Title: In re Kroger

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Kroger  (96-495); 167 Vt. 1; 702 A.2d 64

[Filed 25-Jul-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                           No. 96-495

In re Honorable Althea P. Kroger          Supreme Court

                                          Original Jurisdiction from
                                          Judicial Conduct Board

                                          March Term, 1997

David A. Otterman of Otterman and Allen, P.C., Barre, for Judicial Conduct 
  Board

James W. Runcie of Ouimette & Runcie, Vergennes, for respondent

PRESENT:Johnson, J., and Hudson, DiMauro and Skoglund, D. JJ, and
  Dier, Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       PER CURIAM.  Respondent is charged with violating Canons 1 and 2A of
  the Code of Judicial Conduct.  A four-member majority of the Judicial
  Conduct Board found that certain public statements made by respondent were
  false, deceptive, and/or misleading, and concluded that respondent should
  be disciplined for violating the Code.  The Board could not recommend a
  sanction because five members did not concur, as required by our rules. 
  Rules of Supreme Court for Disciplinary Control of Judges, Rule 6(17). 
  Respondent argues that the Board's findings are erroneous, and urges this
  Court to dismiss the charges against her.  We conclude that some of the
  statements made by respondent violated the Code and accordingly sanction
  respondent by suspending her from serving in a judicial capacity for one
  year.

                            I. Factual Background

       Respondent was elected as an assistant judge for Chittenden County in
  November 1994 and took office in February 1995.  Shortly after she took
  office, she and incumbent Assistant Judge Elizabeth Gretkowski became
  embroiled in conflicts over the administration of county business.  These
  disputes were reported by the press, and respondent felt that the press
  coverage

 

  was biased against her.  In August 1995, respondent decided to express her
  views on the management of the county budget by writing an article in the
  Burlington Free Press.  The article, published in the newspaper's "It's My
  Turn" column, discussed a number of financial issues and also mentioned 
  respondent's concern that she was not permitted to audiotape assistant
  judge meetings or to take notes at those meetings.  Chittenden County Clerk
  Diane Lavallee drafted a response to this article, which was later
  published under Judge Gretkowski's name.

       At the same time that respondent sent her article to the Free Press,
  she filed a complaint against Judge Gretkowski with the Judicial Conduct
  Board. Respondent attached a copy of the article to the complaint.  A short
  time later, respondent sent another letter to the Board, along with a
  memorandum entitled "Documentation in Support of Complaint Against
  Assistant Judge Elizabeth Gretkowski."  In the memorandum, respondent
  alleged that Judge Gretkowski had violated various provisions of the Code
  of Judicial Conduct by failing to comply with the Open Meeting Law;
  allocating capital construction funds in a manner prohibited by statute;
  failing to respond to the judicial and administrative problems in
  Chittenden County, specifically by refusing to enter mediation; and acting
  discourteously and in an undignified manner to litigants, witnesses,
  lawyers, and court personnel.

       The Vermont Association of County Judges (VACJ) became increasingly
  concerned about this unpleasant and very public dispute between respondent
  and Judge Gretkowski.  The organization decided to hold hearings about the
  allegations in the two newspaper articles and about the working
  relationship between the two judges.  Although VACJ has no statutory or
  other authority to hold such hearings, both respondent and Gretkowski
  elected to participate. The procedural rules for the hearings, held in
  October 1995, allowed each judge to testify, call witnesses, and present
  documentary evidence, but did not permit cross-examination.  The witnesses
  were sworn and a record was made of their testimony.  The present charges
  against

 

  respondent are based on statements that she made while testifying at the
  VACJ hearings.(FN1)

                             II. Legal Standards

       In a judicial conduct proceeding, this Court makes the only final and
  ultimate decision. In re Bryan, ___ Vt. ___, ___,