Opinion 169
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rule is 2 2.13 Administrative Appointments.)
Issue:
Are the providers of Substance Abuse Traffic Offender Program (SATOP) covered under Canon 3B(4) and if so, how should a municipal judge distribute the appointments to SATOP providers in an equitable manner?
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3B(4) provides that a judge should not make unnecessary appointments. A judge should exercise the power of appointment only on the basis of merit, avoiding nepotism and favoritism.
Pursuant to VAMS §577.049 violations of county and municipal ordinances involving alcohol and drug related traffic offenses shall result in a referral to an alcohol or drug related traffic offender education or rehabilitation program which meet or exceeds minimum standards established by the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Mental Health. If in the opinion of the judge, multiple providers meet the minimum standards as established by VAMS §577.049, then the referrals to said providers should be reviewed in accordance with the dictates of Canon 3B(4) in the same manner as any other appointments.
(Dated: October 14, 1997)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 169
Issue:
Are the providers of Substance Abuse Traffic Offender Program (SATOP) covered under Canon 3B(4) and if so, how should a municipal judge distribute the appointments to SATOP providers in an equitable manner?
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3B(4) provides that a judge should not make unnecessary appointments. A judge should exercise the power of appointment only on the basis of merit, avoiding nepotism and favoritism.
Pursuant to VAMS §577.049 violations of county and municipal ordinances involving alcohol and drug related traffic offenses shall result in a referral to an alcohol or drug related traffic offender education or rehabilitation program which meet or exceeds minimum standards established by the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Mental Health. If in the opinion of the judge, multiple providers meet the minimum standards as established by VAMS §577.049, then the referrals to said providers should be reviewed in accordance with the dictates of Canon 3B(4) in the same manner as any other appointments.
(Dated: October 14, 1997)