Olympia Z. Fay

Trial Court · Denver · Denver

Meets Standards3 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2026 retention cycle
Trial Court · Denver · Denver
Commission vote: 5 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.
Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: *Insufficient responses to publish 2026 Survey Report *Insufficient responses to publish 2025 Survey Report The Denver County Court Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 5-0 that Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 Fay is a model of efficiency and has demonstrated the ability to clear inundated dockets and deliver justice in a timely manner. She balances warmth and kindness with a formality and professionalism that establishes decorum in the courtroom. She manages her docket in a way that ensures that all parties, including pro se litigants, have equal access to the court. She shows respect for everyone in the courtroom, including litigants, attorneys, witnesses, jurors and the general public. She has an expert knowledge of the law and is organized and well prepared. When asked, she provides feedback to guide new attorneys in their practice. A passionate believer in equal access to the courtroom, she has championed that cause in a way that elevates the community and the court. As a senior member of the bench, she encourages collegiality and a supportive atmosphere among judges, which has led to positive morale, collaboration and consistency throughout the court. She is responsive, approachable and well respected as a leader and colleague. In evaluating Judge Fay, the commission did extensive live, livestream and recorded courtroom observations, conducted a personal interview with the judicial officer, and reviewed case management data and the judicial officer self-evaluation, with supporting documents when submitted, to inform its decision for meets/does not meet performance standards. Judge Fay was appointed to the Denver County Court in January 2015. She serves on Court committees for human resources/employee engagement and community service and engagement. Prior to her appointment, she served as a Denver assistant city attorney for two years and as a deputy district attorney in Colorado’s 20th Judicial District. She began her legal career in private practice as a civil litigator, specializing in complex commercial litigation, securities litigation and intellectual property cases. She is an active member of the Colorado Women’s Bar Association, the Sam Cary Bar Association, the Colorado Bar Association and the Denver Bar Association and has earned awards for judicial excellence from the Colorado Judicial Institute and the Colorado Women’s Bar Association. She earned her undergraduate degree from Lenoir-Rhyne University and her law degree from the University of Denver.
2022 retention cycle
Trial Court · Denver · Denver
Commission vote: 8 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 79.5% yes
154,209 yes · 39,683 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2022 Retention Survey Report 2021 Interim Survey Report 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 agrees by a vote of 8-0, with two Commissioners absent from voting, that Judge Olympia Z. Fay MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Fay presides over a criminal docket in Denver County Court. Judge Fay meets all aspects of the performance criteria and writes in a clear, concise, and well-reasoned manner. Her demeanor is described as compassionate, fair and pleasant in the courtroom and her case management is described as excellent. The Commission did not identify any evaluation category in which Judge Fay displayed a notable weakness. Commission members observed these qualities during their evaluation and interview. The Commission met with the Presiding Judge of Denver County Court to discuss her interactions with Judge Fay, as well as with members of the Public Defender’s Office and Probation Department to discuss their impressions of Judge Fay’s performance. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Fay, observed her during court proceedings, reviewed decisions she authored, case management data, comments received from interested parties, and judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys with sufficient interaction with Judge Fay in the courtroom to meaningfully respond. The surveys reflected personal opinions on Judge Fay’s Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Diligence, Demeanor, and Fairness. Of the 15 attorneys and 15 non-attorneys who completed the survey and reported they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Fay’s performance to evaluate her, 85% of the attorneys and 93% of the non-attorneys believe that she meets performance standards. Judge Fay’s combined (attorney and non-attorney) survey scores are slightly above or equal to the statewide average among county court judges in the areas of Case Management, Diligence, Demeanor, and Fairness and slightly below the statewide average for Application and Knowledge of Law. As a result of procedural irregularities in the distribution of these surveys, the response rates for the 2022 survey were not as robust as compared to prior evaluation cycles. While the Commission used these survey results in its evaluation, limited weight was given to these survey results and the results were used in conjunction with several other tools to evaluate her performance. All data reviewed by the Commission supports the recommendation that Judge Fay be retained.
