Opinion: JQC needs more openness

As the agency responsible for ridding Florida of unethical and unfit judges, the Judicial Qualifications Commission has a sensitive and difficult assignment that it has carried out with varying degrees of enthusiasm since its creation 47 years ago. Overall, it has done good work. But on some occasions (notably, the early stage of a serious Supreme Court scandal) it has been suspected of coddling errant judges; on others, it has cashiered judges for offenses that hardly seemed career-ending. Most recently, its recommendation of a mere reprimand for Hillsborough Circuit Judge Robert Bonanno inspired an impeachment investigation by the House Committee on Judicial Oversight, whereupon Bonanno resigned.

However, it is difficult for the Legislature and impossible for the public to gauge just how well or poorly the JQC is doing its job. That's because complaints it decides not to pursue rarely if ever see daylight. The Constitution requires all proceedings to be confidential until the JQC finds "probable cause" to file formal charges. The governor and Legislature are entitled to information on demand, but only for use in suspension or impeachment, and not for routine oversight. That's not nearly enough transparency.

The House committee chair, Rep. Larry Crow, R-Palm Harbor, who thinks the JQC went too easy on Bonanno, proposed a constitutional amendment to do away with the semi-secrecy and open all complaints to public view. But to Crow's astonishment, only one other committee member supported him when he offered it as a committee bill Tuesday. That the JQC and the judiciary stoutly opposed the amendment was expected. That the committee would kill it without a compromise was a surprise.

Crow was more right than the JQC and the judges, who argued that such exposure would intimidate potential complainants, especially lawyers, and embarrass judges over unfounded or spiteful complaints. There's some basis to that; according to the JQC, about 450 of the 500 complaints it receives annually are from prisoners and others simply upset with the outcomes of their cases. Nonetheless, public confidence is not served when the public has to take the JQC's word that all the cases dismissed without a hearing deserved to be.

A reasonable compromise, which is still available to Crow and the committee, would be to open every file once the JQC decides whether to dismiss the complaint or find probable cause to file formal charges. This will not satisfy the JQC, which objects that it would still expose judges to embarrassment, but it would fairly serve the larger public interest. Moreover, it corresponds to the Florida law releasing police files once an investigation is concluded even if the subject was not charged. The only genuine disadvantage is that it might discourage the JQC from giving private counsel to judges over minor incidents or substance-abuse problems. But the public's rights to an honest accounting trump that concern. Crow should try again.

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright