Supporting Document (e1d75c0b...)

CITY COUNCIL 
REPORT 
-Meeting Date:
General Plan.Element:
General Plan Goal: 
ACTION 
January 27, 2026 
Provide for the orderly government and administration of the 
affairs of the City 
Appoint Officials 
Associate City Judge Reppointment 
Consider the recommendation of the judicial Appointment Advisory Board (JAAB) to reappoint 
Statia Hendrix, Associate City Judge (Judge Hendrix) to an additional four-year t_erm. effective 
March 8, 2026. 
BACKGROUND 
In accordance with Scottsdale Revised Code, Section 9-2(a). City Council shall appoint, and may 
remove.for cause,. the city judge, ass_ociate city judges and judges pro tempo re, as the City Council 
deems necessary. 
The Judicial Appointment Advisory Board (JAAB) shall make recommendations to the City Council, as 
provided in Division 13, Article V of city code, relatingto the initial appointment or reappointment 
of the city judge and associate city judges. As established in Section 9-2 (b) of the Scottsdale Revised 
Code, through adoption of Ordinance 4079 on April 30, 2013, reappointment term lengths for all 
city judges was amended to four years. 
Judge Hendrix-was originally-appointed asthe Associate City Judge on March 9, 2012 and will 
conclude her fifth and current term on March 8, 2026. 
The Council-appointed JAAB completed a comprehensive review of Judge Hendrix's application for 
reappointment (Attachment 1) and with a 6-1 vote recommended reappointment for another four­
year term. A copy of the letter from JAAB Vice¹Chair Judge Joseph Kiefer, conveying:the JAAB's 
recommendation to the Honorable Mayor and City.Council Members is attad1ed (Attachment 2'). 
The JAAB underto_ok a very thorough process in considering this matter, including an independent 
survey of attorneys, defendants, witnesses, jurors, and court staff; reference checks with attorneys 
who regularly appeared in her court; and received letters from several community members. The 
JAAB also heard public comments, which included several statements on behalf of Judge Hendrix, 
and conducted a public interview wi.th the judge. 
Action Taken _____________  
Approved on consent

City Council Report | Associate City Judge Reappointment
Judge Hendrix, in her interview, highiighted her motivations and goais for reappointment. She 
vaiues working with skiiied court staff and attorneys. Courtroom 1, handiing many criminai 
arraignments, pieas, and post-adjudication reviews, managed 554 reviews by November 30. 
Speciaity Court rulings and victims' motions led to 5,396 motions handled by the same date. Despite 
a heavy load, efficiency remains high. Judge Hendrix aims to sustain this work, enhance early victim 
participation, and strengthen partnerships with treatment providers:
After public comments and interviews, the JAAB revie\wed all received information. Co-workers 
praised Judge Hendrix's work ethic, demeanor, efficiency, and expertise, especially in domestic 
violence cases, which are critical to Scottsdale City Court. Judge Hendrix is a recognized expert.in 
this field. Judge Hendrix received survey scores rahging from satisfactory to very good. Some 
cornments indicated a perceived bias in certain cases, though this view was not universal. Judge 
Hendrix expressed a commitment to follow the law fairly and is interested in addressing perceptions 
of bias by identifying specific circumstances. She made note of the fact that there was a very limited 
number of surveys submitted in comparison to the number of people she sees in her courtroom.
The JAAB recommends that Judge Hendrix consider the feedback and continue to address any 
concerns raised during the reappointment process.
The Board noted that the statistical data report prepared in November shows that Judge Hendrix 
had satisfactory to very good survey responses in the areas of legal ability, integrity, communication 
skills, judicial temperament, and administrative performance.
Two other reference documents are included for Council's review and consideration:
• 
Summary Statistical Data Report for Judge Statia Hendrix (Attachment 3); and
• 
Judge Hendrix's Reappointment Process Timeline (Attachment 4)
An audio recording of the December 15, 2025 meeting is available to City Council Members and the 
public to hear the public comments. Judge Hendrix's interview and all discussions held by JAAB 
about their reappointment recommendation to City Council for Judge Hendrix to serve another 
term. The recording is available on the JAAB Website at City of Scottsdale - Judicial Appointments 
Advisory Board (scottsdaleaz.gov). The DRAFT minutes are also available for yOur review 
(Attachment 5).
A member of JAAB, Human Resources Director Monica Boyd, and Judge Hendrix will be available 
during the Council meeting should the Council wish to hear from them regarding this potential 
reappointment or reappointment process.
Compensation
Scottsdale Revised Code Section 9-2 provides that the City Council w'ill determine the compensation 
of the City Judge and all other judges of the City Court. As approved by City Council on May 3, 2005, 
with an effective date of May 1, 2005, Associate City Judge salary amounts are set annually in
Page 2 of 4

