Judicial panel drops the ball

When Florida's Judicial Qualifications Commission dropped its case against a former appeals judge accused of taking gifts from a stripper and helping to hide her assets, it abdicated its responsibility to police the judiciary. The JQC has denied the public a full accounting of what Judge Thomas E. Stringer Sr. did and why he resigned. It also has undermined confidence that it will adequately uphold its responsibility.

The JQC charged Stringer in January with violating judicial ethics, accusing him of taking unreported jewelry, travel and a luxury car from exotic dancer Christy Yamanaka, whom he met in 1995. The commission charged Stringer opened bank accounts in his name to hide Yamanaka's income and assets; listed himself as the sole title holder on a home in Hawaii that Yamanaka helped purchase, in part, with "large cash deposits"; and failed to report and repay a loan from Yamanaka for at least $50,000.

Stringer vowed to fight the charges, but he abruptly resigned last month just three days before he was to be deposed. The JQC, in a filing Thursday, said it dropped the charges against Stringer because he resigned and agreed not to seek judicial office again or return to hear cases as a senior judge.

That is not good enough. The disclosure requirements for judges, as with other officials, exist so the public can assess whether the people who run the government are compromised. The charges against Stringer were serious enough to lodge and serious enough to pursue. This was not an inexperienced jurist but one who served two decades on the bench. And his resignation does not wipe away the JQC's responsibility. The JQC, under its constitutional mandate, has broad authority to investigate and discipline judges, whether they currently serve or not.

There are two issues beyond the question of Stringer's conduct: the JQC's ability to police its own and the transparency of the judicial system. It would have been better for the judge, the public and the courts to have aired the facts.