ELUM ANSWERS ETHICS COMPLAINT

As The Stark County Political Report always does with subjects of SCPR blogs, today focuses on Judge Eddie Elum of Massillon having his say in response to an ethics complaint filed against him on November 25, 2015 (the second in the space of about three years) contending that he violated Ohio's disciplinary rules in allegedly seeking to intervene with a landlady (Beatty) on behalf of a family friend (denied by Elum in his answer discussed below; namely, Pettis) who was on the cusp of being evicted from his rental when Elum got involved.

ELUM'S ANSWER

First up, here is Elum's legal Answer in full as filed by his Cincinnati-based attorneys, to wit:



For the convenience of readers of the SCPR, here is a copy of the original complaint:



THE PROCESS

Next up is a layout of a disciplinary process flow chart (as added to by The Report) that is made available to visitors to Ohio's Board of Professional Conduct, to wit:



 ELUM LEGAL COUNSEL

It appears that Elum is in good legal hands in his hire of Ohio State Bar Association 2014 award winner (2014 Eugene R. Weir Award for Ethics and Professionalism)  George D. Johnson (LINK) and Brian Spiess.

According to a Cincinnati Bar Association blurb on Jonson (LINK), his hourly fee is $250 per.  

So Elum's alleged ethics indiscretion could get quite expensive.

One has to wonder whether or not his friends and associates in the Stark County bar will be offended that His Honor (Massillon bred and raised) found it necessary to go to the southern tip of Ohio to find competent legal council, no?

SCPR ANALYSIS OF THE ELUM ANSWER
 
While Elum admits that he was disciplined on December18, 2012 (also represented by Jonson in that proceeding) by the Ohio Supreme Court, it appears to The Report he denies the specifics of the basis for which he was disciplined, to wit:

Respondent's prior disciplinary case arose out of two sets of circumstances in which respondent acted outside and beyond his authority, intimidating a criminal defendant with profane and abusive language in an impromptu hearing without the defendant's attorney present, and interfering with an  internal police investigation and issuing baseless orders beyond his authority to the police  chief and to the prosecutor to provide him with prurient photographs and texts that were the subject of the police investigation.

 It will be interesting to see how this denies plays in the disciplinary process.

Another point.

The mere fact that Elum was subject to discipline back in 2012 does not mean that a second finding will result automatically in his being suspended or disbarred.  For it appears that there have been no complaints filed that Disciplinary Counsel found actionable within the six months of Elum's December 18, 2012 suspension.

But that the current complaint recites the prior discipline indicates to the SCPR that Elum will face sterner discipline should he be found to have violated disciplinary rules in the new complaint.

OTHER DENIALS (RECANT) BY ELUM IN HIS ANSWER

1. Denies that Pettis is a family friend per he complaint allegation,
2. Recants prior deposition testimony that Elum's son had played football with Pettis at Massillon Washington High School,
3. Denies that he  ... "directed her (Beatty) to accept a resolution of the dispute that
   was favorable to Mr. Pettis."
4. Denies that he attempted to intimidate Ms. Beatty,
5. Denies that he "at no time terminated the call because of his awareness that it was improper,"
6. Denies that "[during] the course of the conversation, [he] represented the interests of Mr. Pettis
   as if he were acting as Mr. Pettis' attorney and advocating in a negotiation, albeit on an
   unequal footing, with Ms. Beatty,"
7. Denies that he "initially instructed Ms. Beatty to accept the late rent payment from Mr. Pettis."
8. Denies that "Ms. Beatty responded that she did not believe an amicable resolution was possible, that Mr. Pettis was chronically late with his rent payments, was difficult to deal with and sometimes verbally abusive, and that she did not wish to retain Mr. Pettis as a tenant,"
9. Denies that "Respondent then adopted a tone of command and ordered Ms. Beatty to be quiet and listen. When she attempted to respond, the judge interrupted her to clarify that he did not want to hear anything from her, he simply wanted her to understand and do what he was instructing her to do. Respondent informed Ms. Beatty that if she had anything to say, she could have her attorney telephone him later."
10. Denies that "Beatty [ever] told [Elum] that she had an attorney,"
11. Denies that he "failed to ask Ms. Beatty if she was in fact represented by counsel, or for the name of her attorney. [Elum] also failed to offer to conference in Ms. Beatty's counsel so that counsel could participate in the conversation and so she could have the benefit of his legal advice during the 'negotiation,'"
12. Denies that he "instructed Ms. Beatty to permit Mr. Pettis to stay until Tuesday, May 12 ...,"
13. Denies that he [d]uring the telephone conversation, [he] openly, and within the hearing of Ms. Beatty, consulted with Mr. Pettis regarding his demands" except admits consulting with Pettis,
14. Denies that "[f]ollowing one such consultation, [he] instructed Ms. Beatty to return to Mr. Pettis $900.00, the equivalent of two months' rent, as a refund of his security deposit,"
15. Denies that he "threatened Ms. Beatty that she had made a grave error and would be liable to Mr. Pettis for treble damages for prematurely changing the locks without a court order. 
16. Denies that he "told Ms. Beatty that if she did not agree to Mr. Pettis' terms, he would end up owning the entire property and she would never get him out."
17. Denies that "[a]s a final instruction, he forbade Ms. Beatty to charge Mr. Pettis any rent for May 1 through May 12, the unpaid days during which Mr. Pettis retained possession and control of the property,"
18. Denies that he requested that Beatty return his call but admits that "on May 22, 2015, respondent telephoned Ms. Beatty a third time about the Pettis matter and left a message on her answering service requesting that she ... have her attorney call him,"
19. Although Elum answers that he denies "the remaining allegations in Relator's complaint," to the SCPR, Elum in essence admits that "[a]t his October 9, 2015 deposition,  [Elum] admitted that his calls and conversation were improper under Ohio ethics law.  The actual answer, to wit:  "Respondent states that his deposition speaks for itself.  Respondent admits that his conduct violated the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.  Further answering, Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 30 of Relator's complaint.
    