City Council Report | Associate City Judge Reappointment
conjunction with City Council's annual budget review process. As such, Judge Hendrix's salary is 
presently set for the current fiscal year and will be determined by City Council for fiscal year 
2026/27 through the budget development process.
ANALYSIS & ASSESSMENT
Community Involvement
The Council-appointed JAAB is a seven-member board made up of Judges, attorneys, and Scottsdale 
citizens. The current board members are John Gilbert (Chair)> Judge Joseph Kiefer (Vice-Chair),
Judge Suzanne MarwiI, Tricia Schafer, Carol Ann Petren, and Helene Weitzenkorn.
Judge Hendrix's reappointment process included the following steps:
August 25, 2025 - Judge Hendrix received a letter from staff, on behalf of the JAAB, inviting 
her to apply for reappointment.
September 3, 2025 - Judge Hendrix submitted her application for reappointment.
September 18,2025 - In response to the JAAB's request for any information related to Judge 
Hendrix, a letter from the AZ Commission on Judicial Conduct was received confirming that 
Judge Hendrix has not been publicly disciplined for judicial misconduct.
September/October 2025 - An outside firm conducted a survey of citizens, legal community 
and staff on Judge Hendrix's performance. (See Attachment 3 for survey results report) 
November/December 2025 - Solicitation of public comment was conducted. (No public 
comments were received)
December 15, 2025 - The JAAB completed their extensive process in considering Judge 
Hendrix's reappointment which included a review of the judge's application for 
reappointment and the judicial survey results, reference checking, a public hearing to invite 
community input, and an interview with Judge Hendrix. Based on all the information the 
board gathered, the JAAB voted (6-1) to recommend Judge Hendrix's reappointment to the 
City Council.
OPTIONS & STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommended Approach
The Council appointed JAAB makes recommendations to the City Council on the retention of the 
Presiding and Associate City Judges based on a thorough review process. The JAAB has voted 6-1 to 
recommend to Council that Judge Hendrix be retained as Associate City Judge and be reappointed 
to a four-year term, effective March 8, 2026.
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT(S)
Human Resources
Page 3 of 4

City Council Report | Associate City Judge Reappointment
STAFF CONTACTS [S)
Autumn Asmus, JAAB Board Liaison - Human Resources, aasmus@scottsdaleaz.gov
APPROVED BY
January 12, 2026
Monica Boyd, Human Resources Director 
480-312-2615, mbovd(5)scottsdaleaz.gov
Date
ATTACHMENTS
1. Judge Hendrix's Application for Reappointment
2. JAAB Recommendation Letter from Judge Joseph Kiefer (Vice-Chair)
3. Summary Statistical Data Report for Judge Hendrix
4. Tentative Timeline of Judge Hendrix's Reappointment Process
5. DRAFT Meeting Minutes - December 15, 2025, JAAB Public Meeting
Page 4 of 4

^ ICO
Ar
ITT®
1. Full name:
City of Scottsdale
APPLICATION FOR REAPPOINTMENT AS 
ASSOCIATE CITY JUDGE
A. PERSONAL INFORMATION
Statia Danette Hendrix
2. 
Office address: 3700 N. 75th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
3. 
Message phone number: (480)312-7027
B. PROFESSIONAL background AND EXPERIENCE
4. 
Summarize your tenure as Associate City Judge, inciuding dates served and the nature and 
volume of your caseload.
I have served the court sihce March 2012. My current caseload consists of a wide 
range of offenses that directly impact community well-being and public safety. I also 
preside over a specialty court dedicated to domestic violence, (see attached).
5. 
Why are you seeking reappointment as Associate City Judge?
I am genuinely fulfilled in this position. My experiences on the bench have deepened 
my understanding of both the law and the human impact of judicial decisions. In 
addition, I have a strong desire to continue the initiatives of the DV Specialty Court.
6. 
What two or three aspects of your performance or contributions as Associate City Judge are: you 
most proud of during your present term?
I have played a key foie in our court's collaboration with DV treatment providers; 
getting the best services and accountability for DV offenders. I manage a heavy DV 
docket that requires making decisions on complex factual and legal matters each day.
7. 
What have you (lone as Associate Qty Judge to further your professional development and to 
prepare yOurself for a subsequent term on the bench?
Each year I attend the mandatory judicial conference. Over the last three years I have 
served as faculty in the area of DV. In addition, my service with ClDVG allows me to 
participate in the rule/policy making decisions on behalf of DV victims in Arizona.
8. 
Describe any additional experience, accomplishments or awards that you would like to share with 
the Board.
I am dedicated to serving this community in a way that helps to build public trust.
The goal is to create an environment where all parties can have access and feel heard. 
The increased rates of compliance and completed treatment are the results.
- 1 -
ATTACHMENT 1

C. CONDUCT AND ETHICS
9. List and describe any sanctions imposed upon you by any courts or judicial oversight bodies for 
violation of any rule or procedure or for any other professional impropriety, 
none
10. Are there any other issues pertaining to judicial conduct or ethics that should be disclosed to the 
Board? 
none
1
The undersigned hereby authorizes the Committees of the State Bar of Arizona, all Bar Associations, 
references, employers, credit reporting agencies, business and professional associates, and all 
governmental agencies to release to the Scottsdale Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and the City 
of Scottsdale any information requested by said Board in connection with the processing of my 
application for reappointment as Associate City Judge.
I certify that all the information provided herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge, i 
agree and understand that omissions, misstatements, and falsifications may be cause for rejection of 
this application or may otherwise impact my continued employment with the City of Scottsdale. I 
give the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and the City of Scottsdale the right to investigate and 
verify any information obtained through the application process; Permission is granted and I release 
from any and all liability any employer, agency, or individual assisting. the Board or the City of 
Scottsdale in providing relevant, job related information of survey data that will assist with this 
process.
I understand that 1 may be required to successfully complete an alcohol/dfug test as part of the 
reappointment assessment process.
My signature belOw acknowledges my understanding and agreement with the above.
Date: September 3, 2025
(Signature)
Submission of this application expresses my willingness to accept reappointment to the judicial 
position applied for in this application if tendered by the Scottsdale City Council.
(Signature)
- 2 -

4. (continued)
this specialized docket involves not only adjudicating legal issues but also addressing the 
complex dynamics of intimate partner violence. The volume of the DV caseload is 
consistently high, requiring careful case management, prompt decision-making, and clear 
communication with the parties and our court partners. The D.V Workgroup has created 
both policy and procedure to ensure victims’ safety, hold defendants accountable, and 
provide access to appropriate intervention services.

