The Committee has been asked for its opinion as to whether service on the Board of Child and Family Services by an active senior judge violates Canon 4C(2).

The requesting judge has been appointed to the Board of Child and Family Services ("Board"), a statutorily created policy board of the Division of Family Services. The judge indicates that the Board has responsibility to carry out both the mandates of a consent decree entered in a federal lawsuit challenging many aspects of the state's child welfare system and the mandates of the Child Welfare Reform Act, a comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation. The judge represents that the Board will be instrumental in recommending legislative changes in order to improve the child welfare laws and the administration of justice regarding child welfare issues. The judge also represents that the Board will be involved in the development of policies that will assist the several agencies involved in child welfare issues, both within and without the judicial branch, in carrying out their duties under the consent decree and the Child Welfare Reform Act, and that such assistance will improve the law and the administration of justice. Finally, the judge notes that as an active senior judge who sits only with the Court of Appeals, the judge is easily able to avoid any cases that involve issues concerning the Division of Family Services.

Active senior judges are required to comply with Canon 4C(2), which states, in pertinent part:

 A judge shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other governmental position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on   matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice.

The Board is clearly a governmental committee or commission. The issue before this Committee is, therefore, whether the Board is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. In his opinion request, the judge has not indicated anything that would lead the Committee to conclude that the Board is exceeding, or will exceed, the allowable issues set forth in Canon 4C-(2). To the contrary, the judge has provided the Committee with a detailed explanation of how the Board's actions will improve the law and the administration of justice. Consequently, based on the information conveyed to the committee by the requesting judge, service on the Board by the judge does not appear to violate the Code.

Although service on the Board is allowed, the judge must decline to hear any case in which the Board, any Board member, or the Division of Family Services, is a party or has a pecuniary or policy interest. See Canon 3E(1)(a)&(c). Moreover, where by reason of service on the Board there would be the appearance of impropriety, the judge must disqualify. The Committee notes that it is significantly less burdensome for an active senior judge hearing only appellate cases, who can select the cases to which he or she will be assigned, to avoid cases in this manner than it would be for a full-time judge.

Because each governmental committee and commission has unique functions and mandates, the Committee expresses no opinion as to the general propriety of serving on other committees and commissions. Each must be examined independently to determine whether service is appropriate under the Code. Informal Opinion 94-2.