     
20. Denies that the "purpose of the call was to influence the conduct of Ms. Beatty with respect to her legal rights and interests,"
21. Denies that "... at his deposition, [he] conceded that any comment regarding possible treble damages or other consequences for changing the locks constituted a legal opinion that was intended to influence Ms. Beatty' s conduct,"
22. Denies that "[he] implied that this matter [i.e. the Pettis/Beatty dispute] was part of a pilot mediation program and denies this matter was not appropriate for mediation as he [Elum] has referred matters to mediation before the institution of litigation.
23. Denies ... "in responding to relator's letters of inquiry, he initially implied that the conversation was part of a new pilot mediation program he had established at the court. 
24. Denies that "[o]ver the course of the investigation, and in response to specific questions from relator, respondent has changed his position to an acknowledgement, both in writing and at his deposition, that the conversation was not a mediation and was not a part of any mediation program at the court,
25. Denies that his "conduct as alleged in Count I violates the Code of Judicial Conduct:
1. Rule 1.2 [ a judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety]; 
2. Rule 2.4(B) [a judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment J; 
3. Rule 2.4( C) [ a judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge]; 
4. Rule 2.6(B) [a judge shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement]; 
5. Rule 3.l(D) a judge shall not engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to becoercive]; 
6. Rule 3.10 [a judge shall not practice law]; and 
7. the Rules of Professional Conduct: 8.4( d) [ a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice].
   

Elum did not directly invoke "doing God's will" as a cover for his alleged conduct as outlined in the complaint as he did as quoted in area media outlet, to wit:

“I did what God would want you to do — is to help people. I had a person with money and I didn’t want him to be homeless. I didn’t pull rank. Anybody would do the same thing to try to help somebody.” 

 LINK

But The Report thinks he alluded to doing God's will in saying in his answer's conclusion "that his [Elum's] calls were not made with selfish motive.

The SCPR thinks that Elum has abundantly demonstrated that he does not have the temperament to continue as a judge.

The Report believes that the two formal complaints that has caught eye of Disciplinary Counsel likely is "the tip of the iceberg."

As seen in the chart above and the accentuated extracted inset below, unless Disciplinary Counsel (or a Certified Grievance Committee) finds "substantial credible evidence of misconduct," gets dismissed.

So we will never know how many if any other ethic complaints have been filed against Elum.

And, of course, there is the local mainstream media (The Repository, The Massillon Independent) whom The Report thinks undoubtedly have been privy to information on Elum's conduct but have opted to bury it.

The SCPR has published an "over-the-top" e-mail sent by Elum to yours truly, but nary a word in condemnation on the part of The Rep and The Independent.

There are those who think that Disciplinary Counsel and the Ohio Supreme Court treat judges with kid gloves and it takes extraordinary judicial misconduct for either to recommend/act to in effect remove misbehaving judges from the bench by suspending them "unstayed" from the practice of law or disbarring them.

The phrase one hears is:  "judges (i.e. the Ohio Supreme Court) protecting judges."

See the Stokes case (LINK, Cleveland judge Angela Stokes has her license to practice law reinstated on her agreement to resign as judge and not to seek re-election/election as a judge).

