UPDATED: NorCo Judges - Above the Law (or Lousy Journalist)?

The D-Day Bank Massacre presents this harsh, but all-too-accurate, assessment of judges.

"If anyone tries to tell you that judges are apolitical, tell them to call me. In my 26 years as a practicing lawyer, I have learned that judges are probably the most political animals in the political and legal jungle. Not all of them, of course. But many come to their positions with the same prejudices and bias that we all have from our life experience. The donning of the black robe allows them to hide behind the law while forming their own ideas of how things should be."

The author of that book is John Morganelli, who now sits on the bench himself.  In my view, many judges do more than hide behind the law. They actually exalt themselves above it. An example of this comes from President Judge Craig Dally's decision to hire a private security firm to assume the role of youth care workers at the Juvenile Justice Center. He did so without first submitting the contract to the Executive, as required by the Home Rule Charter. (Section 302 (4)).

I learned yesterday that these "temporary" workers are performing the exact same functions at the youth care workers who are there and are paid $4 per hour more. No effort has been made to reach an agreement with the AFSCME union that represents these youth care workers. On its face, this is union busting, an unfair labor practice. This could explain why the President Judge chose to ignore the express mandate of the Home Rule Charter. Human Relations would no doubt blow a whistle. Judges apparently think they can ignore our county constitution because they think they are above it. Let me give you another example. 

Under the express terms of our Home Rule Charter (Section 909). the county must provide "personnel services, supplies, facilities, and financial support to the Court and the minor judiciary," and " upon such reasonable terms and conditions as the County Council deems appropriate." The County Exec and County Council, not the Courts, are vested with the power to delineate the "procedures for purchasing goods and services ... ." (Section 901(3)). Basically, the Executive and County Council have the responsibility to make sure the court has what it needs to operate. But the court itself has no such power. 

As part of this mandate, the county has been replacing the carpeting for the judges on an annual rotating basis in each of the judges' chambers. In doing so, the county uses prequalified vendors who have been approved by the state to ensure good quality at a reasonable price. 

Apparently, this was too slow for one of the judges, who wanted his carpeting replaced now, even though he is retiring at the end of next year. So court administration went out and took it upon itself to order the carpeting at God knows what expense because it went outside the state approved vendors. What's worse, it hired outside contractors to lay the carpeting. Even worse than that, it opened up a secure side door for the contractors to come into and out of the sanctum sanctorum that is supposed to be reserved for judges and judges alone. 

This type of behavior just drips with judicial arrogance. I'd be tempted to lock the side doors to one and all, including the judges. But this happened on a Friday, when only one judge was even at the courthouse. 

Updated: 9:35 am: Before publishing this story, I should have contacted court administration. That was poor journalism on my part. This morning, Court Administrator Jermaine Greene contacted me. There is another side to this story, which I should have sought.

Greene disputes the county's claim that it is replacing judges' carpeting on an annual rotating basis. In fact, he said the last time a judge's carpeting was replaced was when John Morganelli was coronated as a judge in 2020. He said he had been requesting the county to replace the carpeting for one of the judge's chambers for the past three years. Nothing happened. So he had the carpeting replaced himself.

Greene goes on to say that he did seek three bids for the carpeting and went with the lowest bid, which was lower than the vendor who replaced the Executive's carpeting.

He also went on to tell me he has been seeking new carpeting for the jury lounge, which is where prospective jurors wait to be called into a courtroom. He indicates those requests have not been answered.

Under the Home Rule Charter, the county does have an obligation to meet the "reasonable needs" of the courts, and I'd agree that replacing a filthy carpet is reasonable.

Greene acknowledges that he did allow the contractors to enter the courthouse through a side door reserved for judges exclusively. He said that won't happen again and was a mistake on his part. 

So are the judges above the law? Or am I a lousy journalist? Perhaps a little of both.