Deborah J. Fuller
Judiciary Committee March 26, 2009
House Bill 6252, An Act Concerning the Selection of Judicial Marshals
Thank you for
the opportunity to testify on
House Bill 6252, An Act
Concerning the Selection of Judicial Marshals.
The Judicial Branch is
opposed to this bill because it would establish statutory mandates in an
area that we believe is exclusively within our purview.
and 2 of this bill would require the Judicial Branch to post on our website,
effective October 1 of this year, a written summary of the employment
standards for judicial marshals. Currently, the Branch is working on
posting job descriptions and related information for all Judicial Branch
positions on the internet. However, this is a lengthy process and we do not
anticipate that it will be accomplished by October 1, 2009. We do not favor
posting the job description for just one or a few of our many positions on
the internet – we believe we should post them all at once.
We are also
opposed to section 3, which would have the Legislature establish a statutory
limit on the period of time that we can consider motor vehicle or criminal
convictions. Pursuant to statute, the Judicial Branch does require
applicants for judicial marshal positions to submit to a criminal record
background check. However, a conviction does not automatically mean that
an applicant doesn’t get the job. Rather, we look to the particulars of the
conviction – what was it for, how much time has elapsed, etc. Motor vehicle
convictions are considered serious, because all marshals are required to
obtain a commercial driver’s license (CDL) during training, and a motor
vehicle conviction can make an applicant ineligible for a CDL. We believe
that we should retain the discretion to determine the period of time within
which convictions are considered.
conclusion, I urge the Committee not to act favorably on this bill.
Thank you for