Elum in his answer to the complaint admits one violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.  It is a second offense.

The Report's hunch is that Elum will escape the current complaint process with his right to continue as a judge in tact.

In the SCPR's view, if such happens, then it appears that judges in Ohio are pretty much immune from meaningful enforcement of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.

Attorneys on the other hand regularly get suspended/disbarred for unethical conduct.

Isn't that interesting?

SHOULD EDDIE ELUM REMAIN A JUDGE? WHAT DOES GOD HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT?

REVISED/UPDATED 10:00 A.M.

MAYBE GOD HAS SOMETHING ELSE FOR ELUM TO DO?

In yours truly's life experience, when people do what Elum is alleged to have done, typically they invoke God has the Justifier-In-Chief of an otherwise unacceptable act.

Here is what Elum is reported to have said about allegations that he improperly overstepped the bounds of ethical propriety in agreeing to help an about to be dispossessed tenant and Elum friend which it is alleged resulted in Elum one-on-one telephone conversations abusing a Massillon landlady in his efforts in the context of her being represented by legal counsel.

For an explicit description of the allegations, see the direct language of the complaint provided at the end of this blog.

“I did what God would want you to do — is to help people. I had a person with money and I didn’t want him to be homeless. I didn’t pull rank. Anybody would do the same thing to try to help somebody.”

Apparently for Elum,  he has God in his hip pocket and God does not care one wit for how the land lady gets treated?

A true "the end justifies the means" example, no?

Edward J. Elum, the moral crusader?

From the transcript of the complaint charging Elum, to wit:

• Respondent's conduct as alleged in Count I violates the Code of Judicial Conduct: 
• Rule 1.2 [ a judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety]; 
• Rule 2.4(B) [a judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment J; Rule 2.4( C) [ a judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge];
• Rule 2.6(B) [a judge shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement];
• Rule 3.l(C) [a judge shall not participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality]; 
• Rule 3.l(D) [a judge shall not engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive]; Rule 3.10 [a judge shall not practice law]; and the Rules of Professional Conduct: 8.4( d) [ a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice].

 Really, Judge Elum?

"I did what God would want you to do ... "

More than a tad self-serving, no?

With the clear implication that God stands at the vindicate Elum whatever action he decides to undertake.

Hmmm?

And from the looks of things (a previous suspended six month suspension from the practice of law, October 12, 2010), it could be that Elum's days as a Massillon Municipal Court will be coming to an involuntary end.

For if Elum is actually suspended from the practice of law or God Forbid! (to some) disbarred, he cannot be a judge.

For one of Elum's cheerleaders, former Stark Dems' chairman, retired Canton Clerk of Courts chief deputy clerk and current Jackson Township fiscal officers, such would be big loss, to wit:

Judge Elum is one of the best Muni Court Judges in recent history. It is the true Peoles Court and he has tremendous common sense approach to it. I have a great respect for the Judge and person Ed Elum.

And Elum better hope that God sees this matter the same way Gonzalez does.

The Report thinks this second alleged infraction of judicial disciplinary rules in the words of Vice President Joe Biden is a "really big f*c*ing deal."

The Stark County Political Report broke news on the latest Elum alleged transgression on Thursday last (LINK).

But beyond last Last Thursday's blog, way back in March 2010, the SCPR alerted the Massillon public (LINK1, LINK 2)  to the ethical problems yours truly thinks is part and parcel of his make up.

And here is the Elum e-mail to the SCPR the underlying situation of which (i.e. the reference to Chief Rob Williams) which in an ironic twist turned out to be one of the bases on which Elum himself was subject to discipline of the Ohio Supreme Court in October, 2012  (LINK)..

Martin

--- On Sat, 3/13/10, EJEJUDGE@aol.com <EJEJUDGE@aol.com> wrote:

    From: EJEJUDGE@aol.com <EJEJUDGE@aol.com>
    Subject: Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct
    To: tramols@att.net
    Date: Saturday, March 13, 2010, 10:17 PM

    Martin

 I received some excepts on your blog covering a meeting that I had last week with Chief Rob Williams and Chief Prosecutor John Simpson. 

Our meeting was very constructive and helpful.  Your statements are false and misleading.  You have no conscience, lack professionalism and make no effort to ascertain the facts. 

As a member of the Bar, you are an embarrassment.  You do nothing to promote the high ethical standards of our legal profession.  By publishing your false and derogatory statements about the Court and Clerk of Court, you may have violated Rule IV below.

