|
Piccola Cites Conflict of Interest with PA Justices' Respective Board Positions
HARRISBURG -- Senate
Majority Whip Jeffrey E. Piccola (R-15) called upon Judge Cynthia A Baldwin,
recently nominated by Governor Rendell to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and
Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy to resign as the Chairs of the Boards of Trustees
of Penn State University and the University of Pittsburgh, respectively.
Piccola stated, “I believe that they are in clear violation of two of the Canons
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and, are violating the spirit, if not the clear
prohibition of a third." It should be noted that the Code of Judicial Conduct
is promulgated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Canon 5 G of the Code
states: “Judges should not accept appointment to a governmental committee,
commission, or other position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy
matters, other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice.”
“Both Penn State and Pitt are
frequently represented by lobbyists before the General Assembly on a wide range
of public policy issues ranging from the hundreds of millions of dollars they
receive as 'state-related' institutions to questions involving benefits for
employees to questions regarding the welfare and safety of students. As members
of the Board of Trustees of these fine, state-related, institutions that are
deeply involved in 'fact [and] policy matters' no other conclusion can be drawn
than Canon 5 G is being violated,” Piccola concluded.
Canon 5B of the Code of
Judicial Conduct pertaining to a judge serving as a trustee of an educational or
other organization states, in part: (1) “Judges should not serve if it is likely
that the organization will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come
before them or will be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.
(2) Judges should not solicit funds for any educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal, or civic organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of
their office for that purpose.”
Piccola explained, “Both Penn
State and Pitt are large universities with a presence throughout the
Commonwealth. Both operate law schools, medical schools, hospitals, and
numerous graduate and undergraduate programs with over thirty branch campuses
throughout the Commonwealth. The enormity and scope of their institutional
operations make them the target as well as the initiator of much litigation. It
is not the equivalent of serving on the board of a small, local, private
elementary school. The potential for direct conflicts of interests are
enormous.”
“Further, even if litigation
involving these institutions never gets to the Supreme Court, an ethics problem
is still present. The Supreme Court is charged with overall administration of
the court system from the appellate courts down to the district magisterial
courts. Judges at any level faced with litigation in their courts, aware that
members of the Supreme Court chair the board of trustees of these institutions,
might be improperly influenced given the Supreme Courts administrative power.
Not to mention how an attorney involved in suing these institutions might
consider the uncomfortable (to say the least!) nature of the situation,” he
added.
Piccola also noted, “While
Canons 5G and 5B (1) are clearly violated by the judges, Canon 5B (2) presents a
closer call, but a still troubling ethical situation. Judges are not allowed,
under 5B (2) to solicit funds for institutions, such as Penn State and Pitt.
Judge Baldwin has represented to me that she has made it clear, in writing, that
Penn State is aware that she will not engage in any fundraising activities for
the University. Still, a reading of the Bylaws of both institutions reveals
that one of the main functions of the Boards of Trustees is fundraising for the
universities. As Chairs, both judges sit on committees engaged in that
activity; even if they do not directly solicit donations. Further, imagine the
pressure that is placed on other judges and lawyers, some of whom may have cases
pending before the Supreme Court, that receive solicitations knowing that
(potentially) two of the Court's Justices are leaders of the institutions
soliciting the donations (and their names may even be on the letterhead of the
solicitation!),” he said.
Piccola concluded, “I have
asked Judge Baldwin privately whether she intended to resign if confirmed and
she does not. I asked her to reconsider this decision after rereading the
Canons and she said she would. I would hope that Justice Cappy and Judge
Baldwin would view respect and obedience to the code of Judicial Conduct as a
means of restoring public trust in the Court.”
|
