Formalize court's procedures, rules

3/8/07

That the Connecticut judiciary is in the midst of a crisis over transparency is widely known. The would-be chief justice of the state Supreme Court, Peter T. Zarella, saw his candidacy derailed over a delayed disclosure of a supposedly controversial decision by then-Chief Justice William J. Sullivan, which set off the current round of teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing over judicial secrecy. In testimony last week, Zarella came up with a novel idea — maybe all the judiciary’s unwritten traditions and experience-based tactics shouldn’t be quite so unwritten anymore.
Zarella spoke in front of the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee last week, and described himself only as “mildly disappointed” that his move to the top of the state court system was driven off track by matters beyond his control. Whatever his feelings on the matter, the fact that secrecy in the courts has taken center stage can only be described as a good thing. Without an impetus like Sullivan’s ill-fated move, the Legislature might have had no reason to conduct its recent inquiries.
Zarella pointed out, and state Sen. Andrew J. McDonald agreed, that the lack of a written manual of procedures led indirectly to Sullivan’s actions. “We’ve gotten ourselves into a quandary in this particular case because, apparently, rules and procedures weren’t written down,” McDonald said. How that’s possible in as old an institution as the Supreme Court is unclear, but it is never too late to correct the problem.
Formalizing the court’s rules could go a long way toward bringing public respect back to the court system, which has clearly diminished over the course of the current investigation. Although court officials said the system continues to work efficiently despite the setback in public approval, it is necessary for the people to have complete confidence in their judiciary, and any ethical lapse must be met with strong action. A policy manual would be a good step toward regaining that trust.
Experience and unwritten tradition will, of course, continue to play as large a role as ever in the high court’s decision-making, as it would in any organization; no written handbook can change that. But for a system with public relations problems the size of the courts’, tangible steps are necessary to regain the lost confidence. No list of bylaws and regulations can cover every experience, but it might be a good idea to put down in writing that, for instance, delaying a court action to benefit a colleague is a bad move.