Judgment nigh for watchdog

The panel responsible for judging California’s judges appears all too eager to avoid being judged itself.

In a year-old dispute heard in San Francisco Superior Court last week, State Auditor Elaine Howle’s office has asked for Commission on Judicial Performance case records to conduct its first audit of the half-century-old body. The commission has refused, arguing that its constitutional power to keep proceedings secret trumps the authority of legislators requesting the audit.

The agency has certainly taken full advantage of the privilege, keeping not only complaints and investigations but many of its final actions sealed. Of the 1,210 cases the commission disposed of last year, only eight resulted in public discipline of a wayward judge, while four times as many were concluded with a private admonishment or advisory letter. Over the past decade, fewer than 60 of more than 11,000 dispositions have been public, or about half a percent.

The gravity of the commission’s task of policing the powerful judiciary and the secrecy with which it has chosen to pursue it — the state Constitution says the commission “may provide for the confidentiality of complaints ... and investigations” — more than justify an independent review of its operations and spending of nearly $5 million a year. If the panel’s stonewalling prevails in court, the Legislature and the public should revisit its constitutional mandate and require transparency.