← All judges

Tera Neugebauer

Trial Court · Sedgwick · Sedgwick

Meets Standards(Retain)1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

  • 2016 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Sedgwick · Sedgwick
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 71.8% yes
    912 yes · 358 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (9-0, with one Commissioner absent) recommends that Judge Tera Neugebauer BE RETAINED. Judge Neugebauer was appointed as Sedgwick County Court Judge on June 13, 2014.  Judge Neugebauer’s docket consists mostly of traffic, civil, and misdemeanor criminal matters.  Prior to her appointment, she served as a police officer for the City of Fort Lupton from 2006 to 2013.  She received her P.O.S.T. certificate from Aims Community College in 2006.  She is involved in the community by serving as the secretary on the Sedgwick County fair board and is the site volunteer coordinator for a food co-op program.  She is also a member of the Sedgwick County Ambulance Service The Commission reviewed completed surveys from two attorney and four non-attorney respondents familiar with Judge Neugebauer.  All of the non-attorneys recommended retention; among attorneys, 50% recommended to retain, 0% recommended not to retain, and 50% had no opinion.  In addition to the survey responses and comments, the Commission also reviewed the Judge’sSelf-Evaluation, a sampling of her written rulings, and conducted courtroom observations and an interview with the Judge. As a non-attorney Judge in a small, rural community, Judge Neugebauer has faced a challenge far more daunting than that of the average new judicial officer.  It is apparent that Judge Neugebauer has done much to educate herself regarding the law and legal procedure since her appointment.  This was reflected in a sampling of Judge Neugebauer’s written rulings, which the Commission found to be clear, concise, thoughtful, and prepared with more skill than would be expected of a non-attorney.  Judge Neugebauer has demonstrated resourcefulness in furthering her legal knowledge and initiative in seeking further experience.  The Commission was impressed with Judge Neugebauer’s efforts to educate herself despite limited judicial resources and notes that her opportunities to gain experience are limited given the relatively small number of cases filed in Sedgwick County Court each year.  Judge Neugebauer has taken affirmative steps to further her learning, including shadowing a more experienced judicial officer, seeking and accepting input and guidance from other judicial officers, and volunteering to cover other County Court dockets when needed in order to gain more experience.  Judge Neugebauer presents as kind, conscientious, and authentic.  She demonstrates an ability to relate to others on a human level, although the Commission would like to see Judge Neugebauer increase the formality of her courtroom procedures and improve courtroom control.  During her interview, Judge Neugebauer was very receptive to constructive feedback from the Commission and that attitude gives the impression that she takes her job seriously and desirous of continued learning and improvement.

