household. and judicial retention election of superior court judges. For further election information, please contact the Coconino A “NO” vote shall have the effect of not allowing a change County Elections Ofce by phone at (928) 679-7680 and continuing the partisan election of superior court judges or toll-free at (800) 793-6181 or on the web at in Coconino County until such time as the population www.coconino.az.gov/elections. reaches 250,000. Also, for more information about Judicial Merit Selection please visit YES http://www.coconino.az.gov/2001/Judge-Merit-Selection NO Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, The Coconino County Board of Supervisors Art Babbott, Vice Chair-District 1 Liz Archuleta, District 2 Matt Ryan, Chair- District 3 Jim Parks, District 4 Lena Fowler, District 5 2 Coconino County Merit Selection and Judicial The Arizona constitution provides that merit selection Retention Election of Superior Court Judges will be used to select judges in counties with a Proposition 416 population greater than 250,000 people. When a Frequently Asked Questions county’s population exceeds 250,000 as documented by the U.S. Census, that county automatically enters For more detailed information, please go to: the merit selection system. At this time only Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties exceed that population www.azcourts.gov/jnc/ threshold. Other counties may choose to adopt merit selection by popular vote. Currently, Superior Court 1.) What is “merit selection” of judges? judges are elected in partisan elections in all counties except Maricopa, Pima and Pinal. Merit selection is a way of choosing judges through a non-partisan commission of lawyers and citizens 3.) How are judges “selected” in the merit selection who investigate and evaluate candidates for judicial system? positions. The commission submits the names of the most highly qualied applicants to the Governor, who • When a judicial vacancy occurs, the position is publicly then makes the nal selection. Two-thirds of the states announced and interested lawyers are encouraged to and the District of Columbia use some form of merit apply. selection to choose their judges. • Applications for the position require applicants to Unlike the federal system, merit selection in Arizona provide extensive information about their education, is not a system that grants lifetime judgeships. Once professional experience and other qualications Arizona judges are appointed, they must routinely and to provide the names of character and other stand for retention election every four years. Voters references. decide whether to keep or remove them from ofce. Judges who seek to remain on the bench are publicly • The completed applications led by candidates are evaluated through an extensive performance review. posted on a court website for public review and That evaluation is conducted by a commission to comment. determine if they are meeting judicial performance standards. The public uses the information provided • Applications are considered by a Commission on from the performance reviews at the retention election Trial Court Appointments through an open and public to decide if the judge should be retained in ofce. While process. a number of states use some form of performance review to evaluate their judges, Arizona also requires its 4.) What is a Trial Court Nominating Commission and judges to undergo a self-evaluation process. how are they selected? Arizona voters approved merit selection in 1974. At that • The Trial Court Nominating Commission which time, Arizonans voted to discontinue the popular and ultimately recommends applicants to the Governor partisan election of appellate judges, Supreme Court is a 16- person, nonpartisan judicial-nominating justices, and trial court judges in the most populous commission that would be formed if voters adopt counties. Four judicial nominating commissions were merit selection. created to screen judicial candidates for nomination to the Governor for appointment (currently the • The Commission is composed of ten public members Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, and the and ve attorney members and is chaired by the Maricopa, Pima and Pinal County Commissions on Trial Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Arizona. No Court Appointments). more than two of the public members shall reside in the same supervisor district and not more than three A constitutional amendment passed by Arizona shall be members of the same political party. None voters in 1992 increased the number of non-lawyer of the ve attorney members shall reside in the same members on the nominating commissions, created the supervisor district and not more than three shall be Commission on Judicial Performance Review to give members of the same political party. the public information on the performance of judges, and opened all aspects of the process to the public. The • All meetings are open to the public and all voting amendment broadened public participation in selecting occurs in public session. On rare occasions, the and reviewing judges. commissioners conduct a very brief part of a meeting in executive session when two-thirds of the members 2.) Why is the merit selection system currently only vote to do so, in order to address questions involving used to select judges for Maricopa, Pima and Pinal potentially sensitive information to be asked at the counties? interviews. 3 • The appointment of the Trial Court Nominating 9.) How does the public decide whether merit selection Commission members originates from each county judges should be retained? supervisor’s selection of a seven-person search committee. • In 1992, the Arizona Constitution was amended to provide for judicial performance review. As a result of • The Commission must be diverse and include people that Constitutional mandate, a Judicial Performance from different political parties, geographic areas and Review Commission (“JPR Commission”) was other factors assuring diversity. established. The JPR Commission regularly collects information from jurors, lawyers, litigants and 5.) How does the Commission identify applicants to members of the public and perhaps most important, recommend to the Governor? solicits a self-evaluation from all judges facing a retention election. • The Commission carefully reviews each application and makes a threshold determination about whether • Midway through a judge’s term in ofce, and again the applicant appears to satisfy the high standards before a retention election, a judge meets with a team necessary to serve effectively as a member of the composed of one public volunteer, one attorney, and judiciary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Arizona We Want: the Decade Ahead
