Federal Way made the news again recently: A former employee filed a claim for damages for $500,000 against the city and the municipal court, alleging wrongful termination.

In her claim, former court supervisor Cindy Roque alleges that she was fired by the court in retaliation for reporting a workplace violence concern involving Judge Michael Morgan to the police and the city’s human resources department last November.

However, what has caused significant debate both inside and outside City Hall is not just the allegation itself, but the aftermath: The role of the court’s other judge, David Larson, and the city’s financial vulnerability for actions taken by the court or its judges — over which the city manager and Federal Way City Council have no control.

Additionally, it appears a major “hole” in the system of judicial accountability exists that may be significant enough to warrant legislative attention.

Ms. Roque’s claim is being investigated by the insurance authority for the city. Typically, claims for damages in personnel matters are denied and the claimant then files a lawsuit. The insurance authority will then weigh the costs of a trial vs. a settlement, while also considering whether they can successfully defend the action taken.

For now, the city and the court are on the same side vs. Ms. Roque, and the city could provide the Federal Way court outside legal representation. However, since the city has no legal control over the judges or the court. They may not stay allies if the discovery process suggests financial or legal vulnerability for Judge Morgan’s actions.

The only organization with authority over judges’ behavior is the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC). It is believed that they were made aware of the situation last November while considering a previous action involving Judge Morgan. However, since they never comment or even acknowledge receipt of a complaint until its conclusion, the public never knows.

Did they include this issue in last fall’s determination, or is there a new investigation occurring? We don’t know.

After the court becomes aware of the “workplace violence” issue involving one of its judges, the question becomes, “What do you do?” and “Who does what?”

The intent of this column is not to sensationalize the allegations surrounding Judge Morgan or Ms. Roque, but to look more closely at the process. Some level of background is necessary in order to do that.

In November 2008, Ms. Roque, who was hired in April 2008 with several years of experience, was notified by an employee of comments Judge Morgan may have made regarding suicide. The court was somewhat tense already, as the CJC finding on Judge Morgan was expected soon. Ms. Roque notified her supervisor, Ms. Rae Iwamoto, what she had been told. Over a period of a few days, several discussions between Iwamoto, Judge Larson and Judge Morgan occurred. Ms. Roque also reported a statement from Judge Morgan that she felt implied danger to other court employees. Fearful of her vulnerability as a probationary employee, she was hesitant to go outside the court’s chain of command. Nevertheless, she reported her concerns to the city police department and human resources department.

The police department can only insert itself if it feels there may be a “criminal” issue. They did not feel that was the case and withdrew, leaving the matter to the city manager, city attorney and human resources director. None of these individuals have any authority over the court or its employees. The city council was made aware of the issues, but they also lack jurisdiction. It was at this point that critical decisions were made that have now been raised as questions in an effort to review the issues surrounding Ms. Roque’s financial claim.

In discussions between Judge Larson and Judge Morgan, it was decided that Judge Morgan would take some time off and that he would contact Ruth Rogers, who is an HR consultant. Judge Larson would then become “acting” presiding judge and initiate steps to review the allegations. Ms. Roque was placed on administrative leave.

Next week: Judge Larson decides to investigate the issues himself and his report raises surprising conclusions regarding motivation; the city administration is frustrated by its inability to influence events; the CJC remains silent; and Ms. Roque is fired.