May a judge chair a community corrections authority that operates a work release center used in sentencing?

Plain-English summary

A circuit judge chaired a county community corrections board that operated a work release center. The judge and a district judge placed many of the people who served sentences there, prompting concern about sentencing impartiality.

The Commission concluded that the board role was permitted. It viewed the judge’s interest in keeping the center operational as a public interest shared by citizens, rather than a personal interest casting doubt on sentencing impartiality.

The opinion found the authority’s work concerned improving the administration of justice and so did not conflict with Canon 5G. It repeated an earlier caution that board work should remain separate from individual supervision of participants or employees.

In practice

The permission concerns board governance for a sentencing resource; the opinion distinguishes it from individual supervision of program participants.

Common questions

Q: Could the judge chair the board?

A: Yes. The Commission found the service permissible.

Q: Did the judge’s interest in keeping the center open call his sentencing impartiality into question?

A: No. The Commission characterized it as a public interest shared by all citizens and found no reasonable question about the judge's sentencing impartiality on that ground.

Q: What board activity did an earlier opinion caution against?

A: Individual supervision of participants or employees, which could blur judicial and administrative responsibilities.

Background and rules framework

Canon 4 encourages activities improving the law and administration of justice. Canon 5G addresses appointments to governmental bodies concerned with matters outside that sphere.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 4 and 5G

Statutes:

• Ala. Code § 15-18-170 et seq.

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinions 93-502, 97-678, and 97-681

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 04-835: Prior Municipal Service and a City Case
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 04-837: Charity President and Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 04-836

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION

DATE ISSUED: MARCH 19, 2004

ADVISORY OPINION 04-836

SERVING ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
BOARD

ISSUE

Do the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics
permit a judge to serve as chairman of a
community corrections authority board?
Answer: Yes.

FACTS

A circuit judge serves as chairman of a
county’s community corrections authority
board. The community corrections authority
was established under § 15-18-170, et seq., of the
Code of Alabama. The primary responsibility
of the community corrections authority is the
operation of the county’s work release center,
which is a facility for the incarceration of indi-
viduals convicted of criminal offenses in the
district and circuit courts.

The circuit judge who is the chairman of the
board is in charge of the criminal docket in the
county’s circuit court. He and the district
judge are, therefore, responsible for placing
most of the inmates who are incarcerated at
the work release center. He has an interest in
keeping the center operational in that it pro-
vides a valuable resource not otherwise avail-
able as an alternative to incarceration in jail
or a penitentiary.

DISCUSSION

The Judicial Inquiry Commission may only
provide advisory opinions concerning whether
action contemplated or proposed to be taken
by a judge might constitute a violation of the
canons of judicial ethics. Rule 17, Rules of Pro-
cedure of Judicial Inquiry Commission.

The Commission has previously concluded
that a judge may serve on the board of direc-
tors of such a community corrections author-
ity, reasoning that it provides a valuable sen-
tencing alternative, and that Canon 4 encour-

ages judges to engage in activities to improve
the law, the legal system and the administra-
tion of justice. Advisory Opinion 93-502. In
Advisory Opinion 97-681, however, the Com-
mission cautioned that judges who hold such
positions should take care that their work
with the board does not involve individual
supervision of participants or employees, so
that judicial responsibilities remain separate
from administrative responsibilities with the
program.

The inquiring judge expresses a concern that
serving as chairman of the community cor-
rections board might cast doubt on his impar-
tiality. Specifically, he states that it might be
perceived that he sentenced defendants to the
work release center, rather than to probation
or to imprisonment ata penitentiary, in order
to keep the center operational. In Advisory
Opinion 97-678, the Commission decided, in
connection with a question about service on
the board of a juvenile boot camp facility,
that referrals to the facility could not be said
to impugn the judge’s impartiality because
the facility provided otherwise unavailable
opportunities for the rehabilitation of juve-
nile offenders. In other words, it filled a ser-
vice demand that was not previously met.

In the situation now presented, the judge’s
only interest in keeping the work release cen-
ter operational is a public interest shared by
all citizens. The Commission does not believe
that such an interest casts a doubt on the
judge’s impartiality in sentencing.

The judge also inquires as to the propriety of
a judge serving on the board of directors of an
incarceration facility in that such an activity
is usually associated with the executive
branch of government rather than the judicial
branch of government. Canon 5G states the
following, in pertinent part:

It is desirable that a judge should not
accept appointment toa governmental
committee, commission, or other posi-

ADVISORY OPINION 04-836
PAGE 2

tion that is concerned with issues of
fact or policy on matters other that the
improvement of the law, the legal sys-
tem, or the administration ofjustice or
unless required by law.

Since the community corrections authority is
concerned with improvement of the adminis-
tration of justice, service as chairman of its
board does not conflict with Canon 5G. Advi-
sory Opinion 97-678; see also Advisory Opin-
ions 93-502 and 97-681.

REFERENCES
Advisory Opinions 93-502, 97-678, and 97-681.

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons 4
and 5G.

Rules of Procedure of Judicial Inquiry Com-
mission, Rule 17.

This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
the judge who requested the opinion pursuant
to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the Ju-
dicial Inquiry Commission. For further infor-
mation, you may contact the Judicial Inquiry
Commission, P. O. Box 303400, Montgomery,
Alabama 36130-3400; tel.: (334) 242-4089; fax:
(334) 353-4043; E-mail: [email protected].