Legislature must oversee state judiciary

Last Friday, during a snowstorm that slowed much of the state government in Hartford, a hearing went forward before the General Assembly’s Government Administration and Elections Committee. The hearing was for public comment on Senate Joint Resolution 32, "A Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the State Constitution Concerning the Practices and Procedures of the Courts." The acting chief justice of the state Supreme Court, Senior Associate Justice David M. Borden, spoke before the committee against approval of the bill, arguing that, under his leadership, the state’s courts have already taken a turn to openness, and he believes that trend will continue without such extreme action on the part of the Legislature.

Borden’s responsible steps taken on the recommendations of his judicial study commission to increase openness and accountability in the judiciary have, indeed, changed some of the ways our state courts and judges do business. He has fostered an atmosphere of sunshine where there was previously a closed, "super-sealed" culture. But there is just no guarantee that his attitude will be adopted by those who follow him.

This was made clear when the governor’s nominee for chief justice, Judge Chase Rogers, announced she would be unavailable for comment to the media until after her nomination is (or is not) approved by the Legislature. Rogers has since relented under pressure from the media, and was quoted by Borden at Friday’s hearing as saying, referring to the trend toward openness in the courts, that she "fully supports this change and direction and intends to continue it." Rogers also said she had never given a Level One super-seal to a case. So, there is some reason for hope that she will continue what Borden has begun.

However, it is legislation that can force the issue and will truly guarantee compliance with Borden’s example of openness. At Friday’s hearing there was also testimony strongly supporting the bill from Superior Court Judge Dale Radcliffe and from Chris Powell, managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester and legislative chairman of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information. To their credit, there was a positive reaction from those present on the committee, including co-chair Rep. Christopher L. Caruso, a Democrat from Bridgeport. Caruso firmly rebutted Borden’s comments, making it clear there was support for the amendment on the committee.

As of this week, the same Government Administration and Elections Committee has approved the constitutional amendment bill, sending it forward to the Judiciary Committee, where it should have a hearing sometime next month. This is a great step toward support for the constitutional amendment, which would finally encourage a system of oversight for the judiciary through the legislature, the concept of which has been supported by our state constitution all along.

Too many of the state’s current judges have operated under the closed atmosphere of unaccountability, living their professional lives in protective bubbles of secrecy. These judges need to be newly and permanently accountable to the public they serve, and this can be accomplished through the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 32, which would emphasize the legislature's rule-making power over the judiciary. It would also make it clear that the judiciary is subject to the Freedom of Information Law, as it should be.

This bill deserves a fair hearing and if it passes, deserves the signature of the governor to become law. A renewed openness in the courts is vital to the health of the democratic process in the state of Connecticut.