Evaluation and Peer Review of Individuals Appointed by the Criminal Justice Commission

 

PREFACE

The Division of Criminal Justice recognizes the importance of regular peer review and evaluation of its senior leadership team which consists of the Chief State’s Attorney, the two Deputy Chief State’s Attorneys and the State’s Attorney for each Judicial District. This policy seeks to provide regular, evidence based feedback to its senior leaders with the goal of enhancing the performance of individuals serving in these vital positions and ensuring that the Division of Criminal Justice is effectively discharging its constitutional and statutory duties.

 

AUTHORITY

Authority for the promulgation of this policy is as follows:

Article XXIII Connecticut Constitution

Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 51-278(5)(b)

Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 51-278b

Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 51-279a

Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 51-280

 

POLICY

A. Peer Review and Evaluation of State’s Attorneys
Each State’s Attorney will be evaluated and peer reviewed on a biennial basis with the evaluation process commencing on the first day of January eighteen months after the start of the statutory term to which they have been appointed.

The process will commence with the Chief State’s Attorney creating an Evaluation Committee consisting of the Chief State’s Attorney, the Deputy Chief State’s Attorney for Personnel, Finance and Administration and a State’s Attorney selected in descending order of seniority and designated by the Chief State’s Attorney (“The Evaluation Committee”). The evaluation/peer review process should be cooperative and collaborative in nature with the goal of enhancing the performance of the individual being evaluated.

Not later than February 1 of the evaluation year, the State’s Attorney being evaluated will submit a letter and any other documentation they wish to be considered to the Evaluation Committee. At a minimum, this letter should outline the State’s Attorney’s accomplishments, challenges and anticipated challenges for the judicial district. The letter should be limited to addressing events during the evaluation period.

At a mutually convenient time during the month of February, the Evaluation Committee will meet with the State’s Attorney to review and discuss the contents of their letter and request whatever additional information they feel is appropriate.

After the initial meeting with the State’s Attorney, the Evaluation Committee will begin the peer review and evaluation process. The Division of Criminal Justice recognizes that State’s Attorneys are the Chief Law Enforcement Officers in their judicial districts and hold positions of both great authority and great public trust. It is with this in mind that they must be held to the highest standards of conduct. The State’s Attorney should be evaluated on the following criteria:

- Adherence to appropriate ethical guidelines. The State’s Attorney must set an example and exemplify the epitome of ethical conduct.

- Attention to duty. The State’s Attorney must faithfully discharge the duties of their office, avoiding excessive absence and indifference.

- Competence. The State’s Attorney must possess expertise in every aspect of criminal law and procedure.

- Adherence to Constitutional and Statutory obligations. The State’s Attorney, whose job it is to enforce the law, must strictly adhere to such obligations.

- Office Management. The State’s Attorney should effectively and efficiently manage the resources provided for the benefit of the people of our state.

- DCJ Management. The State’s Attorney should recognize that they must contribute to the overall management of the DCJ.

- Community Engagement. The State’s Attorney should recognize the importance of engaging their office in the community to establish relationships and foster trust in our criminal justice system.

- Adherence to Agency Directives. The State’s Attorney should recognize that it is critical for them to adhere to agency directives.

- Strategic Business Plan. The State’s Attorney must have a strategic plan in place, monitor compliance with the plan and revise it as required.

- Staff Development and Succession Planning. The State’s Attorney should incorporate training and staff development into the Judicial District’s strategic plan with mindfulness of succession planning for supervisory positions.

In conducting this evaluation/peer review, the Evaluation Committee should make effort to contact appropriate persons with relevant information in the criminal justice system to obtain feedback concerning the performance of the State’s Attorney. Persons with relevant information may include, current and former employees of the State’s Attorney, members of the judiciary, members of the law enforcement community, members of the local bar, victims’ groups, and residents of the communities within the judicial district.

Not later than April 15 of the evaluation year, the evaluation committee shall provide the State’s Attorney with a draft of their evaluation/peer review. The evaluation/peer review will be in narrative form and should address the appropriate criteria upon which the State’s Attorney is being evaluated. Not later than May 1, the State’s Attorney will submit whatever additional information they believe to be appropriate to the Evaluation Committee. At a mutually convenient time during the month of May, the Evaluation Committee will again meet with the State’s Attorney for the purpose of finalizing the evaluation.

