Legislative auditors on Monday told a legislative subcommittee they believe the judiciary's process of monitoring the conduct of judges is on the right track but should be more open to the public.
Judicial Conduct Commission representatives told the subcommittee they agree with the recommendations.
Maria Stahla, the lead auditor looking into the JCC, highlighted for members of the Audit Subcommittee of the Legislative Management Committee a report the legislative auditor general's office released Monday. The report points to three areas in which auditors feel improvement is needed.
The first is a need for more standardized procedures in the complaint process.
The JCC receives about 100 complaints per year, most of which come from civil litigants and people involved in criminal prosecutions. Most of those — 92.5 percent of civil litigants' complaints and 90.9 percent of complaints from criminal proceedings — are dismissed without any action being taken.
Far fewer complaints come from attorneys, court personnel and public officials, but more of those result in the JCC taking action. The report speculates that members of the general public, less aware of judicial standards and more personally involved in the outcomes of cases, are more inclined to file groundless complaints when they are unhappy with a ruling.
"Many times people are uneducated about where a complaint should be directed," Ruth Lybbert, JCC chairwoman, told the subcommittee in the JCC's response.
She said many of these complaints should actually be appeals that remain in the court system.
When a complaint is dismissed, the JCC usually sends out one of two kinds of form letters to the person who filed the complaint. The audit recommends more informative dismissal letters. But the JCC's response says case-specific letters sent in the past have been found to invite argument from complainants and can open the door to an appeal of the dismissal.
The audit also recommends that actions and annual reports be made available on the JCC's Web site. The JCC's response says the commission intends to add that information to the site, as well as a section answering frequently asked questions.
The report's second area of focus is the fairness and consistency of JCC actions against judges deemed guilty of judicial conduct. Those actions are called sanctions and come in varying forms, from private, informal reprimands to public reprimands to dismissals and forced retirements.
The audit suggests the JCC create standards for determining what sanction is appropriate and that written decisions spell out how the sanction is logically linked to the judicial misconduct. The JCC agreed improvement is needed.
The third primary recommendation was that the JCC involve the Supreme Court in more of its actions. This area had two recommendations for the Supreme Court and three for the JCC.
The JCC representatives said the audit has been a useful process, confirming some problems they had been working on and pointing out new ones that need attention.
The entire report is available online at www.le.state.ut.us/audit/newaudit.htm
E-MAIL: dsmeath@desnews.com