I dropped by the Voter Registration office yesterday afternoon, hoping to see who has actually filed petitions for the many municipal offices up this year. Drowning in candidates and paperwork, the office asked me if I would mind waiting a day or two before I continue my snooping. No problemo. So far, I've only seen the nomination petitions filed for Ann McHale, John Cusick, Tom Dietrich, Jane Mellert, Deb Hunter, Charles Dertinger and Peg Ferraro.As I mentioned yesterday, two judicial candidates, Jim Narlesky and Barb Hollenbach, were circulating nomination petitions on behalf of candidates for partisan political office. Although they are certainly entitled to circulate petitions for themselves, Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct bars this kind of partisan political activity for anyone else. The Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges condemns the specific practice of circulating nomination petitions.
Narlesky, a sitting magistrate who has run for judge twice before, and Hollenbach, a former judicial clerk, should both know better. This prohibition of political activity is nothing new. It is no arcane provision. It is actually standard operating procedure for court-appointed employees, which includes many courthouse workers. Any court-appointed employee engaging in partisan political activity is subject to immediate dismissal. Most will refuse to sign nomination petitions, to say nothing of circulating them. Any president judge who fails to enforce this prohibition is subject to discipline under the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board.
Partisan political activity, by the way, is defined to include "performing volunteer work in a political campaign." That obviously includes the solicitation of signatures for a nomination petition. Half of the courthouse workers could have told Narlesky and Hollenbach they were wrong.
21 comments:
Prediction: Narlesky and Hollenbach win as O'Hare continues his ooh fers in picking political winners.
What you don't get, and I feel sorry for people like you, is that this post has nothing to do with who wins and loses. Not everything is politics.
The Pa. Supreme Court has established the standards that candidates must follow. So far, it appears that Narlesky and Hollenbach have failed to live up to them. There may even be more, and I'll know that when I've examined all the nomination petitions.
Are you the final authority as to who can be on the ballot? I thought that was the voters choice, not yours. Get a life!
I am exercising my right to examine public records, something that Joe Long Democrats hate. Incidentally, they decide who is on the ballot, and do it in smoke-filled rooms at meetings to which notice is given to only a favored few.
What you hacks really resent is someone who asks questions.
We deserve ethical, qualified judges who know HOW TO READ and are committed to serving the law.
Anon 12:48 - folks who speak like you are examples of what is WRONG with Norco politics. All hot air, all the time, and a pathological lack of the stones it takes to run for office and make a difference in the lives of your neighbors.
All Bernie is doing is reporting what he has discovered by paying attention and examining.
I will go one step farther than Bernie - folks like you ARE the problem with politics and government in NORCO - endorsing folks who refuse to follow the law.
Is expecting candidates and officials to obey the law a liberal or conservative principle?
Bernie,
I was told in Lehigh County that the judicial conduct board (paraphrasing it's late) has changed the requirments for judicial employees. While judges can not sign petitions employees can. This came to me through a DJ candidate who got it from the court administrator dept.
It's hard for me to get excited if a judicial employee or even a judge sigs a nominating petition. A minority of the State Trial Judges Conference states, " A nominating petition does not contain a promise to vote for the nominee or any endorsement of the nominee." But there is a big difference between signing a nomination petition and actually going out to solicit signatures by circulating a petition. That's what two judical candidates, one of them a sitting magistrate, have done.
If (insert name here) can't follow the Code of Judicial Conduct, then they should not run for Judge on the Court of Common Pleas.
Simple. The End.
Bernie what would the remedy be in this case... Would this really affect a person that made an honest mistake? Do you think this is really a major issue even if they are both qualified candidate...I'm just trying to understand
Anon 9:06,
The ultimate remedy in this case is a complaint to the Judicial Inquiry Board, something I'm unwilling to do. I do think all judicial candidates should familiarize themselves with the ethical standards that apply to judges and follow them the moment they decide to run. I would not decide to vote against either Hollenbach or Narlesky based on this single faux pas, but it does concern me and I think the public should know. I do not consider this a trivial error. In narlesky's case, I have a tough time accepting that a sitting magistrate would do this. All these lawyers who run for magistrate claim we should vote for them bc they know the law, but Narlesky has just demonstrated he does not.
As a candidate for office, I just spent three weeks circulating petitions. During that time, I went to the house of a someone I know to get his signature, he signed, but his wife would not sign because she works for an appelate court judge. She said she thought she could sign but would not risk it. She was not sure what would constitute political activity. It is this type of error on the side of caution behavior that is expected from judicial candidates.
On the other side though, I have to ask when does a judicial candidate become a judicial candidate? I do not believe one is officially a candidate until the petitions are filed. Now that the petitions are filed, I would hope that these candidates refrain from any additional political activity.
You make a valid point. A person could argue he is not technically a candidate until he or she files. But if someone has announced his or her candidacy and is already circulating petitioons and has an active web page, it's clear to me that he or she should be following the rules that apply to candidates. And in the case of someone who is already a sitting magistrate, there is no excuse.
This is near the same allegation that got then Magistrate Hartman in trouble. who as a sitting D.J. circulated petitions on behalf of his wife. The MDJ rules are here and apply equally to sitting DJs as well as candidates for office. The JCD took the charges very seriously. How much more seriously will these allegations be taken at the State level?
I believe the JRB considers the mere announcement of ones intention to run for judicial office as being a candidate for purposes of disciplinary action.
Auditor General Jack Wagner is a Joe Long Democrat
The allegation appears to be not that these individuals violated Cannon 7, but the interpretation afforded that rule by the Conference charged w/ rendering opinions as to its scope. That may be a distinction w/o a legal difference, however, it's not as if the code of ethics itself prohibited the practice.
I think it's a stretch that candidates for judge should have a complete understanding of ALL of the intepretations of the code of ethics. Also, I don't believe that simply because an individual circulates a petition for a candidate makes that individual unable to render fair and impartial rulings in cases involving the gov't agency or office to which that candidate is elected.
Even if a sitting judge made this "mistake" I do not believe that it would amount to more than a reprimand. It certainly wouldn't warrant removal from office.
IMO, a mountain being made out of a not too large anthill.
Anon 9:27,
I think it would be a stretch to argue that signing a nomination petition violates Canon 7. But it's pretty clear that soliciting signatures by circulating a petition is a violation. Obviously, it'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.
Basically, we agree.
as a sitting magisterial district judge, there is a session at continuing education that highlights the do's and don'ts of political activity as a judge. if you weren't sleeping in class during that session, it was clearly pointed out that circulating someone else's nominating petition is clearly a no-no. if reported to the conduct board...someone could be in for a little more than a reprimand.
From what has been written by Bernie and others, Hollenbach and Narlesky clearly and seriously violated the judicial conduct rules. Has this story been sent to the MC and ET newsrooms? Why has no one stepped up to the plate and filed a complaint with the judicial conduct board? Or has someone already done this? How does one file such a complaint? Can it be anonymous?
I have filed no complaint. Anyone can file a complaint and no fee is charged. Here's a link. You do not have to identify yourself, but it is strongly recommended.
Although Hollenbach and Narlesky clearly violated Canon 7, I have no desire to cause either any unnecessary emotional distress. I believe this violation is a factor to consider in deciding whether to vote for them, but I would not take this route without talking to them first.
Narlesky and Hollenbach are clearly in violation as either candidate or sitting District Judge. Once a candidate circulates a petition for judge he/she is a candidate and subject to the Canons. This 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.
Post a Comment