Laura A Tighe

Trial Court · Gilpin · Gilpin

Meets Standards1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

2018 retention cycle
Trial Court · Gilpin · Gilpin
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 51.4% yes
127,750 yes · 120,951 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance (“Commission”) voted 5 to 5 that Judge Laura A. Tighe MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Tighe practiced civil litigation for twenty-seven years prior to becoming a Jefferson County District Court judge in December 2014. She received an undergraduate degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1984 and a Juris Doctor degree from Creighton University School of Law in 1987. Judge Tighe is very active in community service including judging Jefferson County high school mock trials, teaching school children, and volunteering for Habitat for Humanity. Professionally, she has been active in the American Board of Trial Advocates, National Institute of Trial Advocacy (instructor), and multiple legal committees. The commission conducted personal interviews with Judge Tighe, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had had experience with her. The evaluation questionnaire includes the question “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Tighe meets judicial performance standards?” Of the thirty-four attorneys included in the survey results, 53% (18) answered, yes meets performance standards, 44% (15) answered no, does not meet performance standards, and 3% (1) had no opinion. Of the sixty-one non-attorneys, 75% (46) answered, yes meets performance standards, 15% (9) answered no, does not meet performance standards, and 10% (6) had no opinion. Among attorney evaluations Judge Tighe ranked below the average of her peer judges in all categories: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of the Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Among non-attorney evaluations, she ranked below the average in the categories of Demeanor, Communications, Diligence, and Application of Law, and slightly above the average in the category of Fairness. Judge Tighe’s evaluation by two Appellate judges (Colorado Supreme Court Justices and/or Colorado Court of Appeals Judges) was below the average. When Judge Tighe presided over Division 14 (civil and domestic relations, no criminal) from December 2014 to June 2016, she implemented rules and processes which many attorneys considered inefficient and unnecessarily costly to both plaintiff and defense. Attorney comments noted her hard work, intelligence and compassion but expressed concern about judicial statements which were verbose, inappropriate, and slowed court proceedings. During the time she has presided over Division 7 (48% criminal, 35% civil, 16% domestic relations), from July 2016 to the present, attorneys have expressed concern regarding Judge Tighe’s unfamiliarity with criminal law and criminal courts, inconsistent sentencing, inappropriate statements, condescension toward attorneys, and inability to efficiently run a busy criminal docket. She has attended New Judge Orientation and Advanced New Judge Orientation, receives support from other judges and the chief judge, and has been observed and counseled by a retired chief judge. She has committed to improve her criminal law knowledge, criminal docket management, communication, and demeanor, and to reassess case management requirements for civil and domestic cases. To improve her performance, she will be mentored and observed by judges and will attend judicial education programs.

