 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - September 5, 2003 Two Judicial Conduct Panels Continue to Co-Exist By: Dan Wise NEED TO COMPLAIN about a judge? Take your pick: you still have two boards that will hear that complaint, although the question of which board ultimately has the authority to impose discipline is an open question. The two-year-old Judicial Conduct Commission, created by statute (RSA 494-A), has sole jurisdiction over complaints about the conduct of a judge or master, according to its chair. With little fanfare late in the session, the Legislature voted to add language to the budget resolution passed in July that mandates that all complaints against judges be directed to the Judicial Conduct Commission. Donna Sytek, chair of the Commission, has fielded approximately 20 complaints since the beginning of the year, but has not voted to discipline anyone. Typically, the vast majority of complaints against judges involve their rulings and not conduct that would be subject to judicial discipline, said Sytek. Meanwhile, the 26-year-old Judicial Conduct Committee, created by Supreme Court Rule 38, continues "business as usual" and is still accepting grievances, according to executive director Anthony McManus. He said the committee, chaired by attorney Douglas Hatfield, a Hillsborough District Court special justice, has docketed 37 complaints, but has not made any disciplinary findings this year, either. The Committee was administratively separated from the NH Supreme Court two years ago. McManus, whose budget is administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts, maintains an office for the Committee in Dover and he reports only to the chair of the Committee. The Judicial Conduct Commission and the Judicial Conduct Committee were structured to follow the recommendations of a task force formed in the wake of the impeachment proceedings against members of the NH Supreme Court. Both meet on a monthly basis. McManus said staffs of the two boards occasionally communicate when there are simultaneous filings to ensure that there is no duplication of effort, but Sytek said such cooperation would not be the norm from now on. She said the Legislature’s intent is that the statutory Commission be the exclusive forum for such complaints. Sytek said it is "stupid to have a complete duplication of effort." She said both boards perform the same function, and use "basically the same" Judicial Code of Conduct as a standard. She said the Legislature deleted $100,000 in funding from the Administrative Office of the Courts to eliminate funding for the Judicial Conduct Committee, but that has apparently not resolved the situation. McManus said the Judicial Conduct Committee has an operating budget of about $106,000 (which includes a contingency fund to pay for legal fees if special counsel is hired to prosecute a case). Both McManus and Sytek said that the issue of whether one disciplinary board has sole jurisdiction probably won’t be resolved until a judge subject to discipline challenges its authority. However, for the moment, no one has made such a challenge and both judicial conduct boards say judges have cooperated with them. The Judicial Conduct Commission has a Web site at www.state.nh.us/jcc. For more information on the Judicial Conduct Committee, visit www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/judconductcomm.
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
