It took only about three months for the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board to dismiss a complaint against state Chief Justice Ralph Cappy. The complaint, filed in August by Harrisburg political activist Gene Stilp, was dismissed Dec. 6, although the board's decision wasn't announced until Monday, and only after Cappy requested that it be released — presumably, in hopes of improving his embattled image. The board, which acts as a prosecuting body, usually does not acknowledge whether a complaint even has been filed unless it files charges with the Court of Judicial Discipline, or the subject of the complaint requests information be released.

The complaint filed by Stilp alleged that Cappy violated ethics rules last summer when he became, in essence, the point man in advocating behind the scenes for big pay raises not only for the judicial branch, but for the other two branches of state government as well.

But even though, in the board members' eyes, Cappy did nothing wrong, Cappy, in his important position, should have steered clear of actions having a foul implication — and that was the troubling picture that his behind-the-scenes efforts painted.

It would have been OK for Cappy to speak out publicly, informing lawmakers and state residents why a raise for judges would be in the state's short- and long-term best interests — and allow those opinions to stand on their own merits. Despite what the Judicial Conduct Board thinks, it was not OK that Cappy stepped beyond the parameters of a judicial pay hike in trying to fashion a judicial pay-raise proposal that would be acceptable to lawmakers because it also had something in it for them.

Cappy's behind-the-scenes involvement — and the product of that involvement — smacked of sleazy deal-making at the taxpayers' expense. Additionally, it also was the basis for legitimate wonderment as to whether Cappy's coziness with lawmakers might be one reason why the high court so often has sided with the legislature in regard to lawmakers' questionable adherence to law-making procedures spelled out in the state constitution.

Amid the pay-raise fiasco, instances were revealed in which lawmakers had not followed provisions of the constitution in considering legislation, with the high court subsequently having given lawmakers "the benefit of the doubt."

Cappy has argued that his efforts on behalf of a judicial pay raise were part of his advocacy for a better judiciary. He said higher salaries attract judges who might otherwise opt for high-paying opportunities as private attorneys.

He is entitled to that reasonable position.

But his decision to devote considerable time with unnamed legislators, crafting what was presumed to be a can't-miss plan to excessively benefit all three state government branches, rightly turned taxpayer opinion against him.

The judicial, legislative and executive branch raises were passed in the middle of the night on July 7 without notice or debate. As taxpayer outrage about the timing of the action and the amount of the raises reached unanticipated proportions and lawmakers' fears heightened about the potential fallout in the 2006 legislative elections, the raises were repealed in November.

Despite the repeal, the pay-raise fiasco is the basis for what is shaping up to be an interesting election year; an unprecedented number of incumbent legislators will face anti-pay-raise challengers.

State government would be dealt a great service if a sizable contingent of the current what's-in-it-for-me legislative cadre, especially those in House and Senate leadership positions, would be sent packing by way of the May or November balloting.

State voters' anger was displayed last November when one of Cappy's fellow high court justices, Russell Nigro, was defeated for retention. Unfortunately, another incumbent justice seeking retention — Sandra Schultz Newman — narrowly escaped the same fate.

Now, state residents have been told that the foul odor stemming from the chief justice's coziness with lawmakers in crafting an overly generous "can't-lose" pay package for judges, lawmakers and executive branch employees amid the cloak of secrecy wasn't really a foul odor at all.

It's up to the voters in 2006 and beyond — and for people like Gene Stilp — to show how much they disagree with that opinion and make their opposition to the "Harrisburg way" result in positive change in a way never before witnessed.

— J.R.K.