2018 retention cycle
Trial Court · Denver · Denver
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 81.3% yes
187,212 yes · 43,087 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) agrees that Judge Olympia Z. Fay MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Fay was appointed to the Denver County Court on January 13, 2015. Judge Fay received her Bachelor of Arts in History from Lenoir-Rhyne University in 1999 and earned her law degree from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 2007. Prior to her appointment, Judge Fay served as a Denver assistant city attorney in the civil litigation section. Before joining the City Attorney’s office, she served as a deputy district attorney in the 20th Judicial District and worked as a private attorney at Holme, Roberts, & Owen and Davis, Graham, & Stubbs. Judge Fay is a faculty member and advisor with the National Institute for Trial Advocacy and is active is the Sam Cary Bar Association, the Colorado Women’s Bar Association, the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and the Colorado LGBT Association. Judge Fay is also the Chair of the Denver County Court Resource Committee, where she was tasked with reorganization of the court to better serve Denver. She also volunteers for various high school and college legal study competitions. For this evaluation period, the Commission on Judicial Performance interviewed Judge Fay, reviewed three written opinions she authored, and observed her in court. Additionally, commissioners reviewed surveys submitted by attorneys, jurors, and parties who appeared before Judge Fay. Among other questions, the survey asked, “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Fay meets judicial performance standards?” Of attorneys responding to the survey, 90% answered that Judge Fay meets the performance standards, 4% answered that she does not meet the performance standards, and 6% had no opinion of whether she meets or does not meet the performance standards. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 98% answered that Judge Fay meets the performance standards, 0% answered that she does not meet the performance standards, and 2% had no opinion of whether she meets or does not meet the performance standards. A total of 50 attorneys and 51 non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Fay’s performance. Since her appointment, Judge Fay has presided in traffic court, the general sessions division and the state criminal division. Judge Fay’s survey scores among both attorneys and non-attorneys are well above the average for county court judges in the categories of case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Judge Fay received nearly universal praise in comments submitted by attorneys and non-attorneys who interacted with her. The Commission believes that Judge Fay is off to a very impressive start in her service as a judge. Based on these findings the Commission unanimously agreed the Judge Fay meets judicial performance standards.

Surveys & reports

2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Olympia Z. Fay 2021 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 Fay, 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 3.8 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Fay All County Judges Judge Fay All County Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 95% 100% 80% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 13% 8% 5% 5% 0% Judge Fay All County Judges Judge Fay 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 Fay Fay Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 95% 80% 100% 79% standards No, does not meet 5% 14% 0% 13% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 Case Management 3.5 3.7 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.8 Communications 3.5 3.8 Diligence 3.4 3.9 Demeanor 3.4 4.0 Fairness 3.4 Judge Fay All County Judges All County Judge Fay Judges Case Management 3.8 3.5 Application and 3.7 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.8 3.5 Diligence 3.8 3.4 Demeanor 3.9 3.4 Fairness 4.0 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 42 16% 52% 22 Non-Attorneys 33 - - 7 *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 Fay 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Fay Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.8 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Fay County Judges Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.8 3.5 3.7 4.0 18 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.4 3.9 4.0 24 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 3.7 4.0 20 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.6 4.0 23 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Fay Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.7 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Fay County Judges Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.3 3.6 4 25 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 19 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 19 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.8 3.2 3.8 N/A 20 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 18 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.8 3.3 N/A 3.8 6 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.4 N/A 4 5 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Fay Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.8 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Fay County Judges Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.8 3.5 3.8 4.0 26 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 15 reasoned Using language that everyone can 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 7 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 7 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Fay Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.8 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Fay County Judges Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.9 3.4 3.8 4.0 27 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.9 3.4 3.8 4.0 27 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.8 3.3 3.8 4.0 27 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 4 3.3 N/A 4.0 7 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Fay Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.7 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Fay County Judges Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 20 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.3 4 N/A 17 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 18 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 7 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 7 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 7 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 N/A 4.0 6 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 11 ## Page 12 Judge Fay County Judges Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 7 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Fay Score 4.0 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Fay Attorneys Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 4.0 County Judges Judge Fay Judge Fay Non- Number of Judge Fay Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 6 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 6 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 3 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 6 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Fay, 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: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 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 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 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 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. 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 quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce 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 list of all judges in their district our 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 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 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 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 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, 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 2020 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 15 ## Page 16 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 interim. 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 269 42 0 22 52% Staff 0 0 0 - Others 430 30 0 7 - Total Non-Attorneys - 30 - 7 - Total Respondents - 72 - 29 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 17
- 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.4
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  85%
