My name is Kristi Hood and I am here today to give you common sense ways to fix the problem currently breaking down our judiciary. I could tell you about a judge that currently has 13 active complaints languishing at the State Commission of Judicial Conduct. I could go into great detail about a judge that defamed 5 private citizens to a major metropolitan newspaper…on court stationary. I could list the 5 cases that a judge “willfully” ignored the law that the 4th court of Appeals has over turned in the last couple of year. I could name lawyers who received favorable closed doors ruling that are based on cronyism and booze. Would it surprise any of you that all of these things are true about just one Judge? Yet this judge was just reelected because the current laws keep his outrageous behavior a secret? Government ought to be all outside and no inside. . . . Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety. - Woodrow Wilson I will let others complain about judges misbehavior and how the State Commission of Judicial Conduct has failed in their duty to protect the citizens of Texas. It is not really their fault. The way the current law is written there are 3 layers that every judge gets to cushion his wrong doing before any action can be taken. The investigators at the commission. Peer Judges who sit on the Commission and then the Supreme Court of Texas. Why should Judges get more protection from legal responsibility and accountability than the average citizen? Such redundancy is time consuming and wastes tax dollars. I wish to spend my 5 minutes making pertinent and common sense suggests on how to “fix” the broken system as to how judges are held accountable for their actions. Let’s look at Article 5 of the Texas Constitution. Article 5-Section 1-a (2) of The Texas Constitution states: The State Commission on Judicial Conduct consists of thirteen (13) members, to wit: (i) one (1) Justice of a Court of Appeals; (ii) one (1) District Judge; (iii) two (2) members of the State Bar, who have respectively practiced as such for over ten (10) consecutive years next preceding their selection; (iv) five (5) citizens, at least thirty (30) years of age, not licensed to practice law nor holding any salaried public office or employment; (v) one (1) Justice of the Peace; (vi) one (1) Judge of a Municipal Court; (vii) one (1) Judge of a County Court at Law; and (viii) one (1) Judge of a Constitutional County Court; provided that no person shall be or remain a member of the Commission, who does not maintain physical residence within this State, or who shall have ceased to retain the qualifications above specified for that persons respective class of membership, and provided that a Commissioner of class (i), (ii), (iii), (vii), or (viii) may not reside or hold a judgeship in the same court of appeals district as another member of the Commission. Commissioners of classes (i), (ii), (vii), and (viii) above shall be chosen by the Supreme Court with advice and consent of the Senate, those of class (iii) by the Board of Directors of the State Bar under regulations to be prescribed by the Supreme Court with advice and consent of the Senate, those of class (iv) by appointment of the Governor with advice and consent of the Senate, and the commissioners of classes (v) and (vi) by appointment of the Supreme Court as provided by law, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Recommendation: All 13 members should be non-lawyers or judges. Citizen called in for jury duty 4 times a year. No “term” limits.” 13 average citizens elected from a public jury pool. Each quarter a hearing to be held in one following cities. 1. Austin January 2 2. Dallas April 1 3. Houston June 1 4. San Antonio. Sept 1 This would take the currant “appearance” of backroom politics out of the equation. Article 5-Section 6-a (6) A. Any Justice or Judge of the courts established by this Constitution or created by the Legislature as provided in Section 1, Article V, of this Constitution, may, subject to the other provisions hereof, be removed from office for willful or persistent violation of rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Texas, incompetence in performing the duties of the office, willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice. Recommendation: The “willful” or “Persistent” language of the law should be defined and have a limit. Is 5 validated complaint to the commission Willful or Persistent? How many times can a judge get reversed by the court of appeals for willfully not following the law? How many abuses of judicial discretion translate into Persistent? How many complaints does a the commission have to receive before a mental/substance abuse evaluation hearing is held? After I had been confirmed as federal Information Commissioner, I met with the former Commissioner, John Grace, to get his advice. One thing he said struck me in particular; he said that in his seven years as Privacy Commissioner and eight years as Information Commissioner (a total of 15 years spent reviewing the records which government wanted to withhold from Canadians) he hadnt seen a really good secret. My experience is much the same over the first year of my term. For the most part, officials love secrecy because it is a tool of power and control, not because the information they hold is particularly sensitive by nature. - John Reid, 1999 Article 5 section 8 On the filing of a sworn complaint charging a person holding such office with willful or persistent violation of rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Texas, incompetence in performing the duties of the office, willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or willful and persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit on the judiciary or on the administration of justice, the Commission, after giving the person notice and an opportunity to appear and be heard before the Commission, may recommend to the Supreme Court the suspension of such person from office. The Supreme Court, after considering the record of such appearance and the recommendation of the Commission, may suspend the person from office with or without pay, pending final disposition of the charge. Recommendation: The citizen based commission, after considering the record of the Judge in question may suspend and/or remove the judge in question. The fate of such Judges should be left in the hands of those who elected these judges to office. Not their peers -other judges. Peer review