Rhode Islanders may not be surprised to hear that in many states, judges can expect to receive severe discipline for any of the categories of misconduct such as has been alleged of our traffic court judges. Yet, in Rhode Island, after nearly one year investigating the complaints filed against six traffic court judges, the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline has dismissed those against four of the judges. Robert P. Arruda, chair of Operation Clean Government (OCG), states that "Given the nature of the charges and the evidence made public by a series of investigative reports by the Providence Journal, the dismissal of the charges against four of the judges seems inexplicable." Arruda goes on to say, "And, once again, the outcome suggests that there is no accountability in Rhode Island government."
The Journal series outlined convincing documentation of endemic mismanagement and corruption at the traffic court. This spurred Operation Clean Government and others to file complaints against the traffic court judges with the Rhode Island Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline. Among the allegations substantiated in the Journal series were excessive absenteeism and neglect of duties, incompetent patronage appointments, chronic case backlogs, millions of dollars in missing fines, inadequate or non-existent record-keeping and financial controls, arbitrary and unfair treatment of motorists, disregard of due process standards and procedures, and personal conduct bringing the judicial office disrepute.
Rhode Island's Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline functions in the same way as its counterparts in the other forty-nine states. All fifty state commissions apply nearly identical rules of judicial ethics modeled on a code drafted by the American Bar Association.
In recent years, Maine, Vermont, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin disciplined judges for excessive delays in processing cases, finding that such neglect violates the ethical requirement that judges should carry out their administrative duties promptly and fairly. Punishments ranged from public admonishment to suspension. (American Judicature Society Judicial Conduct reporter, Vol. 19. No. 4- Vol. 20. No.1, Winter-Spring, 1998). William H. Clay, OCG board member asks "How many thousands of Rhode Island citizens have missed days of work waiting for their cases to be heard or have been deprived of their right to drive for lengthy periods because our traffic court judges failed to put in a full day on the job?"
Commissions in California, Kentucky and Missouri have removed judges. Minnesota, New York and West Virginia have disciplined them for arriving late or leaving work early, and for inconveniencing litigants and leaving paperwork undone after all their court cases were heard.
Judges in Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Michigan, North Dakota, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, and New York have been removed from office for failing to keep or make sure their subordinates kept proper case records and/or records of fines and fees paid into court. ("Removal or Discipline of State Judges for Neglect Of, Or Failure to Perform Judicial Duties," 87 ALR4th 727.) There is no such accountability in Rhode Island. Our traffic court judges and court personnel cannot account for thirty-six million dollars in traffic fines, and their poor record keeping has caused untold numbers of citizens to be charged repeatedly for fines already paid.
To protect their independence, Rhode Island's judges have traditionally been insulated from the forces that work to regulate the performance and conduct of elected officials and non-elected public employees. The elected officials can be voted out of office and public employees can be disciplined or fired. In contrast, our state judges have life tenure and can only be disciplined for abuses or incompetence by the cumbersome process of impeachment or by the Supreme Court on the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline. Impeachment, which can only result in removal, is a severe, cumbersome and costly process, and therefore is rarely invoked. The Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline is, for all practical purposes, the only body with the authority to regulate the conduct of our judges. This commission is made up of 14 individuals all of whom are lawyers. The investigative process is conducted in total secrecy. And if a complaint is found to be substantiated, the commission may decide whether to mete out a private reprimand, or to recommend to the Supreme Court a public remedy ranging from censure to suspension or removal from office. The Supreme Court ultimately decides whether a commission recommendation of public sanction will be carried out.
The resolution of the complaints against the remaining two traffic court judges, including the chief judge, has not yet been made public. Perhaps there is still time for someone to be held accountable for the traffic court mess before the Legislature creates a new Traffic Court, but with the same old faces.
Operation Clean Government holds accountable those whom the citizenry entrust with the stewardship of their state government. Transparency in government and the citizen's access to their government are essential to a healthy democracy. OCG advocates strong democratic laws and institutions that instill public confidence that common policies are fairly debated and decided on the merits, and that common resources are used responsibly.
The next monthly meeting of the OCG Board of Directors is
Warning: main(./includes/bod_Next_Meeting_Date.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/ocg/ocgri-www/includes/bod.php on line 4
Warning: main(./includes/bod_Next_Meeting_Date.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/ocg/ocgri-www/includes/bod.php on line 4
Fatal error: main(): Failed opening required './includes/bod_Next_Meeting_Date.txt' (include_path='./:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/ocg/ocgri-www/includes/bod.php on line 4