  30 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  93%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Olympia Z. Fay 2022 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 . 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 Fay, 30 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 30 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 Fay All County Judges Judge Fay All County Judges Overall Grade 3.4 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 93% 85% 83% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 15% 13% 12% 7% 4% 6% 0% Judge Fay All County Judges Judge Fay 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 Fay Fay Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 85% 83% 93% 83% standards No, does not meet 15% 13% 7% 12% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 0% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.4 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.4 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.4 3.4 Fairness 3.3 Judge Fay All County Judges All County Judge Fay Judges Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and 3.2 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.6 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 3.4 Fairness 3.4 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 30 17% 50% 15 Non- 41 - - 15 Attorneys *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 Fay 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Fay Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.7 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 3.2 County Judge Fay Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.0 22 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.4 27 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.5 23 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.2 27 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Fay Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.3 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 3.2 County Judge Fay Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 25 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 13 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 13 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 14 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 13 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 2.9 3.3 N/A 2.9 13 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Fay Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.6 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 3.6 County Judge Fay Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 26 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 10 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 14 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 14 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Fay Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.5 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 3.4 County Judge Fay Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 26 Treating participants with respect 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.4 27 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 14 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Fay Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.3 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 3.4 County Judge Fay Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.9 3.3 2.9 N/A 12 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 11 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 12 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 14 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 14 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 14 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 14 Managing court proceedings so 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 14 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Fay Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Fay Attorneys 3.3 Judge Fay Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Fay County Judge Fay Judge Fay Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 14 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.3 3.3 N/A 3.3 14 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 13 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 14 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 27 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 13 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Fay, 30 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 30 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, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 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 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 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 an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. 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 quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce 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 list of all judges in their district our 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 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 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 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 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 2021 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. 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 14 ## Page 15 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 180 30 15 50% Staff - 9 9 - Others 402 32 6 19% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 41 15 - Total Respondents - 71 30 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 16
2018 cycle
- 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Olympia Z. Fay 2017 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 . 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 Olympia Z. Fay, 141 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 83 agreed they had worked with Judge Fay enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 83 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 3.96 4 3.77 3.69 3.68 3.60 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Olympia Z. Fay Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.69 3.60 3.77 3.96 3.68 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 89% 87% 86% 86% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Olympia Z. Fay Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 87% 86% 89% 100% 86% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Olympia Z. Fay Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.65 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.44 3.73 3.98 3.61 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.68 3.86 3.98 3.80 Diligence 3.58 3.70 3.85 3.62 Demeanor 3.64 3.79 4.00 3.69 Fairness N/A 3.79 4.00 3.69 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 238 0 67 28% 48% Total Non- 1533 107 74 5% 35% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 36 1 16 44% 0% Other Non- 1497 106 58 4% 45% 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. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Fay, 67 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 35 agreed they had worked with Judge Fay enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 35 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 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys 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 29% 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 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 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 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 of judicial performance 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. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Olympia Z. Fay be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Olympia Z. Fay Total Retain 86% Neither 11% Total Not Retain 3% Figure 3 100% 80% 66% 60% 54% 40% 20% 22% 20% 11% 9% 7% 9% 3% 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 Fay All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 Fay 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 3.39 Case Management Overall Average 3.65 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.65 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.60 3.35 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.68 3.54 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Fay Table 6 Case Management Judge Olympia Z. Fay All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Fay Number of Responses: 34 Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 51% 9% 6% -- -- 34% 3.70 3.54 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 74% 14% 9% -- -- 3% 3.68 3.35 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 54% 9% 6% 3% -- 29% 3.60 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for 71% 17% 9% -- -- 3% 3.65 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.65 3.39 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 Fay 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 3.13 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.44 3.07 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.44 3.08 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.41 3.19 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.44 3.08 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.48 3.22 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.45 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Fay Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Olympia Z. Fay All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 34 Fay Judges Being able to identify and analyze 71% 9% 3% 9% 3% 6% 3.45 3.22 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 69% 11% 9% 3% 3% 6% 3.48 3.08 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 68% -- 13% 3% 3% 13% 3.44 3.19 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 71% 9% 9% 3% 6% 3% 3.41 3.08 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 69% 14% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3.44 3.07 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.44 3.13 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 Fay 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 3.38 Communications Overall Average 3.68 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.27 thorough and well reasoned 3.68 Making sure all participants understand the 3.47 proceedings 3.78 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Fay Table 8 Communications All Judge Olympia Z. Fay Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Fay Number of Responses: 33 Judges Making sure all participants 80% 6% 3% 3% -- 9% 3.78 3.47 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 51% 6% 3% 3% -- 37% 3.68 3.27 