*1 5, Argued Judicial March recommendations approved adopted May Fitness In the Matter Of: The Honorable SAWYER,
LOREN L.
Judge.
(CJF
25876)
3, SC
Arthur C. argued brief for on Judicial Fitness. filed the the Commission Sercombe, him was J. Timothy With brief Mercer, Johnson, Harrang Eugene. & PER CURIAM.
Linde, J., dissenting opinion.
PER CURIAM. §§ 1.420 and 1.430 under ORS This is a It arises of a circuit judge.1 into the conduct inquire on Judicial the Commission complaint from a contrary Sawyer with conduct charging Judge Fitness Article 1 of the to the restrictions as a part- he has been employed in that a state- Oregon College, time teacher at Southern education, salary at a higher school of supported $3,200 holding while at the same time office per year, circuit judge.2 Judge Sawyer to that complaint
In his answer denied that such con- such but employment, admitted III, § contrary requirements was to the duct defenses he also contended 1. As affirmative standing jurisdiction” ques- had "no (1) no such conduct because: propriety tion had been made to the Commission concern- complaint (2) conduct, allege does not complaint ing *3 provides, part: 1.420 "(1) Upon complaint any person concerning from the conduct of a Court, judge upon request Supreme investiga- or of the and after such necessary, the tion as commission Commission on Judicial Fitness considers may: the "(a) (2) section, hearing pursuant Hold a to subsection of this inquire judge; into the conduct of the ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ "(4) If, considering hearing report after the record of or after masters, judge the the commission finds that the conduct of the censure, office, justifies suspension or removal from the commission Supreme suspension or shall recommend to the Court the censure or judge.” removal of the provides, part: ORS 1.430 "(1) proceedings Supreme the record of the Court shall review may and facts and receive additional under ORS 1.420 on the law Supreme may it evidence. The Court censure the order judge suspended the or removed from office.” 2 D3, Oregon provides: § Article 1 of the Constitution seperate powers be divided into three "The of the Government shall (sic) Executive, Legislative, including departments, the ad- ministrative, Judicial; person charged and no with and the official departments, duties under one these shall exercise of func- another, provided.” except expressly in this tions as Constitution added) (Emphasis granted has been over which the Commission "acts” (Amended) VII, § 8 of the Ore- by Article jurisdiction Constitution.3 gon it, made a the Commission hearing
After a before been employed had finding of fact him. The Commis- by it and as admitted alleged by of law to the effect sion also made conclusions matter, subject jurisdiction had over branch of judicial serving as a member while wilfully had violated Judge Sawyer government, Constitution, III, contrary § 1 Article and to the provisions of his office requirements Conduct, Code of Judicial 2A and 5G of the Canons Court on March Oregon Supreme adopted by 1975.4 and conclusions Com- findings
Based Fitness made a recommendation mission on Judicial from his Judge Sawyer suspended court this time that he is during any as circuit office by any teacher as a part-time regularly employed college. state-funded for decision: presented
Three are questions 1.420(1) (1) jurisdictional require, Does ORS on Judicial by the Commission to action prerequisite must be disclosed Fitness, complaint a formal investigation? judge under to the (2) regularly judge who Does a circuit court pay a state- part-time teacher employed as a § 1 of the Article college violate funded 3 (Amended) provides, VII, part: "(1) law, notvidthstanding section provided In the manner suspended Article, be removed or court Supreme Court, Supreme or censured his office Court, for: s}c 5{{ * * «SH *4 "(e) be conduct as shall rule of of Wilful violation Court;” Supreme by the
established «* * [**] 4 page in note 13 12 and are set forth on provisions of these Canons The page 18.