 If you have a complaint against me as a judge, please feel free to call me to set up a meeting to discuss your complaint.  

I do not recall you ever practicing in the Massillon Municipal Court or having any contact with you for you to have a grievance or issue with the court or me.  

I do not subscribe to your blog but have directed those lawyers who are offended by your groundless and frivolous attacks on the judiciary to file the appropriate complaint(s) with Disciplinary Counsel.

eddie 

RULE IV. Professional Responsibility.

Section 1. Applicability.

The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, effective February 1, 2007, as amended, shall be binding upon all persons admitted to practice law in Ohio. The willful breach of the Rules shall be punished by reprimand, suspension, disbarment, or probation as provided in Gov. Bar R. V.

Section 2. Duty of Lawyers.

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain a respectful attitude toward the courts, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Judges and Justices, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are peculiarly entitled to receive the support of lawyers against unjust criticism and clamor. Whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint of a judicial officer, it is the right and duty of the lawyer to submit a grievance to proper authorities. These charges should be encouraged and the person making them should be protected.

[Effective: February 28, 1972; amended effective July 15, 1974; July 1, 1983; January 1, 1993; February 1, 2007.]

I have attached Ohio's Rules of Professional Conduct 

Here is the SCPR's response:

Martin Olson <tramols@att.net>
03/14/10 at 2:36 PM
To:   EJEJUDGE@aol.com 

Eddie:

I wrote the two blogs in question as an opinion journalist exercising  my First Amendment rights on issues that are out in the public domain.    

Martin

We know that Judge Elum can write ugly e-mails.

But in the light that he is  person with enormous ethical problems anything he has to say about anybody else (yours truly included) has no credibility whatsoever..

And, of course, he doesn't appear to have a repentant "I need to apologize" bone in his body.

Such is normally the case for quintessentially arrogant people.

A person with Eddie Elum's problem with responsible handling of power should never, ever be a judge.

SCPR thinks that Disciplinary Counsel should expand its investigation to include a look at other allgegations of Elum ethical misconduct, to wit:  (published in area mainstream media)

He intimidated me back in 1997 ...I was in front of him for a dui....when he asked what school I went to I replied mck...then he started treating me like I was nothing...he called me carrot top n many other names....he very much intimidated me...ppl wrote into the independent complaining of the way he treated me...I hope he gets disbarred....finally!!!

 The Report suspects that many incidents such as the one recited above exist in Elum's bench history.  And yours truly has to believe that Massillon-based mainstream media has known about such incidents and has covered for His Honor.

If one digs deep enough, reported problems with alleged Elum ethical problems go all the way back to his days in the Ohio attorney general's office.

Neat for Judge Elum if he can pull it off.

That is to say, appropriate God a vindication for himself.

Most of us think God is the God of everybody including the the landlady and on balance some of us think God may look at Elum in Biblical terms as:  "having been weighed in the balances and found wanting."  (Daniel 5:27)

Perhaps Elum should spare the Ohio Supreme Court having to force him out being a judge.

It appears that his true vocation might be as a full-time mentor at the Family Living Center, to wit:

Judge Elum has proven he can do good work, to wit:At our 2015 Annual Dinner, Judge Eddie Elum regaled us with stories from the history of the Family Living Center.   Judge Elum was a key personality in the founding of the FLC in 1993 and continues to be a strong supporter today.   We are grateful to him beyond words for his invaluable contribution over the years!  (excerpt from edition of AboutStark)

It could be that God is sitting back and letting his devout servant Edward J. Elum of undergoing the humiliation of having ethics charges filed against him in order to give him a hint that he, God Almighty, has a higher calling for His Honor, no?

Why doesn't Judge Elum give God a helping and simply resign?

APPENDIX:

Allegations in current complaint:

4. On May 11, 2015, Antonio Pettis approached respondent in the courthouse parking lot and requested his assistance with a legal problem Mr. Pettis was having with his landlord, Susan Beatty.

5. Mr. Pettis was a family friend of respondent's, having played on the Massillon High School football team with respondent's son, Paul, and having recently been to the Elum family home at the invitation of respondent's wife, Margaret, for help filling out a Police Academy scholarship application.

6. Mr. Pettis had failed to pay his rent due May 1, 2015. Ms. Beatty had posted the 3-day ·notice to vacate on his door on or about May 4, 2015, but had not yet filed any eviction action in respondent's court.

7. Mr. Pettis described the dispute to respondent and informed him that although Mr. Pettis had not timely paid the rent due on 11,,fay 1, he currently had enough money to pay the rentand wanted respondent's help resolving the matter.

