Half steps
Reform in regards to state government in Pennsylvania always seems to be slow and accompanied by a lot of back steps.
Take the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Last January, the court approved a new Code of Judicial Conduct that among other items forbids nepotism, ordering that in making administrative appointments and hiring decisions a judge should be impartial, base hiring on merit and avoid nepotism, favoritism and unnecessary appointments.
“For courts in Western democracies to effectively render independent and impartial decisions, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial system and its judges is essential,” Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille said. “The Code of Judicial Conduct is designed to foster that confidence by assisting judges in their adherence to the highest judicial and personal conduct standards. It also establishes a basis for disciplinary agencies to regulate judges’ conduct.”
The new code came as a result of recommendations from a work group established in 2011 by the state’s Supreme Court to recommend proposed revisions to the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct. The group, which included judges, lawyers and academicians, reviewed the 2007 American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct and codes from other states in making its recommendations.
The change was hailed by many at the time as a sign that the court knew judges across the state had to change their way of doing things. Oftentimes in the past, family ties have meant more than qualifications when it came to hiring by judges.
The ruling came after several highly publicized incidents involving nepotism in the state’s courts. Last year, disgraced former state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin was sentenced to house arrest, as was her sister, and former secretary, Janine Orie, after being convicted of using state-paid staff to run her campaigns for office in 2003 and 2009.
Another justice, Seamus McCaffery, came under criticism for the referral fees that his wife — his top judicial aide — received from law firms she connected clients to, including one for $821,000.
The ban is supposed to take effect July 1. However, now comes word that the ban won’t affect relatives already hired. In a confidential report obtained by the Morning Call, a newspaper in Allentown, the state Judicial Ethics Committee, which advises judges on ethical questions, has ruled that the anti-nepotism provision isn’t retroactive. All current relatives will be allowed to stay on their jobs.
And that has some critics of the state’s judicial system seeing red.
Tim Potts, a co-founder of the reform group Democracy Rising PA, said allowing judges’ relatives to stay on indefinitely guts the new rules.
“That doesn’t solve the problem that the policy is intending to solve,” said Potts. “There’s no point in having a no-nepotism policy if you’re going to allow nepotism to exist.”
Exactly. The new rules would have brought Pennsylvania to the same level as 48 other states in the country. Only Michigan and Oregon don’t have specific bans against nepotism.
Hard to see where Pennsylvania’s courts stand now in the fight against nepotism. On the one hand, it’s good to have the rule, and it should help restore confidence in the integrity of our courts down the road.
But, on the other hand, it’s a shame that the reform won’t take effect immediately and the results of nepotism could, in fact, be felt for several generations.
One step forward and half a step back. Unfortunately, that’s the Pennsylvania way of doing things. One of these days, we have to find a way to keep moving forward and stop taking any backward steps.