Prospect of Gillespie Judgeship Stirs Fight : Nomination: Outgoing insurance commissioner is candidate for a Superior Court bench. Supporters and critics clash over her qualifications.

The prospective appointment by Gov. George Deukmejian of outgoing Insurance Commissioner Roxani Gillespie to a Superior Court judgeship has stirred sharp controversy, with several consumer advocates saying Gillespie is unsuitable for such an appointment and some of the commissioner’s associates insisting she would be a good judge.

Neutrals in the judiciary say privately it is not unusual for a governor at the end of his term to reward loyal subordinates by naming them as judges. Some associates felt Deukmejian would be even more generous to Gillespie, perhaps naming her to the state Court of Appeal.

John Geoghegan, secretary of the state’s Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, and Gillespie’s superior, said Wednesday, “It’s obvious that she’s been in a very controversial position and there are people who have battled her on philosophical grounds.”

Geoghegan added, “She’s smart, she’s articulate, she’s tough under pressure and I think those are good qualities for the bench.”

But some leaders of consumer organizations are angered at the prospect of her judgeship, in part because they feel Gillespie has been less than honest in the performance of her duties, telling the public she intended to implement Proposition 103, the landmark insurance initiative, while actually impeding enforcement of the measure.

Gillespie’s refusal to appear last Sunday on the national television program “60 Minutes” to answer allegations that she had failed to protect California health insurance policyholders from improper cancellations fired up the opposition even more.

Harvey Rosenfield, leader of Voter Revolt and author of Proposition 103, circulated transcripts of the television program in support of his view that consumer leaders ought to fight an appointment actively.

“No one is quarreling over a governor’s right to appoint persons he is ideologically comfortable with,” Rosenfield said. “But whether she is qualified to sit as a judge in our society is pertinent.”

Deukmejian has not made the appointment yet but has submitted Gillespie’s name to a 27-member State Bar Assn. judicial evaluation panel. If it deems her qualified for a Los Angeles Superior Court judgeship, the appointment is likely to follow. The recommendations of the panel are usually kept confidential.

Gillespie, a lawyer who once served as counsel to an insurance company, has declined to say anything about the tempest swirling around her, remarking only that she would be “honored” to be named a judge.

Harry Snyder, West Coast director of the Consumers Union and one of Gillespie’s critics, charged this week that Gillespie has neither the trial experience nor the judicial temperament to be appointed, and he said she “has a clear bias toward the business establishment” that would be improper in a judge.

Ray Bourhis, an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for insurance commissioner who won a judgment from a San Francisco court saying Gillespie violated state law by not prosecuting consumer complaints, is another foe.

Expressing anger that Gillespie has appealed the judgment and continues to ignore complaints, Bourhis remarked, “I think she has shown utter disregard for enforcing laws she has been responsible for enforcing . . . I know there are political payoffs, but at least those people should be minimally qualified for the post.”

Gillespie’s friends say such antipathy represents a misunderstanding. State Sen. Ed Davis (R-Valencia) contends, for example, that actually the commissioner has been quite independent, even “a little over the liberal side.”

“I’m not sure she has reflected all of the opinions of George Deukmejian,” Davis said. “I think that even though she had been employed in the insurance industry before, she bent over backwards to be fair to both sides.”

An avowed liberal judge contacted on the matter commented, “Elected officials can usually appoint who they want. Basically, the consumer leaders are opposed to her because they’re opposed to her philosophy. That’s not a good reason. If they want judges who are more consumer oriented, they’re going to have to win a gubernatorial election first.”