Mystery shrouds choices for judges, including one who missed work for 2 years

The state Supreme Court’s historic hearing Tuesday on whether to proceed with an investigation of Superior Court Judge Alice Bruno concluded without a decision. The 3 ½ hour proceeding did cast a light on more than Bruno’s absence from her job since November 2019 with full pay.

Bruno had claimed she has a health condition that requires the court administrator to accommodate her with an assignment to a courthouse free of stress and hostility. Bruno alleged in a long affidavit that she was tormented by Judge Anna Ficeto because Ficeto had not recommended her for a judgeship when Ficeto was former Gov. Jodi Rell’s legal counsel more than a decade ago. Bruno complained that Ficeto did not greet her when they passed in the courthouse hallways. Bruno was also unhappy that Ficeto warned her that Bruno’s frequent absences for medical appointments were going to attract the attention of state auditors.

Last month, Bruno told the court in a filing that she could return to work if the system would accommodate her. On Tuesday, the court heard a change in her condition has caused Bruno to apply for disability retirement for a second time.

On Monday, Bruno asked to be excused from Tuesday’s hearing. Her attorney, Jacques Parenteau, told the court that his client would suffer “devastating irreparable harm should she be required to appear.” Chief Justice Richard Robinson pointed out that crime victims and witnesses to horrific events are often required to testify in court.

A few moments after the court denied Bruno’s request to be excused, she appeared. Bruno was, to no one’s surprise, treated gently by the justices as her lawyer argued the high court had no cause to proceed with investigating Bruno.

The hearing confirmed that Bruno remains perpetually aggrieved. She spent years pursuing a nomination to the state’s trial court. When she finally received one from former Gov. Dannel Malloy in 2015, Bruno seemed surprised by what the job entails. Emails with court officials reveal they tried for the four years she reported to work to assist her in performing the duties of her privileged position.

On Tuesday, Bruno’s attorney claimed that she is the victim of the press and the public’s “ignorance” of people with disabilities. It’s our fault. After seven years as a judge, Bruno needs “a supportive environment” and “mentorship” to perform a narrow strand of the broad duties of a judge. Secrecy, however, is Bruno’s shield. She has received up to $400,000 in pay (plus benefits) but refused to submit to an independent medical examination requested by the chief court administrator.

Tuesday’s hearing included frequent declarations of wanting to discuss details but not being able to due to the nature of Bruno’s disability. Bruno was vague on what decisions she left pending when she left Waterbury in 2019. The judicial branch has declined to say how many Bruno completed. The number is not zero.

The court adjourned Tuesday without indicating what’s next. If Bruno is successful in her application for a disability retirement she likely would receive $120,000 a year. The handling of Bruno’s long absence by the court’s head administrator remains inexplicable.

The chief justice referred to the public’s interest in the Bruno matter. He is right. Its interest is rooted in the common idea that few jobs would provide as much as $400,000 in salary for not working.

For some it is bewildering, for others it confirms their suspicions of how state government operates. There is the wider challenge of the Bruno case. It adds to the public’s alienation with our institutions.

This is an opportunity for our leaders in the three branches of government to recognize the power of light.

How judges are chosen remains shrouded in mystery. The application and approval process before the Judicial Selection Committee is entirely secret. Who makes it through the commission to the list from which the governor chooses nominees is a secret.

The governor’s process for deciding who gets nominated and sent to the legislature for confirmation is also closed to public view. Secrecy means that people who could have relevant knowledge of a prospective judge are not part of the process. By the time the legislature receives a nomination it is almost impossible to stop it.

We may never know why Malloy appointed Bruno (and Rell did not) but a more public process at the start might have avoided the mystery at the end.