    The Arizona We Want: The Decade Ahead INSIGHTS FROM THE 2020 GALLUP ARIZONA SURVEY COPYRIGHT STANDARDS This document contains proprietary research, copyrighted and trademarked materials of Gallup, Inc. Accordingly, international and domestic laws and penalties guaranteeing patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret protection safeguard the ideas, concepts and recommendations related within this document. The materials contained in this document and/ or the document itself may be downloaded and/or copied provided that all copies retain the copyright, trademark and any other proprietary notices contained on the materials and/or document. No changes may be made to this document without the express written permission of Gallup, Inc. Any reference whatsoever to this document, in whole or in part, on any webpage must provide a link back to the original document in its entirety. Except as expressly provided herein, the transmission of this material shall not be construed to grant a license of any type under any patents, copyright or trademarks owned or controlled by Gallup, Inc. Gallup® is a trademark of Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. All other trademarks and copyrights are property of their respective owners. ii The Arizona We Want: The Decade Ahead Copyright © 2021 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. CFA_ArizonaWeWant_041621_lg Contents 02 Letter From Sybil Francis 72 The Arizona We Build: A Call to Action 03 Executive Summary 79 Methods 06 Introduction 82 Acknowledgements 08 Arizona’s Decade of Change 84 Endnotes 18 The Outlook of Arizonans on the Future Our Shared Public Values 25 27 Education 35 Health and Wellbeing 42 Jobs and Economic Opportunity 50 Environment and Sustainable Future 56 Civic Engagement and Leadership 63 Fair, Just and Equitable Systems 69 Immigration Reform 1 The Arizona We Want: The Decade Ahead Copyright © 2021 Gallup, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Supreme Court
    ARIZONA SUPREME COURT Administrative Office of the Courts 1501 West Washington, Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Request for Proposals RFP 08-01 Statewide Arizona Courts Electronic Filing System August 4, 2008 RFP No. 08-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents SECTION 1 ........................................................................................................... 3 Introduction and Overview ................................................................................. 3 Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Proposers’ Conference .................................................................................. 3 Proposal Schedule ......................................................................................... 3 Proposal Evaluation ....................................................................................... 4 Proposal Discussions .................................................................................... 4 Americans with Disabilities Act ...................................................................... 5 SECTION 2 ........................................................................................................... 6 Instructions and Procedures for Submitting Proposals ...................................... 6 SECTION 3 ........................................................................................................... 9 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Court Cases Cyber-Encyclopedia
    DEVELOPING A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT COURT CASES CYBER-ENCYCLOPEDIA Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program 2009-10 Phase III Project May 2010 Denise I. Lundin Clerk of the Superior Court Cochise County Bisbee, Arizona ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks must be given to Dr. Melanie Sturgeon, State Archivist of the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records for her inspiring work and her support. Court records really are gems! A special thank you goes to Dr. Todd Lutes, political science professor at the University of Arizona South for his help, encouragement, and use of interns on our other court history projects. I am very appreciative of the encouraging words and the letter of support from the Hon. Rebecca White Berch, Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. Carrie Gustavson, Director of the Bisbee Mining and Historical Museum has so often served as my muse and is a kindred spirit in all-things-history. Thank you to Lee Shainen, Richard Prouty, Sue Hall, and Robert Palmquist for your advice - it made a difference in this effort. No one had better behind-the-scenes support which came from Mary Edie, Render Gregory, Fran Ranaccelli and Teresa Rockrich of the Cochise County Clerk of the Superior Court‟s office. It was always great receiving inspiring emails from my CEDP class group, “The Devos” – Sonya Kraski, Karen Kringlie, Amy McDowell, and Neil Nesheim. My advisor, Dr. Matt Kleiman of NCSC, showed true patience and gave me strong, excellent guidance. Any failings of this paper are mine alone. Lastly, to my family: mom, Providencia Lundin, sisters, Diana and Doris Lundin.
