Ashley M. Burgemeister

Trial Court · Gunnison · Gunnison

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2024 retention cycle
Trial Court · Gunnison · Gunnison
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 77.7% yes
6,471 yes · 1,854 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote 8-0, with one absent and one Commissioner vacancy, that Judge Ashley Burgemeister MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Commission interviewed Judge Burgemeister via Zoom video conference on April 18, 2024, with various Commission members observing her in Court, either in person or via electronic means prior to that evaluation. Judge Burgemeister is a knowledgeable, well-prepared county court judge who manages her caseload well. Her docket consists of both criminal and civil matters. She is diligent and communicates effectively with those who attend her court. She maintains appropriate control of proceedings that are in person in her courtroom and through the Webex system. She has maintained an appropriate demeanor and temperament, even when she was subjected to harassment and threats from an individual who was recently sent to prison in connection with that harassment. Despite the unusual pressures of this term, she continued to perform her job with compassion and respect to those appearing in her courtroom. The evaluation methods used by the Commission involve reviewing surveys from lawyers and citizens. Unfortunately, the number of survey responses is less than ideal and does not provide a good statistical sample. The evaluation process includes self-evaluation reports, courtroom observations by the commissioners and interviews with the District Attorney, Head of the Public Defender’s Office, and the Chief Judge of the Seventh Judicial District. In addition, to her interview by the Commission, Judge Burgemeister submitted three written orders or decisions for the Commission to review.
2020 retention cycle
Trial Court · Gunnison · Gunnison
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 79.5% yes
7,194 yes · 1,858 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Seventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (9-0) agree, with one Commissioner absent, that Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Over the past term, Judge Burgemeister presided over criminal, misdemeanor, traffic, civil, and small claims matters. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Burgemeister has demonstrated that she meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories. Judge Burgemeister is relatively new to the bench. She received an interim evaluation in 2019. Judge Burgemeister carefully reviewed that evaluation, which included performance surveys and took active steps to address any perceived deficiencies. She has benefitted from the assistance of a judicial coach. In Judge Burgemeister’s interim evaluation the Commission found that she issued decisions in a timely manner, engaged all parties, communicated effectively, treated all parties with respect, managed her docket efficiently and displayed an appropriate judicial temperament. Based upon the methods set forth below, this Commission agrees that Judge Burgemeister has improved with time and experience. The Commission observed or monitored Judge Burgemeister in the courtroom, reviewed opinions she authored, reviewed survey results, interviewed the Chief Judge, the District Attorney and the Public Defender, reviewed Judge Burgemeister’s written self-evaluation, and conducted a personal interview. Thirteen attorneys and one non-attorney responded to surveys regarding Judge Burgemeister’s performance. Eighty-two percent of the attorneys responding agreed that Judge Burgemeister meets performance standards. The sole non-attorney responding also agreed that Judge Burgemeister meets performance standards. The surveys covered the judicial performance criteria of integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance and service to the legal profession and the public. The criteria are graded on a scale of 0 to 4. Judge Burgemeister’s overall rating was 3.4. Judge Burgemeister was appointed to the Gunnison County Court in January of 2017. Prior to her appointment Judge Burgemeister had served as Family Court Facilitator for the Seventh Judicial District. Judge Burgemeister is active in the community, subject to the limitations presented by her office. She guest lectures at Western State Colorado University and is a run buddy for IRun4.

