Sullivan's Actions Trigger Change

Change can happen. And change has happened in the Connecticut judiciary as a result of the backlash from the unwise and unethical actions of former state Supreme Court Chief Justice William Sullivan. Sullivan withheld a case (ironically, a case concerning secrecy in the judiciary) from public release in order to help his friend, Associate Justice Peter Zarella, escape questioning on his vote in the controversial decision. Sullivan hoped Zarella would take over as chief justice when he stepped down, and he knew Zarella’s vote to maintain secrecy in the courts would be tough to defend in confirmation hearings before the Legislature. In testimony last week before the legislative judiciary committee, Sullivan apologized multiple times for his actions, but still maintained that he didn’t think he had done anything wrong. As quoted in the Hartford Courant on Feb. 22, Sullivan said, "If I thought it was improper, I wouldn’t have done it in the first place."

Sullivan’s inexplicable blind spot has fueled major reforms in the state judiciary — reforms that have already made a difference in the way the public is able to access information from the courts. Acting Chief Justice David M. Borden has moved to open judicial committee meetings to the media and the public, and court dockets are now available online at the state’s Web site, ct.gov, for all to view. And there is now a new nominee for the head position at the high court.

Last week, Gov. M. Jodi Rell named a New Canaan woman, Appellate Court Judge Chase T. Rogers, as her choice for state Supreme Court chief justice. While Rogers still needs to navigate confirmation hearings in the Legislature, she is not Zarella, nor apparently part of the cronyism Sullivan’s action revealed. She has already gained the praise of the judiciary committee co-chair, State Sen. Andrew McDonald, a Democrat from Stamford. The governor’s announcement came the day before Sullivan testified to the legislative judiciary committee, and admitted, after refusing for months to speak on the issue, that he had indeed held the decision to try to grease the wheels for Zarella’s confirmation as the new chief justice.

On the same day as Sullivan’s testimony, Superior Court Judge Robert E. Beach Jr. ruled in favor of releasing "super-sealed" cases that have been the focus of a four-year court case brought by the Hartford Courant and the Connecticut Law Tribune. All but one of 40 cases from across the state, which previously were closed from public view, are now available and the court dockets released. In his decision, Beach, according to the Courant, said, "Some have suggested that sealing orders may have been motivated by unseemly factors. Public confidence in the integrity of the judicial branch is essential in its functioning in a free society."

The late Ralph Elliot, who was the attorney for the town of Salisbury as well as a prominent freedom-of-information attorney before he died in 2005, was the first to argue this case for the Courant. While Elliot did not live to see this outcome in favor of openness, he would have been truly gratified to know that a judge finally made this ruling four years after the argument for unsealing these cases began. Now, change has happened, and others, like attorney Daniel Klau who argued the case for the Connecticut Law Review, have taken up Elliot’s mantle to fight for openness in government on all levels. Perseverance and a positive reaction to the negative "business-as-usual" attitude of Sullivan have led to this precedent-setting ruling in favor of an open judiciary.

From here, the public can only hope that the trend toward reform and transparency in Connecticut’s courts, which should continue, will continue.