43
It’s wrong to veil judicial selection in secrecy
Does the right of people to know who’s applied to be a federal judge, a lifetime job that pays $174,000 annually, outweigh the right to privacy of those seeking the position?
I strongly believe that is the case.
But I and anyone else who wants to get a list of those who applied to replace the retiring U.S. District Court Judge Peter C. Economus won’t receive that information.
Judge Economus is retiring from active service July 3. He is the only federal district court judge in Youngstown. Judge Kay Woods is a federal bankruptcy court judge in Youngstown.
There’s a lot of interest in who applied for the seat as there was during the bankruptcy court judge selection five years ago.
U.S. Sens. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and George V. Voinovich, a Republican, established a bipartisan committee to recommend the best candidate to replace Judge Economus.
The senators took the extra step to avoid any conflict of interest by choosing people, nearly all attorneys, from the state’s U.S. Southern District for the committee recommending a candidate for the judicial seat in the federal Northern District.
Those respected legal minds include former Attorney General Nancy Rogers and Nathaniel Jones, a retired federal court of appeals judge, who is a Youngstown native living in the Cincinnati area. The federal bankruptcy court building in downtown Youngstown is named for him.
The effort to make this process as objective as possible is admirable.
But there is one huge problem.
The process is secret.
A Brown spokeswoman said the names of the applicants, except the one recommended for the judicial seat, will not be released because the candidates were promised anonymity.
That’s nothing new.
The process to select Judge Woods was a secret. The other finalists would have remained a mystery if it weren’t for one of the committee members informing me about who else was on the short list.
Just because it’s a common practice doesn’t make it right. The process is compromised because we’re only going to know the one recommended candidate.
I prefaced my dissatisfaction with how this would be handled in an e-mail ,writing that “I don’t mean to offend,” the Brown spokeswoman called a few minutes later to say it was offensive. [At least I tried.]
The bipartisan committee of those from the other part of the state takes the politics out of the recommendation, she said.
But those who apply for federal judicial positions should never be promised anonymity.
Those who apply for nearly every other public sector appointment — such as superintendents of schools, vacant political posts, or even those who seek jobs with city water departments — aren’t afforded that luxury.
If someone is worried that their law firm or the public, in the case of a sitting judge who has to run for re-election, will be mad that they’re applying for a prestigious judicial post then they shouldn’t seek the appointment.
Another issue is supporters of some candidates — there have been a few who say they applied for the judicial spot — are already lobbying for the appointment.
Lobbying the committee or the senators won’t make a difference in the selection process, according to Brown’s office.
That’s probably the case, but if the selection is done in secret, the question will always exist if the recommended candidate was clearly the best person for the job.