Transparency—it is highly prized in the 21st century. Indeed, it is basically demanded by the masses, especially when it involves government operations. If information is withheld from the populace, it’s all but assumed by commentators that misconduct or even corruption has been underway. While some may not agree, why, for example, would the Defense Department want to promptly tell the public—and thus the world—about troop movements, or whether it also engages in what the Chinese balloon’s cargo was equipped to do or did? There are national security interests and there are some noteworthy negatives to unrestricted transparency.

Misconduct in public office, though, is altogether different. There is currently a debate in New York over whether to make disciplinary proceedings involving sitting state judges public. Currently, the New York State Senate is considering a bill that would bring into the open—sunlight being the best of disinfectants—proceedings against state judges once they are formally accused of misconduct.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]