Thursday, June 14, 2012

The Answer Is No

A recent judicial ethics opinion from Florida:


Whether  a judge may accept a position on the board of directors of a private  not-for-profit corporation to be organized to administer “52 million DCF  dollars” by contracting with one or more third parties as part of “the  privatization of the DCF funds”?



The inquiring judge has been  asked to serve on the board of directors of a “managing entity,” a non-profit  corporation to be organized to bid for the right to administer state moneys now  or recently administered by the Florida Department of Children and Family  Services.  Only if the bid succeeds would  the managing entity “be active.” 

If the bid does succeed, the managing entity “would be in  essence a governing entity that would contract with a [named] vendor.” 

The inquiring judge was approached because of the judge’s  “extensive experience with behavioral health needs” in the judge’s  community.  One of the organizers also  wrote that “DCF strongly wishes to have a Board of Directors made up of viable  community leaders,” and that a “judge is a very strong addition to the board  demographics.”


In the present case the organizers of  the managing entity are explicit about their desire to use the prestige of  judicial office to advance the interests both of the managing entity and of the  named vendor.  After explaining that the  managing entity “will compete for the contract” that the Department of Children  and Family Services was expected to let, the letter soliciting the inquiring  judge’s participation stated:  “DCF  strongly wishes to have a Board of Directors made up of viable community  leaders.  A judge is a very strong  addition to the board demographics.” 

(Mike Frisch)

Judicial Ethics and the Courts | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Answer Is No:


I couldn't agree more, love your blog by the way!

Posted by: Blumenreich Law Firm | Jun 14, 2012 9:09:43 AM

Post a comment