Beth A. Faragher
Trial Court · Denver · Denver
Meets Standards3 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2024 retention cycleTrial Court · Denver · DenverCommission vote: 5 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 77.7% yes191,001 yes · 54,973 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: *Insufficient responses to publish 2024 Survey Report 2023 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Denver County Court Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 5-0 that Honorable Judge Beth Faragher MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance criteria are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Faragher has stated that her goal as a Denver County Court judge is to provide procedural fairness and access to justice for all who come before her. She is known to explain courtroom processes and procedures in plain language in order to ensure that all parties, especially those without legal counsel, understand what is occurring. At the beginning of cases, she asks each party how they would like to be referred to so she can address each by their preferred name, title and/or pronoun. People in her courtroom have noted that Judge Faragher treats everyone with respect and maintains a sense of calm. Some have noted that Judge Faragher’s efforts to ensure that everyone is heard causes cases to take too much time and slows the pace in her courtroom; however, others noted the fact that Judge Faragher takes this time is one of her greatest strengths. Judge Faragher has served as a Denver County Court judge for more than a decade and has a very strong understanding of the law. In 2023, Judge Faragher presided over two Fresh Start Days, which gave defendants with outstanding warrants an opportunity to have them cleared. During the COVID pandemic, Judge Faragher made a point to be physically present at the courthouse. This enabled her to be a presence in the courthouse for staff questions and support and for last-minute warrant requests. Judge Faragher is involved in the legal community both as a mentor and as a lifelong learner. In evaluating Judge Faragher, the commission used live, livestream and recorded courtroom observations, conducted a personal interview with the judicial officer, case management data and reviewed surveys from attorney and non-attorney courtroom participants, comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and the judicial officer self-evaluation, with supporting documents when submitted, to inform its decision for meets/does not meet performance standards.
- 2020 retention cycleTrial Court · Denver · DenverMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 81.8% yes248,984 yes · 55,306 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, on a vote of 10-0, unanimously finds that Judge Beth Ann Faragher MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Faragher, reviewed survey results of attorneys and non-attorneys who have appeared in Judge Faragher’s courtroom, and reviewed three of Judge Faragher’s written opinions and her self-evaluation. Selected members of the Commission observed Judge Faragher in court. Analysis of this data supports retention. The survey questioned respondents whether, “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria do you think Judge Faragher meets judicial performance standards?” Of 34 attorneys completing surveys, 88% believe Judge Faragher meets performance standards and13% indicated she does not meet performance standards. Only one non-attorneys completed the survey, so those results are not present a statistically-valid sample. Judge Faragher’s ranking by attorneys on categories of judicial performance (case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, diligence and demeanor) were at or near the average for all county court judges standing for retention. Judge Faragher scored higher than average in the fairness category. The Commission’s courtroom observation, interview, and reviews of written material provide a picture of a judge consistent with the positive comments of survey respondents. Judge Faragher has been described by attorneys as “friendly and efficient manner on the bench,” “very careful to go over the law relating to her rulings with the parties” and an “excellent jurist.” It was also noted that her docket management has improved over time. Based on these findings, the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Faragher meets performance standards in all categories.
- 2016 retention cycleTrial Court · Denver · DenverMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 77.0% yes168,172 yes · 50,215 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, on a vote of 10-0, unanimously recommends that Judge Beth A. Faragher BE RETAINED. Judge Faragher was appointed to the Denver County Court in July 2014. Prior to her appointment, Judge Faragher served as a Denver County Court magistrate, Pro Tem Judge for the City of Westminster, and was an attorney in private practice specializing in criminal defense, employment law, and mental health court appointments. Judge Faragher obtained her Juris Doctorate degree from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and her undergraduate degree from Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida. She is active in the Colorado Bar Association Leadership Training, the Denver Access to Justice Committee, and the Denver Bench Bar Committee. The Commission reviewed survey results of attorneys and non-attorneys who have appeared in Judge Faragher’s courtroom, reviewed three of Judge Faragher’s written opinions as well as her self-evaluation. Selected members of the Commission observed Judge Faragher in court. The Commission then interviewed Judge Faragher. Analysis of all these data supports retention. Of attorneys completing surveys, 84% recommend retention and 16% indicate that they were undecided or did not have enough information to make a recommendation. Of the non-attorneys completing surveys, 91% recommend retention, 4% somewhat recommend that Judge Faragher not be retained and 6% made no recommendation. (These percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.) The number of attorney respondents (19 completed) is too small to allow for an item by item analysis; however, the Commission notes that the trend in responses is positive overall. In the areas of case management, demeanor, knowledge of law, communication, diligence, and fairness, Judge Faragher exceeds the average scores of other county court judges standing for retention. Written comments support these scores. Judge Faragher is described as an outstanding member of the bench with strong judicial reasoning, impartiality, and compassion for those who appear in front of her. Non-attorney respondents evaluated her above the average in questions related to demeanor, fairness, communication, and application of law. In only one area, diligence, are Judge Faragher’s scores from non-attorneys below the average of county court judges standing for retention. In written comments several attorney and non-attorney respondents raise concerns that matters may take longer than they should in her courtroom, a conclusion of the Commissioners who observed her as well. In her interview, Judge Faragher recognized docket management as an area for continuing improvement that she will address.
