NYCivic - Don't Buy the Bridge, Buy the Bench

DON'T BUY THE BRIDGE, BUY THE BENCH
By Henry J. Stern
July 1, 2003

The scandal in the Brooklyn judiciary, which I first discussed in "The Road to the Robe," (October 3, 2002) has received increasing attention from mainstream media as District Attorney Charles (Joe) Hynes' investigation proceeds. Yesterday, the Times' Leslie Eaton's story, "Behind a Troubled Bench, an Arcane Way of Picking Judges," was the lede on B1 with a substantial jump to B9. The Daily News, which has pursued the subject for a year and a half in a series entitled "Judging the Judges," devoted its entire editorial column Monday to "Norman Schemes While B'klyn Burns," which I assume is a Neronian reference. In the Sun, Jack Newfield, who has been taking on corrupt judges for many years in various publications, wrote a column that began on page one, 'Regime Change' Should Be Goal of Judge Probe. The heat is definitely on.

Let no one believe that, in other counties, the judicial selection process is pristine. The egregious greed of the Brooklyn machine, which may have resulted in some judges committing extortion to recover the money they paid to buy their nominations, plus the nepotism involved in three Garsons in robes, has put Clarence Norman and his associates in an unwelcome spotlight. But political insiders know that similar practices take place elsewhere. At best, favoritism and loyalty are the principal qualifications for judicial selection or promotion; at worst cash is the major part of the transaction. In addition, the boss who made the judge, and could break the judge for renomination, has inordinate influence when he, or one of his cronies, makes an 'inquiry' with regard to the disposition of a pending case. It is simply a rotten system, whether or not cash is passed or the quid pro quo is hiring dubious consultants to do unnecessary or minimal work, or sometimes no work at all.

There are three possible solutions to this problem. The best is probably appointment of judges by the Governor or the Mayor, with judicial screening committees whose approval would be a prerequisite to selection for the bench.   Second best is direct election of judges on a nonpartisan basis, since the administration of justice is one area in which, almost by definition, political partnership should not be an element. The third choice is the election of judges in direct primaries. All three are far better than our current farcical system of 'judicial conventions', where the public votes for an unknown slate of delegates who will then do the county leader's bidding usually unanimously at a convention, because all the players are part and parcel of the same self-serving set of politicos and wannabes.

Historically, United States Senators have been elected directly by the people since 1913 (Before the adoption of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, they were chosen by State Legislatures.) On a far lower level, district leaders of political parties in New York City were chosen by unknown county committee members until Carmine DeSapio, under pressure from reformers, established direct election in the late 1950's. It was under the new system that Edward I. Koch defeated DeSapio for the Greenwich Village district leadership in 1963, (rerun in 1964) and 1965. Civil Court judges in New York City are also chosen in direct primaries. The Civil Court decides less important cases than the Supreme Court, which despite its imposing name, is also a trial court in New York State. Criminal Court and Family Court judges are appointed by the Mayor, on recommendation of a judicial screening panel. Court of Claims judges are appointed by the Governor.

Apart from the Electoral College, the judicial convention is the last surviving relic of indirect selection of public officials. The complex process obscures issues and candidates, provides a dark, secluded place for machinations of various sorts, enhances the power and influence of party officials at the expense of voters, and provides a rich, nutrient stew where the elements of corruption can be commingled and nourished. The three witches who appear in Macbeth could not have conceived of a better concoction than the convocation called a Brooklyn judicial convention.

While both city and state budgets face statutory deadlines, the Brooklyn investigation, we are told, is open-ended. Time estimates by public officials tend to be optimistic. Both construction projects and investigations usually take more time than planned as new evidence is uncovered and fresh leads are followed up. The only date certain in this is the end of Hynes' seventh term, December 31, 2005. The Democratic primary is likely to be held in June 2005, which provides a two-year time frame to complete the inquiry and prosecute those who cannot account for money they received, or who took money they should not have been given, or who obstructed or sold justice, among other crimes. And be sure to check on whether these characters paid income taxes, and how much.

     The involvement of Mark Green with these scoundrels is particularly ironic: the author of "Selling Out" felt obliged to spend a lot of money buying in to the Brooklyn Democracy, and the former Commissioner of Consumer Affairs did not receive anything like fair value for his $245,000 investment. This is not meant to chastise Green, he was simply following the rules of engagement (although he, as is often asserted, may not have known the particulars of these matters; crass transactions generally being handled by aides to both protagonists). That recalls Parks Rule 20: That's why God made staff.

One thing of which we can be certain is that we have not heard the last of this matter. Investigations take on a life of their own. Remember Watergate and Whitewater. Any suggestions for a name for this one? We close with Rule 11: Let it unfold.

MACHINE POLITICS, SLIMEMEISTER,

AND WHAT TO WEAR ON THE BENCH
By Henry J. Stern
July 2, 2003

Yesterday's column on the Brooklyn judiciary, "Don't Buy the Bridge, Buy the Bench," closed with the words: "Let it unfold."

In the process of unfolding, three items appeared in print today which you might want to read or save.

* The Daily News, editorial, page 32, "Time to Unplug Machine Politics."
* The Village Voice, Tom Robbins' article, page 26, "The Judge in the Purple Plastic Gloves."
* The New York Observer, editorial, page 4, "Clarence Norman: Newest Slimemeister On the Block."

We invite any public official, party official, or local bar association which has an opinion or position on the subject of judicial selection in general or the Kings County situation in particular to send us their views. We are aware that public officials send out press releases on many issues. We are interested in how they feel about this one, which is most important to the administration of justice. We will promptly pass their statements along to you.