Commission investigates judge

Listen to this article

A Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, who filed a complaint with the state Supreme Court, is now the subject of a Judicial Commission complaint.The commission filed a complaint against Judge Robert Crawford as the result of a complaint Crawford originally filed against District 1 Chief Judge Michael Skwierawski in 1999. The commission’s complaint, filed last week, alleges that Crawford engaged in judicial misconduct by making allegations against Skwierawski and Court Administrator Bruce Harvey without supporting evidence.More than a year ago, Crawford filed a document entitled “Petition for Review of Administration in First Judicial District” with the Supreme Court. In that document, he sought Skwierawski and Har-vey’s removal from office for “influence peddling” and attempting to subvert the fair administration of justice. The document also made allegations against Skwierawski’s daughter and other members of the Milwaukee district attorney’s office.The Judicial Commission complaint, filed by Executive Director James Alexander, alleged that Crawford violated the Supreme Court Rules (SCR) regarding judicial conduct. The commission found Crawford lacked evidence for the myriad allegations he had made against the chief judge and the others.“(H)e made false accusations concerning Audrey Skwierawski, Bruce Harvey, Assistant District Attorney Nancy Ettenheim, and Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann, alleging among other things, that all of them engaged in ‘influence peddling’ with Chief Judge Michael Skwierawski,” the commission complaint stated. “…[T]here was no basis in fact and no evidence to support any of Judge Crawford’s accusations and allegations.”The complaint went on to state, “That Judge Robert Crawford, during the investigation of this matter, further admitted that he had no evidence to support the statements in his petition filed with the Supreme Court, that Chief Judge Michael Skwierawski was engaged in influence peddling. That he admitted that he was simply ‘presuming’ that it happened.”Crawford declined to comment on the complaint against him.The commission’s complaint held that Crawford’s alleged conduct violated SCR 60.03(1) because “he did not act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” It also alleged violations of state statutes in an “attempt to influence the official action of a public officer.”Prior to filing his complaint in 1999, Crawford warned Skwierawski that he would bring it to the Supreme Court if the chief judge did not remove limits placed on the hours Crawford could operate his court. The order restricting the Branch 9 hours was the basis for Crawford’s contention that Skwierawski had placed unfair restrictions on him.Former Chief Judge Patrick Sheedy had originally placed the order in effect back on July 2, 1997, after receiving complaints that Crawford had regularly cut into staff’s lunch and break periods, which were part of their contracts.Alexander noted that Crawford’s alleged actions reflect poorly on the judiciary. “When something is a violation of the code of judicial conduct, we obviously think it has an adverse effect on the public’s perception of the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” he said.Within the next week or two, Alexander said, he expects Court of Appeals Chief Judge Thomas Cane to appoint a three-judge panel that will review the matter.