Gwneth wrote [quote:1aini762]Since we have no elected PJSP yet, we'll probably have to do the same as for the appointment of the first Judge — get the SC to review the application (we have another applicant, Blue McDonnough), and the RA to vote on it. The SC has been notified. [/quote:1aini762]
Now that we seem settled on the idea that we should have a panel of three judges rather than a single judge backed up by volunteer pro tem judges when necessary, this issue of "chief judge" becomes more important. First, we need to determine whether we want our court to have a "chief judge" or "presiding judge" or "chief administrative judge" (all three have different implications). Second, we need to work out selection.
The position of "presiding judge" is typically a rotating position, which has the benefit of depoliticing the position but the draw-back of a sacrifice in consistency.
There are three different models fod selection of some species of "chief judge." First, like the U.S. Chief Justice, the office can be treated as a distinct office, and judges can be appointed by other arms of government directly into that position. Second, as is the case in some states, the Chief Justice can be a separate elected position. (This usually applies only in cases in which all judges are elected. In such case, "Position 1" is often also designated "Chief Judge" and whoever is elected to that position is chief judge by fiat.) Finally, most court systems (including all U.S. trial courts and most courts of appeals other than Supreme Courts and most State Supreme Courts) use a system of "collegiality" in which the judges choose one of their number for the position of chief judge.
My preference is for the collegial system for several reasons. First, panels of judges are often called upon to work together and there are benefits for the leader of such groups to be selected for the role by the group members (the members identify the person most likely to create a productice atmosphere; extraneous obligations which can present ethical problems are minimized; the person selected is selected based on their track record, which is most apparent to peers). Second, it streamlines the process by keeping it in committee form, rather than relying on complicated, multi-party procedures. Third, it allows selection to be based on factors and skills other than those involved directly in the office of judge. (The skills required a an administrative judge as administrator tend to be entirely different from the skill required of that administrative judge as judge. In my county, our adminstrative judge is far away the best administrator on the bench, but is not the best judge. Despite that, she is always chosen by her peers as administrative judge specifically because she has administrative skills the others lack -- and the others know it.)
Therefore, my preference would be to appoint a panel of judges, and have that panel work out administrative procedures as a committee, selecting a chief judge to essentially chair the committee.
Beathan