Prop. 190--a Needed Light : Measure would lift secrecy from judges’ disciplinary hearings

The state Commission on Judicial Performance wants San Diego County Superior Court Judge G. Dennis Adams removed from office by the California Supreme Court for what it calls willful misconduct that has brought the judicial office into disrepute. Specifically the commission found that Adams failed to disclose that he accepted gifts from litigants, that he failed to recuse himself from cases involving law firms that had given him gifts and that he gave misleading answers to questions from the commission. Adams, while expressing regret for some past actions, says he doesn’t think his conduct warrants removal from office. That’s something the Supreme Court will now decide.

What voters will be asked to decide in November is whether there should be a change in the peculiar and grievously flawed practice that now allows proceedings against a judge to be secret. Allegations against Adams were heard over 17 days last November by a special panel of three judges, in closed hearings as usual. The panel’s recommendations went to the eight-member commission in late April, again without public knowledge. The commission considered arguments from Adams’ lawyers and rejected the special panel’s finding that Adams’ conduct had been simply negligent, once more in secret proceedings. This is not the way public business in an open society should be conducted.

The Legislature agrees. With only a single dissent, both houses have approved a constitutional measure requiring that, once formal charges have been filed against a judge, all papers and proceedings in the case must be open to the public. The aim is to remove from disciplinary proceedings the coziness that secrecy encourages; confidentiality is one thing, possible cover-up is something else. The constitutional amendment will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 190. We strongly recommend its passage.