Surveys & reports

2018 cycle
- 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Laura Ann Tighe 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report District 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 Laura Ann Tighe, 95 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 78 agreed they had worked with Judge Tighe enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 78 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 4.00 3.00 2.88 2.90 2.83 2.83 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Laura Ann Tighe Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 2.88 2.90 2.83 N/A 2.83 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 77% 77% 80% 62% 58% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Laura Ann Tighe Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 62% 58% 77% N/A 77% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Laura Ann Tighe Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.05 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.70 2.86 N/A 2.86 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.02 3.28 N/A 3.28 Diligence 2.71 2.66 N/A 2.66 Demeanor 3.02 2.73 N/A 2.73 Fairness N/A 2.63 N/A 2.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 154 0 57 37% 21% Total Non- 262 18 38 15% 13% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 7 0 0 0% N/A Other Non- 255 18 38 15% 13% 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 Laura Ann Tighe 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Tighe, 57 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 45 agreed they had worked with Judge Tighe enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 45 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 “District 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 Laura Ann Tighe 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Laura Ann Tighe be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Laura Ann Tighe Total Retain 58% Neither 11% Total Not Retain 31% Figure 3 100% 80% 59% 60% 38% 40% 20% 21% 20% 20% 11% 9% 11% 6% 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 Tighe All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe 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 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 3.05 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 2.79 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.05 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.12 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.06 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Tighe Table 6 Case Management Judge Laura Ann All Tighe Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Tighe Judges Responses: 44 Promptly issuing a decision on the 36% 18% 7% 9% 2% 29% 3.06 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 49% 27% 7% 9% 4% 4% 3.12 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 39% 27% 11% 5% 5% 14% 3.05 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 35% 28% 9% 12% 7% 9% 2.79 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.05 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe 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 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.70 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.55 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.91 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.14 are similar 1.00 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 2.46 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Tighe Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Laura Ann Tighe All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 45 Tighe Judges Being able to identify and 42% 13% 24% 11% 7% 2% 2.75 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 38% 11% 9% 22% 11% 9% 2.46 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are -- 25% -- -- 50% 25% 1.00 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 44% 24% 9% 16% 4% 2% 2.91 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 33% 18% 20% 11% 11% 7% 2.55 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.70 3.23 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe 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 3.45 Communications Overall Average 3.02 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 2.76 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 3.26 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Tighe Table 8 Communications Judge Laura Ann Tighe Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Tighe Number of Responses: 45 Judges Making sure all participants 58% 20% 7% 7% 4% 4% 3.26 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 44% 9% 16% 16% 7% 9% 2.76 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.02 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe 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 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.02 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.91 3.43 Treating participants with respect 3.05 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.09 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Tighe Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Laura Ann Tighe Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Tighe Judges Number of Responses: 44 Giving proceedings a sense of 53% 18% 16% 4% 7% 2% 3.09 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 51% 22% 11% 4% 9% 2% 3.05 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 49% 13% 20% 9% 7% 2% 2.91 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.02 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe 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 3.32 Diligence Overall Average 2.71 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.45 they are complicated and time consuming 2.71 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.35 for cases 2.85 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.20 and rules 2.49 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Tighe Table 10 Diligence Judge Laura Ann Tighe All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 43 Tighe Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 40% 11% 16% 13% 16% 4% 2.49 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 47% 11% 13% 13% 7% 9% 2.85 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 29% 18% 7% 4% 11% 31% 2.71 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 2.71 3.32 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Tighe in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 48% 50% 40% 29% 25% 25% 20% 11% 8% 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 Tighe All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Laura Ann Tighe, 38 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 33 agreed they had worked with Judge Tighe enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 33 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 table refer to the number of quest ions 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 16 ## Page 19 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 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 Laura Ann Tighe 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Tighe be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Laura Ann Tighe Total Retain 77% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 23% Figure 10 100% 80% 69% 60% 46% 40% 31% 23% 16% 20% 6% 6% 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 Tighe All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 2.73 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.55 understanding for those who appear before him/her 2.66 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.52 3.66 Treating participants with respect 2.66 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Tighe Table 12 Demeanor Judge Laura Ann Tighe All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 32 Tighe Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 59% 9% 6% 13% 9% 3% 3.00 