Judging the judges

E ver wonder how a state or federal judge might feel if he or she was the one whose actions and decisions were being evaluated? I have.

Now, it appears Arkansas has a website that offers lawyers and their clients the opportunity to do some judging of their own.

Career Arkansas attorney, federal prosecutor and UA law professor Sam Perroni of Fayetteville and Maumelle businessman John Kelly, after five years of planning, have developed a novel concept for their new nonprofit called the American Foundation for Judicial Accountability.

As its name states, their foundation’s online survey would ensure that sitting state and federal judges who play favorites and otherwise perform poorly in their public responsibilities can be held accountable in the all-important court of public opinion. Conversely, judges who are professional, fair-minded and honorable could be praised.

This idea is, to me, one whose time arrived decades ago. And while there have been, and are, other judicial-type surveys sponsored largely by bar associations and attorney groups across the country, Perroni and Kelly’s foundation prides itself on being wholly independent and anonymous.

Their plan is simple and confidential for attorneys and litigants alike who can go online to freely offer opinions on a judge’s performance in a professional, critical and constructive manner.

Kelly told me that he and Perroni, 67, who is widely respected in legal circles across Arkansas, developed the questions for the foundation’s survey and retained a third party to tabulate the results. They also hired experts to create the website, which features built-in protections to ensure anonymity for those who respond.

“And every year we will release the results to the public through the media,” said the 56-year-old Kelly. Now that could certainly make for an interesting news day.

“I believe we’ve created something that will be effective in bringing accountability to the judicial system. My personal assessment of the public opinion of the judicial system today is that it very much favors the wealthy and is terribly inefficient in resolving disputes.”

He believes the primary reason for his view lies in the actions (and inactions) of state and federal judges who have complete control of what occurs in their courtroom, including the timing of getting to the point of resolutions in cases before them.

“This foundation survey is not, as some already have tried to portray it, a vendetta against any specific judge or judges,” said Kelly. “Rather, it’s an opportunity for those who elect and compensate state and federal judges that render judgments across society to express their views of how fair, impartial, capable and professional the judges perform their crucial responsibilities to all of us.”

He added that he and Perroni believe the nature and scope of the survey questions involving each judge offer ample opportunity for fair-minded and broad assessments.

“Sam and I each have experience dealing with judges and have opinions, of course, but the survey isn’t intentionally set up so no litigant or attorney has more influence than another. That means even if we were seeking to have a judge removed, which we aren’t and won’t, we are but one of thousands with equal weight given to all opinions. We want to honor the good judges and help others improve by holding them accountable for their performance in office.”

The hope is to extend this foundation’s ideals and goals across the nation, which seems to me to be a daunting, perhaps even impossible task. Yet Kelly believes it can—and will— be achieved because the system itself will prove effective and valuable. “We used the name American for a reason. We want to bring this idea to every state, and our contacts with judicial advocates in other states already have proven very favorable and we will be working further with them to help make this truly a national opportunity.” Kelly and Perroni also see the foundation as a mechanism for furthering judicial education through grants and seminars.

If you’ve actually had courtroom experience with a judge, you can visit the foundation’s website and offer confidential evaluations about your experiences at www.judicialrating.com.

Bias on camera

That GOP debate on CNBC the other night became quite the spectacle. Never were the political biases of the mainstream media more on display than in the loaded questions the three “journalist” moderators asked of the candidates, who also clearly had enjoyed all they wanted of the questioners’ calculated attempts to either cast each in a bad light or pit them against each other.

And their sophomoric, irrelevant questions came in a period when many other genuine pressing issues cry out for each candidate’s intelligent thoughts and perspective.

Sen. Ted Cruz launched the tirade against the obvious bias in the negatively worded questions that had the feel of a setup from the opening minute. Other candidates on stage also expressed their displeasure. The following day, social media was abuzz with just how bad and biased the moderators’ performances were. One called them obedient sock puppets for the “progressive” agenda.

Sounds to me like Americans are realizing what’s been happening directly beneath their noses for a long time now.

Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com.