    [Show full text]
  • RECOGNIZING AMERICA's JUDICIARY: a DIALOGUE with CHIEF JUSTICES on KEY ISSUES for LEADERS of BUSINESS & the COMMUNITY July
    RECOGNIZING AMERICA’S JUDICIARY: A DIALOGUE WITH CHIEF JUSTICES ON KEY ISSUES FOR LEADERS OF BUSINESS & THE COMMUNITY July 27, 2011 - Phoenix, Arizona 1 RECOGNIZING AMERICA'S JUDICIARY: A DIALOGUE WITH CHIEF JUSTICES ON KEY ISSUES FOR LEADERS OF BUSINESS & THE COMMUNITY Phoenix, Arizona July 27, 2011 GUESTS OF HONOR: Hon. Rebecca White Berch, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Arizona Hon. Roslyn O. Silver, Chief United States District Judge, Arizona DISTINGUISHED PANELISTS: David Rosenbaum, Partner, Osborn Maledon, P.A. Shane Swindle, Partner, Perkins Coie, LLP Jack Friedman (Moderator), President, Directors Roundtable Institute REPORTED BY: PAMELA A. GRIFFIN, RPR, CRR Certified Reporter Certificate No. 50010 2 JACK FRIEDMAN: I am Jack Friedman, President of the Directors Roundtable Institute. We are a pro bono group that has organized 750 events nationally and globally over the last 21 years. We have never charged a penny for anyone to attend any event ever. I myself have been a volunteer chair for the last 21 years, and that is the spirit with which we pursue our educational programming. The reason why this particular program is important is that we feel that there has been a disconnect between public service, public policy, and the larger community including business. We don't take positions on any public matter whatsoever. When I use the word "business community and business leaders," I'm really going beyond that. It can also be the nonprofit sector, academics, and others. We try to benefit the larger community, although the business community is what we're primarily identified with. The courts are the one branch of the United States government that is expected to have independence.
    [Show full text]
  • John Bouma Honored with 2015 Gold 'N Gavel Amicus Award from The
    JOHN BOUMA HONORED WITH 2015 GOLD ‘N GAVEL AMICUS AWARD FROM THE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY PHOENIX (October 1, 2015) – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that partner John J. Bouma received the Gold ‘n Gavel Amicus Award from the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University (ASU Law). The award was presented as part of the Third Annual Gold ‘n Gavel Auction and Reception, ASU Law’s signature event to raise funds for student scholarships and innovative school programs. Bouma was recognized for his long-term support of ASU Law, his leadership in the Phoenix legal community and his dedication to improving the Valley. Two of his children are ASU Law graduates. A video profile on Bouma shown at the event can be viewed here. After serving more than 30 years as Snell & Wilmer chairman, Bouma stepped down from the position in early March. He remains active in his practice, which emphasizes complex business litigation, including antitrust and legal malpractice defense, and continues to serve on the firm’s executive and compensation committees. Throughout more than five decades at the firm, he has helped influence economic development, public policy and cultural life across Snell & Wilmer’s geographic footprint. Hundreds of people attended the event held at the Sheraton Phoenix Downtown Hotel, including retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, and former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice John J. Bouma Ruth McGregor. Michael Gallagher, co-founding partner of Gallagher & Kennedy, served as the event’s auctioneer.
    [Show full text]
  • VISION 2025: Arizona Comes of Age VISION 2025: Arizona Comes of Age
    VISION 2025: Arizona comes of age VISION 2025: Arizona Comes of Age The title of this report was chosen to reflect, in a meaningful way, what we’ve learned about who we are as Arizonans, the goals we share and the length of time we believe it will take to achieve them. We chose the coming of age theme because our work has Every generation is confronted with the need to successfully taught us just how enlightened and bold our forbearers were address these same issues in ways that provide people with in shepherding this very young state through its early growing more opportunities to live a secure and rewarding life. pains. They built the foundation that made it possible for Arizona to grow so rapidly and to accomplish so much. And, THE ROLE OF THE CENTER Lattie F. Coor, PhD with it, they provided an example of citizens and leaders Chairman and CEO When the Center for the Future of Arizona (CFA) was established working together for the long-term benefit of the state. Center for the Future in 2002, it was a time of dynamic change in Arizona. While the of Arizona In very short order, we established a statewide public education economy was still growing, there was an underlying uneasiness system and built a high-quality system of public universities and as to where Arizona was headed with repeated calls for strong community colleges, one of the largest and most accessible in leadership that could create a vision for the state’s future. the nation. The central question before us then and now remains the same.