Surveys & reports

2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report County C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 3 Performance Scores . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor . .10 Diligence . .11 Fairness . .12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . .13 Methodology and How to Read Results . .13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Burgemeister, 29 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 29 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Burgemeister All County Judges Judge All County Judges Burgemeister Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 85% 85% 81% 80% 70% 60% 40% 30% 20% 15% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% Judge Burgemeister All County Judges Judge Burgemeister All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Burgemeister Burgemeister Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 70% 81% 85% 85% standards No, does not meet 30% 15% 15% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 Case Management 3.4 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.4 Communications 3.6 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.5 3.1 Fairness 3.4 Judge Burgemeister All County Judges All Judge County Burgemeister Judges Case Management 3.2 3.4 Application and 3.1 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.4 3.6 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.5 Fairness 3.1 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 27 31% 41% 11 Non-Attorneys 21 - - 18 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Burgemeister received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Burgemeister Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 2.9 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.1 3.5 2.6 3.4 21 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.0 3.4 2.6 3.3 25 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.0 3.4 2.7 3.3 21 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 23 cases 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Burgemeister Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 2.9 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.2 3.4 2.9 3.4 24 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 10 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 7 similar Consistently applying laws and 2.9 3.2 2.9 N/A 8 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 14 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible outside 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 13 pressure 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Burgemeister Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 3.2 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.5 24 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 8 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 13 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 14 being said 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Burgemeister Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 3.0 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.2 3.5 2.9 3.5 24 dignity Treating participants with 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.6 24 respect Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 14 those who appear before him/her 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Burgemeister Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 3.0 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.8 3.1 2.8 N/A 10 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 8 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 10 and being prepared for cases Beginning court on time. 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 13 Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 14 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 14 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 14 Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 14 that there is little wasted time 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Burgemeister Score 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 2.6 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Burgemeister Burgemeister Burgemeister Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 14 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 13 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 13 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 12 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.1 3.4 2.7 3.5 23 manner. Being fair and impartial 2.6 3.2 2.6 N/A 10 to both sides. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Burgemeister, 29 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 29 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, 76,755 survey invitations were sent to 10,611 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2023. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 7 judges. In total, 7,151 surveys were completed with 10,495 more responses where the attorney indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating them. The response rate for the survey was 9% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 23%. In addition to emailed invitations, attorneys could self-select the judges to evaluate via a public link. Non-attorneys The 2023 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 93,819 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total, 5,463 surveys were completed with 2,466 more responses where the respondent indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2023 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on July 21st, 2022. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2022 on July 21st, 2022. Reminders were sent on August 3rd and August 10th, 2 022. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2022 with email invitations sent on October 20th, 2022 and reminders was sent on November 3rd, 2 022 and November 9th, 2 022. The final data collection took place in January 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2022 on January 14th, 2 023. Reminders were sent on January 23rd and January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitation attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 13 ## Page 14 Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2022 and ran through the response deadline of February 3rd, 2023. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. To help reduce the administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. During this period 1,296 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 3rd or f or judges not receiving an evaluation in 2023 were held over for the 2024 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 93,819 5,985 6% Court Staff Email Invite (Self- 3,427 1,864 N/A select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 113 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 1,296 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2022 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 14 ## Page 15 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 88 27 11 41% Staff - 6 6 - Others 193 15 12 80% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 21 18 - Total Respondents - 48 29 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 16