v\
\k '
\*r
r.rtf’,
k. A
+
■*■ i
s
Human Resources
9191 E. San Salvador Drive 
Scottsdale. AZ 85258
PHONE 480-312-2491 
FAX 
480-312-7960
WEB 
www.ScottsdaleAZ.Gov
December 30, 2025
The Honorable Mayor Lisa Borowsky 
Members of the Scottsdale City Council 
3939 North Drinkwater Boulevard 
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
RE: Reappointment of Honorable Statia Hendrix as Scottsdale Associate City Judge 
Dear Mayor Borowsky and Members of the City Council:
On December 15,2025, the Scottsdale Judicial Appointments Advisory Board (“JAAB” 
or “Board”) convened to consider the application of Judge Statia Hendrix for reappointment to 
a four-year term as Associate Judge of the Scottsdale City Court. Judge Hendrix has served on 
the City of Scottsdale bench for nearly 18 years and will complete her current term as 
Associate City Judge on March 8, 2026. Her original judicial appointment began on March 9, 
2012.
The JAAB undertook a very thorough process in considering this matter, including an 
independent survey in the form of statistical analysis and comments from attorneys, 
defendants, witnesses, jurors, and court staff who interacted with Judge Henrix. The Board also 
conducted reference checks with attorneys who practiced in front of the judge over the past 
year and received letters from several community members. Finally, the JAAB heard public 
comment, which included several statements on behalf of Judge Hendrix, and conducted a 
public interview of the judge.
Upon the conclusion of the public comment and interview, the JAAB deliberated and 
reviewed all the infomiation received. Co-workers and staff provided several positive 
statements regarding Judge Hendrix’s work ethic, demeanor, efficiency, and experience, 
especially in the area of domestic violence cases. The domestic violence calendar is especially 
challenging and serves a vital role in Scottsdale City Court operations. Judge Hendrix is a 
recognized expert in this field.
Some of the survey results and comments were less favorable than other input. Some 
respondents indicated a perception that Judge Hendrix may favor one side over another in 
certain proceedings, but this perception was not universal. This feedback was discussed with
ATTACHMENT 2

the judge, and she noted a strong desire to faithfiilly follow the law and implement it fairly in 
all proceedings. She acknowledged some awareness of the perception and stated ah interest in 
Ihrther addressing it, ideally through identification of specific circumstances that may lead to 
this view. While most of the information the JAAB received from survey statics and comments 
is general in nature, the Board encourages Judge Hendrix to consider the feedback provided 
through this reappointment process and continue to identify ways tO address any perceived 
concerns.
After extensive and careful deliberation, the board voted 6-1 in favor of recommending 
Judge Stalia Hendrix for reappointment as an Associate Judge in the Scottsdale City Court.
I extend my thanks to my fellow JAAB members for their service, with a special thank 
you and well done to all of the staff that expertly supported our efforts. We all appreciate the 
opportunity to help our community and the City of Scottsdale. If you haye questions or need 
further information, please feel free to contact me.
Respectfully,
Judge Joseph Kiefer 
Vice Chair
Scottsdale Judicial Appointments Advispiy Board
Enclosed
I

Reappointment Report for 
Judge Hendrix
Report for the City of Scottsdale
Conducted by
Davjd Swindell, Ph.D. 
Independent Consultant
Updated
November 25, 2025
ATTACHMENTS

In September 2025, the City of Scottsdale’s Human Resources Department commissioned this 
survey and report to provide feedback from different groups on the performance of City Court 
Associate Judge Statia Hendrix. I surveyed these different groups to collect feedback on five 
general categories: legal ability, integrity, communication skills, judicial temperament, and 
administrative performance.
The surveys began going into the field on October 10, targeting four primary groups: attorneys 
with cases in front of the court between January 1 and August 31 of this year, defendants that 
appeared before the judge during that time, city staff that worked with the City Court (including 
city judges and pro tem judges), and law enforcement officials that were tied to cases before the 
City Court. The City of Scottsdale provided the contact information for these groups. The survey 
was in the field just over five weeks and participants received follow-up reminders to encourage 
their participation.
The table below reports the response rates for the different groups and the overall effective 
response rate. I sent out 1,513 invitations to participate in the survey: 1,234 by email and 273 by 
postal mail. After removing bounced emails, erroneous emails, refusals, and returned postal 
mail, the survey netted 183 completed and usable respondents for an overall response rate of 
13.7%.
Survey Targets and Response Rates
Group
Respondents Delivery 
Mode
Number
Sent
Undeliver- 
Net 
# of
able Distribution Responses
Net Response 
Rate
Attorne
Defendants
City staff
176
1
9 
167 
33
Law
Enforcement
Total 
Private
Attorneys i ^ t 
Prosecutors 
Email
Total 
All 
  998  ^132   866
Post 
273 
58 
215
Total 
All 
‘ 
80 
4 
’ 
76
Court 
Email 
55 
2 
53
Employees 
^ 
................................
Peer & Pro 
Email 
25 
2 
23
Tern Judges
: 
l!il
City Police 
Email 
253
19.8%
t7.9%
A
Emai
0
11
5
45.5%
11
61
7.0%
0
0.0%
60
47
13
79.0%
88.7%
56.5%
2
261
29
11.6%
Grand Total
Email
Post
All
Respondents
1,507 
147 
1,360 
183 
13.5%
All
0
0.0%

