Chief judge gets his ethics reviewed

Daily Point

State commission does not publicly discipline Rowan Wilson

The state's Commission on Judicial Conduct has declined to take any disciplinary measures against Chief Judge Rowan Wilson for remarks he made in February critical of sentencing laws and judges who impose lengthy prison terms, essentially accepting his defense that he chose his words poorly.

The Point has obtained the confidential six-page document disposing of the case sent last month to Wilson and the eight Republican lawmakers who filed the complaint.

In choosing not to bring any disciplinary action, the panel accepted the chief judge's regrets about his choice of words criticizing sentencing laws and urging voters to oppose the election of judges who made harsh remarks about defendants at a Queens CUNY School of Law forum on alternatives to incarceration.

The commission did gently chide him for the language he used. In closing the matter, the commission wrote, "While this episode underscores the care that all judges must exercise in their choice of words, even when making otherwise permissible public remarks, in context, and considering the concession and clarification in the Chief Judge's March 30 letter, the Commission did not believe further comment or action was required."

A spokesman for Wilson did not respond to a request for comment.

"In light of the findings, hopefully the chief judge will address his behavior and will ensure that his future comments won't be misconstrued," said State Sen. Anthony Palumbo, the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of eight Republicans who asked the commission to review Wilson's remarks.

State Sen. Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, another committee member who signed the complaint against Wilson, said she remained concerned that the chief judge's comments "crossed a line by appearing to encourage voters to take political action against certain judges. I believe the Commission should have more clearly acknowledged the seriousness of those remarks and the importance of maintaining public confidence in an impartial judiciary."

Other Long Island lawmakers on the complaint were State Sen. Steven Rhoads and Assembly members Keith Brown and Doug Smith.

Robert Tembeckjian, administrator and counsel to the disciplinary commission, declined to comment.

Unless "public" discipline, such as censure, admonition, removal, forced retirement or resignation is taken, the findings of the commission are confidential, according to state law.

In the July 7 letter, the commission said that Wilson's calling some long sentences "stupid" could reasonably be read as questionable but said "Wilson's March 30 letter clarified he wasn't criticizing long sentences generally, but rather the waste of resources incarcerating people who'd been rehabilitated and no longer posed a threat. The Commission accepted this clarification and took no further action."

On the complaint that it was improper for Wilson to urge his audience to identify and vote against judges who made harsh remarks, such as the one who called a defendant an "animal," the commission gave him a pass.

This was the most serious issue, since judges must generally avoid political activity. The panel wrote that Wilson's follow-up letter conceded this could be construed as directing votes. Wishing he had been "clearer" in his words and that he lacked any real ability to address such situations, Wilson wrote in the March letter, "I should have said that the voters have that ability and should become informed and express their preferences through the electoral process."

The commission accepted this clarification, noting Wilson never named a specific judge.

— Rita Ciolli rita.ciolli@newsday.com

Pencil Point

Daylight snoozing time

For more cartoons, visit www.newsday.com/nationalcartoons

Final Point

Betrayal or backing a friend? A Suffolk Dem chooses.

Is Suffolk County Legis. Greg Doroski risking his political future for an ideological stand or simply backing a childhood friend?

Both, he says. Others say the East End Democrat may be putting his political career on ice by betraying county party leadership.

Saturday, Doroski, a first-term Democrat, posted to social media his endorsement of Southold Town Democratic Party chair Kathryn Casey Quigley in her fight against Suffolk County Democratic Party chair Rich Schaffer. Doroski is the only Suffolk legislator to publicly back Casey Quigley. Other Democrat officeholders, most notably, Gov. Kathy Hochul, have pledged their support of Schaffer.

In betraying Schaffer, Doroski risks his political future if Casey Quigley loses her challenge for the chairmanship. A victorious Schaffer, who has held the position since 2000, may not be inclined to help Doroski in his next election.

"This was a moral decision for me, and self-interest be damned," Doroski said. "Rich has been very, very supportive of me over the years. That's one of the things that made this decision very difficult."

Doroski said he's been friends with Casey Quigley since third grade and that her father coached his CYO basketball team. She supported his first election, an unsuccessful albeit close bid in 2019 for Southold Town supervisor.

But Casey Quigley said Doroski isn't betraying Schaffer.

"If he is, then he's exactly the type of leader we need at this moment," she said. "Democrats are saying, voters are saying, we need to be able to trust our leaders and we need fighters. Greg is showing his integrity and willingness to fight."

Then again, Doroski is a first-term legislator fresh off an unexpected win last year over an incumbent, so it's not like he has broad coattails to draw Democrats from across Suffolk to Casey Quigley's banner.

Doroski said he spoke to Schaffer before posting his support of Casey Quigley online. The move was spurred Thursday night as rumors began floating among county Democrats that the Democratic candidate for county clerk, Anthony Portesy, would withdraw from that race to accept the Conservative Party line for state Supreme Court justice.

Doroski said one of the principles that led him to take the risk of going against Schaffer was the Democratic Party's cross-endorsements of Conservatives. The party, he said, needs candidates even in uphill elections to raise issues and build a bench for future races.

"I'm not saying we have to run someone against everyone," Doroski said. "But we sure as hell shouldn't be making deals. Trading at the expense of the voters is not good."

Casey Quigley said Doroski's endorsement shouldn't come at the expense of party support.

"I've been saying from the beginning, our loyalty is to the mission of the Democratic Party, not a person," Casey Quigley said.

— Mark Nolan mark.nolan@newsday.com

Subscribe to The Point here and browse past editions of The Point here.