Judge Lisotto should have revealed his illness sooner

Judge Robert Lisotto's public revelation Monday that he is suffering from Alzheimer's disease brings to an end the rumors that have swirled around his absence from the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court bench, but it also raises the question of whether the public should have been informed as soon as the illness was diagnosed.
Judge Lisotto told reporters that he found out about the Alzheimer's about two months ago after undergoing tests at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He has been receiving treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Considering that the judge has not performed his judicial duties since December, we believe he should have made public his condition the moment he found out. Why? Because voters have a right to know when an elected official is unable to continue in office.
Judge Lisotto submitted his letter of resignation to the court's administrative judge, Jack Durkin, on Monday. It was forwarded to the Ohio Supreme Court and is effective today. Since his term expires in December 2009, there will be an election in November for a replacement. Meanwhile, Gov. Bob Taft will appoint an interim judge.
Retired Common Pleas Judge Charles Bannon was named by the Supreme Court to serve on a visiting basis in Judge Lisotto's absence.
Additional cost
Because of the additional cost involved in paying for a fill-in, judges have a responsibility to the taxpayers to be as open as possible about their ability to fully conduct the people's business. The fact that Judge Lisotto remained on the public payroll for two months after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and realized he wasn't going to be able to return to work warrants an explanation from Administrative Judge Durkin as to the propriety of the action.
While Judge Lisotto is deserving of the public's support and prayers as he battles this debilitating illness and should be applauded for discussing the disease so openly, being on the public payroll means that the right to privacy is not a legitimate reason for his less than prompt full disclosure of his condition.
Indeed, Judge Lisotto's illness could be an explanation for the Sept. 3 charges of driving under the influence of alcohol. Police said the judge was pulled over in Canfield after he was seen driving erratically. They said he failed several sobriety tests and a breath test showed him with a blood alcohol content of 0.081.
While insisting that all he had to drink that evening was a glass a wine with dinner, Judge Lisotto pleaded guilty to a drunken driving charge. He was sentenced to 180 days in the county jail with all but three days suspended. The three days were subsequently suspended after he attended an alternative school. He was fined $500, with $250 suspended, and his driver's license was suspended for six months.
As we said at the time, "There is nothing laudable in Lisotto's driving after drinking, and he has acknowledged that. But Lisotto's decision to stand up and take his medicine is worthy of note."
We wonder why he didn't stand up sooner in revealing he was undergoing neurogical tests. Such openness would have silenced the rumormongers and served as an example to other elected officials.