Independent probe is necessary

There he was in all his probatorial glory, telling the public about his job as Mahoning County’s probate judge and all the work performed by his court, when this question came to mind: Why is Judge Mark Belinky conducting an in-house investigation of an employee of his?

(Emphasis has been added to the word “is” to illustrate that the question was originally posed by a top official at the Mahoning County Board of Elections.)

It was a not-so-subtle reminder to this writer of a column published in this space on Oct. 25, 2009, headlined, “Heads must roll at board of elections.”

Then, as now, the performance of an employee was at the heart of the probe. But unlike the probate court, led by Judge Belinky, the board of elections, under Director Thomas McCabe and Deputy Director Joyce Kale-Pesta, was investigated by the sheriff’s department.

Why? Because county commissioners David Ludt, Anthony Traficanti and John A. McNally IV, and Prosecutor Paul Gains wanted to determine if criminal activity had taken place with regard to the county sales tax issue that was on the ballot last November.

And the probe by the sheriff’s department continued even after the four-member board of elections, made up of two Democrats and two Republicans, suspended McCabe and elections clerk Danielle O’Neill.

Ballot language

O’Neill failed to send to the county commissioners the ballot language for the half-percent sales tax renewal that was prepared by the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office.

The Oct. 25 column argued that while it was proper to hold O’Neill to account for her incompetence, McCabe and Kale-Pesta were also at fault and deserved punishment.

Here’s how the column began: “Having a clerk take the fall for what is by any measure a major foul-up at the Mahoning County Board of Elections is not only unfair but is unacceptable.”

Incidentally, Probate Judge Belinky applauded the column. Danielle O’Neill is his sister-in-law.

But now, the question being asked — and legitimately so — is why the probate court investigation is being handled in-house.

Indeed, Belinky has remained quite evasive about his employee, Donald D. Gaudio Jr., being placed on unpaid administrative leave pending the investigative report.

Belinky would only say the court has obtained information on Gaudio’s employment and must determine whether he “has engaged in any inappropriate behavior during his employment with this court.”

Chief Magistrate Richard Burgess is heading the investigation, which should be completed some time this week.

Therein lies the problem.

Since the story made the headlines, the rumor mill has been working overtime coming up with all sorts of reasons for Gaudio’s being placed on unpaid leave. There is the mundane — he doesn’t have a valid driver’s license — to the extreme — he was involved with some lawyers that has caused the court to be viewed with suspicion.

Perhaps the details of Gaudio’s behavior will be made public by Judge Belinky, but even then the issue of who else was involved, or who knew what the employee was doing will remain unanswered. And such lack of information will feed the perception that it wasn’t just one man who fell from grace.

Delve deeper

Given the tainted history of the criminal justice system in Mahoning County, it would behoove Belinky to ask an independent investigative agency to not only review the work that Burgess has done, but to delve deeper.

The hiring of Gaudio in December 2008 occurred without the position being advertised and immediately became the subject of political speculation.

He had no discernible qualifications or work experience to be hired by Belinky, which is why an internal investigation of Gaudio is not enough.

Regardless of the punishment that is ultimately given, there won’t be closure.

Judge Belinky was right when, in reaction to the board of elections controversy, he endorsed the idea that a clerk should be not be the only one blamed for what had taken place with the sales tax issue.

He now needs to apply that same principle to his court.