Hecht convicted, but still paid

Pierce County leaders don’t want to pay disgraced Superior Court Judge Michael Hecht another dime if they can help it.

“For me, enough’s enough. These are taxpayer dollars,” County Executive Pat McCarthy said last week. “He’s already cost the county about $100,000.”

Hecht, 59, was found guilty Wednesday of threatening to kill a man and buying sex from a male prostitute. He’s on a leave of absence from the bench – he hasn’t worked since March – but he still has his job, and he’s still collecting his $148,000 salary, plus benefits.

“We’d just like to stop giving him chicken soup money,” said Al Rose, chief legal adviser to the county executive.

The guilty verdict has kindled a furious internal debate between the county’s executive and judicial branches. The question: When can you drop a convicted felon off the county payroll?

Executive branch leaders say the answer is now. They cite a state law, RCW 42.12.010, that triggers vacancies in elected offices. The triggers include death, resignation and criminal conviction.

Judicial branch leaders say the answer is later. They cite Article 4 of the state constitution, which addresses removal of judges from the bench.

The constitution lists two methods: impeachment by the Legislature or a fact-finding review and a recommendation by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, followed by a ruling from the Washington State Supreme Court.

One process is in motion – slow motion. The judicial conduct commission has scheduled a fact-finding hearing on the Hecht matter for Feb. 22, almost four months away.

Allowing Hecht to keep his job while that process plays out would force the county to pay Hecht another $50,000 in salary for not working. The time required for subsequent review by the Supreme Court could fatten the total.

Waiting for the review creates another possibility county leaders hope to avoid. Hecht faces a sentencing hearing Nov. 19 – the moment when his conviction becomes official.

His crime, felony harassment, includes a potential jail sentence. Theoretically, Hecht could collect a county paycheck while behind bars.

“That’s just wrong,” said Rose.

CUTOFF AT SENTENCING?

McCarthy’s advisers are building an argument to cut Hecht from the county payroll at the point of his Nov. 19 sentencing, despite counter-arguments from the county’s judicial branch.

Under that scenario, the judicial conduct commission still would conduct its hearing. The Supreme Court still would have its chance to rule. Meanwhile, Hecht wouldn’t collect county paychecks.

The debate pits lawyers against lawyers, law against law, and it’s still theoretical. No decisions have been made.

Neither side can claim backing from prior court rulings. Hecht’s case appears unprecedented in Washington. Legal analysts haven’t found another example of a sitting Superior Court judge convicted of a crime.

Bryan Chushcoff, presiding judge of the Superior Court, opts for the constitutional argument – Hecht can’t be removed unless the Supreme Court says so.

“It is my understanding of the law that the entry of a conviction does not, of itself, remove a Superior Court judge from office,” Chushcoff said Wednesday in a prepared statement. He included references to Article 4 of the state constitution, which outlines the removal process.

County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist released a similar analysis Friday, written by Doug Vanscoy, the prosecutor’s chief civil deputy.

The analysis draws a distinction between other elected offices and those held by Superior Court judges.

While judges are elected, their positions are constitutionally created. According to Vanscoy’s reasoning, that means the constitution controls the removal process, even if a judge is convicted of a crime. Aside from impeachment by the Legislature, the judicial conduct commission is the only route to removal.

“A conviction upon either count would not change Judge Hecht’s status,” Vanscoy wrote, in part.

AUTOMATIC VACANCIES

Analysts from the county executive branch argue that state law and the constitution don’t conflict, and there’s no need to pit one against the other.

State law governs vacancies in office, the constitution governs removals from office, Rose said – two different things.

“We believe that when you’re a judge and you’re convicted of a felony, you’re no longer a judge,” Rose said. “We don’t make this decision lightly, but we feel very strongly that since he’s been convicted of a felony and there’s a law on the books, to say it’s just obviously unconstitutional, we disagree.”

Rose noted that state law creates automatic vacancies in several situations, not just a criminal conviction.

“What happens when a judge is dead? The Supreme Court would have to remove him?” he asked. “If the guy moves to Hawaii and doesn’t show up for court, we’ve got to wait for the Supreme Court to remove him? No. The office is vacant.”

Rose added another point with a rhetorical sting – if Hecht tried to run for office today, his conviction would bar his eligibility for the bench.

GO AHEAD AND TRY SUING

In some respects, the county’s position is a gamble. Cutting Hecht from the payroll opens the door to a countersuit. Hecht could argue that the county’s decision denies him access to due process for removal of judges.

On the other hand, the county’s approach represents a political dare, a chance to test unsettled law. Hecht could sue, but he’d have to do it on his own dime if the county stopped paying his salary.

He isn’t working as a judge, and his return to the bench is all but impossible. Suing would force him to argue for wages he didn’t earn, for work he hadn’t done.

One school of thought in county circles suggests Hecht can go ahead and try.

John Ladenburg, former county executive and one-time county prosecutor, knows where he stands on the Hecht matter.

“I don’t think I’d cut him a paycheck in county government,” Ladenburg said last week. “The courts are not omnipotent.”

Ladenburg doesn’t think Hecht can win a due process argument.

“He just went through a judicial process and got convicted,” Ladenburg said. “I think he’s had his judicial process – one with the highest burden of proof.”

JUDGE QUIET ON PLANS

Hecht could resolve the debate by resigning. Lindquist, the county prosecutor, would welcome that decision.

“Judge Hecht should resign immediately,” Lindquist told The News Tribune on Friday via e-mail. “If the law does not require his immediate removal, and it arguably does not, the law should be changed. He should not be allowed to collect a paycheck from the public.”

So far, Hecht hasn’t revealed his plans to anyone but his attorney, Wayne Fricke.

“He and I will be addressing that, everything, here quickly,” Fricke said Friday. “Obviously, we’re talking about the entire situation here. I don’t know how it will play out, but we are working to resolve that.

“You might know something next week. You might know something sooner than that. You might know something later than that.”

Sean Robinson: 253-597-8486

sean.robinson@thenewstribune.com

Staff writer Adam Lynn contributed to this report.