Luzerne County Judges

January 15, 2010

JCB lists complaint procedure

Action prompted by criticisms of way it handled complaints against 2 county judges.

By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter   |   Terrie Morgan-Besecker on Facebook   |   @TLTerrieMorgan on Twitter

HARRISBURG – The state’s Judicial Conduct Board, which came under fire for its handling of complaints against two former Luzerne County judges accused of corruption, has drawn up written procedures for handling complaints, largely in response to the criticism.

Paul Titus of Pittsburgh, an attorney representing the JCB, said the board previously operated under an unwritten, informal procedure. “They sort of had protocols they followed, but they never had a set of internal operating procedures,” Titus said.

The board was prompted to act, in part, by criticisms of the way it handled anonymous complaints that were filed against former judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella in the years before the men were arrested on corruption charges.

During hearings by the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice – formed by the state Legislature to figure out what happened with the two judges and how a recurrence can be prevented – JCB officials said the board had an anonymous complaint accusing former Judge Conahan of wrongdoing for nearly two years before it turned it over to federal authorities for a criminal investigation.

Members of the JCB who testified before the commission said the board felt it had put too much authority in the hands of its staff in deciding how complaints should be handled. One of the key goals of the new operating procedures is to ensure the board is more involved in evaluating complaints at every step of the investigative process, Titus said.

“Frankly, what happened in Luzerne County is what made them push this along quicker,” he said.

The 17-page document with two appendices details procedures in handling complaints. It explicitly requires that anonymous complaints be entered into a log and presented to the board “for review and approval in advance of either opening a file or initiating a preliminary inquiry or investigation.”

The Interbranch Commission and the JCB have crossed swords over the confidentiality of JCB records, with the latter insisting the state constitution precludes release of records and the former arguing that the JCB freely turned over records on the two judges to federal prosecutors, so it cannot invoke confidentiality regarding the commission’s request to see records.

The state Supreme Court is reviewing the matter.

Tweet	Follow @TLnews

Send Question or Remark to the Publisher