IN THE MATTER OF THE SUGGESTED RULE AMENDMENTS TO GR 29—PRESIDING JUDGE IN SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT AND LIMITED JURISDICTION COURT DISTRICT, AND CrRLJ 1.3—EFFECT

)

ORDER

NO. 25700-A-1278

The District and Municipal Court Judges' Association, having recommended the suggested rule amendments to GR 29—Presiding Judge in Superior Court District and Limited Jurisdiction Court District, and CrRLJ 1.3—Effect, and the Court having approved the suggested rule amendments for publication;

(a) That pursuant to the provisions of GR 9(g), the suggested rule amendments as shown below are to be published for comment in the Washington Reports, Washington Register, Washington State Bar Association and Administrative Office of the Court's websites in January 2020.

(c) Comments are to be submitted to the Clerk of the Supreme Court by either U.S. Mail or Internet E-Mail by no later than April 30, 2020. Comments may be sent to the following addresses: P.O. Box 40929, Olympia, Washington 98504-0929, or supreme@courts.wa.gov. Comments submitted by e-mail message must be limited to 1500 words.

The proposed amendment is intended to clarify the effect of the rule and be consistent with case law. When the Criminal Rules were first enacted, subsection (a) was designed to provide continuity in procedure for cases pending on the date the rules first became effective. As that is no longer a concern, the proposed amendment would eliminate the language about what rules apply in which situation. This would make the language consistent with case law that new criminal rules apply to pending cases, regardless of when the case began, unless the court finds the interest of justice would be served by adhering to the prior formulation. State v. Olmos, 129 Wn. App. 750, 757, 120 P.3d 139 (2005); State v. Matlock, 27 Wn. App. 152, 157, 616 P.2d 684 (1980). The language of the rule still gives a court the authority to apply the prior rules of procedure "in the interests of justice."

The WSBA has proposed amendments to CrR 1.3, pertaining to the effect of court rules, to clarify the language and comport with case law. Adoption of a similar proposal would help clarify CrRLJ 1.3, and would have the added benefit of keeping the trial court rules congruent.

(a) Any acts done before the effective date in any proceedings then pending or any action taken in any proceeding pending under rules of procedure in effect prior to the effective date of these rules are not impaired by these rules.

(b) These rules also apply to any proceedings in court then pending or thereafter commenced regardless of when the proceedings were commenced, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, the former procedure should continue to be made applicable in a particular case in the interest of justice or because of infeasibility of application of the procedures of these rules.

On their effective date these rules apply to any proceedings in court then pending or thereafter commenced regardless of when the proceedings were commenced, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, the former procedure should continue to be made applicable in a particular case in the interest of justice.

(b) Tthese rules also apply to any proceedings in court then pending or thereafter commenced regardless of when the proceedings were commenced, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, the former procedure should continue to be made applicable in a particular case in the interest of justice or because of infeasibility of application of the procedures of these rules.

The District and Municipal Court Judges' Association (DMCJA) asserts that an amendment to General Rule (GR) 29 is necessary to preserve judicial independence for municipal court judges regarding (a) term of office and salary, (b) judicial duties, (c) judicial independence and administration of the court, and (d) termination and discipline. The amendment would mandate essential content for part-time municipal court judicial services contracts. Currently, GR 29(k) prohibits judicial service contracts with provisions that conflict with the rule, and requires that any judicial service contract acknowledge that the court is a part of an independent branch of government, and that the judicial officer and court employees are required to act in accord with the Code of Judicial Conduct and court rules.

Part-time municipal court judges, who are appointed by either the mayor with confirmation by city council, or the city manager, are often provided with employment contracts that infringe on judicial independence by misstating the authority of the judge. GR 29 provides guidance regarding the authority of presiding judges in district and municipal courts. However, the DMCJA affirms that the proposed amendments are necessary to ensure an encroachment on judicial independence does not occur at the local level.

(k) Employment Contracts. A part-time judicial officer may contract with a municipal or county authority for salary and benefits. The employment contract shall not contain provisions which conflict with this rule, the Code of Judicial Conduct or statutory judicial authority, or which would create an impropriety or the appearance of impropriety concerning the judge's activities.

The employment contract should acknowledge the court is a part of an independent branch of government and that the judicial officer or court employees are bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Washington State Court rules. A part-time judicial officer's employment contract shall comply with GR 29(k) and contain the following provisions, which shall not be contradicted or abrogated by other provisions within the contract.

The judge's term of office shall be four years as provided in RCW 3.50.050. The judge's salary shall be fixed by ordinance in accordance with RCW 3.50.080 and the salary shall not be diminished during the term of office.

The judge shall perform all duties legally prescribed for a judicial officer according to state law, the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Washington State court rules.

The court is an independent branch of government. The judge shall supervise the daily operations of the court and all personnel assigned to perform court functions in accordance with the provisions of GR 29(e), GR 29(f), and RCW 3.50.080. Under no circumstances should judicial retention decisions be made on the basis of a judge's or a court's performance relative to generating revenue from the imposition of legal financial obligations.

The judge may only be admonished, reprimanded, censured, suspended, removed, or retired during the judge's term of office only upon action of the Washington State Supreme Court as provided in Article IV, section 31 of the Washington State Constitution.

Reviser's note: The brackets and enclosed material in the text of the above section occurred in the copy filed by the agency and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.

The judge shall perform all duties legally prescribed for a judicial officer according to state law, the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Washington State court rules.

	For the Court

	Fairhurst, C.J.
	chief justice