Since its inception nearly 50 years ago, the
Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline
has only made three disciplinary cases against judges public, and the
director told Watchdog.org that even the commission’s budget is a state
secret.
Colorado, whose judicial discipline secrecy is enshrined in the state
constitution, is one of only a handful of states where the fact-finding
hearing after formal charges isn’t public, records from the
American Judicature Society
show. In the three times the information was released in Colorado there
was a formal hearing scheduled before the state Supreme Court.
CCJD Executive Director William Campbell, who noted he increased
transparency since taking over about six years ago, said the process
works fine and sees no reason to change it.
“When there’s a problem, we address it,” he said. “Nothing is getting shuffled under the rug.”
But Cynthia Gray, director of the
Center for Judicial Ethics, said judges should face a similar system as when there are criminal complaints against average people.
“That’s how the court system works,” she said. “The grand jury
proceedings are confidential, but when an indictment is filed it is
public.”
 |
| Photo by Arthur Kane |
Campbell said Colorado doesn’t have the same problems as places that elect their judges and has a
State Commission on Judicial Performance that recommends whether voters should retain the appointed judges.
He also said there have been between 20 and 30 cases in the
commission’s history that would have become public, but the judges
resigned or retired before the cases made it to the state Supreme Court.
There have also been about 300 private disciplinary actions since 1967
when the CCJD started its work, Campbell wrote in an email.
“People who complain about a judge will be more comfortable if their
names are not public,” he said. “They don’t want to be in the news. And
people might not want to be judges if complaints are public.”
Gray said a public hearing helps protect the accused judge and society.
“It’s a protection for the judge involved so he can defend himself in
public and for the public to make sure the work is being done
properly,” she said.
Only 15 states and the District of Columbia make formal action public
only if a court orders or recommends public discipline, AJS records
show. The other states make formal charges against a judge public or
have open hearings on those allegations.
Campbell said two Colorado judges were publicly disciplined in the 1980s and last year the state Supreme Court publicly
censured Larimer County Judge Robert A. Rand. He resigned before the formal Supreme Court hearing.
Campbell said Rand made “racy” comments that left people in his court
— particularly women — uncomfortable, met privately with people before
his court without the competing side present and used state resources
for his personal antique car business.
The CCJD’s annual reports show that the public never finds out about
the details of dozens of sometimes significant complaints. Last year,
the commission received 189 complaints, similar numbers to previous
years. Campbell dismissed 170 of those because they didn’t meet the
guidelines of what the commission investigates and the commission
dismissed all but 10 of the rest as unfounded or under the jurisdiction
of appellate courts.
Of the remaining complaints, one judge was put on diversionary
education for docket management, one complaint was solved when the judge
retired, one — apparently Rand — was put into formal proceeding and two
judges received private discipline. Five cases were carried over to
2014, according to the CCJD’s annual report.
Campbell said the private discipline is often about relatively minor
issues like docket management or when a judge says something in court he
or she shouldn’t have.
“I think it’s working pretty well,” he said. “The kinds of things we
run into here are not typically as serious as states with elected
judges.”
One of the two private disciplinary measures detailed in the 2013
annual report was a reprimand against a judge who didn’t recuse himself
or notify litigants in cases involving a company where the judge’s
brother was employed as a top executive. The CCJD only investigated when
the issue was highlighted by a media report.
Full Article & Source:
Colorado’s judicial discipline agency budget mostly secret