never has worked. Especially with lawyers. After such investigation as it deems necessary, the Commission may in its discretion issue a private or public admonition, warning, reprimand, or requirement that the person obtain additional training or education Recommendation: All disciplinary actions should be public. No more “private admonition, warning or reprimand. Private sanctions are a violation of the mission statement as well as a disservice to the voting public. How are the citizens…the voters…to make educated decisions on which judge to reelect to office if they do not know who has been substituting their will for the law, abusing their authority or is incompetent in their job? What incentive does a judge have to modify their behavior if any disciplinary letter or action is kept secret? How does that help keep them from willfully ignoring the law over and over again? Without publicity, no good is permanent; under the auspices of publicity, no evil can continue. - Jeremy Bentham, 1768 If, after formal hearing, or after considering the record and report of a Master, the Commission finds good cause therefor, it shall issue an order of public admonition, warning, reprimand, censure, or requirement that the person holding an office or position specified in Subsection (6) of this Section obtain additional training or education, or it shall recommend to a review tribunal the removal or retirement, as the case may be, of the person and shall thereupon file with the tribunal the entire record before the Commission. Article 5 Section 9: A tribunal to review the Commissions recommendation for the removal or retirement of a person holding an office or position specified in Subsection (6) of this Section is composed of seven (7) Justices or Judges of the Courts of Appeals who are selected by lot by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Each Court of Appeals shall designate one of its members for inclusion in the list from which the selection is made. Service on the tribunal shall be considered part of the official duties of a judge, and no additional compensation may be paid for such service. The review tribunal shall review the record of the proceedings on the law and facts and in its discretion may, for good cause shown, permit the introduction of additional evidence. Within 90 days after the date on which the record is filed with the review tribunal, it shall order public censure, retirement or removal, as it finds just and proper, or wholly reject the recommendation. A Justice, Judge, Master, or Magistrate may appeal a decision of the review tribunal to the Supreme Court under the substantial evidence rule. Upon an order for involuntary retirement for disability or an order for removal, the office in question shall become vacant. The review tribunal, in an order for involuntary retirement for disability or an order for removal, may prohibit such person from holding judicial office in the future. Recommendation: A tribunal of peer judges is redundant and unnecessary and is an expense of both court time and state money. All laws evolved from common sense. Unless you believe that the average citizen can not tell right from wrong there should be no need for a tribunal of judges to weigh the technical minutia. Judges come into these hearing with a bias. Each one of them can image themselves on the docket…and the next fund raiser. Article 5 Section 10 States: All papers filed with and proceedings before the Commission or a Master shall be confidential, unless otherwise provided by law, and the filing of papers with, and the giving of testimony before the Commission or a Master shall be privileged, unless otherwise provided by law. However, the Commission may issue a public statement through its executive director or its Chairman at any time during any of its proceedings under this Section when sources other than the Commission cause notoriety concerning a Judge or the Commission itself and the Commission determines that the best interests of a Judge or of the public will be served by issuing the statement. Recommendation: Redacted documents must be available to the public as provided under the Freedom of Information Act. As it stands now, The Texas Constitution is in violation of federal law. The State Commission Of Judicial Conduct is a target for any publicity hungry civil rights attorney. Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity. - Lord Acton Article 5 Section 11 The Supreme Court shall by rule provide for the procedure before the Commission, Masters, review tribunal, and the Supreme Court. Such rule shall provide the right of discovery of evidence to a Justice, Judge, Master, or Magistrate after formal proceedings are instituted and shall afford to any person holding an office or position specified in Subsection (6) of this Section, against whom a proceeding is instituted to cause his retirement or removal, due process of law for the procedure before the Commission, Masters, review tribunal, and the Supreme Court in the same manner that any person whose property rights are in jeopardy in an adjudicatory proceeding is entitled to due process of law, regardless of whether or not the interest of the person holding an office or position specified in Subsection (6) of this Section in remaining in active status is considered to be a right or a privilege. Due process shall include the right to notice, counsel, hearing, confrontation of his accusers, and all such other incidents of due process as are ordinarily available in proceedings whether or not misfeasance is charged, upon proof of which a penalty may be imposed. Recommendation: The “all citizen jury” must replace all reference to adjudication by the “Supreme Court” In summation. Reduce redundancy to save court time and taxpayer dollars. Establish limits to the vague terms “willful” and “Persistent.” Take all the actions preformed by the commission out of secrecy and into the light of public scrutiny. Give the commission the strength act as a true watch dog of the judiciary in the state of Texas. We need to raise funds to hire a civil right attorney....and I know just who to get. If you are with me...like this and give me ideas! Anything less than total transparency of our elected officials is un-American. Kristi Hood A basic tenet of a healthy democracy is open dialogue and transparency. Peter Fenn
Posted on: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:00:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015