 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - September 3, 2004 Judicial Conduct Commission Created by Statute Disbands By: Dan Wise SINCE 2002, TWO bodies —one created by the court system under court rule and one by the legislature by statute—received complaints regarding conduct by judges, masters and clerks. The legislatively created Judicial Conduct Commission, as of July 31, 2004, disbanded itself, following a June 14 ruling by the NH Supreme Court that found that the legislature’s establishment of the judicial discipline board was an unconstitutional intrusion on the power of the judicial branch to oversee the conduct of its members. In its final report on its activities, the Commission (as distinct from the court-created Judicial Conduct Committee) reported on its handling of complaints during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, and also provided overall comments on its operation during its approximately two-and-a-half year tenure. The report was written by former Speaker of the House Donna Sytek, the Commission chair, who, due to the Commission’s limited funding and light workload, also served as its unpaid executive director (the Commission did have a full-time office administrator). In the 2004 fiscal year, the commission considered 64 cases, involving 53 complaints against judges, seven against masters and seven against clerks. As has been the experience over many years with the court’s Judicial Conduct Committee, most of the complaints the legislatively created Commission received were dis missed because there was no violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct alleged or because the complaint was based on the judge’s findings and, in effect, was a substitute for appealing a case outcome. "Accusations of bias were common, and the Commission carefully reviewed all of the documentation provided by the grievant and other information acquired during the investigation before making a determination," the report said. In two cases, the Commission voted to informally resolve complaints with the consent of the judge. In one case, a district court had failed to render a small-claims case in a timely manner and the Commission found a violation of the judicial code and admonished the judge. In another case, a family division judge violated the conduct code by telephoning a creditor of a party in a divorce case. The judge acknowledged his misconduct and recused himself from further involvement. At the end of July, the commission’s office in Bow was closed. "With the permission of the grievants, complaints that were being investigated at the time of the Supreme Court decision have been transferred to the Judicial Conduct Committee for their consideration," Sytek wrote. In closing, Sytek praised the volunteers serving on the commission and graciously noted the cooperation of respondents in the judicial branch to the commission’s work. "Since our organizational meeting in September 2001, the members of the Commission have felt honored to perform the duties spelled out in our enabling statute. Even as volunteers, the members were serious about our work, carefully reviewing and evaluating each of the 104 complaints received over two and a half years. Whether the grievant submitted a single sheet or hundreds of pages of documentation, the members conscientiously sought out any evidence of misconduct. We have been gratified at the courtesy and timeliness of the responses from judges, masters and clerks. It reflects well on the judicial branch that with nearly 200 judges, masters and clerks interacting with the public in the performance of their duties every day, there were so few findings of questionable conduct, and no cases that went to formal hearing. Sytek added, "The Commission is grateful to the legislature for providing the funds for us to carry out our work and appreciative of their cooperation in modifying the statutes to ensure our efficient operation."
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
