ALTHOUGH THESE PRACTICES ARE NECESSARY, EACH MAY BE MISUSED AND MISINTERPRETED. PREPARATION OF A 'NO JUDGE' OPINION BY AN APPELLATE COURT CENTRAL STAFF DIVORCES JUDGES FROM THE CREATION OF OPINIONS FOR WHICH THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE. THUS, THE CENTRAL STAFF ACTS AS AN ANONYMOUS BUREAUCRACY WITHOUT PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY, FOR THE CENTRAL STAFF SERVES THE COURT IN GENERAL BUT NO JUDGE IN PARTICULAR. BECAUSE MOST DECISIONS WRITTEN BY CENTRAL STAFFS ARE NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION BUT ARE ISSUED AS OPINIONS, JUDICIAL DECISIONS BECOME LESS PERSONAL. MOREOVER, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS CANNOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT, AND IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD GRANT PETITIONS FOR HEARINGS IN SUCH CASES. ALSO, ELITIST ATTITUDES AMONG JUDGES, WHO AVIOD MINGLING WITH JUSTICES AT OTHER LEVELS OF THE SYSTEM, ARE CRITICIZED. A SPIRIT OF OPENNESS IS ADVOCATED WITHIN THE SYSTEM AND IN ITS DEALINGS WITH THE PUBLIC. DISCUSSIONS OF REFORM SHOULD BE AS WIDERANGING AS POSSIBLE, BUT THEY MUST NOT INFRINGE ON JUDGES' DISCRETION TO DECIDE CASES BEFORE THEM. (MRK)