8. Respondent agreed to help Mr. Pettis and took him into the courthouse to respondent's chambers. Once there, respondent telephoned Ms. Beatty on behalf of Mr. Pettis and, during a nine-minute conversation, directed her to accept a resolution of the dispute that was favorable to Mr. Pettis.

9. Respondent identified himself at the outset of the conversation to Ms. Beatty. Respondent knew during the course of the conversation that Ms. Beatty was aware that respondent was a Massillon municipal court judge.

10. Ms. Beatty was taken aback by the call. She was both surprised and intimidated by the substance of respondent' s can, by his authoritative tone and by the fact that he was a judge.

11. In response to inquiries from Relator, and in his October 9, 2015 deposition, respondent stated that he knew his telephone call to Ms. Beatty was wrong, that it was a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and that it was a "mistake". Nevertheless, respondent at no time terminated the call because of his awareness that it was improper. Instead, he continued with the substance of the call and the attempt to intimidate Ms. Beatty into complying with Mr. Pettis' wishes.

12. During the course of the conversation, respondent represented the interests of Mr. Pettis as if he were acting as Mr. Pettis' attorney and advocating in a negotiation, albeit on an unequal footing, with Ms. Beatty.

13. Respondent initially instructed Ms. Beatty to accept the late rent payment from Mr. Pettis.

14. Ms. Beatty responded that she did not believe an amicable resolution was possible, that Mr. Pettis was chronically late with his rent payments, was difficult to deal with and sometimes verbally abusive, and that she did not wish to retain Mr. Pettis as a tenant.

15. Respondent then adopted a tone of command and ordered Ms. Beatty to be quiet and listen. When she attempted to respond, the judge interrupted her to clarify that he did not want to hear anything from her, he simply wanted her to understand and do what he was instructing her to do. Respondent informed Ms. Beatty that if she had anything to say, she could have her attorney telephone him later.

16. Although respondent was conscious that an attorney is prohibited from contacting a represented party without obtaining informed consent from opposing counsel, and although he repeatedly told Ms. Beatty to have her attorney contact him, respondent failed to ask Ms. Beatty if she was in fact represented by counsel, or for the name of her attorney. Respondent also failed to offer to conference in Ms. Beatty's counsel so that
counsel could participate in the conversation and so she could have the benefit of his legal advice during the "negotiation".

17. Although Ms. Beatty had already voluntarily extended Mr. Pettis' deadline for vacating the property from May 7 to May 10, respondent instructed Ms. Beatty to permit Mr. Pettis to stay until Tuesday, May 12 in order to have additional time to remove his belongings from the unit.

18. During the telephone conversation, respondent openly, and within the hearing of Ms. Beatty, consulted with Mr. Pettis regarding his demands.

19. Following one such consultation, respondent instructed Ms. Beatty to return to Mr. Pettis $900.00, the equivalent of two months' rent, as a refund of his security deposit.  Respondent made this demand despite the fact that Mr. Pettis had only tendered a security deposit of $450.00.

20. At another point in the conversation, Ms. Beatty mistakenly told respondent that she had already had the locks changed on Mr. Pettis' apartment.

21. Respondent threatened Ms. Beatty that she had made a grave error and would be liable to Mr. Pettis for treble damages for prematurely changing the locks without a court order. Respondent told Ms. Beatty that if she did not agree to Mr. Pettis' terms, he would end up owning the entire property and she would never get him out.

22. As a final instruction, respondent forbade Ms. Beatty to charge Mr. Pettis any rent for May 1 through May 12, the unpaid days during which Mr. Pettis retained possession and control of the property.

23. Mr. Pettis moved out of the apartment on May 12, 2015, the day after the telephone call.

24. Upon vacating the unit, Mr. Pettis left trash, personal property and damaged furniture on the front lawn of the apartment. Ms. Beatty subsequently bore the expense of having the furniture, personal property and trash hauled away by a private trash removal company.

25. Ms. Beatty did not ever file an eviction action against Mr. Pettis or any other action for back rent, damage to the apartment, or to recover the expense of the trash removal.

26. On May 14, 2015, respondent again telephoned Ms. Beatty and left a message on her answering service asking her to return his call or to have her attorney call him about the Pettis matter.

27. Ms. Beatty did not return the call from respondent, but did contact her attorney. George Urban, to discuss the matter. She learned from Mr. Urban that it was possible to file a grievance against the judge for his intimidating and unethical conduct.

28. On May 22, 2015, respondent telephoned Ms. Beatty a third time about the Pettis matter and left a message on her answering service requesting that she return his call or have her attorney call him.