    [Show full text]
  • F I Led Sep 17 1990
    SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA F I LED SEP 17 1990 MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY Administrative Order No. 90-39 In accordance with Administrative Order No. 90-21, the Chief Justice is responsible for appointing members to the Committee on Technology. Now, therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT the following persons are appointed as members of the Committee for terms beginning July 1, 1990, and ending on the dates shown by their respective names. David Phares Term Expires: Justice of the Peace June 30, 1992 Chandler Justice Court 2051 West Warner Road, Suite 20 Chandler, Arizona 85224 H. Stewart Bradshaw Term Expires: Judge June 30, 1991 Superior Court in Yuma County 168 Second Avenue Yuma, Arizona 85364 David Byers Term Expires: Deputy Administrative Director June 30, 1993 Administrative Office of the Courts 1314 North Third Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, Ariz8ha 85004 Louraine Crawford Term Expires: Magistrate June 30, 1993 Phoenix Municipal Court 455 North Fifth Street Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Roger Derse Term Expires: Public Member June 30, 1992 Inertia Dynamics Corporation 550 North 54th Street Chandler, Arizona 85226 .-~- -- -----_. ---- --- ------ Joyce Goldsmith Term Expires: Clerk June 30, 1991 Court of Appeals, Division II 416 West Congress Tucson, Arizona 85701-1374 Gordon Griller Term Expires: Court Administrator June 30, 1993 Superior Court in Maricopa County 201 West Jefferson Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Robert Layton Term Expires: Chief Probation Officer June 30, 1991 Graham County Probation Department 800 Main Street Safford, Arizona
    [Show full text]
  • 2006Mediaguide.Pdf
    Fri-Sun Sep. 30-Oct. 2 Cal Nike Invitational Invitational Berkeley, CA All Day Tues-Sun Oct. 4-9 All American Championships Los Angeles, CA All Day Fri-Sun Oct. 21-23 June Stewart Fall Invitational Invitational Nashville, Nashville, TN All Day Fri-Mon Oct. 21-24 ITA Regional Championships San Diego, CA All Day Thurs-Sun Nov. 3-6 Nat’l IndividualIndividual Indoors Indoors Columbus, Columbus, OH All Day Fri-Sun Nov. 4-6 ASU Thunderbird ASU Whiteman All Day Fri-Sun Jan. 13-15 Nat’l Collegiate Tennis Classic Las Vegas, NV All Day Sat Jan. 21 Texas ASU Whiteman Noon Sat Jan. 28 New Mexico ASU Whiteman Noon Sun Jan. 29 UC Davis ASU Whiteman 10:00 a.m. Fri Feb. 10 Montana State ASU Whiteman 1:30 p.m. Sat Feb. 11 Denver ASU Whiteman Noon Sun Feb. 12 Cal Poly ASU Whiteman 10:00 a.m. Fri Feb. 24 USC ASU Whiteman 1:30 p.m. Sat Feb. 25 UCLA ASU Whiteman Noon Fri Mar. 3 Stanford Palo Alto, CA 1:30 p.m. Sat Mar. 4 California Berkeley, CA Noon Tues Mar. 7 Wake Forest ASU Whiteman 1:30 p.m. SatSat Mar. 11 Oregon Eugene, OR Noon Sat Mar. 18 Houston ASU Whiteman Noon Sat Mar. 25 Arizona ASU Whiteman 1:00 p.m. Fri Mar. 31 UCLA Los Angeles, CA 1:30 p.m. Sat Apr. 1 USC Los Angeles, CA Noon Fri Apr. 7 Washington State Pullman, WA Noon Sat Apr. 8 Washington Seattle, WA Noon Fri. Apr. 14 California ASU Whiteman 1:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • A-03 County Officials-2
    COUNTY OFFICIALS Lenore Stuart, Supervisor District 1 - Precinct 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Russell McCloud, Supervisor District 2 - Precincts 7, 8, 9, 6 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, The Honorable Russell McCloud was The Honorable Lenore Loroña Stuart is born in Fort Huachuca, Arizona and a fifth generation Yuman. Her back- moved to Yuma with his parents, Dennis ground is rich in local history. Her great and Mary one year later. Russell gradu- -great grandfather was Jose Maria ated from Kofa High School and soon Redondo, well known in Yuma history, after went into the family business, Ac- as rancher and entrepreneur in early curate Automotive Attention. He has Yuma, a member of the Territorial legis- managed the day-to-day operations for lature, Yuma County Supervisor and the last twenty years and during that the second Mayor of Yuma. Lenore is time the business expanded to a total of married to G.W. Stuart, Jr. Lenore attended Immaculate Con- three locations throughout the Yuma area. Russell has two ception School, Yuma High, AWC and NAU. Supervisor Stu- sons, both work for the family business. In 1999, he at- art was elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2000 and was tended Rapport Leadership International's leadership pro- re-elected in 2004. She served as Vice-Chairman in 2002 gram and became a Master Graduate of that program in and then as Chairman of the Board in 2003. Lenore cur- 2001. He graduated from Project CENTRL in 2003, a two- rently serves as member of the Heritage Park Advisory Com- year rural leadership program administered by the U of A.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Perception of Access and Fairness of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County
    PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF ACCESS AND FAIRNESS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA IN MARICOPA COUNTY Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program Phase III Project May 2009 Christopher George Bleuenstein Deputy Criminal Court Administrator Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Phoenix, Arizona ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Chief Justice of the North Dakota Supreme Court, Gerald W. VandeWalle for his support in my pursuit of this endeavor. I thank Court leadership at the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County for placing a high importance on continued education, for embracing the Court Executive Development Program, and for supporting the National Center for State Courts. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to such a progressive institution. I specifically would like to thank the following individuals for their support and encouragement --Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell; Judicial Branch Administrator, Marcus Reinkensmeyer; General Jurisdiction Courts Administrator, Phillip Knox, and Criminal Court Administrator, Bob James. I would like to thank Noreen Sharp for her insightful guidance and also Karin Philips for doing the important work of administering the court-user exit survey. I would like to acknowledge two important colleagues – Dennis Herbeck & Rod Olson, both Court Administrators in the North Dakota Judiciary -- for their leadership and their admirable commitment to the citizens they serve. I am fortunate for their friendship. None of this would have been possible without the love and support of my parents, sister, and friends. I thank you for all that you have given me. Last but not least to my advisor, Dr. Geoff Gallas, thanks for putting up with me! The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty -- James Madison 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Volunteer Lawyers Programs (VLP) in Arizona
    NEWS Elliot Glicksman (L) and Sen. John Edwards VOLUNTEER (R) in Tucson, Oct. 25, 2006. Tucson LAWYERS attorney Glicksman has served as the master of PROGRAM ceremonies for the VLP’s 25 Years of Service awards events for the last 10 years. BY MICHELE MIRTO 2006 marks the 25th anniversary of the Volunteer Lawyers Programs (VLP) in Arizona. During that history, the number of volunteer attorneys associated with the VLP programs has grown steadily, as have the services provided. In its anniversary year, the VLP programs worked with more than 3,497 volunteer attorneys to pro- vide services to an estimated 13,373 clients across the state—all of whom faced legal issues and who benefited from VLP counsel and the generosity of our volunteers. To celebrate this milestone, the VLP programs coordi- nated three special recognition events last fall. The first took place on October 25, 2006, when nearly 300 attor- neys and guests attended the VLP Awards Luncheon at the Fox Theatre in downtown Tucson. also included the announcement of the 2006 “For Love of Justice” The Southern Arizona VLP celebration saw a surprise visit from Awards to individuals, law firms and other organizations that provide former U.S. Senator John Edwards, a longtime advocate for equal jus- and promote pro bono service in the five counties served by CLS. The tice and legal access for the indigent population. Edwards, who serves highest honor, the Frank X. Gordon Jr. Traveling Award, was pre- as Director of the University of North Carolina’s Center on Poverty, sented to Chief Justice Ruth McGregor for her support for pro bono Work and Opportunity, appeared at the luncheon to extend his thanks recruitment and recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Judicial Branch 2010-2015’S Business Goals As Well As the Commission on Technology’S Automation Goals
    AARRIIZZOONNAA JJUUDDIICCIIAALL BBRRAANNCCHH IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN TTEECCHHNNOOLLOOGGYY SSTTRRAATTEEGGIICC PPRROOJJEECCTTSS FFOR FFISCAL YYEARS 22001111--22001133 IX. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PROJECTS This section contains a description of the statewide or state-level strategic projects undertaken by the Judicial Branch for Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013. These projects arise from the strategic initiatives above and support Justice 20/20: A Vision of the Future of the Arizona Judicial Branch 2010-2015’s business goals as well as the Commission on Technology’s automation goals. Most are on-going projects focused on attaining the goals of a more responsive and accessible Judiciary. At its June 2009 strategic planning session, the Commission on Technology reaffirmed the importance of existing strategic projects and revised their groupings from affinity areas by impact and timeline to a funding based priority list, pared considerably from past years in response to reductions in budgets. At the May 2010 strategic planning session, Commission members continued to evaluate and update the list of projects. They increased the detail of the listing for some projects and reduced the detail for others. Initiatives and related projects were again placed in priority categories numbered 1 though 5 with 1 being the highest priority and 5 being the lowest. The Arizona Judiciary’s strategic information technology projects for 2011-2013, in order of priority are: STRATEGIC PROJECTS PRIORITY* ELECTRONIC FILING — CENTRAL CASE INDEX 1 ELECTRONIC FILING
    [Show full text]