Giving the public the final judgment?
When elected officials come under scrutiny for alleged wrongdoing, the public typically offers its own judgment — one that doesn’t always line up with the actual one.
Was the punishment too lenient? Did the official get special treatment? Or, perhaps this sentiment: I would have lost my job if I’d done that.
You may have heard ( or thought) something similar in the recent case involving St. Joseph County Probate Court Judge Jason Cichowicz. The Indiana Supreme Court suspended the judge for 45 days without pay after finding him guilty of “extremely serious judicial misconduct” for improperly paying for court projects by funneling money from a client’s trust fund, a client he shouldn’t have even retained once he became a judge.
The court also criticized Cichowicz for hiring his father’s company for those projects without even putting them up for public bids.
The supreme court said a severe sanction was needed in this case to deter similar misconduct by judges. But members of the public may feel a harsher punishment is appropriate.
Charles Geyh, professor of law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, understands if the average reader is unhappy or upset with what he calls “not a trivial form of misconduct.”
“It could have very easily resulted in removal of office,” says Geyh, who teaches and writes in the areas of judicial conduct, ethics, procedure, independence, accountability and administration.
He notes that suspension is “a very serious sanction,” calling it “one click shy of removal.”
“I think what disciplinary bodies prefer to do is escalate as the problems arise, so it’s not all that common for them to remove someone right out of the starting block.”
He says that another factor that may have weighed in the decision is the fact that judges are “elected by the people.”
Cichowicz was elected to serve a six-year term as the county’s probate judge in 2018, presiding over a court that deals mainly with family law and juvenile proceedings.
“When people have elected someone, I think there’s an added measure of respect that causes disciplinary bodies to pause and say, ‘ This is his first time out, this is something that he should not have done ... rather than remove him altogether and essentially override the will of the people who elected him quite recently, we’re going to go with this.’”
He adds, “If you had come and told me he had been removed for this, would that seem excessive? I would say no. On the other hand, suspension is one click shy of removal.”
Which gives the public the final judgment next year: at the ballot box.
Editorials represent the opinion of the Tribune Editorial Board. Its members are Audience Engagement Editor Alesia I. Redding, Enterprise Editor Cory Havens and Executive Editor Ismail Turay Jr.