29. Ms. Beatty did not return the third call from respondent, but following that call, she obtained a grievance form and filed her grievance with relator.

30. At his October 9, 2015 deposition, respondent admitted that his calls and conversation were improper under Ohio ethics law.

31. At the deposition, respondent also admitted that the disagreement between the parties was more complicated than he understood at the time of the call, and that the complexity was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by respondent. He also admitted that the purpose of the call was to influence the conduct of Ms. Beatty with respect to her legal rights and interests.

32. Also at his deposition, respondent conceded that any comment regarding possible treble damages or other consequences for changing the locks constituted a legal opinion that was intended to influence Ms. Beatty' s conduct. He further acknowledged that he understood how a person in Ms. Beatty's position could feel intimidated by receiving such a call from a judge.

33. Respondent knew at the time of his calls to Ms. Beatty that the matter was not pending in his court, was not appropriate for mediation, and that he was not an appropriate mediator.

Nevertheless, in responding to relator's letters of inquiry, Respondent initially implied that the conversation was part of a new pilot mediation program he had established at the court.

Over the course of the investigation, and in response to specific questions from relator, respondent has changed his position to an acknowledgement, both in writing and at his deposition, that the conversation was not a mediation and was not a part of any mediation program at the court.

A COMPLETE VINDICATION OF FRANCIS H. CICCHINELLI, JR? TODD V. CICCHINELLI, ET AL

DISCLAIMER:  This blog is posted in the context of being opinion journalism and has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that the blogger is an attorney-at-law.

Mayor Francis H. Cicchnelli, Jr., tells the SCPR that the City of Massillon has been victorious on all counts in Massillonian Edward Todd's lawsuit versus Cicchinelli and other Massillon officials in their official capacities.

And, the SCPR has obtained a copy of Judge Haas' decision that validates Cicchnelli's claim, to wit:

Conclusion
Construing the pleadings, affidavits, and other supporting documents in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as set forth. herein.

Ordinance 235-2002 was not unlawful and the Recreation Board legally controls and directs the operation of the Legends.

Further, the Recreation Board has properly used Park Levy funds in its direction and control of the Legends.

With regard to Genshaft Park, the Court will not issue a declaration regarding the lawfulness of the Ordinance purporting to sell the Park as the issue is moot nor will this Court issue an advisory opinion as to whether or not City Council, in passing Ordinance 92-007, abused its discretion.

Finally, any future sale of Genshaft Park may be effectuated through the Massillon Community Improvement Corporation without Recreation Board approval or competitive bidding  

This is a final appealable order and it is so ordered.

The SCPR believes that Cicchinelli has it right and therefore has made the decision to post this blog noting the Cicchinelli-vouched result of the case.  Moreover, The Report believes that the source of the email with the face page of the court order attached is indication in and of itself that matters went well for the Mayor, his administration and other Massillon city officials named as parties in the lawsuit.

The case was filed in May, 2009.

Mayor Cicchinelli has told the SCPR that the litigation was the work of his political enemies, one of whom he identified as being Massillon Municipal Court Judge Edward J. Elum.

 

If Cicchinelli is correct in his assessment of the political motivation, then it will be interesting to see whether or not the result in this case has any affect on the relationship between Cicchinelli and Elum.

Right now there is a fuss underway between Elum and the Mayor appointed police chief Rob Williams.  This afternoon the Mayor repeated to The Report that nothing has changed and that he disagreed that a recent one and one half hour meeting between the Chief and Elum yielded positive results as Elum claimed in an email to the SCPR.

The next thing to look for in the Massillon political scene is whether or not Cicchinelli decides to run for yet another term.  He has been mayor since 1988, but is thought to be in for a challenge by Councilwoman Kathy Catazaro-Perry who is allied with another political enemy of Cicchinelli; namely, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. who is Massillon clerk of courts and a former chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.

Cicchinelli has told The Report he will be making his decision no later than this coming summer.

If he decides to run, a Cicchinelli/Catazaro-Perry will be a continuation of the political "cat fight" that has been going on in Tigerland for some years now!

The Report does not believe this is helpful to a city that is struggling in tough economic times, but such is politics.

MASSILLON MUNY JUDGE EDWARD ELUM HAS "TIGERTOWN IN AN UPROAR" OVER MORE THAN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ISSUE.

Revised on 3/14/2010 at 9:00 pm to make it clear that this blog is the work product of yours truly as an opinion journalist - as are all the SCPR blogs - and not as an attorney.