Interpreting the Results
This is the first report I have generated for the City as a eonsultant doing data collection related 
to Judge Hendrix for reappointment. Therefore, there are no historical data from previous efforts 
against which to compare these results. The results table below is only for this survey cycle.
The layout is similar to the reappointment reports conducted fpr the City on previous City Court 
judges.
The top line of the Results table indicates the name of the judge being reviewed, the total 
number of responses to the survey, and the date of this report preparation.
The bulk of the table presents the results of feedback from the participants in the survey rating 
the judge on a 5-point scale. The judge’s performance includes the five general categories of 
Legal Ability, Integrity, Communication Skills, Judicial Temperament, and Administrative 
Performance. Each of these general areas include several specific characteristics about which 
the survey asked respondents to rate the judge. The survey did not ask ail groups to rate the 
judge on every characteristic, as not all respondents interacted with the judge in ways that 
would have provided insights into all the characteristics.
The survey asked respondents to assign a rating to the characteristics on the following scale:
UN = Unacceptable (0 points)
PO = Poor 
(1 point)
SA = Satisfactory (2 points)
VG = Very Good (3 points)
SU = Superior (4 points)
The Results table below reports the mean scores for the judge on each characteristic across the 
respondents within each group. At the bottom of each of the five general category areas, the 
table presents a summary mean score for all the characteristics in that section.
Following the Results section is a section reporting qualitative responses from the survey 
participants concerning the judge. The Comments table breaks down the different groups of 
respondents and presents their statements verbatim as provided on their surveys. Comments 
that included information that could be used to identify a respondent are excluded in order to 
protect the confidentiality of the participants.
I hope this information is useful to the City in their reappointment revievy of the judge. I am 
happy to provide further insight into the results below or the methodology I used in collecting the 
data for this report.

Judge Hendrix
Total Surveys: 164
Attorneys
UN PO' SA VG SU Tot Mean
Prepared: November 3,2025
UN
Defendants
PO SA VG SU Tot
Mean
Staff
UN PO SA VG SU Tot Mean
Law Enforcement Officials 
UN PO SA VG SU Tot Mean
I. Legal Ability 
' Legal reasoning ability
Knovyiedge of substantial law 
Knowledge of rules of evidence 
Knowledge of rules of procedure 
Knowledge of laws pertaining to 
sentencing 
Keeps up to date
Legal Ability Summary
6
5
4
4
2
2
23
9
9
10 
5 
2
5
40
4
4
4
10
10
6
38
4
5 
5 
5 
7
4
30
10
9
9
9
9
10 
56
33
32
32
33 
30
27
187
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.6
23
II. Integrity
Conduct free from impropriety 
Equal.treatment regardless of race 
Equal treatment regardless of 
gender
Equal treatment regardless of 
economic status 
Avoided prejudging outcome of 
case
Basic fairness and Impartiality 
Exhibits personal Integrity 
Integrity Summary
6
3
4
2
6
9
30
4 
6 
2
1 
10 
3
5 
5 
3
18 
3
10 
2 
3
7 
2 
3
13
14 
14
13
11
11
28
33
17 
76
31
31
31
27
32 
32
,184
2.4-
2.8
2.6
2.9
2.1
2.0
2.4
3
3
3
5 
7 
9 27
S 10 4 29
5,
11
5
26
10 
6 
8 
7 
25
19 
21 
36 
25 107
51
51
50
56
208
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.6
23
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
11
7
7
43
46
46
1 
0 
1 
8 
45
1 
0 
19 
44
3 
1 
5 42 224.
55
55
55
55
55
275
3:1
3.8
3.7
3.7
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
2
19
19
19
0 
0 
0 
4 
19
0 
0 
3 
12 
76
23
23
22
3.8
3.8
3.8
23 
3.8
31 
33
lll.Communlcatlon Skills 
Clear & logical oral
communication/directions 
• Clear& logical written decisions
Communication Skills Summary
4
5
9
8
17
3
6
4
3
7
12
11
23
32
30
62
2.3
2.2
23
6 
5 
9 
8 
29
5 
5 
9 
8 
29
56
56
2.9
2.9
1 
0 
2 
13 
40
1 
0 
.2 
13 
40
56 
33
56 
3.6
0
0
0
0
1 
4 
18
1 
4 
18
23
23
3.7
3.7
iV Judicial Temperament
Understanding & compassion
Dignified
Courteous
is accessible
Conduct that promoted public 
confidence In the court & 
Judge's.ablilty
Judicial Temperament Summary
4 
5 
9 
4 
10
5 
3 
9 
3 
12
4 
4 
9 
5 
.10
8
21
5
17
4’
31
4
11
16 
43
32
32
32
32
128
2.3
2.4 
2.4
2.2
23
8
5
7
7
27
6
6
5
6
23
7 
14
9 
8
7 
9
7
30
7
38
19
26
26
26
97
'54
54
54
53
215
23
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
1 0 7 7 37 
0 0 2 11 39 
1 0 5 8 38
0
2
0
0
3
10
39
17 
36 
153 
208
52
52
52
52
33
3.7
33
3.7
3.6
0 
0 
2 
3 
18
0 
0 
1 
4 
18
0 
0 
,2 
3 
18
0
0
0
0
1
6
3
19
13 
73
23
23
23
23
92
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.7
V. Adrr
irfpr
nee
Punctuality In conducting 
proceedings
Maintenance of proper control 
over courtroom
Promptness In making ruljngs & 
rendering decisions 
Hard worker
, Respectful treatment of staff 
Cooperation with peers 
Cooperation with staff 
Efficient management of calendar 
Respectful treatment of law 
enforcernent officials 
Admin. Performance Summary
1 
3 
10 
6 
12
1 
2 
10 
6 
13
2 
0 
10 
6 
11
3 
3 
6 
4 
10
8
1
9
5
12
45
27 
58
32 
2.8
32 
2.9
29 
2.8
26 
23
28
147
2.9
2.8
3 
5 
7 
10 
29
4 
4 
6 
9 
28
3 
7 
2 
10 
23
10 
16 
15 
29 
80. 
150
54
51
45
3:1
3.0
3.0
3.0
0 
0 
1 11 39
0 
0 
1 
8 
42
0
2
2
2
0
0
2
1
1,
0
2
1
4
4
2
15
7
10
9
9
9
63
46
41
39
39
37
283
51 
3.7
51 
33
55
56 
55 
55 
48
371
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.7
0 
0 
1 
6 
16
0 
0 
1 
4 
17
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
16
0 
1 
3 
14
0 
0 
5 
18
0
19
81
23 
3.7
22 
3.7
18
18
23
104
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.7
UN=Unacceptable, PO=Poor, SA=SatlsfactorY, VG=VeryGood, and SU=Superior