3.68 Treating participants with respect 56% 9% 3% 6% 25% -- 2.66 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 59% -- -- 6% 31% 3% 2.52 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 59% 3% 6% 6% 25% -- 2.66 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 2.73 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 3.59 Fairness Overall Average 2.63 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.60 case 2.58 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 2.75 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 2.69 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 2.63 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Tighe Table 13 Fairness Judge Laura Ann Tighe All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Tighe Number of Responses: 32 Judges Giving participants an 56% 6% 6% 6% 25% -- 2.63 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 63% -- 6% 6% 25% -- 2.69 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 38% 6% -- 3% 16% 38% 2.75 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 50% 9% 6% 9% 22% 3% 2.58 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 2.63 3.59 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 3.74 Communications Overall Average 3.28 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.78 hear what’s being said 3.35 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 3.22 Making sure all participants understand the 3.70 proceedings 3.25 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Tighe Table 14 Communications Judge Laura Ann Tighe All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 32 Tighe Judges Making sure all participants understand the 66% 9% 16% 3% 6% -- 3.25 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 59% 19% 13% 3% 6% -- 3.22 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 63% 19% 9% -- 6% 3% 3.35 3.78 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.28 3.74 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 3.63 Diligence Overall Average 2.66 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.60 wasted time 2.63 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 2.55 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 2.97 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 2.88 3.62 Beginning court on time 2.25 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Tighe Table 15 Diligence Judge Laura Ann Tighe All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Tighe Number of Responses: 32 Judges Beginning court on time 25% 25% 22% 6% 22% -- 2.25 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 63% -- 16% 6% 16% -- 2.88 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 63% 6% 13% 3% 16% -- 2.97 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 50% 3% 16% 6% 22% 3% 2.55 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 56% 6% 6% 6% 25% -- 2.63 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 2.66 3.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 3.52 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.86 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.63 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 2.80 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 3.07 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Tighe Table 16 Application of Law Judge Laura Ann Tighe All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Tighe Number of Responses: 32 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 55% 12% 9% 6% 9% 9% 3.07 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 59% -- 13% -- 22% 6% 2.80 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 55% 3% 6% 13% 19% 3% 2.63 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.86 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Tighe is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Tighe is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 81% 80% 66% 60% 40% 20% 13% 9% 9% 4% 6% 3% 5% 4% 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 Tighe All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe are. If you feel Judge Tighe generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 79% 80% 61% 60% 40% 19% 20% 10% 3% 4% 6% 7% 5% 5% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Tighe All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 25
- 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  —
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  67%
  respondent count not on record
  Non-attorneys recommend
  75%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Laura Ann Tighe 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report District 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 Appellate Judges.14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Results .15 Survey of Non Attorneys .16 Methodology and How to Read Results .16 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Performance Score.24 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Laura Ann Tighe, 126 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 95 agreed they had worked with Judge Tighe enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 95 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 3.94 4 3.42 3.18 3 2.89 2.79 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Laura Ann Tighe Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.18 2.79 3.42 3.94 2.89 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 96% 80% 75% 67% 64% 60% 53% 44% 40% 36% 26% 20% 15% 10% 7% 3% 4% 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 Laura Ann Tighe Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 67% 53% 75% 96% 64% standards No, does not meet performance 26% 44% 15% 0% 36% standards No opinion 7% 3% 10% 4% 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Laura Ann Tighe Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 2.70 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.70 3.37 4.00 2.45 Knowledge of Law Communications 2.98 3.43 3.96 2.94 Diligence 2.57 3.25 3.85 3.12 Demeanor 2.99 3.49 3.93 2.95 Fairness N/A 3.55 3.94 2.97 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 183 0 47 26% 28% Total Non- 485 79 79 19% 23% Attorneys Staff 64 0 26 41% 15% Jurors 77 2 29 39% 3% Other Non- 344 77 24 9% 54% 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 Laura Ann Tighe 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Tighe, 47 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 34 agreed they had worked with Judge Tighe enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 34 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 “District 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe 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 2.7 Case Management Overall Average 3.38 3.6 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.42 2.48 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.43 3.07 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.31 2.39 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.37 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Laura Ann A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Tighe Promptly issuing a decision on the 15 3 1 1 -- 14 34 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 12 5 6 7 3 1 34 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 14 8 5 2 1 4 34 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 9 9 7 2 6 1 34 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe 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 2.7 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.26 2.82 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.35 2.79 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.22 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 1.75 are similar 3.20 2.79 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.24 2.55 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.25 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Laura Ann Tighe A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 15 6 5 5 2 1 34 