Surveys & reports
- 2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Beth Ann Faragher 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 Faragher, 23 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 23 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 3.8 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Faragher All County Judges Judge Faragher All County Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 85% 81% 77% 80% 60% 40% 23% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% Judge Faragher All County Judges Judge Faragher 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 Faragher Faragher Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 81% 77% 85% standards No, does not meet 0% 15% 0% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 23% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.4 3.9 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.9 Communications 3.6 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.9 Demeanor 3.5 3.9 Fairness 3.4 Judge Faragher All County Judges Judge All County Faragher Judges Case Management 3.6 3.4 Application and 3.9 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.9 3.6 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.9 3.5 Fairness 3.9 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 19 21% 53% 10 Non-Attorneys 13 - - 13 *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 Faragher 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 Beth Ann Faragher 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Faragher Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Faragher Attorneys 3.9 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.7 18 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.8 3.4 23 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.4 21 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.3 23 cases 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Faragher Overall 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Faragher Attorneys 4.0 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.9 3.4 4.0 3.8 21 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 4.0 3.2 4.0 N/A 9 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.9 3.2 3.9 N/A 10 similar Consistently applying laws and 4.0 3.2 4.0 N/A 10 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 12 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 13 pressure 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Faragher Overall 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Faragher Attorneys 4.0 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.9 3.5 4.0 3.8 23 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 4.0 3.4 4.0 N/A 8 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 13 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 13 being said 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Faragher Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Faragher Attorneys 4.0 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.8 3.5 4.0 3.6 23 dignity Treating participants with 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 23 respect Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 13 those who appear before him/her 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Faragher Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Faragher Attorneys 4.0 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 4.0 3.1 4.0 N/A 10 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4.0 3.3 4.0 N/A 9 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 9 and being prepared for cases Beginning court on time. 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 13 Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 13 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 13 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 13 Managing court proceedings so 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 13 that there is little wasted time 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Faragher Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Faragher Attorneys 4.0 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Faragher Faragher Faragher Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 13 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 13 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 13 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 13 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.8 23 manner. Being fair and impartial 4.0 3.2 4.0 N/A 9 to both sides. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Faragher, 23 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 23 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 Beth Ann Faragher 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 Beth Ann Faragher 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 Beth Ann Faragher 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 91 19 10 53% Staff - 13 13 - Others 0 0 0 - Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 13 13 - Total Respondents - 32 23 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 16
- 2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Beth Ann Faragher 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 Faragher, 135 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 135 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 3.5 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Faragher All County Judges Judge Faragher All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 92% 86% 81% 80% 72% 60% 40% 24% 20% 13% 10% 4% 5% 6% 4% 2% 0% Judge Faragher All County Judges Judge Faragher 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 Faragher Faragher Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 72% 81% 92% 86% standards No, does not meet 24% 13% 6% 10% performance standards No opinion 4% 5% 2% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 Case Management 3.4 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.5 Communications 3.6 3.3 Diligence 3.5 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 3.6 Fairness 3.5 Judge Faragher All County Judges Judge All County Faragher Judges Case 3.2 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.2 3.4 Law Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.3 3.5 Demeanor 3.4 3.5 Fairness 3.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 166 39% 52% 86 Non- 72 4% 68% 49 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Faragher received 1 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 Beth Ann Faragher 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Faragher Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Faragher Attorneys 3.2 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.5 3.4 N/A 61 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 86 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 70 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 80 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Faragher Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Faragher Attorneys 2.9 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.6 127 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3 3.2 3 N/A 81 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 24 similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 86 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3 3.2 3 N/A 79 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 48 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 42 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Faragher Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Faragher Attorneys 3.4 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.7 133 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 73 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 47 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 48 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Faragher Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Faragher Attorneys 3.2 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 132 Treating participants with respect 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 133 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.2 3.4 2.9 3.7 133 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 50 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Faragher Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Faragher Attorneys 3.2 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3 3.2 3 N/A 81 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.7 122 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.5 3.4 N/A 74 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 45 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 48 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 42 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 48 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 11 ## Page 12 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Faragher Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Faragher Attorneys Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Faragher Faragher Faragher Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 50 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 48 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 40 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 46 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Faragher, 135 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 135 