[372] v. School Monaghan interpreted (1957)? 360, P2d 797 1, 211 Or No. District as to (3) a nature so, of such conduct If is such 1.420? under ORS proceedings to subject such a 1.420(1) jurisdictional require does not ORS which complaint a there be prerequisite formal be disclosed. must that: by Judge
It is contended the record of this nothing in "There is state, this or Supreme Court of showing that the individual, the conduct complained about has Oregon State teaching at Southern Sawyer in that the accused require College. process Due would if, fact, complaint is notified who his accuser been filed complaint has filed. If no has been beyond the individual, it is clear that then to act Fitness Commission jurisdiction of the Judicial complaint is filed.” time as in this matter until such 1.420(1) provides: ORS
"Upon complaint any person concerning [any] judge upon request Supreme conduct of Court, investigation as the Commis- and after such necessary, on Judicial Fitness considers the com- sion may: mission (2)
(a) hearing pursuant Hold a subsection section, into the inquire * * *” judge; 1.420(2) rules adopt requires rules as governing proceedings, its procedure investigation rules adopted providing include "information,” and serv- preparation "notice” and charges.5 ice of formal provide, among things: other Those rules "Rule 9. INVESTIGATION (a) Preliminary Investigation indicating Commission, receiving information purview judge’s within the of Section behavior comes (Amended) the Constitution of the State Article VII necessary investigation Oregon, as it deems shall make such proceedings in- should be whether formal to determine hearing and a held.” stituted
It
if this were a criminal proceed
is contended that
that
the
require
due
would
accused
ing
process
is.” We have
held
previously
notified "who his accuser
a
a
for misconduct
proceeding
discipline
lawyer
that
to
See,
a
re J.
e.g.,
Kelly
is not
criminal proceeding.
(1961).
Farris,
209, 218-19,
229 Or
which the facts are evidence during be entitled to examine developed him.6 In investigation the course of the favorable to case, however, the facts are not in dispute. "Rule 10. FORMAL PROCEEDINGS (a) Notice investigation completed, if After the has been the Commis- proceedings sion concludes that formal should be instituted give judge advising it shall written notice to the him of the proceedings inquire charges institution of formal into the against him. (b) Proceedings Title of proceedings shall be entitled: Such FITNESS, 'BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL STATE OF OREGON No.__’ Inquiry Concerning Judge, (c) Content Notice be issued in the name the
The notice shall
Commission
ordinary
specify
language
charges
concise
alleged
against
and the
facts
which such
based,
right
charges
are
and shall advise the
of his
answer,
affirmation,
under oath or
file a written
charges against
days
within
him
after service of the
upon him.”
notice
Hartel,
People
Inquiry
v.
72 Ill 2d
ex rel Illinois Judicial
Board
Cf.
(1978).
225,
2. as a teacher judge regularly employed III, 1 by college violates Article pay state-funded the Oregon Constitution. of undisputed of are and admitted facts this case by the is a court pleadings. Judge Sawyer circuit in the of Oregon. First Judicial District of State 5, January His term office 1981. present expires of is now Judge Sawyer employed by has been and State of lectur- Higher part-time Board Education law, juvenile er on law and criminology, criminal For Oregon College. corrections at Southern these $3,200 paid per year. services he is 1, 211 Or School District No. Monaghan v. (1957), a person 315 797 this court held that P2d not, legislature could a member of state serving as time, as teacher in a school public at the same serve III, § 1 Article because of provision Constitution, that: * * "* charged with official duties under person no [legislative, executive departments one of these judicial], another, any of the functions of shall exercise expressly pro- except in this Constitution as vided.” has been
Since the Constitution amended then XV, specifically permit § as to of Article so addition III, § legislators.7 teachers to serve Article has not amended, however, itself been so as to permit judges to serve as teachers.
