In a recent letter, a reader wondered why some of Alaska’s judges who were listed as being up for retention in November’s voter pamphlet received so many “no” votes. That reader implied that Alaska judges who dependably perform their duties ought to be automatically retained. I think I can answer that reader’s question.
In November’s election pamphlet, each judge who was up for retention provided a self-written resume and statement of purpose. Also, a “ratings matrix” was provided for each judge, showing how that judge was rated by different groups of persons associated with the courts (i.e., jurors, lawyers, etc.). In reading these resumes and ratings, I noticed that some of the self-written resumes were remarkably uninspiring and incomplete. Also, I noticed that some judges received distinctly lower ratings from court personnel. Therefore, in the interest of maintaining the highest-quality jurists in Alaska’s court system, I simply decided to vote against the retention of any judge who produced a lackluster resume and received relatively lower ratings from court personnel.
That’s all there was to it. This was not rocket science — and by the way, those judges who were retained in service as the result of November’s election, but who received a significant percentage of “no” votes, had better take a hint and do their best during their forthcoming term of office to improve their image among court personnel — and learn how to write a cogent, complete and impressive resume.
— Stephan Paliwoda
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.