Opinion 184
(The rules this Opinion discusses are still in effect.)
Issue:
May an associate circuit judge serve as a member of the Executive Committee for the United Way? In that position the judge would make no solicitations for funds.
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2-3.7 provides that “a judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor to ... a ... charitable ... organization, no conducted for profit, subject to the following requirements and the other requirements of this Rule 2.”
The Commission previously opined in Opinion 115 that an associate circuit judge should not serve as division chairman of the Unite Way campaign since, at that time, the United Way campaign “has the sole purpose of soliciting funds for various charities and philanthropic organizations.” The Commission determined that such an involvement in a charity that existed solely to raise and distribute funds would be an appearance of impropriety. The Commission determined that an involvement in a charity that existed solely to raise and distribute funds would create an appearance of impropriety.
Opinion 115 was drafted in 1985 when a different canon (Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 5B) was in effect. The current rule (Supreme Court Rule 2-3.7) contains new language that explicitly authorized judges to “assist ... an organization in planning fund raising and may participate in the management and investment of the organization’s funds but shall not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund raising activities ....” Clearly, judges are not prohibited from belonging to organizations that engage in fund raising activities; they simply cannot personally engage in fund raising.
The United Way has expanded its mission beyond fund raising and now assesses community needs and priorities and changes in those needs and priorities over time. The United Way now provides leadership in developing strategic community engagement plans and community investment priorities and recommendations. Given the expansion of the United Way’s mission and the rule changes noted above, the Commission now concludes that a judge is permitted to serve on the Executive Committee of the United Way, subject to the admonition that the judge cannot personally participate in fund raising activities, and subject to the remaining provisions of Rule 2-3.7.
Prior Opinion 115 of the Commission is withdrawn.
(Dated this 30th day of April 2014.)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 184
Issue:
May an associate circuit judge serve as a member of the Executive Committee for the United Way? In that position the judge would make no solicitations for funds.
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2-3.7 provides that “a judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor to ... a ... charitable ... organization, no conducted for profit, subject to the following requirements and the other requirements of this Rule 2.”
The Commission previously opined in Opinion 115 that an associate circuit judge should not serve as division chairman of the Unite Way campaign since, at that time, the United Way campaign “has the sole purpose of soliciting funds for various charities and philanthropic organizations.” The Commission determined that such an involvement in a charity that existed solely to raise and distribute funds would be an appearance of impropriety. The Commission determined that an involvement in a charity that existed solely to raise and distribute funds would create an appearance of impropriety.
Opinion 115 was drafted in 1985 when a different canon (Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 5B) was in effect. The current rule (Supreme Court Rule 2-3.7) contains new language that explicitly authorized judges to “assist ... an organization in planning fund raising and may participate in the management and investment of the organization’s funds but shall not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund raising activities ....” Clearly, judges are not prohibited from belonging to organizations that engage in fund raising activities; they simply cannot personally engage in fund raising.
The United Way has expanded its mission beyond fund raising and now assesses community needs and priorities and changes in those needs and priorities over time. The United Way now provides leadership in developing strategic community engagement plans and community investment priorities and recommendations. Given the expansion of the United Way’s mission and the rule changes noted above, the Commission now concludes that a judge is permitted to serve on the Executive Committee of the United Way, subject to the admonition that the judge cannot personally participate in fund raising activities, and subject to the remaining provisions of Rule 2-3.7.
Prior Opinion 115 of the Commission is withdrawn.
(Dated this 30th day of April 2014.)