JAAB REAPPOINTMENT TIMELINE 
Associate City Judge Statia Hendrix 
Current Term Expires March 9, 2026
Updated October 6, 2025
Tentative Dates
IDescriptlon
Reappointment Application Process
August 19, 2025
August 19, 2025
Staff to send letter and application on behalf of JAAB apprising incumbent judge of 
process for reappointment.
Staff to send email to City Court Administrator requesting list of individuals appearing in 
Judge Hendrix's courtroom from Jan. through Aug. 2021.
September 1, 2025
Deadline for Judge Hendrix to file formal application for reappointment with Human 
Resources.
September 1, 2025
Deadline for receiving lists of jurors, defendants, attorneys, and public defenders who 
have appeared in Judge Hendrix's courtrooms from specified dates above.
Reappointment Process - Before JAAB Public Hearing
September 8, 2025
Send letter to the AZ Commission on Judicial Conduct.
September 22, 2025
Deadline to get court data info to our outside survey contractor - David Swindell, PhD, 
Director & Associate Professor at Arizona State University
September 29, 2025
October 6, 2025
David Swindell to distribute/email surveys to the list of identified jurors, defendants, 
attorneys, and public defenders.
October 20, 2025
Distribute due diligence interview assignments to JAAB members. (Due by 10/24/25)
Must run
October 27, 2025
Deadline for submission of completed surveys from the jurors, defendants, attorneys, and 
public defenders to David Swindell.
November 1, 2025
Request eScribers for reappointment meeting and confirm attendance close to meeting 
date.
November 3, 2025 
Compiled survey results/re ports due to HR.
November 10, 2025 Initiate Background Check (30 days prior to JAAB meeting)
November 24, 2025
December 3, 2025
prioi)
Depending on Council 
Date/December 2025
Survey results data and other public hearing meeting materials distributed to JAAB and 
copies sent to Judge Hendrix and Court Administrator. At least 5 business day prior.
Submit item to Agenda Planner for Council (for actual appointment) -
http://apps/chps/agendaPlanner/SubjTilt.aspx 30 days out
JAAB Public Hearing and Interview Process
Thursday, December 11, 
2025, 6:00pm - 8:00pm (per 
board direction on 9/5)
JAAB conducts public hearing on reappointment application, reviews survey data and 
develops interview questions (Executive Session). Conducts interview with Judge Hendrix 
and formulates recommendations. Inform Judge Hendrix of the outcome.
ATTACHMENT 4

December 18, 2025
Written recommendation for the reappointment from the JAAB Chair to City Council, due 
by 12/18. 
Post JAAB - City Council Reappointment Process
December 2025/January 
2026
Notify Judge Hendrix of the when her reappointment will be posted on City Council 
Agenda. 
December 2025/January 
2026
Council Action Report and supplements due to the City Clerk's office by 12 noon two 
weeks prior to the council meeting.
Last 2 weeks of January or 
1st week of February 2026
City Council action on reappointment of which will be on 'consent' and not the 'regular 
meeting' agenda.

PRESENT
Board Members:
Staff:
rv^
>1"
mTm
a\
T'
i r' 
m
-*- 
V,
t ,
%
DRAFT MINUTES 
City of Scottsdale
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY BOARD 
Regular Meeting
Monday, December 15, 2025
North Corporation Yard, Wrangler Room 
9191 E. San Salvador Drive 
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
John Gilbert, Chair
Judge Joseph Kiefer, Vice-Chair
Judge Suzanne MarwiI
Tricia Schafer
Carol Ann Petren
Helene Weitzenkorn
Jeanne Beasley
Stephanie Heizer, Senior Assistant City Attorney 
Marianne Bayardi, Presiding City Judge 
Monica Boyd, Director of Human Resources
Call to Order
Chair Gilbert called the meeting to order at 6;05 p.m. 
Roll Call
Members present as listed above.
Possible Executive Session
None called at this time.
ATTACHMENT 5

