A Review of the Judicial Conduct Commission - Utah State Legislature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

State of UtahJUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONColin R. WinchesterExecutive Director645 South 200 East #104Salt Lake City, Utah 84111Telephone: (801) 533-3200Facsimile: (801) 533-3208November 6, 2002Wayne L. Welsh, CPAUtah Legislative Auditor General130 State CapitolSalt Lake City, Utah 84114Dear Mr. Welsh:Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the ExposureDraft of “A Review of the Judicial Conduct Commission.” During the last several days, Ihave taken the opportunity to discuss the Exposure Draft with members of your staff,and have suggested a few minor amendments, all of which your staff members havebeen happy to address. They have also incorporated minor changes at the request andrecommendation of JCC Chair Ruth Lybbert, who met with them last week. This letteris therefore limited to a substantive response to the two recommendations contained inthe Exposure Draft.As for the confidentiality of JCC proceedings, I encourage the Legislature tothoroughly study the issue, and to make well-reasoned decisions in that regard. I amnot opposed to opening the process to the public at an earlier stage, but I do not believethat the main reason for doing so should be that other states do. The Utah SupremeCourt, in In re Worthen, 926 P.2d 853 (Utah 1996), listed five factors supportingconfidentiality in judicial conduct proceedings. They are: (i) protect complainants andwitnesses from retribution or harassment; (ii) protect innocent judges wrongfullyaccused; (iii) maintain confidence in the judicial system by avoiding prematuredisclosure of alleged misconduct; (iv) encourage retirement in place of formal hearings;and (v) protect commission members from outside pressures. These factors have meritstill, and should not be hastily abandoned merely to conform to the practices of otherstates.
Wayne L. Welsh, CPANovember 6, 2002Page TwoAs for access to the JCC’s confidential files by the Legislative Auditor, the JCCfelt that it could not provide access to the files under the current statutory schemeabsent Supreme Court authorization. That position was not taken in an obstructionistmanner, but rather, in an effort to comply with existing law. As you know, the JCC hasrequested permission to provide access to the files from the Supreme Court. Althoughthe issue is still pending, it may well be resolved during the next few weeks.Because the JCC only meets once a month, several JCC members have not hadan opportunity to review the Exposure Draft. This response is my response. It hasneither been reviewed by, nor approved by, the JCC, and it may not necessarily reflectthe views of Commission members. They will have the opportunity to discuss theExposure Draft and this response at their next meeting on November 12, 2002. Youand your staff are, of course, invited to attend and participate in that discussion.If you have further questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me.Thank you again.Sincerely,Colin R. WinchesterExecutive Director
Page 1 and 2: Office of theLEGISLATIVE AUDITOR GE
Page 3 and 4: the consistency of sanctions, the t
Page 5 and 6: officers for high crimes, misdemean
Page 7 and 8: The Judicial Conference can refer a
Page 9 and 10: complaints filed against judges pri
Page 11 and 12: Figure 3 shows that since 1996, the
Page 13 and 14: forward more complaints than is don
Page 15 and 16: Worthen.” The court further reque
Page 17 and 18: formal charges to also decide wheth
Page 19 and 20: commission members wrote a dissenti
Page 21 and 22: to the Utah Code 78-8-102 and four
Page 23 and 24: The Legislaturecannot set properpro
Page 25 and 26: AppendicesOffice of the Utah Legisl
Page 27: Agency ResponseOffice of the Utah L
Page 31: Appendix C• House Bill 285, 2000

A Review of the Judicial Conduct Commission - Utah State Legislature

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?