|
[Back to
Columns & Stories]
Cool
Justice
Toccogate Rx: Defrock Monarchs
By
ANDY THIBAULT, Columnist
Law Tribune Newspapers
May 8, 2006
The imperious Judicial Department was at it again.
The holy robes, so consumed with their power and control, thought they
could get away with stealing public records from us. They forgot, as they
do all too often: We are the citizens who own these records and they are
merely the custodians we entrust with being our able and honest servants -
wherever those genuine public-service types exist.
That's the crux of Toccogate. The problems in the Judicial Department are
not merely personal, they are institutional. Former Chief Justice William
"Tocco" Sullivan is just the poster boy for arrogance,
incompetence and case-fixing.
It all started five years ago when a new attorney, Russell Collins, asked
for what any citizen should be able to get promptly: public records about
pending cases. Those records included docket numbers, charges and hearing
dates. Of course, Collins was denied by the Tocco regime of the court
system. That Collins is now a hero is a testament to Connecticut's
totalitarian tendencies when dealing with public information.
Collins complained to the state Freedom of Information Commission, which
ordered disclosure. The state Supreme Court initially supported that
finding with a 3-2 vote, but Sullivan packed the court to change the score
to 4-3 against disclosure. Tocco did not think it would look very good for
his hand-picked successor, Peter Zarella, to be against public disclosure,
so he then delayed distribution of the opinion.
Tocco, of course, didn't do anything wrong. Connecticut judges never do
anything wrong. They have the phony Judicial Review Commission to tell
them so. While the Legislature opens up the free flow of information in
the courts, it should also disband the JRC, fire all its employees and
start fresh with a viable means of accountability.
The Supreme Court decision hinged on a technicality, which Tocco exploited
with flawed reasoning and a gross misunderstanding of the flow of
information in a free society. The Tocco ruled that such public records
are "adjudicative" or not covered by the FOI law - as opposed to
"administrative," aka covered by the FOI law. What's
adjudicative about a court date or a docket number? Justice Richard Palmer
- who agreed with Tocco on technical points - had the integrity in a
concurring opinion to say that the Judicial Department should find a way
to make these records accessible.
Toccogate, meanwhile, has become a statewide issue and fodder for the
gubernatorial campaign. That's good. It's time to remove the last vestige
of monarchy from our state government and establish actual accountability.
"The chief justice's misconduct has impugned Connecticut's entire
court system and has badly damaged public confidence in state
government," the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information and
the Connecticut Society of Professional Journalists said in a joint
statement. "Urgent action is required to restore that confidence and
to enforce the public's right to know about government's least accountable
branch."
The two groups called on the Supreme Court to reverse its decision. They
also said the General Assembly should arrange quick passage of legislation
requiring disclosure of all court docket information, past, present, and
future; requiring complete public access to all judicial proceedings,
including not only trials and pre-trial conferences but also conventions
of judges and meetings of the Superior Court's rules committee; and
requiring the recording and publicizing of the minutes of all discussions
held and votes taken by such judicial conventions and committee meetings.
That's the least we can settle for in a free society.
Back
to Top
|