COLUMBUS - Attorneys, judges, lawmakers and political insiders meeting Thursday to discuss how Ohio's judiciary is selected agreed on one thing: The current system has flaws.

A consensus on how to fix it, however, was not as clear-cut among the panelists attending the meeting, called the most diverse and comprehensive forum to discuss the state's judiciary since the Constitutional Convention of 1912.

As a result, the nearly three dozen panelists agreed to serve on committees to more closely examine -- and recommend changes to -- certain parts of the judiciary, including the qualifications of candidates, the length of terms and the way campaigns are funded.

``The fact that we're going to have committees to keep the momentum going is exactly what we wanted to happen,'' said Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court, who convened the meeting.

Moyer told the panelists that he has heard from citizens that Ohio needs ``to remove the taint of escalating campaign contributions, to restore civility to the process of selecting judges, and to examine the qualifications of those who aspire to be judges.''

Those concerns have escalated with each election season as interest groups increasingly have poured money into Supreme Court races, Moyer said.

``I am often asked what is the worst aspect of judicial selection in Ohio,'' he said. ``It is not that we elect judges; it is the money necessary to fund the campaigns.''

In 2000 and 2002, interest groups spent millions of dollars in television advertising trying to unseat justices whose rulings they perceived were detrimental to their causes.

``There is a public perception that the judiciary is for sale,'' said Cheryl Karner, a domestic relations judge in Cuyahoga County.

The panelists agreed that perception exists as a result of the excessive spending by interest groups, which don't have to disclose donors as long as their advertisements don't explicitly advocate for or against a particular candidate.

They also agreed that such a perception has hurt the integrity of the bench, as well as the recruitment of potentially strong candidates for judgeships.

However, they remained split -- roughly 50-50 -- over whether the problem would be solved by appointing judges. As a result, the discussion turned to what could be done with the current elected judicial system.