In the course of at its arriving conclusion Monaghan not serve as legislators teachers schools public requirements because imposed (at 373) 1,§ this court said that: * * * governmental obligation "Education agencies
the state. New of our administrative are the But, schools, organic creatures of the law. as to legislature provide by constitution mandates the uniform, law of a general 'for establishment Constitution, system of Common schools.’ Art * * VIII, 3;§ *.” and, at 374:
"* * * employees Teachers are hired a state it is to agency whose function serve the state sovereign power duty exercise of its as mandated VIII, § Art 3 of the Constitution.” and, at 376: teacher, district, through
"It is not the school that the state’s standards educational excellence engaged, they are disseminated. When so are exercis- ing our state department one the executive functions added) government. "(Emphasis We believe that these statements are still correct *7 and that are in they controlling disposition our of this case. (at 376)
In Monaghan recognized we then teacher-legislator involved that case had not used his dual "to the detriment” of position either the ex- legislative ecutive or department government 7 XV, provides: "Notwithstanding provisions of section article III and section Oregon, person 10 article II of the Constitution of the State of Education, employed Higher Board of State a member of thereof, employee eligible school board or shall be to a seat in the Legislative Assembly membership Legislative and such in the Assem- bly prevent person being employed by shall not the State Higher being employee Board of Education or from a member or of a school board.” retain "no motive his desire to unworthy that he had recognize time.” We the same places both at same in this with to the conduct of respect to be true case capacity in his dual and as a teacher in a school. state-supported (at 376): however, stated, in Monaghan
As we "Our concern is not with what has been done but done, might directly with rather what indirect- ly, person permitted if to serve two different one is departments at time. The the same constitutional prohibition designed to avoid the opportunities for arising abuse out of such dual service whether * * exists or not. Monaghan We went on in to point out that "con- ceivably” a school could say board a teacher serving in the he legislature must vote in favor of bills district; if advantageous the school he did so his increased, salary would be and that if he did not do so he would be "penalized.” Similarly, contrary to the contentions it is Judge Sawyer, "conceivable” that a who is regularly employed as a part-time pay teacher aby state-funded could be college placed in which he position would be expected the college, as his to rule employer, favorably to it in matters him coming before for decision as a judge, with the if he did understanding so his salary would be increased and that if he did not do so he "penalized” would be in some manner.
Judge Sawyer contends that as a part-time, rather teacher, than as a full-time he is exercising any "official” executive "duties” and per- therefore is not forming Monaghan, executive "functions.” howev- (at 370) er, this court interpreted "functions” more broadly as follows: a depart-
*8 "But exercise of the 'functions’ of to the word 'functions’ a government gives ment of meaning comprehensive sweep broader and more range contemplates It a wider than 'official duties.’ including beyond those the exercise of functions [377] the 'official duties’ comprehended which any one officer. may appear
"It to some as construction expresses think that precaution, but we extreme of the Ore- judgment deliberation the considered concepts to the gon give greater force Convention in one barring any official by thus separation opportunity to serve government of the department of * * *” employee. department, even as other not a full-time Sawyer is Judge It is true however, teacher a part-time opinion, In our teacher. a state- compensation employed regularly also of a teacher the duties college perform funded department of the executive "functions” performs 1,§ meaning of Article within government Monaghan. this court construed the reason follows, based judgment, It in our Monaghan, we which this court ing adopted by correct, on Judicial the Commission believe to be that Judge in its conclusion was also correct Fitness Oregon serve the State of not Sawyer properly could time, and, at the same as a circuit both for compensa teacher part-time regularly employed college.8 tion at a state-funded III, § 1 violates Article 3. A whose conduct under subject proceedings 1.420. Sawyer defense affirmative In his second over allege does "not acts the complaint contends been has Fitness the Judicial VII, § 8 of the Article granted jurisdiction Thus, by Judge it is contended Constitution.” of the Canons not violate did that his conduct this court. adopted Conduct the Code of Judicial (Amended) Constitu VII, § 8 (as November on people vote of adopted by tion 8We do not undertake to decide in this case whether the same result necessarily occasionally, would follow in the event that a should but regularly, college, respon lecture at a state-funded but without other sibilities as a teacher. 25,1976) May provides 1968, and as amended *9 by law” a be provided judge "in manner the Oregon the removed, by censured suspended or "[wjilful rule for violation of of Court Supreme by be the conduct shall established judicial as et for the provides 1.410 Supreme seq Court.”9 ORS and of the Judicial Fitness Commission establishment disciplined the by judge "manner” follows, the Com- opinion, It in our such conduct. the matter of subject had over this jurisdiction mission fact, of findings for the of purpose making Oregon of law recommendations to the conclusions and the Supreme upon question Court the whether conduct of in "wilful violation” of rule Judge was by judicial of conduct established this court. the adopted by
