In late November 2016, Arcelia Treviño penned an op-ed addressed to the voters of Bexar County.

Treviño had just pulled off a stunning victory over 386th District Court Judge Laura Parker, who had held the juvenile-court bench since its creation in 1999.

Parker, a Republican, was someone whose expertise and sense of fairness commanded bipartisan respect from the local legal community. Treviño, by contrast, had no background with juvenile justice.

With many courthouse regulars bemoaning Parker’s defeat, Treviño sensed that she needed to reassure people worried about the fate of the court she would soon be running.

Treviño commended Parker for creating a smooth transition on the court and said she and the outgoing judge shared a hatred for politics and the “collateral damage” it can cause.

“On the bench,” Treviño wrote, “I have no hidden agenda, I play no favorites, and I do not recognize party affiliation.”

The 2020 Treviño, who faces a March 3 Democratic primary challenge from local prosecutor Jacqueline Valdés, might want to revisit the words of the 2016 Treviño.

More than three years into what will hopefully be her only term on the bench, Treviño has failed to meet the most basic standards of judicial conduct.

On ExpressNews.com: Many questions, few answers about judge’s work ethic

Gloria Padilla, a member of the San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board, has written in detail about Treviño’s pattern of absenteeism on the bench, her habit of inconveniencing parents by canceling court hearings at the last minute, her inconsiderate tendency to dump work on Pat Garza — the appointed associate judge for the 386th — and her bewildering penchant for blowing up plea bargains negotiated between the prosecution and defense teams.

Recently, Treviño has moved from truancy to toxicity, defying her own 2016 promise to avoid hidden agendas and play no favorites.

Last month, she removed a prosecutor from her court, apparently because that attorney had attended a private fundraiser for Valdés. On Wednesday, she threw out Assistant District Attorney Khristina Fielder, citing a conflict of interest. The judge’s apparent rationale? Five months ago, Fielder’s husband made a $1,000 contribution to Valdés’ campaign.

It would be a supreme understatement to say that Treviño’s recent actions have been petty and unprofessional.

Prosecutors (and their spouses) have the right to make contributions to candidates of their choice. Given that Valdés is herself a prosecuting attorney, it’s understandable that some of her colleagues would be supportive of her cause.

It’s impossible to imagine Parker, in 2016, throwing attorneys out of her court because they were friends with Treviño or made donations to Treviño’s campaign. A responsible judge — like the one Treviño promised to become — wouldn’t even give such considerations a thought.

If Treviño’s actions show an inability to separate her political concerns from her judicial duties, they also demonstrate a basic misinterpretation of what “conflict of interest” means.

In judicial terms, a conflict of interest means that one side in a case will be put to unfair disadvantage because one of the parties in the case has a bias created by a competing financial or personal interest.

If a defense attorney gives a judge’s son a lucrative job one week before the start of a trial, that judge has a conflict of interest. If the prosecuting attorney’s brother is a business partner with the defendant, that attorney has a conflict of interest.

On ExpressNews.com: Judge boots prosecutor over spouse’s political donation

With Treviño, we’re not seeing either the defense or prosecution teams complain about a possible conflict of interest that could hurt their side. We’re seeing the judge — whose fate is not on the line in these juvenile cases — apparently throw out attorneys for being supportive of the judge’s election opponent.

Even if we accept the premise that these prosecutors have a personal bias against the judge, how does that impede the proper disposition of these cases?

District Attorney Joe Gonzales would like to get some answers from Treviño, but the judge has refused to meet with him. Gonzales is understandably disturbed by the political rancor that Treviño has created in her court.

While many of us worried about Treviño’s lack of experience when she assumed the bench, she made a fair point in her 2016 op-ed: No one is born with experience, and all judges must be given a chance to grow into the job.

“Even the best judge,” she wrote, “had a first day.”

Treviño now has more than 1,000 days on the bench. But it’s obvious that time can’t cure her lack of judgment.

The Democratic primary voters of Bexar County have a responsibility to restore order to the 386th District Court by removing Treviño from that bench. The juvenile court badly needs to have an adult running it.

Gilbert Garcia is a columnist covering the San Antonio and Bexar County area. Read him on our free site, mySA.com, and on our subscriber site, ExpressNews.com. | ggarcia@express-news.net | Twitter: @gilgamesh470