The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing the ethical considerations for a part-time town justice serving as an unpaid member of a regional commission for the New York State Council of Parks. Opinion 25-152, released recently, delves into the permissible activities of a judge in such a dual role, particularly concerning interactions with state legislators regarding park funding.
The judge in question sought guidance on whether they could engage with state legislators to advocate for the funding of specific park projects, or more broadly, discuss the merits of such projects while others solicit funds. Further, the judge inquired about their presence at meetings where funding requests are made and the inclusion of their name on commission letterhead used for funding appeals. The judge clarified that they would not be identified as a judge in these activities, would avoid local funding issues, and would recuse themselves from matters involving park employees or the New York State Park Police.
The Committee, in its opinion, emphasized that while part-time judges can serve on governmental commissions dealing with issues beyond law improvement, they must uphold public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. They must also avoid any appearance of impropriety. The opinion referenced sections of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, which state that a judge must not lend the prestige of their office to advance private interests or fundraising efforts.
The Committee concluded that the judge may serve on the commission, assuming its activities do not typically come before the town court. However, the judge is prohibited from personally soliciting funds or participating in fundraising activities for parks. The judge also cannot directly lobby legislators for government funds for park-related purposes. The judge’s presence at meetings where other commission members pitch projects to legislators or make funding requests is also deemed inappropriate, as it could appear as participation in the solicitation. Similarly, direct communication with legislators about the benefits of a park project is prohibited, as it is closely linked to the decision to allocate funds.
The Committee did state that the judge’s name could be included on the commission’s regular letterhead, even if used for funding appeals, provided it only lists their name and position with the commission, along with their judicial designation if similar designations are listed for other members. The judge, however, must not sign such letters.