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.68 3.38 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 Fay 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 3.28 Demeanor Overall Average 3.64 3.15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.48 3.32 Treating participants with respect 3.76 3.37 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Fay Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Olympia Z. Fay Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Fay Number of Responses: 33 Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 82% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3.67 3.37 dignity Treating participants with respect 85% 6% 3% -- 3% 3% 3.76 3.32 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 74% 9% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3.48 3.15 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.64 3.28 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 Fay 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 3.17 Diligence Overall Average 3.58 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.26 they are complicated and time consuming 3.64 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.22 for cases 3.74 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.08 and rules 3.45 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Fay Table 10 Diligence Judge Olympia Z. Fay All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 32 Fay Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 57% 17% 11% 3% -- 11% 3.45 3.08 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 66% 3% 9% -- -- 23% 3.74 3.22 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 57% 6% 6% 3% -- 29% 3.64 3.26 when they are complicated and time consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.58 3.17 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Fay in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 67% 60% 52% 40% 27% 20% 20% 11% 10% 8% 3% 2% 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 Fay All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Olympia Z. Fay, 74 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 48 agreed they had worked with Judge Fay enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 48 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 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 June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 15 ## Page 18 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. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the tab le refer to the number of questions ask ed in each 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 the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 16 ## Page 19 assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is 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 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Fay be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Olympia Z. Fay Total Retain 89% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 6% Figure 10 100% 80% 67% 64% 60% 40% 22% 17% 20% 6% 7% 6% 9% 3% 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 Fay All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.79 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.35 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.77 3.38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.69 3.47 Treating participants with respect 3.90 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.81 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Fay Table 12 Demeanor Judge Olympia Z. Fay All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 48 Fay Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 83% 15% 2% -- -- -- 3.81 3.47 Treating participants with respect 92% 6% 2% -- -- -- 3.90 3.47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 85% 4% 6% 2% 2% -- 3.69 3.38 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 85% 8% 4% 2% -- -- 3.77 3.35 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.79 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 3.41 Fairness Overall Average 3.79 3.47 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.83 3.38 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.89 3.34 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.71 3.47 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.79 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Fay Table 13 Fairness Judge Olympia Z. Fay All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Fay Number of Responses: 48 Judges Giving participants an opportunity 85% 10% 2% 2% -- -- 3.79 3.47 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 83% 8% 6% -- 2% -- 3.71 3.34 without bias Treating fairly people who 71% 4% 2% -- -- 23% 3.89 3.38 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 90% 6% 2% 2% -- -- 3.83 3.47 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.79 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 3.60 Communications Overall Average 3.86 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.66 hear what’s being said 3.92 3.61 Using language that everyone can understand 3.88 Making sure all participants understand the 3.54 proceedings 3.81 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Fay Table 14 Communications Judge Olympia Z. Fay All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 48 Fay Judges Making sure all participants 88% 6% 2% -- 2% 2% 3.81 3.54 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 90% 8% 2% -- -- -- 3.88 3.61 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 94% 4% 2% -- -- -- 3.92 3.66 being said Communications Overall Average 3.86 3.60 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 3.48 Diligence Overall Average 3.70 3.45 Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time 3.67 3.52 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.67 3.61 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.79 3.50 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.76 3.41 Beginning court on time 3.68 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Fay Table 15 Diligence Judge Olympia Z. Fay All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 48 Fay Judges Beginning court on time 71% 23% 4% -- -- 2% 3.68 3.41 Doing the necessary “homework” 79% 10% 2% -- 2% 6% 3.76 3.50 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 83% 13% 4% -- -- -- 3.79 3.61 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 70% 13% 4% -- 2% 11% 3.67 3.52 cases Managing court proceedings so 75% 17% 8% -- -- -- 3.67 3.45 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.70 3.48 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 3.36 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.73 3.34 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.73 3.41 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure 3.85 3.37 Giving reasons for rulings 3.72 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Fay Table 16 Application of Law Judge Olympia Z. Fay All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Fay Number of Responses: 45 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 77% 2% 8% 2% -- 10% 3.72 3.37 Willing to make decision without 73% 4% 4% -- -- 19% 3.85 3.41 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 79% 6% 6% 2% -- 6% 3.73 3.34 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.73 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Fay is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Fay is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 83% 80% 74% 60% 40% 20% 2% 7% 2% 7% 9% 6% 4% 5% 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 Fay All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 Fay are. If you feel Judge Fay generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” 100% 83% 80% 72% 60% 40% 20% 5% 6% 10% 8% 8% 6% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Fay All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 25
- 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  —
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  94%
  respondent count not on record
  Non-attorneys recommend
  98%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Olympia Z. Fay 2018 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 . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Olympia Z. Fay, 154 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 101 agreed they had worked with Judge Fay enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 101 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 Figure 1 3.90 3.95 4 3.74 3.77 3.57 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Olympia Z. Fay Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.74 3.57 3.90 3.95 3.77 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 98% 100% 100% 94% 93% 90% 80% 60% 40% 20% 6% 7% 4% 4% 2% 2% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Olympia Z. Fay Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 94% 90% 98% 100% 93% standards No, does not meet performance 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% standards No opinion 4% 6% 2% 0% 7% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Olympia Z. Fay Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.62 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.41 3.87 3.93 3.69 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.78 3.91 3.97 3.76 Diligence 3.41 3.86 3.92 3.70 Demeanor 3.63 3.93 3.96 3.82 Fairness N/A 3.94 3.96 3.88 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 389 0 80 21% 38% Total Non- 1197 332 74 9% 31% Attorneys Staff 25 0 12 48% 25% Jurors 101 8 28 30% 4% Other Non- 1071 324 34 5% 56% 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Fay, 80 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 50 agreed they had worked with Judge Fay enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 50 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 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 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 29% 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 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 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 August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. 