- 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge As hley M. Burgemeister 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor. . 10 Diligence. . 11 Fairness. . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 13 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Burgemeister, 26 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 26 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 163 8 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 8 Non-attorney email Invite 270 17 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 1 Citizen Feedback - 0 Juror Survey - 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 18 Total N/A 26 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.2 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Burgemeister Overall Judge Burgemeister Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.2 26 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Non- Non- Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Yes, meets performance 86% 73% 6 11 standards No, does not meet performance 14% 13% 1 2 standards No opinion 0% 13% 0 2 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores Judge Burgemeister Score 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Case Management 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.2 Communications 3.3 Diligence 3.4 Demeanor 2.9 Fairness 2.8 Judge Burgemeister Score Judge Number of Burgemeister Responses Score Case Management 3.2 26 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.2 25 Communications 3.3 24 Diligence 3.4 24 Demeanor 2.9 23 Fairness 2.8 23 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.2 Attorneys 3.2 Non-Attorneys 3.2 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after 2.8 2.6 2.9 20 trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.4 3.1 3.5 24 Promptly rules on pre-trial motions. 2.9 2.5 3.2 19 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.2 3.0 3.2 25 Provides an alternative to in-person hearings 3.4 3.9 3.2 24 when appropriate. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.2 Attorneys 3.1 Non-Attorneys 3.2 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.2 3.1 3.2 25 Bases decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.2 3.2 N/A 8 Issues consistent decisions when the 3.1 3.1 N/A 7 circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law. 3.2 3.2 N/A 8 Consistently applies laws and rules. 3.1 3.1 N/A 8 Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a 2.9 2.9 N/A 8 decision. * Gives reasons for rulings. 3.3 N/A 3.3 15 Willing to make decisions without regard to 3.1 N/A 3.1 16 possible outside pressure. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.3 Attorneys 3.4 Non-Attorneys 3.3 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Makes sure all participants understand the 3.4 3.9 3.2 23 proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide 2.9 2.9 N/A 8 an explanation for the decision. * Provides written communications that are clear, 3.4 3.4 N/A 8 thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings. 3.3 3.3 N/A 7 Uses language that everyone can understand. 3.2 N/A 3.2 16 Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.4 N/A 3.4 16 can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed. 3.2 N/A 3.2 14 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 2.9 Attorneys 3.0 Non-Attorneys 2.9 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.0 3.3 2.8 21 Treats participants with respect. 3.0 3.3 2.9 23 Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom. * 2.9 2.9 N/A 7 Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully 2.1 2.1 N/A 7 in the courtroom. * Maintains a professional demeanor in the 3.3 3.3 N/A 7 courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human 3.0 N/A 3.0 16 understanding for those who appear in court. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.4 Attorneys 3.4 Non-Attorneys 3.4 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant 3.2 3.2 N/A 8 law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 3.6 3.6 N/A 7 consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is 3.4 3.4 N/A 8 prepared for cases. Begins court on time. 3.4 N/A 3.4 16 Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.4 N/A 3.4 16 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.2 N/A 3.2 15 Is prepared for cases 3.4 N/A 3.4 16 Manages court proceedings so there is little 3.4 N/A 3.4 16 wasted time. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 2.8 Attorneys 2.2 Non-Attorneys 3.1 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard. 3.2 N/A 3.2 15 Treats those involved in the case without bias. 3.1 N/A 3.1 15 Treats people fairly who represent themselves. 2.8 N/A 2.8 12 Gives each side enough time to present their 3.2 N/A 3.2 13 case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner. 2.9 2.9 N/A 7 Is fair and impartial to both sides. 2.7 2.7 N/A 7 Appears to decide the outcome of the case 2.0 2.0 N/A 8 before all evidence. * Unnecessarily restricts a party's presentation. * 2.5 2.5 N/A 6 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Burgemeister, 26 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 26 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 13 ## Page 14 The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Aspects of Invitation Method Invitations Sent Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 793 Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 14 ## Page 15 C. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 15 ## Page 16 Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 16 ## Page 17 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 17 ## Page 18 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county judges. The district and county categories were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, and Fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge’s or justice’s written opinions). The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions, from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 18
2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Burgemeister, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.6 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Burgemeister All County Judges Judge All County Judges Burgemeister Overall Grade 3.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 96% 86% 81% 80% 67% 60% 40% 33% 20% 13% 10% 5% 4% 4% 0% Judge Burgemeister All County Judges Judge Burgemeister All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Burgemeister Burgemeister Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 33% 81% 96% 86% standards No, does not meet 67% 13% 4% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.4 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.5 3.6 Demeanor 3.5 3.7 Fairness 3.5 Judge Burgemeister All County Judges All Judge County Burgemeister Judges Case 1.4 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.4 Law Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.6 3.5 Demeanor 3.6 3.5 Fairness 3.7 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 5 45% 60% 3 Non- 72 6% 71% 51 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Burgemeister received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Burgemeister Overall 1.