Competing Interests of 54B Judge Candidates

Our local court, 54B District Court, has two elected judges. Becasue one is retiring, we will vote on November 6 for a new judge. There are two candidates: Andrea Larkin and Mark Meadows. I have asked them to answer questions about competing interests, and I reproduce their answers below.

The 54B Court may seem like small potatoes, but it actually matters a lot in East Lansing. As the court's website indicates, 54B judges adjudicate: "criminal cases, including preliminary examinations for felonies and misdemeanors; civil cases up to $25,000 including small claims disputes up to $3,000 and landlord/tenant disputes; civil infractions, including traffic and parking violations."

The consequence is that, if you need to fight City Hall, 54B is where you do it. This is why it is particularly important to understand what relationships the candidates have with those in City Hall, wherein 54B is literally located.

It is also important to note that, "The Court, although operated under the state judicial system, is funded by the City of East Lansing and all revenues not statutorily designated are returned to the City's general fund" (again quoting the court's website). This means that the more the City wins in 54B cases, the more money the City gets.

Here are the questions I put to Larkin and Meadows:

1. What are the sources of income in your household? (No need to specify amounts, just sources.)

Larkin replied: "The main source of income in our house now is in the form of compensation from the private practice of law. We also have some dividend and interest income from savings and investment accounts."

Meadows replied: "My household income is entirely from my wife's pension, my pension and my salary as a state legislator."

2. What other potential competing financial interests should we know about?

Larkin replied: "I have no financial interests that would compete with anything I would encounter as Judge of the District Court." When asked to disclose relevant campaign contributions, Larkin replied, "I have received no donations from any members of City Council, the City Attorney's office or any city workers, to my knowledge. I am not involved in city governments so I do not know who has regular business before the city in relation to their incomes but I have received donations from some people I believe to own commercial and residential business property." [See correction at the end of this article.]

Meadow replied: "My wife and I own our home free and clear and have a small mortgage on a cabin up north." When asked to disclose relevant campaign contributions, Meadows responded, "I have not received any campaign donations from members of City Council, the City Attorney's office, City workers, landlords or anyone else or other individuals who contract with the City to the best of my knowledge. I have received contributions from attorneys who may, or may not, appear in 54B District Court in the future."

3. What non-financial potential competing interests do you have? For example, what relationships have you developed that might be implicated in work that comes before 54B District Court?

Larkin replied: "I can think of no relationship that would conflict with my role as the 54B District Court judge. I have never been held any role in East Lansing city government. I would adhere strictly to the Canons of Judicial Ethics when deciding whether to recuse myself from a case where I personally know one of the parties. The City of East Lansing is the complainant in many of the civil infraction and ordinance cases that come to this court. It is important that the public have confidence in the independence of the judiciary and I have no current or former ties to city government or its members that would erode that confidence."

Meadows replied: "Canon 3.C. of the Judicial Canons requires judges to disqualify themselves when a conflict or potential conflict of interest occurs. The conflict need not be financial. The grounds for such disqualification are set forth in MCR (Michigan Court Rule) 2.003. To summarize the rule: disqualification should occur whenever impartiality is absent or can be questioned. For instance, although I have not received any compensation from Willingham & Cote' for 6 years, I am still a shareholder there (the equivalent of my opponent's partner status with her former employer). Under the Court Rule, I would disqualify myself from any case involving Willingham & Cote' for the first two years I am Judge. Luckily, that would be very few cases since the firm appears in 54B District Court very infrequently. Another potential conflict could occur when a family member came before the court. My son is a partner in the firm of Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn. If I were assigned a case handled by him, I would disqualify myself and refer the case to Judge Ball. It is unlikely that either of these situations will occur since my son's firm also does not normally appear in 54B District Court. At this time I cannot think of any other potential conflicts that I would need to address."

I was surprised at Meadows' answer, because he was on East Lansing City Council from 1995 through 2006, and mayor of East Lansing 1997 to 2005. I have occasionally run into him at City Hall. He fundraised for Mayor Pro Tem Nathan Triplett as recently as last year and has been endorsed during his previous campaigns by at least 3 members of City Council (Triplett, Mayor Goddeeris, and Kevin Beard). Given that City Hall and City Council will frequently stand to benefit or be challenged depending on who is judge, I asked Meadows for a clarification, to be sure he understood the question:

"Do I understand correctly that you do not wish to disclose any relationships with the City of East Lansing, particular members of city staff, members of Council, the city attorney, etc.?"

Meadows replied, "My answer is: I have no relationships at City Hall that would ever interfere with my ability to Judge fairly and justly."

I cannot find evidence of Larkin having previous relationships with city staff and City Council members. Since opening her campaign, Larkin has been endorsed by City Councilmember Vic Loomis and three other previous mayors of East Lansing. Meadows appears to again be endorsed in this latest election by Nathan Triplett and Kevin Beard.

In order to make clearer to voters the backgrounds of these candidates, including in terms of their relationships, I asked both to supply resumes. Larkin complied, but Meadows declined. See more here.

Note: I wish to disclose here that during the primaries, I made a campaign contribution to Andrea Larkin and wrote an essay for Public Response as to why I think Mark Meadows would make a poor choice for judge.

CORRECTION: After I posted this article, Vic Loomis wrote to say he has given Larkin a $250 campaign contribution.