Judicial Ethics Reform Bills May Be Merged

Faced with an Aug. 15 deadline, key state legislators are trying to merge two similar bills designed to reform the state’s heavily criticized judicial discipline system.

The measures already have won overwhelming passage in the Assembly (78-0) and the Senate (39-0). But because the bills propose to amend the state Constitution, they have to be approved in a general election.

The goal in coming weeks is to consolidate the bills into one measure and get it on the November ballot. To do this, the bill would have “to zoom rapidly” through the Legislature, said Cary Rudman, legislative aide to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), sponsor of one of the bills.

Rudman and Chris Janzen, an aide to Sen. Alfred Alquist (D-San Jose), author of the other bill, predicted that it could be done after the Legislature reconvenes Aug. 8.

The bills are designed to dramatically change the operations of the Commission on Judicial Performance, the bench’s beleaguered disciplinary arm. The bills would require that all proceedings against a judge be public after the commission completes a preliminary investigation and files formal charges.

The measures also would end the judges’ dominance on the commission by adding more public members to form a majority on the panel.

The key difference between the two bills is that Alquist’s measure would take from the California Judges Assn. the power it now has to set rules of ethics for the state’s judges. That power would be given to the California Supreme Court.

“The rules always have been made in California by a trade association,” Janzen said. “In 48 other states, the state Supreme Court does it and we want to be the 49th.”

The judges association contends the change is unnecessary. But Janzen and others have emphasized that in California, the judges weakened the American Bar Assn.’s model rules for judges by constantly changing the word shall to the word should .

If the Legislature is unable to finish work on the bills by mid-August, the proposed constitutional amendments could not be placed on the ballot until the next general election, currently scheduled to be the March, 1996, presidential primary, Rudman said.

The pending bills were amended at the request of John Plotz, a veteran commission attorney who was placed on administrative leave last month after he spoke with one of the panel’s leading critics.

Plotz successfully urged legislators to add a section to the bills providing greater employment protection for whistle-blowers on the commission staff.

Plotz was placed on administrative leave June 16, six days after he sent state legislators documents revealing that commission Executive Director Victoria B. Henley had threatened to fire him because he refused to provide a detailed description of discussions he had with Peter Keane, chief deputy public defender of San Francisco.

Keane, a member of the State Bar Board of Governors, wrote the reform legislation for Speaker Brown and has spoken out frequently against the commission, contending that it treats judges too leniently and does too much of its work in secret.

Plotz, 44, refused to answer Henley’s questions about off-duty conversations he had with Keane, his longtime friend. Plotz cited his constitutional right to privacy and said he divulged no confidential commission information to Keane.

Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento), chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and other legislators criticized the commission for placing Plotz on leave.

Plotz and Henley confirmed that he had returned to active status at the commission, but declined to comment further.