Gains' failure to act promptly in Lisotto case is disturbing

For more than a year, Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains has pointed to the federal government in explaining why he hasn't pursued state charges against the many individuals nabbed in the FBI's crackdown on government corruption and organized crime in the county.
To hear Gains tell it, he is merely doing what federal prosecutors have told him to do -- nothing. As long as the federal investigation is continuing, Gains has said, the issue of state charges will be held in abeyance.
And since the FBI and federal prosecutors will not publicly discuss pending cases, there is no way for Mahoning County residents to know whether Gains is, in fact, being a good team player.
FBI file: But on Tuesday, a Vindicator story revealed that months ago, the FBI turned over to the county prosecutor its file on Common Pleas Court Judge Robert G. Lisotto, who is the subject of a complaint filed by Jonathan E. Coughlan, disciplinary counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Lisotto had until yesterday to respond to Cough lan's contention that he violated the supreme court's code of judicial conduct when he accepted season tickets for Pittsburgh Steelers games from lawyer-turned-convicted felon Stuart Banks Jr.
Why hasn't Gains done anything about the Lisotto case? It seems that he did not want to interfere with the disciplinary counsel's actions.
These excuses from the county prosecutor are beginning to ring hollow.
"I'm sitting down and debating whether to bring a charge," he says. "There might be a misdemeanor charge." What's to debate?
According to FBI Special Agent Andrew Arena, who is in charge of the bureau's Boardman office, the federal investigation revealed the judge's "misuse of position," but that the finding did not rise to the level of a federal crime.
Gains says he doesn't know what Arena means. Shouldn't he find out?
If there is enough evidence in the Lisotto file to support a state criminal charge, Gains has no choice but to act. This isn't some run-of-the-mill case. It involves a judge, and as such it merits the extraordinary attention of the county prosecutor. What the supreme court's disciplinary counsel does should have no bearing on whether criminal action is warranted.
Gains must make his decision based on the evidence compiled by the FBI. And he should also be aware that if he chooses not to file charges against Lisotto, the public will expect a detailed explanation from him.
Explanation needed: Speaking of explanations, we believe that one is in order in the matter of Common Pleas Court Judge R. Scott Krichbaum's participation in a charity golf outing in 1997 where the $2,500 entry fee was paid by Atty. Michael Harshman. While Harshman did not have cases pending before the judge, lawyers at his firm, Harshman & amp; Gervelis, did at the time of the outing.
In 1999, the disciplinary counsel of the supreme court was asked by Krichbaum and Lisotto to determine whether their travel on a corporate jet owned by a Youngstown company that had cases pending in their courts violated the code of judicial conduct.
It is not known whether Krichbaum's golf outing was also investigated by disciplinary counsel, but in light of the action against Lisotto for accepting Steelers tickets, some explanation is warranted.
Nothing was done about the trip the judges took on a Cafaro Co. plane to Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer's swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 6, 1999 in Columbus. Krichbaum and Lisotto revealed that they had received letters from the disciplinary counsel, but they have refused to make the letters public.