[Written by C. Ellen Connally]
In the last two weeks, two children were killed as a result of gun violence in the city of Cleveland. That brings a total of 13 dead children victimized by gun violence since 2012. And that’s not to mention the 10-year-old boy who was shot in my neighborhood this weekend. With these statistics, it is not surprising that Cleveland ranks as the 5th most dangerous city in the nation. While the Cleveland police say they are doing their best, there is little doubt that more police officers on the street would help stem the violence. But more police means more money.
That is why I continue to be aghast and frankly appalled at the amount of money the City of Cleveland continues to spend on the legal fees of former Municipal Court Judge Angela R. Stokes — money that could be spent on police services or other programs that would take guns off the street and stem violence. The most recent tally shows that, to date, the city has spent $892,698.50 on her defense, an amount that could put at least 10-12 more police officers on the street for a year.
Stokes’ legal fees have increased by a whopping $240,000 since I voiced my concerns in a letter to the editor that appeared in the Plain Dealer in late June and spoke in a guest editorial segment on Action 19 News — concerns that apparently fell on deaf ears at City Hall.
Stokes began her legal battle with the Ohio Supreme Court in March of last year when she filed an action in response to being removed from the criminal docket. Her removal was based on more than 337 complaints lodged against her because of her abusive treatment of defendants, lawyers, agency personnel, police officers, the public and court staff. Even though many of her actions — legendary in the Justice Center — were recorded on videotape, Stokes feels that she has been falsely accused _ alleging a conspiracy to remove her from the bench.
In December, the state Supreme Court took the unprecedented action of imposing an interim remedial suspension of Stokes’ law license, which resulted in her removal from the bench and loss of salary until the underlying complaints are resolved. But that didn’t mean that taxpayers stopped paying. It meant that the money going out of the public coffers starting going out at a faster pace and now exceeds the total salary for her full six-year term.
The basis of Stokes’ claims for legal services from the city is that by law, the city is required to provide legal counsel for any acts that she is alleged to have committed in the furtherance of her judicial obligations. Stokes initially received legal services from an insurance policy for judges provided by the Supreme Court. The problem is there was a cap on those fees and she reached her cap in short order. Knowing that other judges who have exceeded their cap and lost were forced to pay the insurance company back for what they spent, Stokes looked to the city for a new set of deep pockets to pay her legal fees.
Someone in the law department agreed to provide her with a lawyer. They further decided that since the complaint against her was filed by another judge of the court, the law department’s lawyers were faced with a conflict-of-interest problem and were unable to represent her. As a result, Stokes was allowed to hire outside council. That fact in and of itself is not significant. But what is significant is the fact that Stokes has a literal blank check to hire the lawyers of her choice — which she has done with reckless abandonment.
She has hired and fired some of the most expensive lawyers around the state at about the same rate that she hired and fired bailiffs when she was on the bench. Depending on how you count, she has gone through six or seven sets of lawyers, and the case is far from over. Court records show that the prosecution intends to call some 90 witnesses before they rest their case and that she intends to call 150 witnesses in her own defense — witnesses that I assume had a better view of her bizarre conduct on the bench than the video recordings already in evidence.
In the normal course of government, expenditures of this type require approval of the legislative branch in the form of enabling legislation not only to approve the expenditures but to enter into a contract with the law firm — at least that’s what happened when I served as president of the Cuyahoga County Council for 4 years. Not so in Stokes’ case.
The law is clear that there are occasions when a city employee, when acting in the course of his or her employment, is entitled to representation by the City Law Department or in some cases outside counsel. However, such an employee would hardly be allowed to pick and chose and hire and fire lawyers in the manner afforded to Stokes. That employee would take the lawyer the city gave them and if not satisfied would be forced to hire their own lawyer at their own expense. But I guess when your name is Stokes you get a special privilege.
With expenditures reaching nearly one million dollars, you would think that someone in Cleveland City Council would raise a question. Close to a million dollars is a lot of money in anybody’s budget. But to date not one councilperson has said a mumbling word, while citizens from just about every segment of the community have approached me to applaud my speaking out.
This abuse of the taxpayers’ money has got to stop. Mayor Frank Jackson and Cleveland City Council should have the intestinal fortitude to say enough is enough — not “it is what it is.” If Stokes wants to continue her legal battle, it’s time for her to reach into her own pockets and pay for her own defense. While children die, Stokes fights on using our tax dollars — tax dollars that could equate to more police on the streets and a safer community.
When will someone at City Hall answer the question: Does the city spend the hard-earned tax dollars of its citizens on defending the community or defending Angela Stokes?
C. Ellen Connally is a retired judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court. From 2010 to 2014 she served as the President of the Cuyahoga County Council. An avid reader and student of American history, she serves on the Board of the Ohio History Connection and was recently appointed to the Soldiers and Sailors Monument Commission. She holds degrees from BGSU, CSU and is all but dissertation for a PhD from the University of Akron.
3 Responses to “Spending Cleveland’s Tax Dollars : Do We Defend Cleveland Or Angela Stokes?”
Jeff Johnson
I find it wrong and a cheap shot to connect the public funds being used to pay for the defense of Judge Angela Stokes with the tragic deaths of children by gun violence in our neighborhoods. I have no doubt Judge Stokes’ heart hurts with all of us as she learns of the continued violent deaths of children and adults. It is not her fault City Hall has chosen to send less police than it should (not could) to the neighborhoods to fight violent crime.
I personally have not been quiet about the right of Judge Stokes to have her defense paid for by city tax dollars. She is accepting the financial help as others have done before her. Let us not forget this entire process was brought about by the leadership of the Cleveland Municipal Court because they were dissatisfied with how Judge Stokes ran her courtroom. I have also always taken note that throughout all this action by these local judicial leaders, and others in Columbus, Judge Stokes has never been accused of violating any criminal laws, yet they took away her paycheck while other Judges over the years charged with actual crimes were able to keep their paychecks. Doesn’t appear to be fair to me.
The city of Cleveland Mayor, and a majority of City Council, have made decision on the spending of public dollars that I have questioned repeatedly that should have been used to hire more police, upgrade recreation centers and more that would improve the negative conditions that leads to a more violent community. We did not hold a vote on funding the defense of Judge Stokes, but if we did I would have given her the same right to the funding that others before her received. The fact that it has become a significant amount points as much to those who continue to pursue her removal as it does for her efforts to remain in her elected position. What Judge Stokes is receiving is not a privilege linked to her family name but because of her work status as a employee with the city of Cleveland. In fact, because she received her work status via a vote of city residents any reason to remove her, or deny her rights others have enjoyed, would need to be based on extraordinary reasons. I don’t believe the reasons cited should force an elected city employee to be forced to pay for her defense from accusations and efforts of other elected city employees.
Hopefully, these comments have made my position clear given the mistaken belief that this member of City Council has been quiet on the issue. Thank you.
Dr. Dorothy Salem
This is just another example of a public official “using” the system to the disadvantage of the public. The evidence is ample. Have some public concern about your case and quit Ms. Stokes —-quit for the public good.
julie demor
I will contact my councilman TODAY and I urge others to do the same. This is a disgrace and my neighborhood could use this money for our children’s education!