Perhaps, GateHouse Ohio Media's most talented Stark County journalist, Matt Rink of The Massillon Independent, has been doing a splendid job of writing about the controversy that Massillon Municipal Court judge Edward "Eddie" Elum has generated in Tigertown over his allegations that Massillon Police Chief Robert Williams is "unfit" for his job, and that Williams has not kept the Massillon Police Department properly equipped.

A sure sign that Rink is doing a good job in digging out the story is revealed in Elum's own statement:  "The Independent was not aggressive enough in its reporting ... of the case."  (Elum denies vendetta with MPD, but says Williams unfit to lead, department ill-equipped, March 5, 2010)

In other words,  The Independent is not bending to the will of Judge Edward J. Elum.

In the opinion of the SCPR, Judge Elum is looking more and more like a bully.  For too many years, Massillon government officials have given into or looked the other way on Elum's episodic tirades and now the "chickens are coming home to roost."

And it's not just the police department thing that's in full swing right now.  There are a number of aspects to Elum-connected sown discord that is plaguing Massillon City government these days.  It seems rather apparent that there is Judge Edward Elum's way - or - the highway.

The Report believes there is an Elum connection to the Catazaro-Perry/Anderson led faction of Massillon City Council that appears to oppose anything "Frank Cicchinelli."

Though Elum denied that he has hatred of all things "Cicchinelli;"  nearly everyone that The Report has spoken with in recent times about the relationship between Elum and Cicchinelli are unanimous:  "these men hate each other!"

Elum seems to understand that one of the few remaining government positions that everyday citizens still defer to is that of being a judge.  That's why the SCPR thinks that Elum continues to deny the undeniable.  Many still believe a judge's word just because it comes from a judge, even if the rhetoric doesn't quite square up with behavior.  

Recently, a Massillon official relayed to The Report an incident in Judge Elum's courtroom whereby he was being very insulting to an obese woman because of her obesity.  Most judges that yours truly know would be disgusted to see a judge do such a thing.

Not long ago the SCPR learned that Massillon clerk of courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. (who is an unelected - by the voting public - political appointee serving on the Stark Board of Elections (SBOE)) hired the sister of SBOE director Jeannette Mullane to work at the clerk's office which he was elected to.

No surprise here.

According to an e-mail the SCPR received a couple days ago, there was more to this hiring than a mere hiring.

This is where Judge Elum comes into the picture.

In being hired, the Mullane sister got caught up in what appears to be a long term political fight between Mayor Cicchinelli's administration and Cicchinelli foes - whom, according to the Mayor, include:   Judge Elum and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (clerk of courts) among others.

This is a fight that has been going on in Massillon over the differentiation between "regular" city employees on one side and Masillon clerk of courts/municipal court employees on the other.

Over the years, by municipal ordinance, Massillon officials have been putting city employees on health care benefits after six months of employment.  But according to Safety Director Mike Loudiana, the clerk and the Massillon Municipal Court judges have insisted that the clerk/court new hires be put on benefits on the first of the month following the date of hire.

Massillon executive department officials have historically only complied on being ordered to by the two Massillon Municipal Court judges.  Accordingly, each and every time the clerk/court hired an employee, one of two judges (whomever happened to be the administrative judge) would order the city auditor to place new clerk/court employee on health care benefits on the first of the month following the date of hire.

A Couple of months ago, Director Loudiana decided to make a fight of it.  He picked the Mullane sister hiring to do so.    Loudiana tells The Report he had three reasons for resisting.  First, there was a city ordinance specifying a six month after hire date for being put on health care benefits; second, making a difference between city employees and clerk/court employees caused problems with the union that represents city workers and, third, the near immediate placement on health care benefits - rather than six months out - costs the City of Massillon $4,000 to $5,000 for each employee.

The sister did have an additional problem.  She had been hired in on a 30 hours per week basis and the ordinance in question required both a six month delay and that the employee work 35 hours per week.  Solution on the hourly factor?  Maier increased her hours to 35.

However, the Report believes there is another reason Loudiana stood up and fought.

Well, what would that be?

Loudiana tells the SCPR that he and his benefits administrator were threatened with jail if they did not comply with the Court's order to place Mullane's sister on benefit status immediately.

Yours truly did talk with Judge Edward Elum prior to writing this blog.

He denied that he had threatened Loudiana and the city employee with jail.

And, he is correct.  But in issuing the denial, Elum was getting "cutesy" with The Report. Not exactly something one would expect from a sitting judge.

If there was a threat, it was not Elum who issued it.  Rather, according to Loudiana, Judge Roland Centrone (who happens to be the the current administrative judge) is the judge who Loudiana says told Massillon's benefits administrator that non-compliance with the Court's order could mean jail for her and her boss (Loudiana).

