SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 5186

BYSenators 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)

                  January 27, 1989

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON LAW & JUSTICE, JANUARY 26, 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 properly 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 make conforming changes to existing statutes to carry out the intent of SJR 8202.

SUMMARY:

The statutory provisions on the Commission on Judicial Conduct are revised comprehensively to make the system for disciplining judges more open and accountable.  The changes parallel SJR 8202, the proposed constitutional amendment.

Citizen participation is increased by adding an additional nonattorney to the membership of the commission.  Attorney representatives selected by the State Bar Association are decreased from two to one, thus shifting the balance on the commission to five nonattorneys and four attorneys.  In addition, minimum qualifications are established for the executive secretary.  Members of the commission and the executive secretary are subject to Senate confirmation.

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 for conducting a public hearing on the complaint.  All hearings subsequent to the initial proceedings are to be open to the public.  If a judge waives confidentiality, the entire file is to be open to the public.  The name of the person filing the complaint may remain confidential if requested in writing.

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.

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

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.

The commission is to be an agency of state government and not an independent agency of the judiciary.  The Legislature is to establish rules of procedure for the commission, which are to include provisions on confidentiality.

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 statute does not become effective unless the voters approve SJR 8202.  If the voters approve SJR 8202, the bill takes effect January 1, 1990.

EFFECT OF PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE:

Technical amendments are made to clarify the intent of the bill.

A specific standard is established for the commission to proceed from an initial proceeding to a public hearing.  The commission must determine if it has "sufficient reason to believe that the allegations are true and, if proven, would result in disciplinary action or retirement."

The commission is to establish rules for the commission.  The rules are to provide for due process, confidentiality, and waiver of confidentiality.  The rules are to address the privacy interests of judges and persons giving confidential information to the commission.

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

The bill 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