Viewpoints

State auditor blocked in seeking judicial records

California State Auditor Elaine Howle looked into the welfare of  Medi-Cal beneficiaries in the 18 counties at the behest of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, which wanted to know whether these patients were receiving care comparable to their peers around the state since being transitioned into managed care plans from fee-for-service plans during the Medi-Cal expansion in 2013.
California State Auditor Elaine Howle looked into the welfare of Medi-Cal beneficiaries in the 18 counties at the behest of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, which wanted to know whether these patients were receiving care comparable to their peers around the state since being transitioned into managed care plans from fee-for-service plans during the Medi-Cal expansion in 2013. AP

State Auditor Elaine Howle has a fearsome reputation for tunneling deeply into public agencies and finding nuggets of information that officials would prefer to remain hidden.

 
Opinion

Recently, for instance, the Legislature directed Howle to delve into the finances of the University of California, and its cloistered executives, especially President Janet Napolitano, went into full DEFCON 1 mode.

Eventually, Howle learned that responses to her inquiries of officials at individual UC campuses were being routed through Napolitano’s top aides and sanitized of criticism before being forwarded to the auditors.

Howle blew the whistle on the laundering, two top executives walked the plank by resigning and the UC president was admonished by the Board of Regents after taking semi-responsibility. The audit, meanwhile, determined that Napolitano was sitting on a $175 million secret stash of cash.

With that incident reverberating, Howle finds herself in another faceoff with another agency over access to its secrets.

Responding to complaints from judicial reform groups, the Legislature authorized Howle to take a critical look at the Commission on Judicial Performance, an agency charged with investigating complaints against judges and disciplining them when warranted.

Reformers contend that the commission is lax in investigating allegations of judicial misconduct but masks its poor performance by making virtually all of its actions secret.

Occasionally, the commission does publicly announce disciplinary action, usually when the conduct involved is already well known. But under the constitutional sections that establish the commission’s authority, it has the sole power to decide what is and is not public.

Therefore, when Howle’s auditors sought records on individual cases, the CJP balked, contending that even though state law gives her access to confidential records of public agencies, that access is trumped by its constitutional authority.

The commission took the unprecedented step of suing Howle and on Dec. 19, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos issued an order thwarting Howle, saying she “has no legal right to access the CJP’s confidential records.”

This is a fascinating conflict on several levels.

As Judge Bolanos declared, it touches on the separation-of-powers issue. Can one branch of government – the Legislature through Howle – rummage through the secrets of another, the judiciary?

Howle has done so, in a sense, by excoriating the State Judicial Council, the policymaking arm of the Supreme Court, for its disastrous foray into a centralized case management system. And she didn’t hesitate to hammer UC, which is also constitutionally independent, for its financial mischief.

From a public policy standpoint, there is – or should be – no reason to shield CJP’s performance from scrutiny, especially since Howle’s authority to examine confidential records includes a caveat that none will be revealed to the public. She and the Legislature are legitimately interested in whether the CJP is doing its job, not in airing judges’ dirty linen.

Furthermore, it may be a fundamental conflict of interest for any judge – in this case Bolanos – to side with the CJP when it invokes secrecy about judicial misbehavior. That said, Bolanos may be legally correct in saying that the CJP’s constitutional authority supersedes Howle’s statutory authority.

If so, however, the Legislature needs to resolve the issue by elevating the auditor’s authority to constitutional status or making it clear that no agency can escape scrutiny, especially one supposedly protecting the integrity of the judiciary.

Dan Walters is a columnist at CALmatters. Reach him at dan@calmatters.org.

  Comments