The Code of Judicial Conduct Ore- 11,1975, Court March includes Canon gon Supreme on 2. 2 as follows: provides part Canon Impropriety Ap-
"A and the Should Avoid pearance [of] in All Impropriety His Activities. respect A comply
"A. should and with and all times the law should conduct himself at public a manner that in the promotes confidence the integrity judiciary.” and impartiality addition, to take judges required all are In circuit the State of the Constitution support oath Oregon.10
9 3, supra. note See 10 VII, Oregon provides (Original) § Article of the Constitution Judges.” judges Supreme "shall take the same oath as circuit (Amended) VII, provides: court, "Every judge entering upon supreme before duties subscribe, office, secretary and his shall take and transmit to the state, following oath: (or affirm) 'I,__, solemnly I do swear will States, support the of the United and the constitution constitution faithfully impartially Oregon, I will of the State of and that state, discharge supreme court of duties of ability, accept any according my I will not best of office, during except I for which other offices the term have ” been elected.’ Conduct, Code of Judicial including 2A, Canon is based the Code of Judicial upon Conduct as the American Bar Association prepared Special of Judicial Committee on Standards Conduct as 16, 1972, Delegates House of adopted by its Autust changes with some based recommendations Association, Judges Circuit the Oregon Judges District Association and the Bar. Oregon State however, changes suggested adopted, No were 2A, of Canon as recommended provisions American Bar Association. 2 it of Canon is of considering application Canon, Commentary to note the to that
interest Association, Bar as follows: the American adopted by judiciary in the is eroded "Public confidence improper by judges. A irresponsible or *10 impropriety appearance all and of im- must avoid expect subject to be the of con- propriety. He must scrutiny. accept He must therefore restr- public stant might be viewed as bur- ictions on his conduct ordinary citizen and should do so by densome the freely willingly.” the statement in the following
Also of interest is E. by of Judicial Conduct Notes to Code Reporter’s Thode, 49: at Wayne page very statement of Canon is "The black-letter being the nearest to perhaps in terms and broad its is origin in the Code. Its hortatory any provision of was of the 4. The Committee found in old Canon 'impropriety generality, the opinion despite is neces- impropriety’ of standard appearance and the that stand- frequent references to sary. The need for Reporter’s Notes demonstrates throughout the ard of that decision.” the wisdom 2 has that Canon Judge Sawyer by It is contended following the in this case for application no proper reasons: the com- allegations in the of nothing
"There is which before the Commission in the record plaint or teaching, judge, the in conduct of indicates that the public the confidence any way in undermined has teaching by If a state integrity judiciary. in the in or the judge would undermine confidence court judiciary, then raised integrity of issue judges be proceedings would not limited to these but would teaching state-supported in institutions as teaching private colleges apply to also those office, agrees uphold judge, A his oath well. There have Oregon. of the State the Constitution cases, language there is no decided no clear been state, or the Statutes of this Constitution at issue prohibit the conduct here. is the Attor- relying "The Fitness Commission on ney opinion, holding that is in General’s the conduct Attorney Constitution. The violation General’s State however, opinion, does the force not have law, clearly judge binding and effect of and is of this state.” view, decided is not question
In our teaching public undermine judge whether Instead, is question in the judiciary. confidence in a state- whether who continues teach college knowledge by doing with the so supported III, § violating he provisions is, such a course of continued conduct, requirement in "wilful violation” with respect comply 2 that "a should Canon law,” more general requirement of its regardless appear- and the impropriety "a should avoid all his activities.” impropriety ance (such recognize We that some "violations of law” infractions) may traffic be of a nature as to minor meaning not come within the intended of Canon 2A. *11 in which recognize We also there be cases a that in faith belief may engage in conduct judge good when, in such conduct not violate the law that does cases, In such fact, such conduct violate law. does removal, facts, by suspen on the discipline depending appropriate. censure not be sion or in case, however, the conduct appears it In this performance by to the directly related question duties, at in the sense that his least judicial [381] by for as accepting regular employment compensation a teacher in a state-funded school he was disqualified of his duties performance by reason III, Oregon of Article 1 of the Constitution. In addi- tion, it in appears despite previous this case in Monaghan decision this court despite General his opinion by Oregon Attorney employment college as a teacher a state-funded 1,§ as Monaghan, violated Article construed in Judge Sawyer took the at the position hearing before the Commission on Judicial Fitness on August 1978, that "until the Supreme Court makes such a determination, there is no clearly violation of Constitution.” He also stated at that that he hearing been offered teaching had another contract at that 1978 and he begin school to October intended to "barring that contract some order to accept the con- trary.” facts,
