Opinion ID: 1385402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: cooperation with scheduling

Text: The fourth paragraph of the Commission's complaint states that Magistrate Browning failed to follow and cooperate in changing the magistrate court's schedule. In her brief, Magistrate Browning seems to concede that there were problems with scheduling. However, Magistrate Browning argues that these problems should be resolved by the affected parties and should not be decided by this Court. We decline to take these problems so lightly. After reviewing the record, we agree with the Hearing Board that Magistrate Browning failed to cooperate with scheduling. The record in this case reveals that Magistrate Browning took numerous days off from work. [10] In addition, there was at least one occasion, on March 4, 1993, when Chief Magistrate Sidebottom-Shemelya, who was responsible for setting the schedule, and Magistrate Browning had a substantial disagreement with regard to taking the day off from work. In this instance, the circuit judge for Mingo County, the Honorable Elliott E. Maynard, interceded and resolved the conflict. Ultimately, Magistrate Browning worked that day. Under Canon 3A of the Code of Judicial Conduct, [t]he judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. More specifically, Canon 3C(1) provides, in part, that a judge should cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business. In In the Matter of Harshbarger, 173 W.Va. 206, 314 S.E.2d 79 (1984), we publicly censured a magistrate for leaving his post prior to the end of his scheduled shift of night court. Likewise, in In the Matter of Osburn, 173 W.Va. 381, 315 S.E.2d 640 (1984), we reprimanded a magistrate who was on duty but remained at his house when a prisoner was brought to his office for arraignment. In both of these cases, we found the magistrates violated Canon 3 of the Judicial Code of Ethics. [11] Although we do not find that the scheduling situation in the present case is as serious as the problems that occurred in Harshbarger and Osburn, we conclude that Magistrate Browning violated Canon 3A and 3C(1) by failing to cooperate. Therefore, we agree with the Hearing Board and find that Magistrate Browning violated paragraph four of the complaint. We recognize that Magistrate Browning and Chief Magistrate Sidebottom-Shemelya do not have a good working relationship which is the basis of some of the underlying conflict between the two. However, we do not excuse Magistrate Browning's lack of cooperation with Chief Magistrate Sidebottom-Shemelya in resolving scheduling matters. It is essential that the public have access to the magistrate court system, and this goal cannot be accomplished if the magistrates cannot agree on a work schedule.