State Judicial Commission Rejects Proposal to Switch Its Control to Non-Judges

The state Judicial Performance Commission said Friday it had rejected a proposal that for the first time would have put non-judges in control of the watchdog agency.

The commission, however, did vote to go forward with proposals to the Legislature that would increase the commission’s power to discipline judges for misconduct.

In a statement, the nine-member group said it had decided to seek constitutional amendments that would allow it to issue public admonishments for improper conduct and require judges to undergo private counseling for lesser offenses.

Investigative Power

The commission is already empowered to investigate complaints of misconduct against judges and to recommend removal from office or public censure by the state Supreme Court. It also may issue private admonishments on its own.

The proposals came in response to suggestions last year by state legislators that the commission explore new ways of deterring judicial misconduct.

Legislation was introduced--and later dropped--that would have expanded the membership of the commission to give non-judges voting control, primarily as a means to deter fears that judicial members would be too lenient in investigating their colleagues.

The commission is currently composed of five judges, two lawyers and two non-lawyers.

Fate Is Uncertain

The reception the proposals will receive in Sacramento appeared uncertain. A spokesman for state Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra), who had proposed expansion of the commission, said it appeared that the proposals “may not go far enough.”

The aide, Susie Swatt, added that there was also concern that the commission, in performing its function of reviewing applications for disability retirement, was too lenient in permitting such retirements by judges who were under investigation or who were just turned out by the voters.

A counsel for the commission, Peter Gubbins, said the issue of disability retirements was being considered separately by the commission.

Strong Opposition

The proposals to change membership and expand the disciplinary powers of the commission had drawn sharp opposition from the California Judges Assn., which represents the state’s 1,400-member judiciary. Leaders of the California State Bar also opposed the membership change.

The commission statement Friday concluded that the proposal to expand its membership had “received virtually no support” and that there “is no evidence of any resulting value” in changing the existing composition of the group.

The commission also decided against asking for authority to suspend the pay of a judge while the court is considering his removal from office. Judges are already barred from serving in office while such cases are under consideration.

Public Disclosure

On the other hand, the commission said, allowing it to publicly admonish judges would provide the opportunity to settle cases, with public disclosure, where there were mitigating circumstances. The new procedure would avoid the time and expense of taking such cases to the state Supreme Court for possible censure or removal of the judge.

The commission said also that by permitting private counseling, the commission could act to correct a judicial practice before it reached the stage of requiring formal discipline.

The new proposals were adopted “in principle” by the commission in closed meetings. The group urged that the measures be considered further by the Bar, bench and public in an effort to achieve “a broad consensus” on how it could “fulfill its function in dealing with the sensitive issues of judicial performance and conduct.”