Good government groups call for state to reform Judicial Conduct Commission
/
Robert Tembeckjian, the administrator of the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Half a dozen good government groups this week issued their support for a bill that would effectively boost the budget and power of the commission. Screenshot via NY State Senate, File
By Jacob Kaye
Over half a dozen good government groups this week issued their support for a bill that would effectively boost the budget and power of the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct, the oversight agency that investigates ethics complaints made against New York’s judges.
The commission recently had its budget request to Governor Kathy Hochul denied, a move the commission’s director said will affect the group’s ability to conduct investigations into complaints made against the judiciary, which have increased each year over the past several years.
In the wake of the budget boost denial, groups like Citizens Union, Reinvent Albany and Common Cause New York are calling for support of a bill from State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Charles Lavine to reform the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The bill from Hoylman-Sigal and Lavine, who chair their respective legislative body’s Judiciary Committee, would require the governor to accept budget requests from the commission without revision.
The bill, among other things, would also close what critics call a loophole in the commission’s powers. Under current law, any investigation into a complaint made against a judge by the commission is required to close once that judge retires, stifling whatever due process may have otherwise come as a result of the investigation.
Our groups support this bill because robustly funded ethics oversight agencies are the first line of defense against corruption, misconduct, and the abuse of public trust,” the groups, which also included the League of Women Voters of New York, the New York Public Interest Research Group, Scrutinize and The Sexual Harassment Working Group.
“We strongly support independent budgeting mechanisms for oversight agencies like the Commission on Judicial Conduct, because here agencies are vulnerable to political retaliation just for properly doing their job, which includes ensuring influential public officials follow the rules,” the groups added. “It is crucial that the Commission on Judicial Conduct have the funding they need to hold judges accountable.”
During a January budget hearing in Albany, the commission’s administrator, Robert Tembeckjian, called Hochul’s proposed budget for the watchdog commission disappointing, and told lawmakers that without the increased funding, the commission’s work would be put in jeopardy.
Tembeckjian originally requested the commission’s approximately $8 million budget be increased by $770,000 but was only given a $184,000 increase in Hochul’s executive budget proposal.
The administrator said that the 75 percent reduction in the fiscal request would not only affect the commission’s ability to conduct investigations, but would also make it impossible for the commission to fund its staff’s mandatory salary increases or pay for the software needed to manage its work, Tembeckjian said.
“All of the tools that we need to efficiently and effectively meet this burgeoning challenge are unaddressed in this budget,” Tembeckjian said.
The independent commission is made up of 11 members, who together receive and investigate and publicly discipline judges for engaging in ethical misconduct. Over the course of its nearly five decade history, the number of complaints it has received against judges have grown and grown – particularly in the past several years – and its staff has been depleted.
In 1978, the year the commission was cemented into the state’s constitution, the commission had 63 people working full time on its staff. To start 2024, the commission had 49 members.
“We really need to pay attention to the degree of appropriate funding that’s called for us to be able to meet this daunting and growing challenge,” Tembeckjian said. “I’m sorry to say, and I’m disappointed to say that this executive budget, this recommendation falls short.”
In 2023, the commission received 2,982 complaints, the most in its history. The year’s total, which was detailed in the commission’s annual report released earlier this month, represented a 22 percent increase from the number of complaints received in 2022, the previous record high.
With the exception of a dip in the number of complaints made in 2020 – likely related to the pandemic – the number of complaints made to the state commission have been on the rise in the past decade.
Each year, around 6 percent of those complaints lead to investigations. Of those cases, around 1 percent result in disciplinary measures.
Of the approximately 2,900 complaints the commission received in 2023, around 400 were launched into full-fledged investigations.
Following investigations from the commission, eight judges were publicly disciplined, including four who were removed from office.
Additionally, nine judges resigned and publicly agreed never to return to judicial office following the completion of the commission’s investigation.
Six judges resigned while complaints against them were pending, forcing the commission to close the complaints.
But Hoylman-Sigal and Lavine’s bill would change the loophole which critics say was employed by former Chief Judge Janet DiFiore in 2021 when she abruptly retired from office.
The bill would allow the commission’s investigations to continue until their completion, regardless if the judge is an active member of the judiciary or not.
The legislation, in addition to closing the retirement loophole and requiring the governor to accept the commission’s budget request, would require that any investigation opened into a judge be made public. Currently, the commission is not required to make any of its investigative work public unless it substantiates the allegations made against the subject of the complaint.
Additionally, the bill would require that any judge subject to investigation file a written response to the allegations and that that written response be made public as well.
Under the legislation, the commission would continue to have the power to keep complaints that don’t result in an investigation under wraps.
Commission Chair Joseph Belluck issued his support for the bill in the commission’s annual report.
“Faith in the integrity of the courts is fundamental to the rule of law,” Belluck said. “The work of the Judicial Conduct Commission promotes public confidence in a judiciary that is both independent and accountable. We believe the passage of pending legislation, which would responsibly bring a measure of transparency to our work, would also enhance public understanding of the judicial disciplinary process.”
Tembeckjian reiterated his call for more funding in the report.
“The Judicial Conduct Commission is a notable success story in government ethics enforcement,” he said. “It promotes both judicial independence and public confidence in the courts, by disciplining those judges who have engaged in misconduct, while exonerating those who have been wrongly accused.”
“Hopefully, when the final state budget is enacted later this month, our resources will be suitably matched to our ever-increasing workload,” he added.