Judicial Appointments Advisory Board 
Regular Meeting Minutes 
December 15,2025 
Page.2 of 8
1. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 5. 2025. JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING MINUTES
a. Regular Meeting Minutes
Board Member Petren recommended the following changes: that the sentence beginning “Board 
Member Witzenkorn asked Ms. Rhodes” on page 3 be its own paragraph; that “a” be added 
before “probable cause standard” on page 4; that the double period be removed later in that 
paragraph; that one of the “to gets in the last sentence of page 4 be removed; that “respecting” 
be changed to “respected” in paragraph 4 of page 5; that “she rolled my eyes” on page 5 be 
changed to “she rolled her eyes”; that “who” be added on page 7 between “an attorney” and 
“came to court”; that “Weitz” on page 12 be changed to “Weitzenkorn”, and that sentence be 
rnade into a new paragraph; that “with” be stricken from the first sentence of paragraph 5 on 
page 16; that “Board MarwiI” be changed to “Board Member ManwiI” on page 17; that the 
sentence starting with “Board Member Beasley asked him” on page 18 be made into a new 
paragraph; that the sentence starting with “Mr. Jann said he gets along” on page 20 be made 
into a new paragraph; and that “outbursts” be changed to “outburst” on page 21.
Board Member Schafer stated she voted against the recommendation of Jacqueline Kochis- 
Chapman, but on page 23, the minutes indicate she voted for it. The minutes should reflect a 
vote of 6 to 1, and that she was a dissenting vote.
BOARD MEMBER MARWIL MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2025, JUDICIAL 
APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER 
SCHAFER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED SEVEN (7) TO ZERO (0). CHAIR 
GILBERT, VICE-CHAIR KIEFER, AND BOARD MEMBERS BEASLEY, MARWIL, PETREN, 
SCHAFER, AND WEITZENKORN VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THERE WERE NO 
DISSENTING VOTES.
b. Executive Meeting Minutes
BOARD MEMBER MARWIL MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2025, JUDICIAL 
APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY BOARD EXECUTIVE MEETING MINUTES. BOARD MEMBER 
WEITZENKORN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED SEVEN (7) TO ZERO (0). 
CHAIR GILBERT, VICE-CHAIR KIEFER, AND BOARD MEMBERS BEASLEY, MARWIL, 
PETREN, SCHAFER, AND WEITZENKORN VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THERE WERE 
NO DISSENTING VOTES.
2.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Judge Jim Blake, a retiree of the Scottsdale court system, spoke about his history with Judge 
Statia Hendrix. He felt she was a fine judge and highlighted her ethics, compassion, knowledge, 
work ethic, and management skills. He thought she should be retained.
Mr. Chris Phelps indicated he submitted a letter in support of Judge Hendrix, who he said was 
loved and supported by staff. He spoke about her dedication to domestic violence (DV) issues. 
Judge Hendrix is willing to analyze data to run an efficient courtroom, and he requested that she 
be retained as a judge. In response to Board Member Kiefer’s request for clarification, he 
specified that the data used by Judge Hendrix included case standards, time standards, and

Judicial Appointments Advisory Board 
Regular Meeting Minutes 
December 15, 2025 
Page 3 of 8
information about how overdue cases are. Time standards are a useful guide in determining 
whether courts are run effectively.
Judge Patricia George remarked that Judge Hendrix was available for any questions she had. 
She detailed her professional history with Judge Hendrix and spoke about the commitment 
needed to manage a DV docket. She wanted to continue to serve with Judge Hendrix and urged 
the Board to recommend her for reappointment. Responding to a request for more information 
about DV cases, she went into greater detail about the types of dockets Judge Hendrix routinely 
handles, including new cases and review hearings.
Judge Marianne Bayardi stated she submitted a letter of support. She spoke of the efficacy of 
handling DV cases quickly and serving justice, both of which Judge Hendrix does. This ensures 
that people are held accountable and allows families to move on with treatment. Judge Hendrix, 
she continued, uses review hearings to ensure people stay involved in the DV program, which is 
important to both offenders and victims. She discussed Judge Hendrix’s hard work and great 
representation of the community, and she encouraged the Board to reappoint her.
3. DISCUSSION OF JUDICIAL SURVEY RESULTS ON ASSOCIATE CITY JUDGE
STATIA HENDRIX
Senior Assistant City Attorney Stephanie Heizer cautioned the Board to hold as much of the 
discussion as it can during open session, but she confirmed that personnel matters can be 
discussed in executive session. It was determined that the Board would go into executive 
session to discuss the survey results.
BOARD MEMBER MARWIL MOVED TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS 
THE JUDICIAL SURVEY RESULTS REGARDING ASSOCIATE CITY JUDGE STATIA 
HENDRIX. BOARD MEMBER SCHAFER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 
SEVEN (7) TO ZERO (0). CHAIR GILBERT, VICE-CHAIR KEIFER, AND BOARD MEMBERS 
BEASLEY, MARWIL, PETREN, SCHAFER, AND WEITZENKORN VOTED IN 
THE AFFIRMATIVE. THERE WERE NO DISSENTING VOTES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS HELD FROM 6:34 P.M. TO 7:24 P.M.
4. DISCUSSION OF OTHER RECORDS AND INFORMATION RELATED TO JUDGE
HENDRIX’S PERFORMANCE OR REAPPOINTMENT
Chair Gilbert received confirmation that this item pertains to discussion of the records used to 
assess Judge Hendrix’s performance as well as the due diligence performed by the Board 
members.
Vice-Chair Kiefer mentioned that he received much more feedback when speaking on the 
phone to people versus emailing them, and most of that feedback was positive. Each Board 
member relayed their experience with feedback, with the consensus being that the reviews were 
mixed, with some people not wanting to provide any specific input, but there were generally 
more positive than negative comments. Board Member MarwiI discussed the many ways she 
offered for people to get in contact with her to provide their feedback and the ways which 
produced the best results.
VICE-CHAIR KIEFER MOVED TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE 
OTHER RECORDS AND INFORMATION RELATED TO JUDGE HENDRIX’S PERFORMANCE 
OR REAPPOINTMENT. BOARD MEMBER BEASLEY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH

