E-Honora: GRAWA’s Electronic Newsletter

 

 

 

 

GRAWA JEC CO-CHAIRS -- Sue Tebor and Greta Kolcon, as co-chairs of the Judicial Evaluation Committee, collected questions from the audience and presented them to the candidates.

With one open seat for Rochester City Court (because GRAWA member Judge Ann Pfeiffer is retiring from the bench this year), two candidates were on hand to pitch their qualifications for the job and respond to questions from the audience at the 22 nd annual GRAWA Judicial Candidates Luncheon on October 20. Held at the Rochester Riverside Convention Center, Stephen T. Miller and Linda Lohner Pilato each spoke about their goals in regard to the court.

Miller “hopes to have an impact on city youth, serving as a life model for black males in the community.”

Pilato noted her experience at the district attorney's office and in private practice, indicating her ability “to see cases from both the prosecution side and the defense.”

Supreme Court Candidates

There are two open seats on the State Supreme Court in the Seventh Judicial District, but only three of five declared candidates were in attendance at the luncheon event. New to the Rochester area, Kirk M. Miller's background includes recent employment as an administrative law judge by the City of New York . Because GRAWA only learned of his candidacy a few days before the luncheon, there was no opportunity to conduct a judicial evaluation.

Judge Matthew Rosenbaum, who currently serves on the Supreme Court bench by appointment, noted his familiarity with all eight counties in the district and his endorsement by numerous organizations in addition to the Republican Party.

With nearly three years of experience on the Rochester City Court bench, Judge Ellen Yacknin is the only woman on the ballot for Supreme Court this time around. She mentioned the importance of having jurists who reflect the composition of the community. “With our local population made up of 51% women, females are under-represented on the bench.”

John Owens, principal law clerk in the Monroe County Surrogate's Court, did not make it to the lunchtime event, although he originally indicated that he “might be late” due to a conflict.

The fifth candidate, who hails from New York City , was not in attendance, nor did he participate in the GRAWA judicial review process.

Questions For Candidates

For the city court candidates, a question was asked regarding the steadily growing problem of police not showing up to testify in city court cases.

Miller stated that if elected, “Efforts would be made to contact the officer's superiors to determine if this is a systemic problem. Supervisors need to be informed that this is happening and they need to ensure that the problem doesn't persist.”

Pilato spoke to the “delays caused by non-appearance.” Absent legitimate medical excuses offered as the cause of an officer's absence, she indicated potential dismissal of cases to avoid prejudice to the defendant.

For the Supreme Court candidates, a question was raised about the adequacy of the “district” system since most Supreme Court candidates tend to come from Monroe County . “Is the district model obsolete? Should Steuben or Yates Counties have the opportunity to vote for candidates closer to home?”

Kirk Miller, new to the region, wondered if there might be a need to reach outside the immediate county more to draw candidates from other counties.

Rosenbaum indicated his willingness to sit in any outlying county where he is needed. He also noted that the system of weighted votes at party conventions may need to be re-evaluated to strike a better balance.

Yacknin acknowledged that the judicial delegate convention system is a bit strange and includes time constraints that make running for judicial office tricky. However, she also recognized that many counties have County Court judges who wear multiple hats, including sitting for Supreme Court cases as needed.

Some of the questions were directed to specific candidates. Since Kirk Miller's biographical description in the program booklet was rather short, he was asked to fill in some of the time gaps that appeared in his work history. He then detailed an employment history that included a stint as corporation counsel for the city and several “private firm” associations before he went to work for the Environmental Control Board in NYC in 1998 then moved into his current position as an ALJ with the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs Adjudication Division.

City Court candidate Steve Miller was asked about his qualifications to handle civil cases, since his experience is nearly all criminal. He reminded the audience that other City Court judges have come from largely criminal backgrounds and have done fine. “And I would talk with my colleagues on the bench to learn areas that are new.”

Yacknin was asked to explain the discrepancy between the Monroe County Bar Association's rating of “not qualified” and the GRAWA rating of qualified and commended. Since the candidate evaluation processes of the two organizations differ significantly, Yacknin first focused on what she considers “process flaws” in the MCBA anonymous survey system, expressing deep concern that many of the people who may have rated her skills are not lawyers who have had first-hand experience with her.

“In the MCBA survey, there are 12 or 13 areas for evaluation, and the survey respondents must select one of five possible responses: always, regularly, irregularly, never, or don't know,” Yacknin explained. “In City Court, very few local attorneys have come before me, and prior to that I practiced in the public interest sector across the state with very few local attorneys as my opponents.”

It was clear that Yacknin felt many of the survey respondents probably lacked personal knowledge on which to base their ratings. On the other hand, she pointed out that she has had 10 City Court opinions selected for publication by the New York Official Reports, and when she was a litigator, both Judge Richard Wesley and Judge Albert Rosenblatt (from the appellate bench) complimented her advocacy skills.

Rather than a survey sent to membership, the GRAWA judicial evaluation process is completed by committee, based upon the evaluation of materials submitted by the candidates, checking references, reviewing writing samples, and candidate interviews.