(C) Daily Montanan This story was originally published by Daily Montanan and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . More transparency and openness for judicial standards seems like a rare bipartisan win – Daily Montanan [1] ['More From Author', 'February', 'Darrell Ehrlick'] Date: 2023-02-23 I won’t flatter myself by believing that state Sen. Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, or any member on the Montana Senate’s judiciary committee, cares about what I write. But if they do, I feel the need to warn them that they may want to sit down for what follows. A legislative hearing that many in the press corps thought could be an out-and-out circus was instead a thoughtful discussion about judicial transparency. It was a welcome break from the political theater of discussing drag queens, strippers, the misunderstood legacy of European explorers, and adultery. Regier, who has been a frequent and outspoken critic of Montana’s judiciary, introduced two pieces of legislation last Friday aimed at reminding the judiciary that conservative lawmakers are still displeased with what they see as a liberal bench that legislates instead of adjudicates. Republicans’ distrust is misplaced and wrong-headed – I’ve covered courts, attorneys and judges in seven different states, and I’m here to tell anyone: Montana has no idea how lucky it is to have the most capable bench I’ve seen, period. But Regier’s bill aimed at transparency in the judicial complaint and discipline process is a good piece of legislation that simply seeks to hold the judicial branch to some of the same standards as other public officials. I would suggest that in addition to Regier’s Senate Bill 313, he may also want to consider championing legislation that would make members of the legislature subject to the state’s ethics policies, too (but that is a topic for another column). Regier’s approach on Friday, as the sponsor of the bill, showed a true and good-faith attempt at working with the Montana Judges Association to find a framework that may make all parties happy. He was open with give-and-take, and so was judges’ association lobbyist Bruce Spencer, himself a veteran of legislative politics. Regier’s concerns are legitimate: In a state that has some of the most far-reaching public openness and transparency laws in the nation, the judicial standards and discipline has always been opaque. Those of us always prying and trying for information are told it’s in order to protect the hallowed tradition of protecting the court from politicization or privacy, but in the days of nothing but politics and social media, that idea sounds naïve. To me, it’s always felt more like a certain amount of judges covering for other black-robed jurists. On the rare occasions when a judge has been reprimanded, for example the case of G.Todd Baugh in the Stacey Rambold case. When he suggested that Rambold might be granted some latitude because the student Rambold raped “looked older than her chronological age,” the commission was forced to publicly rebuke such a shockingly misguided statement, and suspend Baugh. But when judges screw up, we don’t often hear much about it. Or at least we think we don’t. Honestly, we don’t know – and that’s the problem. Montana public officials are subjected to a lot of transparency, in most cases. Judges have consistently sided with the public and the media, upholding the right to know on an array of issues, especially those dealing with public trust and money. And I cannot think of another field that has more public trust than judges. Moreover, we often subject teachers or police officers’ work and their conduct to public scrutiny, and rightfully so because of the extreme level of trust we put in them. The same must necessarily be true for judges. And so in cases where their transparency or actions are called into question, the public should at least be able to stick around for the answer. I understand the concerns that opponents of the bills brought up regarding mental health, substance abuse or physical issues. But in a state that has figured out how to address those issues in other arenas, this seems like a problem to be solved, not an insurmountable hurdle. I also understand that many complaints are filed as retaliation for an outcome one party doesn’t like. I understand that filing those complaints costs a resident nothing more than the time it takes to put a rant to paper. I also realize that calling a judge a bunch of names has a tarnishing effect on their reputation. Once again, though, there are other agencies that have figured this out, including those that release disciplinary reports of employees after the agency finds cause or metes out disciplinary sanctions. We do need to know what kind of complaints Montana residents have about their courts in order to have confidence in them. We do need to know if certain judges have recurring problems, especially when it comes time for voters to decide whether to retain those judges. And, we need to be assured that discipline, when it’s appropriate, doesn’t disappear into some hole as dark as the robes judges wear. In a year that has served up plenty of political theater, Montana had an unexpected fit of true legislation. [END] --- [1] Url: https://dailymontanan.com/2023/02/23/more-transparency-and-openness-for-judicial-standards-seems-like-a-rare-bipartisan-win/ Published and (C) by Daily Montanan Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/montanan/