The Alabama Daily News brings word of an Alabama judge who has been "arrested (and) charged with using office for personal gain. I cringe at such headlines. However, in any example of alleged wrongdoing or misfeasance, there are potentials for us all to learn a bit or be reminded of the lines. And, coincidentally, the story is all about "self," Judge Self, that is.
This judge presides in Lauderdale County, Alabama. That is about as far north as you can go and still be in Alabama. The judge was elected in 2009 and as part of his job duties, he was apparently responsible for maintaining some financial accounts. Prosecutors allege that he spent some of that money on self, for "a sofa, alcoholic beverages and eyeglasses" as well as for "a variety of vacations." There are 16 counts in all. On top of the stack is an additional charge of "making a false representation to" the accountants. AL.com says that there is an eighteenth charge for "perjury."
The judge "faces a maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment and a $30,000 fine for each of the sixteen B felony charges for violating the ethics law. He faces up to 10 years of imprisonment and a $15,000 fine for making a false statement." I am not so good with math, but that sounds like a potential of 330 years in jail and approximately a half-million dollars in fines. I am dubious that will be the outcome, but it is nonetheless a scary prospect. And, that may not be all the charges, see below.
The judge is said to have traveled "to Montana, a beach trip, a cycling trip across three states and a trip to St. Ignace, Michigan" at state expense. He reportedly says that "proper bookkeeping during COVID was really virtually non-existent.” He conceded that "We didn’t follow acceptable accounting principles, primarily because there’s no one trained or experienced in those principles."
I am curious how the "we did not have an accountant" defense plays out. I have seen some intriguing books from time to time as I have volunteered for various organizations. I have even heard the "we didn't know better" a time or two. But, will this situation over "$50,000 of public funds" be just some accounting technicalities?
One of the counts alleges he spent some of the funds "to employ his son," but the news offers no detail on what purpose or project for which that was intended. And, in addition to the trips noted above, "the indictment also charges him with paying himself out of public funds for travel to events he did not attend in Reno, Nevada; Duck Key, Florida; Mackinac Island, Michigan; and Alabama." So, no travel, but claiming reimbursement may be an issue.
It is worth noting that much of the history described occurred during the challenges of the recent pandemic ("April 2020 through February 2023," according to AL.com. If there is someone out there who did not find that time stressful and even oppressive in some regard, write me. I would love to hear that perspective of a carefree experience. And, perhaps it was that pandemic that kept the accountant or bookkeeper from the process or diminished focus. That will all likely be examined as this proceeds.
It is also worth noting that the judge "voluntarily repaid the funds." That is a good sign. Furthermore, AL.com reports that the judges in that area have jointly "implemented improvements to the accounting and recordkeeping practices." And, of course, the pandemic is over.
In the event that there was no criminality here, the charges will diminish or dissolve. The fact is that not all accused are convicted in this world. And, all are considered innocent until proven guilty. Indictment is not a positive event, but it is also not a conviction.
If the criminal issues are resolved, one wonders if the judge might still face challenges from the state courts. Alabama has a Code of Judicial Conduct, like most states. Similar to the others, it includes canons originally suggested by the ABA, such as:
- Canon 1. A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
- Canon 2. A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities.
- Canon 3. A judge should perform the duties of his office impartially and diligently.
- Canon 4. A judge may engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.
- Canon 5. A judge should regulate his extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties.
Any of those might be the subject of discussion when the performance of official duties is the topic. In short, it is possible that the criminal charges are the beginning but perhaps not the end.
In any event, there are lessons here. I have complained from time to time about "the accountants." They seem to always have a reason I cannot do this, or have to do that. They are both gatekeepers and rule enforcers. As Joe Walsh noted so long ago, "I can't complain but sometimes I still do" (Life's Been Good, Old Grey Whistle Test, Asylum, 1978). Yes, I do. It is frustrating to follow rules. But "I still do." The rules are there for a reason, usually because someone along the line was not very careful or attentive and did something that got attention. They got in trouble and the rest of us got more rules. So, lesson one is to have experts on your team.
The second lesson is that we all have to know when we are in unfamiliar territory. If you are not familiar and comfortable then you should seek assistance. If there is no accountant down the hall, perhaps you should make a call? Perhaps in the world of high finance ignorance is bliss, but this instance reminds us that even if the judge's actions are all deemed excusable and innocent, his name has been in the news (and social media) and he has expended time and effort in his defense. Oh, and he has hired attorneys to address the charges against him. In all, a stressful and expensive experience even if it turns out the judge acted appropriately and legally.
As a side note, one might wonder if the county pays for "errors and omissions" coverage? Investopedia explains
"Errors and omissions (E&O) insurance is a type of professional liability insurance that protects companies, their workers, and other professionals against claims of inadequate work or negligent actions."
That E&O concept is surprisingly a new one to some involved in charitable work and responsibilities. When you take on responsibility, as a director, officer, or in this instance judge, would you want some assurance of the benefits of coverage? Such a policy might pay the lawyers to defend any claim made against you, and might be responsible for the loss in the event someone does not pay the money back.
In all, this example is an object lesson. It supports having knowledge, respecting the need for the expertise of others, and perhaps being more patient with the constriction of rules. The situation in Alabama will undoubtedly play out in the news in months to come. It is intriguing and educational.
