This is an appeal by respondent *470from an order of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission recommending public censure on account of respondent’s activities as detailed in People v Szymanski, 59 Mich App 661; 230 NW2d 17 (1975), leave denied 394 Mich 798 (1975).
The reasons for the commission’s recommendation are set forth in its decision which says in part:
"The hearing on this complaint was referred by the Supreme Court to the Honorable Bernard H. Davidson, Circuit Judge, as master, pursuant to GCR 1963, 932.10(b). Thereafter the master filed , his report and objections thereto were submitted by the examiner, pursuant to GCR 1963, 932.17. The matter came on for hearing before the commission on January 31, 1977.
"The examiner presented oral argument at that hearing as did counsel for the respondent.
"Upon a review of the full record herein and upon consideration of argument of counsel, it is the conclusion of a majority of the commission that, with respect to paragraph 3 of Formal Complaint No. 15, which dealt with respondent’s relationship with Louis Pappas, the master’s findings should be, and the same are hereby adopted and confirmed.
"The balance of Formal Complaint No. 15 concerned respondent’s presence at three luncheons in 1971, at which the two other men present discussed a plan to obtain some 70 liquor licenses through the payment of money to a third, unnamed individual. Respondent took part in these discussions and offered his assistance as a kind of 'escrowee’ to overcome the mutual distrust evidenced by the parties to the negotiations.
"While recognizing that respondent’s conduct has been found not to be criminal, nevertheless, the commission has a separate obligation to determine the propriety of that conduct and its likely effect upon respect for the judicial office and upon the administration of justice.
"There is essentially no dispute of fact as to what was *471said or done in the course of those three luncheons. The master found with respect to those meetings that there was no judicial misconduct and no conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. A majority of the commission disagrees with this conclusion.
"It is apparent from a reading of the testimony and the exhibits, and it should have been apparent to respondent at the time, that the arrangement under discussion was not a regular, legitimate business proposal. The transcripts of the luncheons are replete with references and innuendoes which would alert any person of normal intelligence and acuity to the unsavory nature and purpose of the meetings. Respondent’s inability or unwillingness to discern this at the first meeting, and his participation in two subsequent meetings, reflected an unacceptable insensitivity to the responsibilities of his office. We find that such conduct was clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice.
"In light of the foregoing it is the recommendation of a majority of the commission that respondent be publicly censured and that an order to that effect be entered by the Michigan Supreme Court.”
The responsibility of the commission to determine the propriety of a judge’s conduct and. its likely effect upon the respect for the judicial office and upon the administration of justice is acknowledged.
There are three of us who agree with the majority of the commission that respondent’s conduct warrants public censure.
There are three of us who agree with the master that it was not established that respondent violated any law or that his conduct was such as to warrant public censure.
There being no majority to adopt the recommendation of the commission the case is dismissed.
*472To Reject the Recommendation of the Commission:
Kavanagh, C. J.,
Levin,
Fitzgerald, JJ.
To Adopt the Recommendation of the Commission:
Coleman,
Ryan,
Blair Moody, Jr., JJ.
Williams, J., took no part in the decision of this case.