In the long and short of it, Loudiana ultimately decided that he had better things to do than fight with Maier and the Court over the timing issue.   At Louidana's urging for clarification, Massillon City Council resolved the matter by  changing the ordinance that had been in effect since 1975.  Under the revised ordinance,  authority was granted to put clerk/court employees - as they hired in - on benefits.   But regular city employees still have to wait six months.

Before the ordinance passed, Maier and the judges had gotten a letter from Massillon law director Perry Stergios saying that the authority to differentiate already existed.

The SCPR believes that there is more to this fuss than the timing of the beginning of health care benefits.  It appears to be one vignette of many which play out on the larger backdrop of an Elum/Maier/Catazaro-Perry versus Cicchinelli historical adversity.

On the benefits issue, Judge Elum characterizes the fight as being a constitution-esque "separation of powers" matter.  The Report gets the impression that Cicchinelli sees the matter as a political power move.

The SCPR does not buy the "separation of powers" argument.  It seems more like a "political question."

As has already been said, the interplay is more that just over the implementation of health care benefits, the police department, it is all grounded - in the Stark County Political Report's opinion - in an anti-Cicchinelli animus.

Elum goes on the radio (Q92 - DeLuca in the Morning) periodically and bashes Mayor Cicchinelli.

Hmm?

Elum has no ill will towards Cicchinelli?

When The Report conveyed Elum's denial to Cicchinelli, the Mayor responded with with a "from the bottom of the belly" laugh that probably could be heard throughout western Stark County.

To add vinegar to the pitting of court/clerk employees against regular employees feud, Judge Elum said this regarding Cicchinelli pal Loudiana:

Mike Loudiana is a very capable Director of Public Safety and Service and works real hard.  However, he has no power, control or supervision over the courts and clerk of court's offices.

Is this an "in your face Mike Loudiana" or is it a "separation of powers" argument?

Interpretation most likely depends on one's perspective. 

Indeed, there is a long history to this dispute.  Loudiana described to The Report how he and Johnnie Maier (Elum's proxy?) have been fighting over this issue going back to when Loudiana was a Massillon councilman. 

In kind of a non-sequitur, Elum wrote to yours truly about what an outstanding employee Mullane's sister is.  Huh?

Don't recall anyone questioning the sister's competence (Elum says she's a CPA.  So?).

The question - at best, an implied side issue to the benefits matter - is whether or not she got the job because of her political connections to the exclusion of the general run of unconnected taxpaying citizens?   Curiously enough, Elum did not offer an opinion on that question. 

Then there is the matter of the lawsuit.

This lawsuit is basically over the city administration's use of the Parks and Recreation Department's 0.3 of a percent share of city income tax on the city-owned Legends golf course.

The SCPR attended the oral arguments on Thursday last on cross-motions for summary judgment which to non-lawyers is legalese for the city's attorneys (Stergios, et al) and the Park Board's attorney (Craig Conley) asking Judge John Haas (Stark County Common Pleas Court) to dismiss the case in the favor of the city (Stergios) or in favor of the Park Board (Conley) and thereby wiping out a trial on the issues of the case.

Interestingly enough, one of Conley's premier arguments was that the Park Board is an autonomous unit of government and therefore not under the control of Massillon city government and Mayor Cicchinelli.  Sounds a little like the Massillon Municipal Court and the clerk of courts insisting on charting a different course than the rest of Massillon as to how employees are treated.

The Report is told by a number of Massillonians that Judge Elum has been very active in the background assisting in the construction of the Park Board's side of the case.

Cicchinelli openly tells The Report that though Elum is not a party to the suit, he is a prime mover behind the scene and, has, in the opinion of the Mayor, crossed the lines of ethical propriety.

Sound like chums, don't they?

As a lawyer, yours truly knows how difficult it can be to deal with a judge who is thought to be or becoming "extra-judicial."  Such - when it occurs - is utterly unfair for anyone who has to deal with an offending judge.  And not just lawyers.  But also for everyday citizens (e.g. the obese lady), city officials (Cicchinelli, Loudiana, Chief Williams et al) and others who have to deal with a judge who cannot seem to rein himself in.

The Stark County Political Report believes that the uproar in Massillon these days is due in large part to Judge Elum's seeming desire, in concert with clerk of courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., to over-control Massillon's public life.  He appears to be aligned with others with the same agenda.

Rather than being perceived as fueling the fires of discord, it would be far more impressive to see Judge Elum leading the way towards building a Massillon consensus.