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 13 9 4 5 2 1 34 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are -- 1 4 3 -- 3 11 similar Being fair and impartial to both 15 7 5 4 3 -- 34 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 12 4 6 7 2 3 34 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe 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 2.98 Communications Overall Average 3.44 3.27 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.55 2.85 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.35 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Laura Ann Tighe A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 17 6 6 -- 1 3 33 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 12 6 4 3 2 6 33 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe 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 2.99 Demeanor Overall Average 3.42 2.94 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.50 3.03 Treating participants with respect 3.44 2.94 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.33 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Laura Ann Tighe A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 19 5 1 4 4 1 34 dignity Treating participants with respect 18 6 5 3 2 -- 34 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 17 5 6 2 3 1 34 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 Tighe 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 2.57 Diligence Overall Average 3.35 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.48 rules 3.23 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 2.71 for cases 3.39 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 2.61 they are complicated and time consuming 3.46 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Laura Ann Tighe A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 12 5 7 5 4 1 34 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 14 6 6 6 2 -- 34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 10 4 2 4 3 11 34 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 Laura Ann Tighe 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Tighe meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Laura Ann Tighe Yes, meets performance 53% standards No, does not meet 44% performance standards No opinion 3% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Tighe, 16 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 2 agreed they had worked with Judge Tighe enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 2 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 16 completed the survey. The response rate was 57% and the completion rate was 100%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 16th, 2018. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. 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 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. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. 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 Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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 Laura Ann Tighe 14 ## Page 17 Results Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one's overall performance as a judge by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 8 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.50 Overall performance as a judge 3.36 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Laura Ann A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Tighe Overall performance as a 1 -- -- 1 -- 13 15 judge *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 Laura Ann Tighe 15 ## Page 18 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Laura Ann Tighe, 79 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 61 agreed they had worked with Judge Tighe enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 61 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 Laura Ann Tighe 16 ## Page 19 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 Laura Ann Tighe 17 ## Page 20 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.49 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.52 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.62 3.53 Treating participants with respect 3.59 3.48 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.52 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.41 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 12 Demeanor Judge Laura Ann Tighe A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 41 13 4 -- 2 -- 60 Treating participants with respect 42 12 4 -- 2 -- 60 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 42 11 3 2 2 -- 60 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 39 11 4 1 3 1 59 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.55 Fairness Overall Average 3.54 3.58 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.58 3.63 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.49 3.59 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.60 3.39 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.57 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 13 Fairness Judge Laura Ann Tighe A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 43 13 2 -- 2 -- 60 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 47 8 3 -- 2 -- 60 case without bias Treating fairly people who 34 6 2 -- 2 16 60 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 39 12 2 4 2 1 60 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.43 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.42 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.66 3.45 Using language that everyone can understand 3.69 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.42 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 14 Communications Judge Laura Ann Tighe A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 38 13 5 1 2 1 60 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 41 12 2 3 2 -- 60 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 43 6 6 3 2 -- 60 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.25 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.21 Beginning court on time 3.56 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.39 for cases 3.61 3.31 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.65 3.19 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.55 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.07 wasted time 3.51 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 15 Diligence Judge Laura Ann Tighe A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 31 15 4 3 3 4 60 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 38 10 4 3 2 3 60 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 36 12 4 4 2 2 60 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 30 10 5 6 1 8 60 Managing court proceedings so that there is 33 8 9 4 4 2 60 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 Laura Ann Tighe 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 13 0 1 2 3 4 3.37 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.36 Giving reasons for rulings 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.43 outside pressure 3.56 3.31 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.50 Judge Tighe All District Judges Table 16 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Laura Ann Tighe A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 39 8 4 -- 5 4 60 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 38 6 2 1 4 9 60 pressure Being able to identify and 38 7 3 3 4 5 60 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 Laura Ann Tighe 23 ## Page 26 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Tighe meets judicial performance standards? Table 17 Judge Laura Ann Tighe Yes, meets performance 75% standards No, does not meet 15% performance standards No opinion 10% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura Ann Tighe 24

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

2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026