§ 2-353. Recommendation process.

(a)

All board members shall consider all applicants in an impartial, objective manner, based only on the applicant's merit as a potential or incumbent city judge.

(1)

At the earliest possible opportunity, a board member shall disclose to all members of the board:

a.

Any relationship with an applicant (such as business, personal, or attorney-client) that may result in a conflict of interest or prejudice;

b.

All applicants who constitute "relatives" under the Arizona Conflict of Interest Law (A.R.S. § 38-501 et seq.), as amended;

c.

All efforts to recruit a specific applicant.

(2)

A board member shall refrain from voting on all persons required to be disclosed in paragraph (1), subparagraphs a. and b. above. Board members may discuss and vote on all applications submitted by persons they recruit to apply, after having disclosed to all board members the nature of their efforts to recruit the applicant.

(b)

In considering initial appointments or reappointments, the board shall consider comment from all interested members of the public at a public hearing or in writing. For reappointments, the board shall also make inquiry of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct for information on pending or past disciplinary actions against the city judge scheduled for reappointment consideration.

(c)

The names of applicants and their applications shall be disseminated to the public or the media upon request, at any time after the closing date for receiving applications. The release of this information shall be subject to redaction of home addresses, telephone numbers or other personal or confidential information.

(d)

The board shall interview candidates in accordance with the Arizona Open Meeting Law and may use as a guide Rules 8 and 9 of the Arizona Supreme Court's Uniform Rules of Procedure for Commissions on Appellate and Trial Court Appointments. The board shall vote on the candidates in an open meeting.

(1)

As soon as possible after the vote of the board, the board shall deliver its written recommendations concerning initial city judge appointments to the city council, or an appropriate subcommittee of the council. The board shall identify, in alphabetical order, no less than three (3) best-qualified candidates for each vacancy and summarize the relative attributes of each final candidate.

(2)

As soon as possible after the vote of the board, the board shall also deliver its written recommendations concerning reappointments of city judges to the city council, or an appropriate subcommittee of the council. The board shall state that the board does or does not recommend reappointment of the city judge, summarizing the reasons for the recommendations.

(3)

Notwithstanding section 2-352, above, the city council may consider all candidates recommended by the judicial appointments advisory board to fill the initial vacant position for any vacancies that arise within four (4) months of the effective date of the appointment to fill the initial vacant position. The council may direct the board to recommend additional candidates from existing applications, or initiate additional recruitment action, or to exercise its discretion in determining whether to recommend additional candidates from existing applications or to initiate additional recruitment action.

(4)

The appointment of any candidate from existing applications pursuant to subsection 2-353(d)(3), above, must be made by the city council within the four (4) month period from the effective date of the appointment to fill the initial vacant position.

(5)

In the event that additional recruitment action is initiated pursuant to subsection 2-353(d)(3), above, either at the direction of the council, or in the exercise of the board's discretion, the board may elect to review existing applications and shall solicit additional applications. The board may waive reapplication and/or interview requirements as to existing applicants.

(Ord. No. 3254, § 1, 9-7-99; Ord. No. 3352, § 2, 5-14-01)