MONROE - For the second time, a survey released by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin asking attorneys to rate judges identified a split between the two sitting Green County Circuit Court judges.
Judge Thomas Vale was rated with a 4 on a 1 to 5 scale by 13 respondents. To be included, the investigative team only included results of eight or more attorneys who submitted completed surveys. Judge James Beer was not viewed as favorably by 19 respondents, scoring 2.9 of 5. The statewide average was 3.8.
Neither justice said they considered the results as a true reflection of their job performance.
"There are some serious problems with it," Beer said, noting he has won each election since beginning in 1996. "It is not something you find pleasant. I've always considered myself a judge for the people, not lawyers."
Beer noted there is no process to ensure respondents are lawyers who have appeared before the judge they're rating. The data released Dec. 22 does outline a few caveats to the process, including that there was no guarantee every answer was truthful. "Like any online poll, however, our survey was subject in part to the integrity of the people involved," and "we also relied on the attorneys to follow the requirement that they evaluate only the judges whom they appeared before in the past year."
Both Vale and Beer noted the number of people who submitted surveys was much lower than the total attorneys they saw within the past year.
"I don't think every attorney gets the survey form," Vale said. "In the big picture, I want people to respect the system. I think it's good to hold the judges accountable. But it is a flawed approach, and the sample size is limited."
Vale said he does find it a positive sign that in categories which ask whether a judge is biased based on race or sex, whether he can be described as dignified, treats others with respect and avoids impropriety, each response was above 4.0.
"We make unpopular decisions every day," Vale said. "At the end of the day ... I want people to feel they have been handed a fair decision."
His worst score, a 2.8 for "Use of programming in sentences," reflects how often a judge's sentence includes a rehabilitation plan rather than jail time.
Vale was scored within the top 45 percent of the total judges reviewed. Beer was rated ninth-worst out of 209 state judges, a bump of four spots since the first survey in 2015.
Beer pointed to certain criteria as obvious examples of the survey's inadequacy in rating a judge fairly. For instance, the percentage of cases that are appealed to the state supreme court is listed, but not the number of cases tried each year. His 50 percent figure appears much higher than the statewide average of 17 percent, but he said he has only had six cases appealed to that level, including one which tied at the highest level, in the last three years out of thousands.
He added that the survey "is not a true reflection" of the attorneys who appear before him.
The highest rating given to Beer was in the category of written communication, a 3.5. The lowest, both in "OK making unpopular decisions" and "Prepared for court," was a rating of 2.6.
Beer said despite being seen in the survey as one of the worst judges in the state, he maintains confidence in his tasks. Between helping to implement a drug court in the county and pioneering video conference calls within his 21 years on the bench, Beer has little concern about his work to make lives better.
"I'm always trying to take a new approach," Beer said. "I think I have really tried to improve the justice system ... that's what I've always strived for."
Judge Thomas Vale was rated with a 4 on a 1 to 5 scale by 13 respondents. To be included, the investigative team only included results of eight or more attorneys who submitted completed surveys. Judge James Beer was not viewed as favorably by 19 respondents, scoring 2.9 of 5. The statewide average was 3.8.
Neither justice said they considered the results as a true reflection of their job performance.
"There are some serious problems with it," Beer said, noting he has won each election since beginning in 1996. "It is not something you find pleasant. I've always considered myself a judge for the people, not lawyers."
Beer noted there is no process to ensure respondents are lawyers who have appeared before the judge they're rating. The data released Dec. 22 does outline a few caveats to the process, including that there was no guarantee every answer was truthful. "Like any online poll, however, our survey was subject in part to the integrity of the people involved," and "we also relied on the attorneys to follow the requirement that they evaluate only the judges whom they appeared before in the past year."
Both Vale and Beer noted the number of people who submitted surveys was much lower than the total attorneys they saw within the past year.
"I don't think every attorney gets the survey form," Vale said. "In the big picture, I want people to respect the system. I think it's good to hold the judges accountable. But it is a flawed approach, and the sample size is limited."
Vale said he does find it a positive sign that in categories which ask whether a judge is biased based on race or sex, whether he can be described as dignified, treats others with respect and avoids impropriety, each response was above 4.0.
"We make unpopular decisions every day," Vale said. "At the end of the day ... I want people to feel they have been handed a fair decision."
His worst score, a 2.8 for "Use of programming in sentences," reflects how often a judge's sentence includes a rehabilitation plan rather than jail time.
Vale was scored within the top 45 percent of the total judges reviewed. Beer was rated ninth-worst out of 209 state judges, a bump of four spots since the first survey in 2015.
Beer pointed to certain criteria as obvious examples of the survey's inadequacy in rating a judge fairly. For instance, the percentage of cases that are appealed to the state supreme court is listed, but not the number of cases tried each year. His 50 percent figure appears much higher than the statewide average of 17 percent, but he said he has only had six cases appealed to that level, including one which tied at the highest level, in the last three years out of thousands.
He added that the survey "is not a true reflection" of the attorneys who appear before him.
The highest rating given to Beer was in the category of written communication, a 3.5. The lowest, both in "OK making unpopular decisions" and "Prepared for court," was a rating of 2.6.
Beer said despite being seen in the survey as one of the worst judges in the state, he maintains confidence in his tasks. Between helping to implement a drug court in the county and pioneering video conference calls within his 21 years on the bench, Beer has little concern about his work to make lives better.
"I'm always trying to take a new approach," Beer said. "I think I have really tried to improve the justice system ... that's what I've always strived for."