Opinion 166
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rules are 2-3.1 Extrajudicial Activities in General and Comment 1; 2-3.2 Appearances Before Governmental Bodies and Consultation with Governmental Officials; and 2-3.7 Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal or Civic Organizations and Activities, Subdivision (A).)
Issue:
May an Associate Circuit Judge meet with local public officials including the prosecuting attorney, sheriff, juvenile officer, school administrators and school board members to discuss problems with violence and drug usage in schools? Further, may the judge provide a written statement for use in the school board’s application for a grant of state funds to be used in creating an ‘alternate’ school pursuant to the Safe Schools Act?
Discussion:
Supreme Court rule Canon 4 provides as follows:
The issue before the Commission is whether the Judge’s community involvement in promoting safe schools and assisting in obtaining grant funds for an ‘alternative’ school is an activity “concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.” In Opinion 44, the Commission determined that a judge’s service on the Attorney General’s Steering Committee on Crime Prevention was conduct concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. Also in Opinion 121, the Commission determined that it was permissible for a judge to speak at a police officer training session to discuss problems that arise in driving while intoxicated cases and what steps police officers can take to better prepare cases before they come to court. The Commission determined that such a discussion concerned the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.
In the present case, it is the Commission’s opinion that the Judge’s involvement with community leaders to assist in the implementation of the Safe Schools Act by entering in discussions on how best to avoid school violence and drug use is an activity which concerns the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. Such conduct is, therefore permissible pursuant to Canon 4. The Judge may also make recommendations to the public or private fund-granting agencies to assist the school board in obtaining grants to finance an ‘alternate’ school. The Judge should not, however, be personally involved in other fund-raising activities on behalf of the school.
(Dated: August 20, 1996)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 166
Issue:
May an Associate Circuit Judge meet with local public officials including the prosecuting attorney, sheriff, juvenile officer, school administrators and school board members to discuss problems with violence and drug usage in schools? Further, may the judge provide a written statement for use in the school board’s application for a grant of state funds to be used in creating an ‘alternate’ school pursuant to the Safe Schools Act?
Discussion:
Supreme Court rule Canon 4 provides as follows:
A Judge May Engage in Activities to Improve the Law, the Legal System and the Administration of Justice.
A judge, subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, may engage in the following quasi-judicial activities if, in doing so, the judge does not cast doubt on the judge’s capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before the judge:
A. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.
B. A judge may appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or official on matters concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice, and the judge may otherwise consult with an executive or legislative body or official on such matters.
C. A judge may serve as a member, officer or director of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. A judge may assist such an organization in raising funds and may participate in their management and investment but should not personally participate in public fund-raising activities. The judge may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies on projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.
The issue before the Commission is whether the Judge’s community involvement in promoting safe schools and assisting in obtaining grant funds for an ‘alternative’ school is an activity “concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.” In Opinion 44, the Commission determined that a judge’s service on the Attorney General’s Steering Committee on Crime Prevention was conduct concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. Also in Opinion 121, the Commission determined that it was permissible for a judge to speak at a police officer training session to discuss problems that arise in driving while intoxicated cases and what steps police officers can take to better prepare cases before they come to court. The Commission determined that such a discussion concerned the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.
In the present case, it is the Commission’s opinion that the Judge’s involvement with community leaders to assist in the implementation of the Safe Schools Act by entering in discussions on how best to avoid school violence and drug use is an activity which concerns the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. Such conduct is, therefore permissible pursuant to Canon 4. The Judge may also make recommendations to the public or private fund-granting agencies to assist the school board in obtaining grants to finance an ‘alternate’ school. The Judge should not, however, be personally involved in other fund-raising activities on behalf of the school.
(Dated: August 20, 1996)