Under these we believe that the Commission jurisdiction bring had to a "to into inquire 1.420, judge,” provided by the conduct of the determining for the whether or such purpose not and, did, if Oregon conduct violated the Constitution requiring Judge for an order of this court Sawyer to and, cease that course of conduct if he re- continued so, him from suspending fused do office as a for "wilful violation” of Canon 2. If this were no possible, way, there would be effective at least facts, cases similar in which the involving stop could from continu- bring proceedings course of conduct violates ing Constitution or laws whenever contends faith that such conduct does not violate the Ore- good and despite expressed or laws his gon intention such conduct unless and until to continue result, it. We in a stop ordered to believe that such facts, would be involving contrary case when, intended the voters of purpose Constitution, VII, § 8 of Article adoption *12 be removed or suspend- judges they provided the rules of violation of office for wilful ed from this court.11 adopted a words, discipline we do not in a case In other conduct, stop to but sanctions impose for his judge past conduct which continuing a course of the judge an in the absence of intends to continue the contrary.12 order to the not that his conduct did contends Sawyer
Judge reason of the of Judicial Conduct violate the Code 4A 4A, 5A and 6. Canon provides Canons provisions judge: that a 11 a proceeding of a suit for has some of the characteristics Because this conduct, injunction enjoin
declaratory judgment rather future or for misconduct, might discipline possibly been it have than to for power Fitness had no under ORS contended that the Judicial Commission Chapter bring proceeding under 1.420 to such a and that a ORS suit) controversy Chapter (submitting 28 or ORS 27 without action or (declaratory judgments) appropriate. would have been more Indeed, appears that the Commissionfirst considered from the record filing declaratory judgment Chapter under ORS but an action for a power so. concluded that it had no to do 1.420(l)(a) however, noted, expressly confers It is to be hearing inquire power the "to into the conduct of the Commission hold judge.” in this case that the had no No contention is made inquiring power bring proceeding under ORS 1.420 as a means of into determining Judge Sawyer purpose whether it was the conduct of contrary in, Oregon § Article 1 of the Constitution to the restrictions of Ethics, and, so, contrary 2 the other than the if to Canon of Code Judicial (1) jurisdiction has no because there is contentions that nothing the Commission individual, by any filing complaint of a in the record to disclose (2) allege complaint has not facts over which the Commission and been does VII, § granted jurisdiction by 8 of the Judge Sawyer violate of the Code of that the conduct of did not Canon power challenges the Judicial Conduct. Neither of these contentions provided, proceed as we hold in case under ORS 1.420 Commission to case, complaint purpose for the of this case that there was a sufficient this and that the VH, § Judge Sawyer alleged both Article 8 conduct of violated Ethics. 2A of the Code of Judicial Constitution and Canon case, we decide this we need of the basis on which Because Commission, whether, reason of as also contended consider provisions Constitution, the conduct of Article the Code of Judicial of Canon 5G of was also a violation Conduct, provides that: appointment governmental com- accept to a "A should not commission, mittee, position her conflicts with his or or other * * *” judicial functions. "* * * write, lecture, teach, may speak, partici- and law, concerning legal pate in other activities system, justice.” the administration of and Canon 5A that: provides write, lecture, teach, judge may speak
"A arts, non-legal subjects, engage sports, *13 activities, and recreational if such avoca- other social detract from the dignity tional activities do not of his performance office interfere with the of his judi- or cial duties.” a receive judge may compensa-
Canon that provides extrajudicial permitted by tion for activities Code. It is noted that activities a teaching by 5A are permitted subject express Canon to the "interfere with they perform condition that do not however, Regardless, duties.” judicial ance of his whether activities be considered as in teaching with the an terfering performance by Oregon judge duties in the absence judicial provisions his Constitution, § 1 Oregon of the we believe and hold these Canons do not and cannot override those express provisions held engaging
which we have to forbid teacher for com employment regular part-time as a pensation college. at a state-funded reasons, hold,
For we in accordance with the these recommendation Judicial Fitness Com- mission, Judge Sawyer in the event does not resign teaching position from his and cease present further in that then and capacity, and all any shall be Judge Sawyer suspended event time that he judge during any from his office as circuit teacher for com- regularly employed part-time any college. at state-funded pensation LINDE, J., dissenting.
I I to the regret say agree cannot Court’s in this undertakes opinion give decision case. Judge Sawyer the Commission on Judicial Fitness and an answer to the whether question con- stitution precludes judge’s part-time at a teaching answer, state college. provide order opinion does violence to the of law provisions govern- ing the commission and this court in judicial discipli- It nary proceedings. gives wrong answers to very some important questions sake of reaching a rela- tively trivial one that well could await another day and a more appropriate I procedure. Accordingly, dis- sent.
The constitutional authority for the present pro- (amend- ceedings in this court is stated in article VII ed), section 8 as follows:
(1) In the provided law, manner and notwith- standing Article, section 1 of this court may be removed suspended or judicial from his office Court, Supreme censured the Supreme Court, for: (a) Conviction in a court of this or state, other States, or of the United of a crime punishable as a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude; or
(b) Wilful misconduct in a office where *14 such misconduct bears a demonstrable relationship to performance effective judicial duties; or (c) persistent Wilful or failure perform judicial duties; or (d) Generally incompetent performance judicial duties; or (e) Wilful violation of judicial rule of conduct as shall be established Supreme Court; or (f) Habitual illegal drunkenness or use of narcotic dangerous drugs. or
(2) Notwithstanding Article, section 6 of this provided section, methods in this section la of this 18, Article and in section Article II of this Constitu- tion, are the pension, or censure removal, exclusive methods of the sus- a judge. As this text obvious, makes the constitution was amended give this court the exceptional authority to remove a judge office, from or to impose other discip- line, grave for derelictions. Nothing section in this court for
suggests provides over advisory powers or exercising general supervisory courts. other removal, Almost all of the several for sus- grounds - (a) (f), above, or censure listed in relate to
pension, wilful or conduct in relation to his judge’s incompetent The are conviction of a judicial exceptions duties. felony or a crime moral and abuse involving turpitude drugs. judge’s of intoxicants or Before a conduct can be this court under article subject of adverse action (amended), charge must fall under VII section one of the listed The law that establishes grounds. on Judicial Fitness and the procedures mandate, 1.410- carrying out this constitutional ORS 1.480, kind similarly judicial circumscribed. The to in- conduct into which the commission is directed censure, "justifies is conduct of a kind that quire may or removal from office” and that lead suspension it to recommend such action to this court. ORS 1.420(4). The entire before the commission procedure dealing and the court is with a view to with designed actually lead charges serious of misconduct authority. grave exceptional exercise of this assignment It is consistent with this the commis- only "[u]pon complaint any person sion act concerning the conduct of request 1.420(1). Court,” Supreme 8(l)(e): in this case is section relied on provision rule of violation of "Wilful This, Court.” Supreme shall be established turn, 2A of the Code to invoke Canon leads court Conduct: Judicial impropriety appear- and the
A avoid should his activities. impropriety in all of ance of with the law respect comply A. A should *15 in manner at all times a himself and should conduct integrity in the confidence promotes public judiciary. impartiality and [386] short, because Judge Sawyer teaches one part-time class about law at Southern is Oregon College, he charged and faced with or worse possible suspension "[wjilful on the constitutional ground violation of judicial rule of . . . established Supreme Court” because this court has a ca- adopted non that instructs judges general terms to "respect law,” and with comply a judge because teach- in a state ing college arguably mixes the functions of two separate government. branches of
This chain of premises a discloses serious problem. The Court recognizes that Canon 2 very broadly stated and primarily hortatory. That be suitable for code of conduct designed for hortatory effect only. But (amended), Article VTI 8(l)(e), section supra, effect has given this court farreaching power legis- late for other judges the form of rules conduct, enforceable by potential removal from office judgment of the same body that made the rule.1 That is a power to be only used with scrupulous care in stating the rules and attention to their literal im- plications.
