Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:48:39 PM
I am a strong believer in the volunteer system. It is a great substitute for the expenditure of taxes, and often, though not always, provides a better product than any set of government employees ever could. For something like 14 years, I was a Junior Achievement volunteer.
No one says to himself, "I think I will go down to the local homeless kitchen and see if I can ruin a pot of stew today." Even so, it happens. If it happens often enough, or the mistake is severe enough, even the most well meaning volunteer should not expect to escape criticism. Perhaps he or she will be asked not to come back. Usually such a situation is handled very quietly because the mistake impacts very few people in very small ways.
What happens if a group of volunteers who are charged with evaluating judicial performance receives a set of serious allegations about a judge's conduct in a particular lawsuit, supported by extensive documentation. If that group of volunteers determines that the judge is an "asset to the community," does that gives them the right to conceal the negative information they received from the public? If the negative information involves apparent violations of court rules, judicial ethics rules, and a failure over a multi-year period to protect a litigant from apparently intentional attorney misconduct, are those allegations serious enough that they MUST find a way to alert the public?
Our local retention commission did not think so. Their review of the judge was so glowing, so uncritical that I wrote the chairman an email:
"After reading your commission's recommendation on Judge ***, I must admit that I was quite impressed with the level of quality, dignity, and concietiousness Judge *** brings to this community. I can't see how anyone could possibly consider voting against Judge *** retention, based on your commission's findings.
It would be useful if that Judge *** had made his appearance even once in my lawsuit."
(The evaluation is on the net but I am intentionally not linking it because to do so would make it appear that this is a campaign against a judge when I intend it to be a campaign against the system.)
I don't doubt that this commission put a lot of time and thought into their decision. Like all dedicated volunteers, they took time away from their families and perhaps their jobs to meet their commission obligations. Under no circumstance would I claim that they ever intended to "mess up." I don't question their dedication. I question their judgment.