SENATE BILL REPORT

ESSB 5186

BYSenate Committee on Law & Justice (originally sponsored by Senators Pullen, Talmadge, McCaslin, Nelson, Thorsness and Rasmussen)

Changing provisions relating to the commission on judicial conduct.

Senate Committee on Law & Justice

Senate Hearing Date(s):January 17, 1989; January 26, 1989

Majority Report:  That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5186 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.

      Signed by Senators Pullen, Chairman; McCaslin, Vice Chairman; Madsen, Nelson, Rasmussen, Talmadge, Thorsness.

Senate Staff:Dick Armstrong (786-7460)

                  April 12, 1989

House Committe on Judiciary

AS PASSED SENATE, MARCH 9, 1989

BACKGROUND:

During the legislative interim, several hearings were held to review the procedures used by the Commission on Judicial Conduct when it investigates complaints that a judge has violated a rule of judicial conduct.  The hearings were held in response to numerous media reports of instances where the commission allegedly failed to investigate misconduct by a judge.  In addition, several persons who filed complaints with the commission testified that the commission was not responsive to their complaints and that the commission operated in a manner which was overly-protective of judges.

If the voters approve a constitutional amendment revising the operation and procedures of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, it will be necessary to pass implementing legislation.

SUMMARY:

The statutory provisions on the Commission on Judicial Conduct are revised to make the system for disciplining judges more open and accountable.

All complaints against a judge for violating a rule of judicial conduct are filed with the commission.  The commission is to conduct a confidential initial proceeding to determine if sufficient reason exists to believe that the allegations are true and, if proven, would result in disciplinary action or retirement.  All hearings subsequent to the initial proceedings are to be open to the public.

The commission can admonish, reprimand, or censure a judge without the approval of the Supreme Court.  Various criteria are established for consideration when the commission chooses the severity of a disciplinary action.  The allowable types of disciplinary action are defined.  The Supreme Court retains its existing authority to suspend, remove or retire a judge from judicial office upon recommendation of the commission.  All actions of the commission to discipline or retire a judge are to be made public.  The commission is required to notify a complainant in writing as to the final disposition of the complaint.

Members of the commission and the executive secretary are subject to Senate confirmation.  In addition, minimum qualifications are established for the executive secretary.

The commission is to establish rules for the commission.  The rules are to provide for due process and confidentiality, with due regard for waiver of confidentiality and the privacy interests of judges and witnesses.

The commission is subject to rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.  Except for disciplinary and retirement actions, the Open Public Meetings Act applies to the commission.

The commission is authorized to investigate conduct of a judge which occurred prior to 1980 when the conduct relates to a complaint filed with the commission against the judge.

If the commission recommends suspension or removal of a judge, a report must be filed with the Legislature.  The House of Representatives may consider the possibility of impeachment.

The Judicial Council is to study Article IV of the Washington Constitution (judicial article) and make recommendations on the appointment, selection and retention of judges.

The legislation is effective upon the passage of SJR 8202, the proposed constitutional amendment.

Appropriation:    none

Revenue:    none

Fiscal Note:      available

Senate Committee - Testified: Carol Hasman, Department of Youth Services of King County (pro); Walter Johnson, Citizen (pro); Paul Conrad, Allied Daily Newspapers

HOUSE AMENDMENT:

The statutory provisions relating to the Commission on Judicial Conduct are amended in accordance with the proposed constitutional amendment, ESSJR 8202.  The specifics of the disciplinary process are set forth in the constitutional amendment, not in the statute.

The explicit criteria to be considered by the commission in deciding which level of discipline to be imposed is deleted by the House amendment.

Members of the commission and its executive secretary are not subject to Senate confirmation.  The minimum qualifications of the executive secretary are deleted.

Whenever the commission recommends suspension or removal of a judge, the commission is not required to file a report with the Legislature in order for the Legislature to consider impeachment.  The Judicial Council is not required to study the judicial article of the state Constitution and to recommend possible changes regarding judicial selection.