Judicial Appointments Advisory Board 
Regular Meeting Minutes 
December, 15, 2025 
Page 4 of 8
CARRIED SEVEN (7) TO ZERO (0). CHAIR GILBERT, VICE-CHAIR KEIFER, BOARD 
MEMBERS BEASLEY, MARWIL, PETREN, SCHAFER, AND WEITZENKORN VOTED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE. THERE WERE NO DISSENTING VOTES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS HELD FROM 7:35 P.M. TO 8:27 P.M.
*** BREAK FROM 8:28 P.M. TO 8:35 P.M. ***
5. DISCUSS QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW OF JUDGE HENDRIX
Following a discussion where each Board member listed the questions they felt should be asked 
of Judge Hendrix, it was decided by consensus of the Board that the following questions would 
be asked and in the following order:
Question 12 (page 2) asked by Board Member Schafer 
Question 2 (top of page 1) asked by Board Member Petren
• 
Question 3 (page 2) asked by Vice-Chair Kiefer
• 
Question 9 (page 2) with the substitution of the word “biased” for “stern”, asked by 
Chair Gilbert
• 
Question 15 (page 2) asked by Board Member MarwiI
• 
Question 4 (bottom of page 1) asked by Board Member Beasley
It was further decided that Judge Hendrix will be informed of the number of questions that she 
will be asked before they begin so she can gauge her time appropriately.
BOARD MEMBER MARWIL MOVED THAT THE CHOSEN QUESTIONS WOULD BE ASKED IN 
THE ORDER DETERMINED BY THE BOARD. BOARD MEMBER SCHAFER SECONDED THE 
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED SEVEN (7) TO ZERO (0). CHAIR GILBERT, VICE-CHAIR KEIFER, 
AND BOARD MEMBERS BEASLEY, MARWIL, PETREN, SCHAFER, AND WEITZENKORN 
VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THERE WERE NO DISSENTING VOTES.
6. INTERVIEW OF JUDGE HENDRIX
Chair Gilbert indicated that the Board would ask Judge Hendrix six questions.
Board Member Schafer asked Judge Hendrix about the reasons she wanted to be reappointed 
and personal goals she hoped to achieve.
Judge Hendrix spoke about the importance of working with dedicated, talented court staff and 
the professionalism of the attorneys with whom she interacts. Courtroom 1 has a very busy 
docket, but systems are in place to accommodate the special nature of DV offenses, some of 
which she then discussed. Of ail the courtrooms, she noted, hers saw the most criminal 
arraignments and changes of plea, and it hears all post-adjudication reviews. Through 
November 30, her court heard 554 reviews. She believed some of the comments written by 
defendants were based on their interactions in the program.
Judge Hendrix said one of her responsibilities in Specialty Court is to make rulings on filings 
pertaining to these cases, as well as to provide a forUm for victims’ motions. Courtroom 1 ruled 
on 5,396 such motions through November 30 of the year. Despite the caseload, Courtroorri 1 
continues to adjudicate criminal matters efficiently and meet time standards. She felt that that 
work needs to continue, adding that she chose this type of work, and that is why she sought 
reappointment. Regarding her personal and professional goals over the next term. Judge

Judicial Appointments Advisory Board 
Regular Meeting Minutes 
December 15, 2025 
Page 5 of 8
Hendrix thought the court could do better at capturing victims’ participation earlier in the 
process. She spoke about increasing the scope of the partnership with four treatment 
provider agencies.
Board Member Petren asked Judge Hendrix what she considered to be her greatest area of 
opportunity and how she compensates for it.
Judge Hendrix responded that she is very distractable, and she is consistently working to keep 
her focus on the person in front of her. Other courtrooms may be more lax with letting people 
talk, but she keeps her courtroom quiet, something she believes is appreciated by those 
involved in the cases being heard.
Vice-Chair Kiefer inquired about continuing education courses taken by the judge.
Judge Hendrix replied that she teaches annually at the judicial conference and at new judge 
orientations. She keeps herself knowledgeable about rule changes and new cases, helping to 
expand the judiciary’s knowledge of the rules. She mentioned she was a longstanding member 
of the Court Interpreter Program Advisory Committee, and she regularly teaches court staff. 
Through this she tries to incorporate information about procedural due process.
Vice-Chair Kiefer asked specifically about what she has done to work on her courtroom 
operations and demeanor.
Judge Hendrix responded that she is conscious of her demeanor and temperament the entire 
time she is on the bench. She believes how people are treated in court matters, and she tries 
to be patient, clear, and respectful. Defendants need to feel valued just as much as anyone 
else in the room. She felt that she would not get the compliance she did if she did not treat 
everyone well.
Chair Gilbert asked whether Judge Hendrix was surprised that she has a reputation of being 
biased in favor of the prosecution.
The judge replied that that has been commentary for 14 years, but she did not feel that she was 
biased. She said she cannot change what people feel about her. She said bias is informed by 
action. While recognizing that something she does is being perceived as bias, she said she has 
not been told which behaviors are causing that perception. She wanted to know specifies about 
those behaviors.
Chair Gilbert provided a general example of prosecutors being able to do anything while 
defense attorneys’ objections are interrupted.
Judge Hendrix noted that not one attorney in 14 years has written a complaint to the presiding 
judge, the City manager, the City Council, the mayor, or the Arizona Judicial Commission, nor 
have any of her decisions been reversed by an appellate court. She expressed willingness to 
listen to specific examples or recordings of any poor behavior. She stated she works hard to 
listen to both parties and allow each to make the arguments they want to make. She pointed out 
that prosecutors are sometimes mad at her for being too lenient with defendants. She does not 
try to be popular; she tries to do the job correctly. She guaranteed that there is no poor 
treatment happening in her courtroom.

