This morning’s local skewspaper, the Coeur d’Alene Press, informed its readers that the First Judicial District’s Magistrate Commission had picked Coeur d’Alene Deputy City Attorney Anna Eckhart to replace retiring Magistrate Penny Friedlander.
OpenCdA and several other very interested citizens sat through the six hours of interviews of the six finalists conducted by the Magistrate Commission. Four of the 14 Commissioners were absent from the interviews. OpenCdA’s request to review all 17 applicants’ application forms, letters of recommendation, and results of investigation had been denied on Wednesday by Trial Court Administrator Karlene Behringer.
Based only on the Thursday interviews, OpenCdA would agree that from among the four local applicants, Anna Eckhart was a suitable choice.
But among the six finalists there were two applicants who were not local. They were passed over and were in our view superior to Eckhart and the other three local finalists in depth and breadth of legal practice experience in and out of the courtroom. The two applicants who were rejected by the First District Magistrate Commission were Barbara Ann Duggan, a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney from Ada County, and James Craig, Assistant Chief Counsel of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Orlando, Florida. Mr. Craig also has an advanced law degree, a Master of Laws from American University Washington College of Law.
It was interesting and informative to observe the interview process. First District Trial Court Administrator Karlene Behringer asked most of the “canned” questions of the applicants. Then the Commissioners were allowed to ask their own.
OpenCdA was extremely disappointed that two of the Commissioners were allowed to ask completely inappropriate questions during the interviews.
First, the Shoshone County Commissioner was allowed to ask questions relating to two applicants’ religious practices.
Then later, Elector Commissioner Don Pischner theatrically announced to the other Commissioners and the audience how he would flaunt the rules of procedure before he then asked applicant Wendy Gabriel to identify her father, a former Idaho state legislator. Pischner is one of the two “Elector” Commissioners who was appointed by the Governor to the Commission. Pischner’s attempt to impress if not influence the other Commissioners with his arrogant, in-your-face action was reprehensible. In our opinion, because of his conduct during the interviews, Pischner is unsuitable to remain on the First District Magistrate Commission.
Our disappointment was not only with these commissioners’ inappropriate conduct but also the unwillingness of Commission Chairman Administrative District Judge Lansing Haynes to admonish them at the moment of their flagrant violations. We hope that Judge Haynes exerts more control in his courtroom than he demonstrated in yesterday’s employment interviews.
We wonder why the First District Magistrate Commission passed over Ms. Duggan and Mr. Craig. Perhaps the Commissioners and those who appoint them really don’t want professionally superior magistrates and judges. Why, that could lead to (gasp!) professionally competent law enforcement and prosecutors; good judges raise the standards of excellence for others in the justice system. And we are now more convinced than ever excellence in the justice system is something too few elected and appointed officials in the five counties of north Idaho really want.
I am surprised they were not all buying pigs on Farmville during questions while they were flaunting those rules of procedure.
There is another judicial committee -(YAWN)- but these folks publish real documents and research! That committee is our Judicial Recruitment Committee. One might want to complain to them for something to do. Their reporter is Andrea Patterson. LOL.
From their 2010 report, these are some of the highlights.
I thought you might enjoy reading this Bill, don’t spit your coffee out tho, while doing so. Thank you for your observations. One of these days when I am not a working schlep, I will get out of my kitchen.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 22, 2014 @ 9:47 am
Stebbijo,
Generally I thought the stock questions Behringer asked were reasonable. Not all of the Commissioners asked questions, but they may have been satisfied by the written submissions and by the answers to the other Commissioners’ questions. Only two of the Commissioners asked what I believed to be completely inappropriate questions. The only question Wayman asked of each candidate was what the candidate liked to do in his/her spare time.
Thanks for including the link to the 2010 Report and Recommendation to Enhance Judicial Recruitment. After reading that Report and then watching six hours of interviews, I guess I’d say that there is still a lot of work to do to enhance judicial recruitment. The Report did indicate that “residence” was perceived by respondents to be a selection factor when the data was gathered for the 2010 Report, and nothing I saw Thursday would cause me to dispute that.
Comment by Bill — June 22, 2014 @ 10:15 am
I believe a major flaw concerning these types of studies/reports, we as a public pay for, do not hold their weight is because they neglect to include the public in the process. Those surveys were directed to lawyers only, and that kind of “selection process” only solidifies my belief, that our judicial branch wants the public out of their hair, unless we are filling their pockets with revenue and enhancing their retirement funds. They only include us if they get ‘caught.’
