THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, January 21, 1997 TAG: 9701210205
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: 75 lines
Virginia's most secretive agency the one that investigates misconduct complaints against judges - would be partly opened to the public by new legislation in Richmond.
Bills introduced Friday in the General Assembly by 41 Democrats and Republicans would strip much of the secrecy from the state Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.
New laws would open the agency's paper records to the public, but would keep misconduct hearings behind closed doors.
Virtually all of the commission's work has been confidential since the agency was created 26 years ago. Only six cases have been officially opened to the public since then.
Now two state legislators - Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach) and Del. C. Richard Cranwell (D-Roanoke) - have filed almost-identical bills to open up the process.
First, a constitutional amendment would remove the requirement that all commission proceedings be confidential. The chief sponsors are Stolle in the Senate and Cranwell in the House of Delegates.
The legislature must approve the amendment two years in a row, then it must be ratified by voters, before it can become law. It could be on the ballot as early as fall 1998 if it is passed by the General Assembly.
Second, two bills would change state law to make the commission's paper records public, to require that a final, public report be issued for each complaint - founded or unfounded - and to require an annual report summarizing the number and types of complaints to the commission and their results. Again, the chief sponsors are Stolle and Cranwell.
Also, Cranwell's bill would require that the agency give lawmakers any evidence it has of judges' misconduct. This would help legislators when judges come up for reappointment.
The bills are co-sponsored by a long list of delegates and senators from both parties - 20 Republicans and 21 Democrats.
Among the co-sponsors are 12 from South Hampton Roads: Sens. Stolle, Mark Earley and Frederick Quayle, and Dels. Glenn Croshaw, Thelma Drake, Robert McDonnell, Kenneth Melvin, William Moore, Thomas Moss, Harry Purkey, Robert Tata and Leo Wardrup.
``It's a bill whose time has come right now,'' Stolle said Monday. ``There's no reason why any of this information should be kept confidential.''
Said Moore (D-Portsmouth), ``This is a first step. I think the process needs to be much more open than it is.''
Among the co-sponsors are two whose support could be crucial: House Speaker Thomas Moss (D-Norfolk) and Del. James Almand (D-Arlington), chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee.
In October, Moss said he did not support efforts to change the judicial commission system. It is not known why he changed his mind. He could not be reached for comment Monday.
Two recent cases of judges investigated in Hampton Roads have helped push the reform effort.
One involved Judge Luther C. Edmonds of Norfolk Circuit Court. He resigned in September while the commission was investigating charges of conflict of interest.
Because Edmonds resigned in mid-investigation, the commission could not issue a public statement or report on his case. Edmonds said he resigned because fellow judges in Norfolk were against him, but state Del. William Robinson said Edmonds resigned because there was evidence of wrongdoing.
The commission cannot confirm or deny either man's version of events. It is required to keep all investigations confidential. The proposed new laws would let the commission issue final reports that would be available to the public.
The second case involved Judge Robert E. Gillette of Suffolk. The commission investigated a complaint against Gillette last year and cleared him of wrongdoing.
Critics have said that the complaint against Gillette was not investigated fully. He was accused of sending threatening letters to a former law client to collect a disputed debt. Again, the commission could not confirm or deny reports of its investigation because the details are confidential.
The reform bills are pending in the House and Senate courts committees. No hearings are yet scheduled.
KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSED BILLS