In June 2002, Guardianship Services of Seattle (GSS) and its related company, Partners In Care, presented Eadie with a 60-page complaint against XXXXXX.
[Although the Seattle Times went to the trouble of requesting a full copy of the complaint, which was supposed to be a confidential document between the commissioner and the county as his employer, they apparently did not read the complaint carefully before reporting on it. The complaint was not filed by two corporations. It was compiled and presented to the presiding judge by a principal of GSS, whom I shall not name, and me. I was at the time Executive Director of Partners In Care.]
Among the allegations: XXXXXX accepted sets of tickets for third-row seats at two Mariners games and a $287 dinner from guardian James Degel, 55, a lawyer whose cases XXXXXX regularly ruled on.
[This part is accurate, but does not make the connection that this only came to light because I had first-hand knowledge of the game tickets and the dinner, and included the information in our complaint as anecdotal demonstration of the environment that was being fostered by the commissioner.]
In addition, GSS wrote that XXXXXX was biased and had made untrue accusations about the company out of the blue in a crowded courtroom.
The complaint also detailed XXXXXX' friendship with Partners in Care director Lynne Fulp, 59, whose cases he regularly ruled on. XXXXXX invited her to his house to help her write a business plan for a guardianship company. He and his wife gave Fulp birthday presents and shared meals with her. [This information is grossly out of context and misreported. The true information was presented in our complaint. The Seattle Times either did not read it carefully or simply reported carelessly. Let's go one by one:
- The wording makes it sound like someone else was complaining about a friendship between Lynne Fulp and the commissioner. In reality, this information was given in our complaint. I drew upon my personal experience with the commissioner to illustrate the commissioner's tendency to develop friendships with people whose cases he ruled on. As one of those many people, over time I became convinced of the inappropriateness of this, despite what seemed to be general acceptance of these relationships within the community.
- I was not invited to their home to write a business plan for a guardianship company. Had that been the nature of the invitation, I would have declined. The nature of the social event was clearly stated in our complaint, and nowhere does it say that the purpose was to write a business plan. In fact, the commissioner surprised me by taking the conversation in that direction. I was impressed with his talent for the topic, but I had not been seeking his advice or input, which I expressed in our complaint. I also expressed in our complaint that I was uncomfortable with the interaction as it unfolded.
- The reporter omits the fact that the commissioner had friendships with many people who came to his court room. Also, the reporter omits the fact that my acquaintance with the commissioner developed through work committees. This expanded to a friendship with his wife as well as him. Also, they did not give me presents, plural. They gave me one birthday present, one time, and my understanding was that it was selected by his wife. Despite my high regard for the friendship with the couple, I nonetheless conveyed my discomfort with it in our complaint, again as anecdotal demonstration of the environment being fostered. This perspective is overtly missing from the article.]
He also sent her an e-mail that said: "WOW, you have done more yet in your self improvement campaign! Lynne, I would be guilty of improprieties if I said how nice you looked, but as a friend I would be guilty of insensitivity if I said nothing."
When colleagues told Fulp that XXXXXX favored her over other guardians in court, she said she grew uncomfortable.
[That was absolutely not the source of my discomfort. Our complaint was that rulings were more favorable for people who participated in a friendship with him, including me, and less favorable for those same people if they did not participate. I felt this was improper and needed to be corrected, most appropriately by his supervisor, as an employee of the county. When colleagues learned that I was considering taking such action, they expressed to me that I shouldn't rock the boat, that I should enjoy the favorable rulings and do what it took to keep them coming until he retired. I did not believe such a course of action would contribute to the integrity of our judicial system, so at great personal career risk I moved forward, for the overall good. The Seattle Times was well aware of all of this, but apparently chose not to report accurately.]
"I have come to believe there is no place for Commissioner XXXXXX' tactics in an industry on which vulnerable people rely," she told Eadie, reading from a statement.
[I did say this to Judge Eadie when presenting him with our complaint, but the reporter makes that context less than clear.]
XXXXXX disputed many of the allegations, saying GSS cooked them up because he repeatedly ruled against the company. "They fought back," he said.
He also said Fulp had sought his friendship. [This post is about my disagreement with what the Seattle Times reporter said, so I will not respond to this, although I do have a significant response.]
XXXXXX acknowledged that accepting baseball tickets from Degel created the appearance of impropriety. At the time, he "didn't see it as a big thing."
As for the expensive dinner, which included Fulp, XXXXXX said he and Degel took turns paying when they met over meals to discuss guardianship issues.
[What the reporter knew, and did not choose to say, is that I was invited to that dinner by the commissioner in order to work on a presentation for an upcoming training. Further, after witnessing it first-hand, I took issue in our complaint with the idea of the commissioner having been the recipient of an expensive dinner from someone whose cases he heard regularly in court.]
Buying dinner for XXXXXX was poor judgment, Degel said, but not an attempt at influence. He said he routinely offered unused Mariners tickets to friends and acquaintances. XXXXXX was the first taker.
In 2004, the Commission on Judicial Conduct reprimanded XXXXXX for the appearance of impropriety in ruling on cases involving Fulp and Degel, instead of recusing himself. King County court reprimanded him the year before. [The point of the Judicial Conduct Commission's investigation was not as presented in this article, but because the commission conducts its investigations with explicit confidentiality, I dare not elaborate. I will simply say that, again, this is careless and inaccurate reporting.]
"I see now how it appeared, and will never do anything like this again," XXXXXX apologized in a letter to the court. "I am truly and profoundly sorry." He said he has since paid for his part of the dinner.
As for all the files he sealed, XXXXXX said he granted secrecy to protect medical and financial information.
After retiring last year, he began offering his services as a private mediator.
He applied to be a temporary commissioner for King County courts but was turned down. Pierce County, though, hired him to fill in as a temporary court commissioner and judge.