Certainly an exhortation to "avoid impropriety the appearance impropriety” falls short as a stand- subjecting judges ard for other to removal court. An exhortation to a "respect comply with meaning, the law” has more but not much more. As a statement is a judge’s professional duty office, ground truism. As a removing duties, and extended his beyond professional problematic. truism becomes It is no answer that rule be taken literally, say, is not to or to Court does, that violations of law such as traffic infractions within the intended of Canon meaning not come 2A. per opinion curiam offers no criterion decide for what from law this court will departures removal, suspension "appropri- will not find or censure ate,” I supra, 831. cannot believe that either p. 1 is, perhaps, irony present charge against It without separation powers. concerns *16 8(l)(e) the for penalties providing of section
provision nor conduct” rule of any violation "wilful man- out that cany this court adopted the rules the kind of issue for such penalties contemplate date in this case. presented discip- for Canon as a standard vagueness
The
question
procedures
the
how
highlights
in turn
line
initiated,
specifically
are
before the commission
any person”
"request
from
or
"complaint
role
agree
1.420. I
by ORS
required
Court”
Supreme
a member of
come from
complaint may
it can be
I do not
agree
or its staff.
comisssion
in the manner
the Court
entirely
dispensed with
in order to reach the result
overlook
willing
seems
initiate
may legally
If
commission
in this case.2
under
disciplinary proceeding
eventual
inquiry and
re-
2,
or
any complaint
without
standard like Canon
1.420, it in
ORS
required
from this court
quest
into
generally
commission to check
roving
effect has a
be a
may
That
judges.
conduct of all
idea,
what
1.420 enacted.
but it is not
ORS
good
some safe-
represents
at least
complaint
of a
presence
put-
for
responsibility
will take
guard that someone
con-
allegations
the exact factual
on record both
ting
if
why,
and the
reasons
cerning
judge’s
true,
calling
disciplinary
the level of
rise to
they
law. If that had not been
the applicable
action under
from
intended,
[t]he
"Upon
complaint
the words
could
Court”
Supreme
... or
person
upon request
the per
the statute. But
omitted from
easily have been
from
safeguard
would reduce
opinion
curiam
1.420 to "information
required by
"complaint”
person.”
[unidentified]
coming
Nor is it necessarily true that careful adherence to
the substance
and procedure governing our discipli-
nary powers would make it impossible ever to decide a
only
"jurisdic
The issue tends
to be obscured
discussion in terms of
process,”
respondent’s
opinion;
tion” and "due
as used
brief and in the
simply
question
compliance
is
with ORS 1.420.
Anaconda Co. v.
Cf.
(1977).
Rev.,
Dept.
278 Or
over Judge Sawyer’s at teaching Southern *17 I College, think his so is doing not the kind of judicial misconduct comes within properly our discipli- nary rules. Nor has the commission brought it before us by proper procedures. The proper administration those rules and procedures are a far weightier matter than the particular issue of Judge Sawyer’s teaching. Accordingly, I would dismiss this disciplinary pro- ceeding.