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 Beth Ann Faragher 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 Beth Ann Faragher 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 Beth Ann Faragher 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 425 166 0 86 52% Law Enforcement 110 0 0 0 - Litigant 2199 46 461 25 54% Juror 35 13 1 12 92% Others 41 13 4 12 92% Total Non-Attorneys 2385 72 466 49 68% Total Respondents 2810 238 466 135 57% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 17 - 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.3judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend88%50 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend0%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Beth Ann Faragher 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 Faragher, 35 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 35 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 Faragher All County Judges Judge Faragher All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 94% 88% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 13% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Faragher All County Judges Judge Faragher 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 Faragher Faragher Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 88% 83% 0% 94% standards No, does not meet 13% 13% 100% 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 Beth Ann Faragher 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.5 3.3 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.4 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.4 2.7 Fairness 3.8 Judge Faragher All County Judges Judge All County Faragher Judges Case 3.3 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.3 3.3 Law Communications 3.4 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 3.4 Fairness 2.7 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 50 25% 68% 34 Non- 2 10% 50% 1 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Faragher 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 Beth Ann Faragher 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Faragher Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Faragher Attorneys 3.3 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.6 3.6 - 25 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.5 3.4 - 33 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3 3.5 3 - 26 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 3.5 - 29 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Faragher Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Faragher Attorneys 3.4 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 1.3 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.4 3.5 2 33 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 31 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 26 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.3 3.1 3.3 N/A 33 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 31 rules Giving reasons for rulings 1 3.7 N/A 1 1 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 1 3.7 N/A 1 1 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Faragher Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Faragher Attorneys 3.5 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 2.0 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.6 3.5 2.0 33 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 25 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 2 3.8 N/A 2.0 1 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 2 3.8 N/A 2.0 1 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Faragher Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Faragher Attorneys 3.5 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 2.2 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.0 32 dignity Treating participants with 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.0 32 respect Conducting his/her courtroom in 3.3 3.3 3.4 1.0 33 a neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 2 3.8 N/A 2.0 1 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Faragher Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Faragher Attorneys 3.4 Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 11 ## Page 12 Judge Judge County Judge Faragher Number of Faragher Judges Faragher Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 32 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 24 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 27 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 0 3.6 N/A 0.0 1 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 0 3.7 N/A 0.0 1 Maintaining appropriate control 0 3.7 N/A 0.0 1 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 0 3.8 N/A 0.0 1 cases Managing court proceedings so 0 3.6 N/A 0.0 1 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Faragher Score 2.7 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Faragher Attorneys Judge Faragher Non-Attorneys 2.7 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Faragher Faragher Faragher Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.0 3.8 N/A 3.0 1 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.0 3.8 N/A 2.0 1 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 3.0 3.8 N/A 3.0 1 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Faragher, 35 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 35 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 Beth Ann Faragher 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 Beth Ann Faragher 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 Beth Ann Faragher 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 200 50 0 34 68% Staff 7 1 0 0 - Others 14 1 0 1 - Total Non-Attorneys 21 2 0 1 50% Total Respondents 221 52 0 35 67% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 17
- 2016 cycle
- 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Beth Ann Faragher 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Beth Ann Faragher, 103 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 74 agreed they had worked with Judge Faragher enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 74 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.74 Attorneys 3.62 Total Non-Attorneys 3.80 Juror 3.92 Non-Attorney Other* 3.65 Table 1 Judge Beth Ann Faragher Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.74 3.62 3.80 3.92 3.65 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 89% Attorneys 84% Total Non-Attorneys 91% Juror 97% Non-Attorney Other 82% Table 2 Judge Beth Ann Faragher Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 89% 84% 91% 97% 82% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Beth Ann Faragher Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.50 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.66 3.81 3.95 3.64 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.79 3.95 3.98 3.92 Diligence 3.47 3.53 3.70 3.31 Demeanor 3.68 3.83 3.99 3.62 Fairness N/A 3.87 3.96 3.75 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 130 2 19 28% 47% Total Non- 777 134 55 10% 18% Attorneys Staff 40 0 18 58% 22% Jurors 181 4 31 18% 3% Other Non- 556 130 6 3% 50% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Faragher, 36 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 19 agreed they had worked with Judge Faragher enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 19 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 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 42% 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 67%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 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 September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 5 ## Page 8 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 using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate. 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 (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 6 ## Page 9 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 attorney. 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 with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. 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 exceptions 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. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and 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. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Beth Ann Faragher be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Beth Ann Faragher Total Retain 84% Neither 16% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 63% 60% 40% 21% 16% 20% 12% 8% 6% 8% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Faragher All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Faragher on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.45 Case Management Overall Average 3.50 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.72 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.56 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.42 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.71 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Faragher Table 6 Case Management Judge Beth Ann Faragher All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 19 Faragher Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 58% 11% 5% -- -- 26% 3.71 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 63% 21% 11% 5% -- -- 3.42 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 58% 16% 11% -- -- 16% 3.56 3.46 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 74% 16% 5% -- -- 5% 3.72 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.50 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Faragher on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.66 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.56 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.65 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 3.60 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.56 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Faragher Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Beth Ann Faragher All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 17 Faragher Judges Being able to identify and analyze 63% 21% -- -- -- 16% 3.75 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 58% 16% 11% -- -- 16% 3.56 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 44% 13% 6% -- -- 38% 3.60 3.32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 68% 11% 11% -- -- 11% 3.65 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 58% 16% 11% -- -- 16% 3.56 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.66 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Faragher on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.79 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.77 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Faragher Table 8 Communications Judge Beth Ann Faragher All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 17 Faragher Judges Making sure all participants 74% 16% -- -- -- 11% 3.82 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 53% 16% -- -- -- 32% 3.77 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.79 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Faragher on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.36 Demeanor Overall Average 3.68 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.68 3.39 Treating participants with respect 3.68 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.68 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Faragher Table 9 Demeanor Judge Beth Ann Faragher All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 19 Faragher Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 74% 21% 5% -- -- -- 3.68 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 74% 21% 5% -- -- -- 3.68 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 74% 21% 5% -- -- -- 3.68 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.68 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Faragher on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 3.47 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.65 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 3.39 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Faragher Table 10 Diligence Judge Beth Ann Faragher All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 19 Faragher Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 53% 32% 5% 5% -- 5% 3.39 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 58% 32% -- -- -- 11% 3.65 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 58% 21% 5% -- -- 16% 3.62 3.37 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.47 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Faragher in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 77% 80% 60% 54% 40% 28% 15% 20% 11% 8% 6% 1% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Faragher All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Beth Ann Faragher, 67 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 55 agreed they had worked with Judge Faragher enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 55 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. 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 October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 15 ## Page 18 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then 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. 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 with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. 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 exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 16 ## Page 19 the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. 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. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Faragher be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Beth Ann Faragher Total Retain 91% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 4% Figure 10 100% 80% 72% 71% 60% 40% 19% 16% 20% 6% 5% 4% 3% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Faragher All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 11 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.83 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.91 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.67 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.96 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.78 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Faragher Table 12 Demeanor Judge Beth Ann Faragher All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 55 Faragher Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 85% 9% 4% 2% -- -- 3.78 3.61 Treating participants with respect 96% 4% -- -- -- -- 3.96 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 80% 9% 9% 2% -- -- 3.67 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 93% 5% 2% -- -- -- 3.91 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.83 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.87 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.91 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.91 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.73 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.95 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Faragher Table 13 Fairness Judge Beth Ann Faragher All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 55 Faragher Judges Giving participants an opportunity 95% 5% -- -- -- -- 3.95 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 85% 5% 5% 4% -- -- 3.73 3.55 without bias Treating fairly people who 73% 4% 2% -- -- 22% 3.91 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 91% 5% 2% -- -- 2% 3.91 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.87 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.95 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.95 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.96 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.95 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Faragher Table 14 Communications Judge Beth Ann Faragher All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 55 Faragher Judges Making sure all participants 95% 5% -- -- -- -- 3.95 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 96% 4% -- -- -- -- 3.96 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 95% 5% -- -- -- -- 3.95 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.95 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 14 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 3.53 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.20 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.53 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.56 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.94 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.46 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Faragher Table 15 Diligence Judge Beth Ann Faragher All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 55 Faragher Judges Beginning court on time 67% 16% 9% 4% 2% 2% 3.46 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 91% 5% -- -- -- 4% 3.94 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 76% 11% 7% 4% 2% -- 3.56 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 71% 13% 7% 4% 2% 4% 3.53 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 62% 13% 13% 9% 4% -- 3.20 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.53 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 15 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.81 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.76 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.78 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.90 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Faragher Table 16 Application of Law Judge Beth Ann Faragher All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 52 Faragher Judges Giving reasons for rulings 85% 5% 2% -- -- 7% 3.90 3.56 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 70% 11% 4% -- -- 15% 3.78 3.54 pressure Being able to identify and analyze 76% 15% 4% -- -- 6% 3.76 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.81 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Faragher is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Faragher is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 80% 80% 75% 60% 40% 20% 13% 4% 7% 7% 5% 5% 3% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Faragher All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Faragher are. If you feel Judge Faragher generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 80% 80% 63% 60% 40% 20% 13% 4% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Faragher All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Beth Ann Faragher 25
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
- 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026