Kept in the dark: End secrecy in judicial discipline inquiries

Some devastating political news was lost in the run-up to Election Day because it involved an elected official who wasn't on the ballot: Clark County Family Court Judge Steven Jones was indicted by a federal grand jury, accused of using his position to carry out a multimillion-dollar investment fraud scheme.

Southern Nevadans are all too familiar with seeing elected officials accused of criminal behavior. But it's especially unsettling to see a judge charged in connection with such a scam. We hold judges to the highest standards of legal and ethical behavior because they wield so much power from the bench: the authority to take away freedom, property and family. Justice demands that judges be beyond reproach.

What makes Jones' case even more troubling, however, is that he faced allegations of criminal behavior years earlier, and that by law those allegations were kept from the public.

Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison reported Saturday that Jones has been under investigation by the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission since 2006. The allegations are alarmingly similar to those detailed in his indictment.

In that filing, Jones, his former brother-in-law, ex-felon Thomas Cecrle, and four others are accused of persuading people to loan them money to complete lucrative deals that would result in quick, high returns. According to the indictment, Jones' job was to use the power of his position to calm investors who had begun to worry that they might have been ripped off. Prosecutors say the scheme cost victims about $3 million over 10 years.

However, in the complaint filed with the Judicial Discipline Commission six years ago, Jones is alleged to have engaged in fraud dating back to 1996, just four years after he was elected to the bench. Those allegations address additional investor losses of about $2.3 million.

Complaints to the commission are kept secret, and allegations of judicial misconduct are made public only if the commission decides to move forward with a disciplinary hearing. The commission's case against Jones was made public only because Jones asked the Nevada Supreme Court to dismiss the charges, Ms. Morrison reports. The court unsealed that case Wednesday in agreeing to consider Jones' argument that the investigation violated his rights by dragging on for too long.

The commission's excuse: A law that requires it to act on complaints within 18 months took effect in 2010 and doesn't cover the 2006 filing against Jones. So not only has the commission thumbed its nose at the law and the public interest, but its ineffectiveness and refusal to work with urgency might torpedo the entire case. That's every bit as maddening as the allegations against Jones.

The public would have been much better served if they had known about the allegations against Jones prior to his 2010 re-election campaign. The commission's business needs to be brought into the sunlight.