Surveys & reports

  • 2016 cycle
    • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Tera Neugebauer 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Tera Neugebauer, 7 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 6 agreed they had worked with Judge Neugebauer enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 6 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.11 Attorneys 3.33 Total Non-Attorneys 2.99 Juror 4.00 Non-Attorney Other* 2.66 Table 1 Judge Tera Neugebauer Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.11 3.33 2.99 4.00 2.66 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 83% Attorneys 50% Total Non-Attorneys 100% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 100% Table 2 Judge Tera Neugebauer Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 83% 50% 100% 100% 100% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Tera Neugebauer Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.83 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.23 2.83 4.00 2.44 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.25 3.00 4.00 2.67 Diligence 2.50 2.70 4.00 2.27 Demeanor 3.83 3.12 4.00 2.83 Fairness N/A 3.31 4.00 3.08 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 7 0 2 43% 33% Total Non- 41 18 4 17% 0% Attorneys Staff 4 0 3 75% 0% Jurors 6 0 1 17% 0% Other Non- 31 18 0 0% NA Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Neugebauer, 3 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 2 agreed they had worked with Judge Neugebauer enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 2 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Tera Neugebauer be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Tera Neugebauer Total Retain 50% Neither 50% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 60% 50% 50% 40% 20% 12% 8% 6% 8% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Neugebauer All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 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 Neugebauer on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.45 Case Management Overall Average 3.83 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4.00 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.50 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 4.00 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Neugebauer Table 6 Case Management Judge Tera Neugebauer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 2 Neugebauer Judges Promptly issuing a decision on 50% -- -- -- -- 50% 4.00 3.61 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.46 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.83 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 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 Neugebauer on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.23 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.50 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.50 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 4.00 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 4.00 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Neugebauer Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Tera Neugebauer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 2 Neugebauer Judges Being able to identify and -- 50% -- -- -- 50% 3.00 3.38 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 50% -- -- -- -- 50% 4.00 3.25 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.32 similar Being fair and impartial to both 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 50% -- -- 50% -- -- 2.50 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.23 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 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 Neugebauer on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.25 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.00 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Neugebauer Table 8 Communications Judge Tera Neugebauer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 2 Neugebauer Judges Making sure all participants 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well -- 100% -- -- -- -- 3.00 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.25 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 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 Neugebauer on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.36 Demeanor Overall Average 3.83 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.50 3.39 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Neugebauer Table 9 Demeanor Judge Tera Neugebauer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 2 Neugebauer Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.21 a neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.83 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 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 Neugebauer on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 2.50 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 4.00 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 2.50 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 2.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Neugebauer Table 10 Diligence Judge Tera Neugebauer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 2 Neugebauer Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 50% -- -- 50% -- -- 2.50 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 50% -- -- 50% -- -- 2.50 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 50% -- -- -- -- 50% 4.00 3.37 consuming Diligence Overall Average 2.50 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Neugebauer in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 54% 50% 50% 40% 28% 20% 11% 6% 1% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Neugebauer All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Tera Neugebauer, 4 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 4 agreed they had worked with Judge Neugebauer enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 4 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 15 ## Page 18 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 16 ## Page 19 the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Neugebauer be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Tera Neugebauer Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 10 100% 80% 71% 60% 50% 50% 40% 16% 20% 5% 3% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Neugebauer All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 11 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.12 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.25 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.25 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.25 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 2.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Neugebauer Table 12 Demeanor Judge Tera Neugebauer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 4 Neugebauer Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 25% 25% 50% -- -- -- 2.75 3.61 Treating participants with respect 50% 25% 25% -- -- -- 3.25 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 50% 25% 25% -- -- -- 3.25 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 50% 25% 25% -- -- -- 3.25 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.12 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.31 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.25 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.25 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.25 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Neugebauer Table 13 Fairness Judge Tera Neugebauer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 4 Neugebauer Judges Giving participants an 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.64 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 25% 75% -- -- -- -- 3.25 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 50% 25% 25% -- -- -- 3.25 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 50% 25% 25% -- -- -- 3.25 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.31 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.00 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 2.75 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.25 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Neugebauer Table 14 Communications Judge Tera Neugebauer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 4 Neugebauer Judges Making sure all participants 25% 50% 25% -- -- -- 3.00 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone 25% 75% -- -- -- -- 3.25 3.68 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 25% 50% -- 25% -- -- 2.75 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.00 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 14 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 2.70 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 2.25 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 2.75 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 2.50 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 2.75 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.25 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Neugebauer Table 15 Diligence Judge Tera Neugebauer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 4 Neugebauer Judges Beginning court on time 50% 25% 25% -- -- -- 3.25 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 25% 50% -- 25% -- -- 2.75 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 25% 25% 25% 25% -- -- 2.50 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 25% 50% -- 25% -- -- 2.75 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 25% 25% -- 50% -- -- 2.25 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 2.70 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 15 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.83 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.00 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.00 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 2.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Neugebauer Table 16 Application of Law Judge Tera Neugebauer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 4 Neugebauer Judges Giving reasons for rulings 25% 25% 25% 25% -- -- 2.50 3.56 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 25% 50% 25% -- -- -- 3.00 3.54 pressure Being able to identify and 25% 50% 25% -- -- -- 3.00 3.54 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.83 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Neugebauer is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Neugebauer is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 1 80% 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 4% 7% 5% 3% 0 Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Neugebauer All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 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 Neugebauer are. If you feel Judge Neugebauer generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 80% 63% 60% 50% 50% 40% 20% 5% 2% 2% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Neugebauer All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tera Neugebauer 25

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

Sources