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 1.4 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 1.3 3.5 1.3 N/A 3 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 1 3.4 1 N/A 3 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 1 3.4 1 N/A 3 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 2.3 3.4 2.3 N/A 3 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Burgemeister Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 1.2 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.4 3.4 1 3.6 46 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 1.3 3.2 1.3 N/A 3 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 1.3 3.4 1.3 N/A 3 similar Being fair and impartial to both 1 3.2 1 N/A 3 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 1.3 3.2 1.3 N/A 3 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 45 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 38 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Burgemeister Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 2.2 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.6 2 3.6 53 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 2.3 3.4 2.3 N/A 3 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 49 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 50 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Burgemeister Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 1.4 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.6 3.6 1 3.8 54 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.6 2.3 3.8 54 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.6 3.4 1 3.7 54 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 48 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Burgemeister Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 1.7 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 1.3 3.2 1.3 N/A 3 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.5 3.5 2 3.6 48 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 1.7 3.5 1.7 N/A 3 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 50 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 50 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 43 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 49 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 11 ## Page 12 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Burgemeister Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Burgemeister Burgemeister Burgemeister Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 51 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 49 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 36 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 47 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Burgemeister, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 141,174 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 14 ## Page 15 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2017 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 15 ## Page 16 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 11 5 0 3 60% Law Enforcement 38 11 1 9 82% Litigant 1426 41 223 23 56% Juror 43 12 1 11 92% Others 12 8 0 8 100% Total Non-Attorneys 1519 72 225 51 71% Total Respondents 1530 77 225 54 70% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 17
- 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.4
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  82%
  20 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  100%
  1 respondent
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . 14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Burgemeister, 14 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 14 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Burgemeister All County Judges Judge All County Judges Burgemeister Overall Grade 3.4 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 94% 82% 83% 80% 60% 40% 18% 20% 13% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Burgemeister All County Judges Judge Burgemeister All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Burgemeister Burgemeister Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 82% 83% 100% 94% standards No, does not meet 18% 13% 0% 4% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.5 3.3 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.4 Communications 3.5 3.2 Diligence 3.4 3.2 Demeanor 3.4 3.0 Fairness 3.8 Judge Burgemeister All County Judges All Judge County Burgemeister Judges Case 3.4 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.3 3.3 Law Communications 3.4 3.5 Diligence 3.2 3.4 Demeanor 3.2 3.4 Fairness 3.0 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 20 43% 65% 13 Non-Attorneys 1 100% 100% 1 In addition to the responses above, Judge Burgemeister received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Burgemeister Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 3.5 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.6 3.3 4.0 13 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.0 14 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 10 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.0 14 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Burgemeister Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 3.3 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.5 3.4 3.4 4 13 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 12 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 11 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.2 3.1 3.2 N/A 12 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 12 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3 3.7 N/A 3 1 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.7 N/A 4 1 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Burgemeister Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 3.4 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.0 13 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 12 reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 1 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 1 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Burgemeister Score 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 3.2 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.0 12 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.0 12 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.0 12 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 1 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Burgemeister Score 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys 3.2 Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 11 ## Page 12 Judge Judge County Judge Burgemeister Number of Burgemeister Judges Burgemeister Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 11 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 10 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 11 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3 3.6 N/A 3.0 1 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3 3.8 N/A 3.0 1 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Burgemeister Score 3.0 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Burgemeister Attorneys Judge Burgemeister Non-Attorneys 3.0 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Burgemeister Burgemeister Burgemeister Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 3.0 3.8 N/A 3.0 1 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved - 3.8 N/A - 0 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent - 3.8 N/A - 0 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her - 3.8 N/A - 0 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Burgemeister, 14 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 14 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 13% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 15 ## Page 16 with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 47 20 0 13 65% Staff 1 1 0 1 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 1 1 0 1 100% Total Respondents 48 21 0 14 67% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ashley M. Burgemeister 17

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026