In November 2008, Federal Way Municipal Court Judge David Larson had a “hot potato” in his hands.

Court supervisor Cindy Roque had made allegations of possible “workplace violence” against Judge Michael Morgan. The police department had found no criminal issue to pursue. Morgan had gone on leave, and Roque was placed on administrative leave. Now what?

Larson states he was guided by Judicial Canon 3(c)(1), which he believes required him, given the information he had about another judge, to “take or initiate appropriate corrective action.” He also noted under GR29 his actions “cannot be delegated to persons in either the legislative or executive branch.” Larson also felt that the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) would not be able to act fast enough. Feeling a sense of urgency, he decided to conduct an investigation into the allegations himself.

Larson did consult with an outside human resources person and city officials who, recognizing they had no authority over Judge Larson’s actions, tried to offer some advice. City officials are vague about the depth of information they were given and whether they “agreed” with Judge Larson’s decision to handle the investigation himself. Some, citing the “or initiate” wording in the Canons, believe he could have assigned the investigative task to an outside trained professional investigator while still retaining authority to act on any resulting “findings and conclusions.”

As an employee and recipient of the complaint, Larson becomes inescapably intertwined in the process as an “interested party” and possible witness.

Most everyone involved believed an investigation of some type was warranted. But in hindsight, the issue of who should have done it has disagreement. The question is: Can the court objectively investigate itself?

The sense of urgency had been reduced by Judge Morgan’s absence. And while it’s unclear why Roque was placed on administrative leave, her absence also helped reduce any time crunch Larson may have felt. Time to hire an outside investigator was available and the cost would have been fairly minimal.

Judge Larson’s Dec. 18 report conclusions regarding the suicide comments are that there is “no imminent threat” and “no further action was necessary.” On the issue of “harm to others,” Judge Larson concludes: “Ms. Roque’s allegations are not credible.” He reaches this conclusion based on her actions and statements, although the report states that “Judge Morgan recalls making the statement.”

However, it suggests Morgan and Roque have different views of the context and meaning. Since not all the material Judge Larson relied upon is available for city management, city council or public review, his report stands on its own. There are varying degrees of agreement and disagreement with the conclusions from those who have read the report.

Some parties believe Judge Larson clouds the report’s objectivity by including personal observations and conversations suggesting a blurring of lines between investigator and witness. Additionally, adding his opinion that Ms. Roque is “setting the city up” seems to be an unusual inclusion, since she was later fired and then filed her claim for damages.

Many suggestions have arisen as to lessons learned and possible remedies. City council members acknowledge they are running out of patience with issues surrounding the court and the city. As one commented: “Since we’ve had a court, we’ve had four judges and nothing but problems.” Some believe the rigid legal separation between the court and City Hall hinders opportunities for cooperation.

Ideas raised so far include contracting court issues with the district court and eliminating the municipal court. The city council recently asked for a study. They could also contract with another city. Others believe that goes too far, and that state legislative direction is a better solution. Those thoughts include providing a stronger and timelier role for the CJC; requiring transparency for CJC involvement to help define what issues are being reviewed; possibly providing a specific, but limited, role for the city manager or city council; and providing training or direction to courts that clearly guide judges’ personnel actions.

Many observers and City Hall insiders feel that without some changes, the issues may continue. The CJC will still respond slowly and in secret. The city and court leaders will remain at odds. Judges will still have to guess at the appropriate solution.

And the public will still pay the bill.