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 December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 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 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. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 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. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney 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 Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 6 ## Page 9 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 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. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Fay 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 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.62 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 3.62 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 3.49 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3.57 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Fay All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Olympia Z. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Fay Promptly issuing a decision on the 25 5 4 -- -- 16 50 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 40 7 2 1 -- -- 50 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 25 7 3 2 -- 12 49 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 36 7 5 -- 1 1 50 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 8 ## Page 11 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 Fay 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.41 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.39 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 3.34 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.44 are similar 3.15 3.49 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 3.45 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Fay All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Olympia Z. Fay A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 28 13 2 1 2 4 50 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 29 8 8 1 1 3 50 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 24 8 2 -- 2 12 48 similar Being fair and impartial to both 35 8 3 1 2 1 50 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 30 9 7 1 -- 3 50 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Fay 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.78 Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.8 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 3.72 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Fay All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Olympia Z. Fay A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 42 5 1 1 -- 1 50 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 23 4 2 -- -- 21 50 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Fay 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.63 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 3.76 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 3.66 Treating participants with respect 3.30 3.5 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Fay All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Olympia Z. Fay A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 44 1 1 3 -- 1 50 dignity Treating participants with respect 44 1 1 2 2 -- 50 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 37 6 4 1 2 -- 50 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Fay 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.41 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.35 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.49 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.51 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Fay All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Olympia Z. Fay A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 28 12 6 1 1 2 50 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 30 7 4 1 1 7 50 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 31 4 3 2 1 9 50 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Fay meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Olympia Z. Fay Yes, meets performance 90% standards No, does not meet 4% performance standards No opinion 6% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Olympia Z. Fay, 74 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 51 agreed they had worked with Judge Fay enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 51 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. 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 December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th 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 September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 14 ## Page 17 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 opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a 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. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent 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 meets performance standards question. 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 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. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 16 ## Page 19 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 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.93 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.94 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.96 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.94 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.86 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Fay All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Olympia Z. Fay A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 48 1 1 -- -- -- 50 Treating participants with respect 49 -- 1 -- -- -- 50 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 48 1 1 -- -- -- 50 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 46 2 1 1 -- -- 50 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 17 ## Page 20 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 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.94 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.96 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.94 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.98 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.92 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Fay All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Olympia Z. Fay A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 48 2 -- -- -- -- 50 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 46 1 1 -- -- 2 50 case without bias Treating fairly people who 39 1 -- -- -- 10 50 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 45 2 1 -- -- 2 50 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 18 ## Page 21 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 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.91 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.88 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.9 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.96 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Fay All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Olympia Z. Fay A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 45 2 2 -- -- -- 49 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 45 3 1 -- -- 1 50 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 49 -- 1 -- -- -- 50 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 19 ## Page 22 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 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.86 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.84 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.85 for cases 3.64 3.96 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.9 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.86 wasted time 3.55 Judge Fay All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Olympia Z. Fay A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 42 6 1 -- -- -- 49 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 41 4 -- 1 -- 4 50 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 48 2 -- -- -- -- 50 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 39 2 1 -- -- 7 49 Managing court proceedings so that there is 44 5 1 -- -- -- 50 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 20 ## Page 23 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 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.87 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.84 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.92 outside pressure 3.55 3.93 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Fay All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Olympia Z. Fay A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 39 5 1 -- -- 5 50 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 35 3 -- -- -- 12 50 pressure Being able to identify and 41 3 -- -- -- 6 50 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Fay meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Olympia Z. Fay Yes, meets performance 98% standards No, does not meet 0% performance standards No opinion 2% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Olympia Z. Fay 22

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

2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026