cjp secrecy questioned by academic in daily journal editorial: deliberations of judicial watchdog...

7232019 CJP Secrecy Questioned by Academic in Daily Journal Editorial Deliberations of Judicial Watchdog Should Be Public hellip

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullcjp-secrecy-questioned-by-academic-in-daily-journal-editorial-deliberations 12

ClassifiedsJobsOffice Space ExpertsServices MCLE Search Logout

MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY TODAY

SEARCHBACK to search results

Tamir Sukkary is an adjunct

professor of political science at

American River College

Sacramento City College San

Joaquin Delta College and

Sierra College

Questions and Com

This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for

personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed reproduced modified stored or transferred without written permission Please click

ldquoReprintrdquo to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website

Friday May 22 2015

Deliberations of judicial watchdog

should be public

The California Commission

on Judicial Performance the states judicial watchdog

agency is made up of judges

lawyers and members of the

public They are the judges of

the judges the sole public

agents charged with

investigating magistrates

accused of judicial misconduct

Yet the commissions deliberations are conducted completely under the radar with no

public scrutiny

The CJP meets about seven times per year and receives its authority from Article 6

Section 18 of the state Constitution The commissions task is to provide oversight and

accountability over Californias 1825 judges The CJP handles complaints (primarily from litigants) regarding judicial misconduct bias and abuses of power Last year the

CJP received 1212 such complaints against judges court commissioners and

referees It chose not to take action on 1039 complaints submitted last year Thats

less than 9 percent

Its understandable the CJP would not take action on many of the complaints it

receives In numerous cases although the litigants are clearly not happy with the

judges decisions not enough evidence points to judicial misconduct In other cases

the judge made legal errors In most situations legal error is not misconduct unless it

involves bad faith bias abuse of authority disregard for fundamental rights

intentional disregard of the law or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of

judicial duty as established in the state Supreme Courts ruling in Oberholzer v CJP

20 Cal 4th 371 (1999) Unfortunately the only option for cases involving legal error is

to appeal the trial courts ruling Appeals are expensive and time-consuming

I recently sent a complaint to the CJP regarding possible judicial misconduct of the

court commissioner in a case Superior court commissioners are at-will subordinate

judicial officers appointed by and serving superior court judges Since my complaint

was about a commissioner I had to send my complaint letter completed form and

documents to the local trial court before I could send them to the CJP I received a

response from the local court well over two months after I sent in the complaint

Not satisfied with the local courts response I sent the complaint and documentation

to the CJP for independent review Shortly thereafter the CJP responded with a brief

impersonal form letter stating they chose not to take any further action in the case in

their meeting No explanation was offered

Bookmark Reprints

HOME MOBILE SITE CLASSIFIEDS EXPERTSSERVICES MCLE DIRECTORIES SEARCH PRIVACY LOGOUT

Why is the commission operating in such a secretive fashion Isnt the commission

supposed to be serving the public

While a CJP investigation may not have been warranted it seems to me the CJP

owes it to the public to briefly explain why the commission chooses not to take further

action on complaints

Subsequently I found out from my state senators office that the CJPs meetings are

neither open to the public nor subject to the California Public Records Act Brown Act or Freedom of Information Act Not even the CJP clerical staff is allowed to attend

during deliberations Why is the commission operating in such a secretive fashion

Isnt the commission supposed to be serving the public

The CJPs website states The commissions mandate is to protect the public

enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confidence in the

integrity and independence of the judicial system What inspires public confidence in

a democratic system is openness and transparency Sending off brief impersonal form

letters offering no explanation for the CJPs decisions holding private meetings and

closing off information access certainly does not inspire public trust and leaves the

average citizen wondering why the need for a secrecy more characteristic of

authoritarian regimes Surely we can and must do better than this

Tamir Sukkary is an adjunct professor of political science at American River

College Sacramento City College San Joaquin Delta College and Sierra College