The Court noted that both it and the judges of the county court helped to organize the D.U.I. schools to effectively deal with the problem of alcohol and driving. The Court specifically rejected our Committee's Opinion 86-8, in which a majority of the members suggested that service on a D.U.I. school board by a county court judge might be proscribed by the Code. The Code does not preclude a judge from serving as a member of the Board of Directors of a D.U.I. Countermeasures School. However, the C.O.R.E. Program is not just a D.U.I. Countermeasures School. While Canon 4 permits a judge to engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, it is not unlimited.
Probation violations are a frequent occurrence before criminal court judges.
These proceedings are frequently adversarial, in which the probation officer is usually seeking to impact a defendant's probationary status. Since these matters ordinarily come before the judges, it follows that it would be improper for them to continue their service as members of the C.O.R.E. Program's Board of Directors. The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee is expressly charged with rendering advisory opinions interpreting the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to specific circumstances confronting or affecting a judge or judicial candidate. Its opinions are advisory to the inquiring party, to the Judicial Qualifications Commission and to the judiciary at large. Conduct that is consistent with an advisory opinion issued by the Committee may be evidence of good faith on the part of the judge, but the Judicial Qualifications Commission is not bound by the interpretive opinions by the Committee.