I've known Jim Narlesky, a sitting magistrate, and Bethlehem attorney Barb Hollenbach, for many years. It was no fun to tell you earlier this week that, when they circulated nomination petitions for county council candidate Deb Hunter and exec candidate Ann McHale, they violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. No matter how limited their participation, they still actively promoted candidates for branches of government that will almost certainly come before them.It indicates bias, not the best quality to look for in a judge.
As I explained in a comment to a subsequent post, "[I]t's by no means the end of the world. I agree that, compared to what was going on in Luzerne County, this is very minor. But in a race packed with excellent candidates, I would give a few points to one who followed Canon 7 and subtract a few from one who does not. I would subtract even more if the candidate is a sitting magistrate."
Yesterday afternoon, I heard from Jim Narlesky. He wanted me to know he did no door-to-door circulating, and in fact only obtained three signatures, all from his own family. I think you should know that, too. His violation is minor.
But when Jim lent his name as a circulator in a very partisan county council race, he still entered into an arena where no judicial candidate should be seen. Canon 7 requires judicial candidates to "refrain from political activity inappropriate to their judicial office." Jim's intentions were entirely honorable, but what's to stop a partisan candidate from telling potential voters that a judge supports her and even circulated a petition on her behalf?
In a race packed with highly qualified candidates, little things like this make a difference.
Look, it's bad enough that the wingnuts will try to make this a liberal vs conservative issue.
ReplyDeleteThis is about good government - if the candidates can't (or won't) observe the few rules that govern their campaign conduct, then how can we expect them to follow the tomes and tomes of rules which they must adhere to as judges?
Beltrami's dance with Chrin is but one of a long list of historical examples we could mention - judges must be chosen carefully - they are empowered to literally take over our lives should we become involved with the court system.
Judge races are the races that should NEVER be approached as beauty contests.
And, Bernie - I think the pink-sequined thong you're thinking of buying will look great on you.
DemoThug wrote:
ReplyDelete"This is about good government - if the candidates can't (or won't) observe the few rules that govern their campaign conduct, then how can we expect them to follow the tomes and tomes of rules which they must adhere to as judges?"
Have to agree. A judge surely knows campaign regulations.
Were there only three signatures on the petition? Either way it's still a violation. The review board will and should be notified. Lawyers who use the campaign retoric that they are better qualified to be a district justice, should pay attention.
ReplyDelete"Were there only three signatures on the petition?"
ReplyDeleteI agree it's still a violation that should be a factor in deciding whether to vote for someone. But I would not file a complaint. Jim explained his intentions, which seem honorable to me.
You indicate that Holenbach and Narlesky violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, Cannon 7, which applies to judges as well as judicial candidates.
ReplyDeleteYet in an earlier post you admit:
"Hollenbach could argue she technically is not a candidate until she files her nomination petition. But it seems to me that she has already compromised her judgment."
So if Hollenbach circulated McHale's nominating petition prior to filing her own, she was not a judicial candidate and therefore could not have violated the Code. I'm not sure if this is, in fact, the case, however, if it is, Hollenbach doesn't just have, in your words a "technical" argument, she plainly DID NOT violate Cannon 7 because she wasn't a candidate.
It is Narlesky who has a technical argument given that he appears to have collected a grand total of 3 signatures from family. Hardly circulating a nomination petition or asking others to sign.
In summary, Hollenbach may not have violated the Code at all, and Narlesky has what appears to be a good faith argument that he didn't circulate a nominating petition.
As more facts emerge, this appears to be less and less of a story.
I'm not when someone officially becomes a candidate. Hollenbach had not filed her nomination petition at the time she circulated McHale's nominating petition. But she had announced her candidacy and was circulating her own petition.
ReplyDeleteNarlesky is already a sitting judge so that question does not arise. he garnered only 3 signatures, all from family members, so a de minimis argument can clearly be made. But he still crossed the line.
I point these out, not bc I believe these folks should be disciplined. I know both candidates and am sure that neither would intentionally commit a violation.
I do think it shows a lapse in judgment that should be considered, along with everything else, in deciding whether to vote for them. It is very much the kind of story that should be told.
I really am turned off by their association w/ candidates for county offices. They should realize that is inappropriate for a judge or candidate to show his support for someone running for a partisan office.
(From Anon 1:29)
ReplyDeleteFair enough.
BTW, I finally got around to looking @ the Code of Judicial Conduct. Under the compliance paragraph it indicates that magisterial district judges are governed by separate standards of conduct; and are not subject to the Code. I believe Narlesky is an MDJ. Therefore, the Code and the advisory opinion in question would not apply to him.
IMO, given all of this, neither Hollenbach nor Narlesky violated the Code; and did nothing unethical.
Narlesky is governed by a code that applies to magistrates containing the same proscriptions. I do not believe their conduct rises to the level where a complaint is justified. I do believe they exercised poor judgment.
ReplyDelete(From Anon 6:07)
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me state that I respect your opinion that they exercised poor judgment (honestly). However, I still feel strongly that neither Hollenbach nor Narlesky violated Canon 7 or Formal Opinion 2000-1 of the Judicial Ethics Committee of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges (which remember is applicable only to the Code of Judicial Conduct, as the Standards of Conduct for Magisterial District Judges do not reference or provide deference to opinions from the Judicial Ethics Committee).
Opinion 2000-1 references Canon 7 and indicates that judges and candidates for judicial candidates cannot publicly endorse candidates for public office. However, the scope of the opinion is limited and makes reference only to judges (not candidates for judicial office). This is evidence by the conclusion which reads "Therefore, a majority of the Committee concludes that a judge is prohibited from signing a nomination petition." Notice that the opinion is limited to judges (ie, sitting judges of the Courts of Common Pleas). Because neither Narlesky nor Hollenbach are sitting judges on the Court of Common Pleas, their conduct is not the subject of Opinion 2000-1.
I don't intend this comment to be disrespectful of your view that they exercised poor judgment. It is merely offered as evidence that Hollenbach and Narlesky did not violate Canon 7.
I think our views are very close. Appreciate your perspective.
ReplyDeleteCuckoo.
ReplyDeleteAttorneys can do whatever they want. If they get into trouble their Judge brothers & sisters will bail them out. Time to change the system.
ReplyDeleteNarlesky and Hollenbach are clearly in violation as either a candidate or sitting District Judge. Once a candidate circulates a petition for judge he/she is a candidate and subject to the Canons.
ReplyDeleteThis has been the rule for years. Once a judge circulates a petition for himself (other than to run for a judicial office, i.e. any other office) or someone else he must immediately resign because he has engaged in prohibited political activity.
They are both in violation. The proof is in notarized statements from both of them filed with voter registration. That is not the type of evidence you can easily deny.
From what I heard, a complaint was filed on Friday with the JCB. Even if they win the election, they will never be sworn in or will subsequently be removed from office since they are both clearly in violation of the Canons.
Do you happen to know who filed this complaint?
ReplyDelete