Judicial Appointments Advisory Board 
Regular Meeting Minutes 
December 15, 2025 
Page 6 of 8
Board Member MarwiI inquired whether Judge Hendrix believed there were times when her 
temperament was less than it should be in the presence of the public, and what steps she has 
taken to prevent those occurrences.
Judge Hendrix replied that there are no perfect judges, and she believed there are always other 
opportunities to be better and express herself in a different way. The focus of her work is 
listening to people and trying to address their questions and needs. She spends more of her 
time with defendants than anyone else, helping them get the resources they need. She stays 
with defendants to ensure compliance long after their defense attorneys leave. She said she 
cannot run her courtroom by hoping people like her. She added that she took more than 1,000 
pleas this year, so the number of complaints against her is very small, though she recognized 
their concerns.
Board Member MarwiI asked about instances where Judge Hendrix felt emotional responses to 
litigants or attorneys in her courtroom and what steps she would take after those interactions to 
achieve her goal of treating everyone with the same modicum of respect and due process.
Judge Hendrix acknowledged that, though some attorneys have certain feelings towards her, 
she has no feelings towards them. She described herself as an emotionally mature person who 
does not talk to anyone off the record. Any outburst she has would be captured on the record, 
but that has not happened. She controls any emotional impulses she has while on the bench, 
and she cannot try changing things to make attorneys feel better about her. She felt there was 
nothing she could do to change the opinion of someone who made up their mind about her long 
ago. She again requested specific examples of poor behavior.
Board Member Petren wondered whether Judge Hendrix has given thought to why there is a 
perception that she is biased or rude to certain people, even without having specific examples.
Judge Hendrix recognized that each time the issue of her reappointment has come up, there 
have been between 10 and 20 strong negative comments. She thought the many positive 
comments that are received do not receive the same weight as the negative ones. She posited 
that people may think she is rude because she is direct or that her court orders are specific. She 
did not see those as rude behaviors but as fair and clear communication. She contested that no 
complaints are ever directed at her, only to this Board every four years. She said she has 
trouble reconciling the positive comments made by court staff, defendants, and attorneys with 
the negative ones made by certain attorneys. Her job is not to react to every complaint but to 
get on the bench, listen, be mindful of things that might suggest impartiality, and be thoughtful 
and transparent in her rulings. She reiterated that none of her rulings have ever been reversed 
on substantive issues, though one case was remanded for procedural reasons. Nobody has 
captured audio of any behaviors and reported them to her boss.
Board Member Beasley asked whether Judge Hendrix projects an image of fairness in her 
rulings as well as her treatment of prosecutors and defense lawyers.
Judge Hendrix believed most people would say yes, though some would say no. DV cases are 
very sensitive matters, and it is important that everyone is heard. She always states the reasons 
for her rulings, including when she modifies release conditions or denies motions altogether. 
Defendants regularly tell her they do not agree with her decisions, but they understand her 
positions. She described how she includes exactly what she considered when making her 
decisions on bench trials, both for transparency and to help out any possible appeal judges.

Judicial Appointments Advisory Board 
Regular Meeting Minutes 
December 15, 2025 
Page 7 of 8
Board Member Beasley inquired whether she was concerned with the number of appeals filed 
on her cases.
Judge Hendrix indicated that everyone has a right to appeal, and anyone who feels that a 
decision rendered was wrong should appeal. She stands by her decisions, though.
Judge Hendrix noted that in past hearings, she felt she did not adequately give her opinion 
on the comments she received. She thanked the Board for performing its duty with respect 
to this process.
A brief discussion ensued where Judge Hendrix was informed she could remain in the room 
until the Board moved to go into executive session.
7. DISCUSSION OF AND REAPPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
JUDGE HENDRIX
Vice-Chair Kiefer stressed that Judge Hendrix is involved with an important, specialized 
calendar, and she is very knowledgeable of her role. There has been a mix of feedback, 
particularly from the legal side, and there is disagreement about how she handles defendants 
compared to how she handles the prosecution. He believed there were more positive comments 
from defendants who believed Judge Hendrix handled their cases well, and staffs comments 
Were overall favorable.
One member thought Judge Hendrix made a compelling case that she has the ability to cancel 
out background noise and assess comments by their source, integrity, and validity. The Board 
must sort through the noise to evaluate a candidate who has worked tirelessly for 13 years.
VICE-CHAIR KIEFER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR 
DISCUSSION OF AND REAPPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATION REGARDING.JUDGE 
HENDRIX. BOARD MEMBER PETREN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED SEVEN 
(7) TO ZERO (0). CHAIR GILBERT, VICE-CHAIR KEIFER, BOARD MEMBERS BEASLEY, 
MARWIL, PETREN, SCHAFER, AND WEITZENKORN VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THERE 
WERE NO DISSENTING VOTES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS HELD FROM 9:38 P.M. TO 10:22 P.M.
BOARD MEMBER MARWIL MOVED THAT THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY 
board recommend reappointment of STATIA HENDRIX to THE CITY COUNCIL AS 
AN ASSOCIATE CITY JUDGE. BOARD MEMBER SCHAFER SECONDED THE MOTION, 
WHICH CARRIED SIX (6) TO ONE (1). VICE-CHAIR KEIFER AND BOARD MEMBERS 
BEASLEY, MARWIL, PETREN, SCHAFER, AND WEITZENKORN VOTED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE. CHAIRM GILBERT VOTED IN OPPOSITION.
Vice-Chair Kiefer offered to write the formal letter of recommendation to the City Council using 
the motion as it was voted on and approved.
8.
UPCOMING REAPPOINTMENT TIMELINE
Ms. Boyd said the next judge to come before the Board will be Judge George. Vice-Chair Kiefer 
and Board Members Schafer and MarwiI noted that their terms are expiring, and this will be their 
final meeting.

Judicial Appointments Advisory Board 
Regular Meeting Minutes 
December 15, 2025 
Page 8 of 8
9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 
No additional items were suggested.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR GILBERT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. BOARD MEMBER MARWIL 
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED SEVEN (7) TO ZERO (0). CHAIR GILBERT, 
VICE-CHAIR KEIFER, AND BOARD MEMBERS BEASLEY, MARWIL, PETREN,
SCHAFER, AND WEltZENKORN VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THERE WERE NO 
DISSENTING VOTES.
With no further business to discuss, being duly moved and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 
10:27 p.m.
Recorded and transcribed by eScribers, LLC.