Not later than June 1, a final written evaluation/peer review will be prepared and placed in the State’s Attorney’s personnel file. The ultimate goal of the evaluation/peer review process is to enhance performance. As such, the final written evaluation should both address the strengths of the State’s Attorney and identify areas for improvement and provide concrete suggestions for addressing those areas. The Division of Criminal Justice recognizes the difficulty and complexity of a State’s Attorney’s job and therefor the evaluation need not contain an overall characterization of the State’s Attorney’s performance. The State’s Attorney may submit any other material to their personnel file with this final evaluation/peer review as a matter of right.

The final written evaluation represents the reasonable consensus of the Evaluation Committee except when the evaluation/peer review will serve as a performance rating pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 51-280. An evaluation also serving as a performance rating to be submitted to the Criminal Justice Commission pursuant to this statute represents the considered judgment of the Chief State’s Attorney.

B. Peer Review of the Deputy Chief State’s Attorneys and the Chief State’s
Attorney

Each Deputy Chief State’s Attorney and the Chief State’s Attorney will be peer reviewed on a biennial basis with the review process commencing on the first day of January eighteen months after the start of the statutory term to which they have been appointed.

With respect to the Chief State’s Attorney, the process will commence with the Division of Criminal Justice Advisory Board designating three State’s Attorneys, at least two of whom shall have served as a State’s Attorney for at least four years, who shall serve as a subcommittee of the Advisory Board for the purpose of conducting a peer review (“The Peer Review Committee”). With respect to the Deputy Chief State’s Attorneys, the process will commence with the Chief State’s Attorney designating two State’s Attorneys, each of whom shall have served as a State’s Attorney for at least four years, who with the Chief State’s Attorney shall serve as a subcommittee of the Advisory Board for the purpose of conducting a peer review. The peer review process should be cooperative and collaborative in nature with the goal of enhancing the performance of the individual being reviewed.

Not later than February 1 of the evaluation year, the individual being peer reviewed should submit a letter and any other documentation they wish to be considered to the Peer Review Committee. At a minimum, this letter should outline their accomplishments, challenges and anticipated challenges in their position. They may further provide insight into how the Division of Criminal Justice Advisory Board can assist them in furtherance of their mission.

At a mutually convenient time during the month of February, the Peer Review Committee will meet with the individual being reviewed to discuss the contents of their letter and request whatever additional information they feel is appropriate.

After the initial meeting with the individual being reviewed, the Peer Review Committee will begin the peer review process. The Division of Criminal Justice Advisory Board recognizes that the positions of Chief State’s Attorney and Deputy Chief State’s Attorney are unique positions with well-defined statutory roles. The Peer Review Process should be focused on the execution of those roles and suggestions for improvements in operational efficiency and organizational behavior. The Peer Review Committee does not perform an evaluative function but rather seeks to formalize input from all the State’s Attorneys in an open, candid way to enhance both individual performance and the performance of the Division of Criminal Justice as a whole.

The peer review should be focused on the statutory responsibilities within the purview of the individual being reviewed. In conducting the review, the Peer Review Committee should contact appropriate parties who would be of assistance in the process. These may include current and former employees, members of the judiciary, members of the law enforcement community and other individuals who could assist in the process.

Not later than April 1 of the evaluation year the Peer Review Committee should meet with the Division of Criminal Justice Advisory Board. The purpose of this meeting is to review the performance of the individual being peer reviewed and the meeting shall be held in executive session pursuant to Conn. Gen Stat. Sec. 1-200(6)(A) unless the individual requests that it be held in public session. Not later than April 15 of the evaluation year, the Peer Review Committee shall provide the individual being peer reviewed with a draft of their peer review.

The peer review should be in narrative form and focus on both areas in which the individual has excelled as well as areas in which it is the sense of the DCJ Advisory Board that there could be improvements. Not later than May 1, the individual being peer reviewed may, if they wish, provide additional information to the Peer Review Committee.

Not later than June 1, a final written peer review will be prepared. This final peer review will represent the reasonable consensus of the Peer Review Committee. It is not an evaluation and will not be placed in the individual’s personnel file. Its purpose is to outline administrative and operational improvements in specific areas over the next two year period in order to improve the overall functioning of the Division of Criminal Justice.