Our Legislature represents the people by making laws, but as you may have noticed, the judicial committees pull the strings which may be a good thing for this branch, because if it is not a documented process – it’s a ‘carte blanche’ rodeo and they can continue to ‘pick’ their judges through the Magistrate Commission or the Governor in a relatively ‘informal’ manner amongst the chosen few. This process excludes the public and getting rid of a bad judge in Idaho is like trying to control a runaway fire. You might be able to snuff it out, but look at the damage that was left in it’s path. Our judicial branch is a raging fire. We, as a public also do not have anything to do with the review of a new Magistrate’s performance or probation.
The selection of our Magistate’s Commission is as equally important if not completely useless. I think we should put the position (Magistrate) up for public election.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 22, 2014 @ 12:09 pm
Stebbijo,
The essence of your concern was the basis for one of the questions Behringer asked: What can (and should) a magistrate do to improve the public’s perception of the courts? Broadly generalizing, I believe most of the applicants’ answers involved their being willing to interact with the public outside the courtroom through public speaking at civic organizations and involvement in community activities that would not present an actual conflict or the public perception of one. I don’t recall any of them specifically saying they would actively solicit and encourage feedback from the citizens.
After the last interview on Thursday, Haynes did encourage audience members to write him if we could make suggestions to improve the interview process we had observed.
Comment by Bill — June 22, 2014 @ 1:14 pm
Well, I should have been there to hear those answers.
It is a fine line because a judge essentially needs to remain pure or untainted from influence, especially politics.
I am satisfied with the choice of our new Magistrate even though the “residence” is home to Idaho. She may not be as highly qualified as desired, but residence trumps all in this state. And, if onethinks we might pick a candidate fror the other end of Idaho, well we are dreaming, let alone out of state.
Gotta pick the finalists so it looks fair, though.
Our judicial system is a closed door and they are not abiding by the separation of powers. We have a Senator on an “executive committee” of the DRUG COURT AND MENTAL HEALTH COURT COORDINATING COMMITTEE / DRUG COURT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. Why is that? (one of those judicial committees). Her name is Patti Lodge, married to a federal judge. What is she doing cohorting with the Judicial Branch?
Comment by Stebbijo — June 22, 2014 @ 5:52 pm
An afterthought – how exactly does Karlene Behringer fit into the process? Does she screen the applications, too? I thought the Magistrates Commission handled the selection? She is not part of it. Here is what ICAR 43 has to say about the position. Maybe that is one of the reasons some mocked the process and/or bothered not to show up. They are really just rubber stampers/figure heads for somebody else. Another example of what they can do because they can. Our judges need to be voted in by the public, they do not need to be selected by their colleagues.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 23, 2014 @ 7:19 am
Stebbijo,
I don’t know the exact answer to your questions, but I can see a need for the position. It seems reasonable to me that the Trial Court Administrator could screen incoming applications to immediately set aside those from applicants who do not meet the essential statutory requirements for the job. Likely the TCA’s rejections would be reviewed by the Administrative Judge and maybe the entire Commission to ensure that if the TCA was wrong in the rejection, it would be corrected.
Our judges are voted in by the public as provided in Idaho Code, Title 1. Judges appointed to fill a vacancy must stand for election as prescribed by Idaho Code, Title 1.
Comment by Bill — June 23, 2014 @ 8:03 am
Of course I was referring to the “appointment” process of new judges. However, once a judge is appointed, they are essentially reelected because no one ever runs against them. They are pretty much “lifers” after that. Judges should be turned over just like our elected Senators, Governors, ect.
The problem with my judiciary questions is no one really knows the exact answers because the rules and the statutes are so broad they work in the favor of that branch because nothing is documented. I am not one for “implied” job duties ect, of the TCA. It may seem reasonable, but not necessarily appropriate because she is part of the “public,” in my opinion, concerning the Magistrate appointment process and the public was only allowed to attend. They were not allowed to ask questions. But, since the Supreme Court says they can literally dictate to her through “inherent powers” – I guess she can do this until the process is changed through verbal direction or put in writing. I don’t think she is a voting member of the Magistrate Commission. There were 17 applicants, how did they narrow it down? Maybe the Judge threw some of them out and then handed the interview process to Karlene? Did Karlene Behringer ever outline or answer your questions regarding the process? There may be a need administratively for her position, but I do not see where it fits in or should be part of the the actual selection of a judge, but we may not have a choice if our Supreme Court decides – it is.
I don’t like it and the public should not be wondering what actual protocol exists or does not exist. This is ridiculous. This is our judiciary system and it’s lack of transparency is concerning. I think it is horrible, because of this very sketchy and gray process, we may be and most likely appointing Magistrates who become District judges, who should not have been appointed in the first place, statewide, and did not have to bother with a public interview process or a quorum Magistrate Commission bothering to show up.
There were others on that list who I believe should have been selected finalists.
We cannot even get a list of the Magistrates Commission online or updated up here. So much for “inherent power.”
Comment by Stebbijo — June 23, 2014 @ 5:48 pm