Belinky’s spinning won’t work

“The Probate Court is the one court where it is of the utmost importance to be viewed as above all suspicion since it deals with peoples’ lives, the deaths of loved ones, their estates, their future as possible wards of the Court or guardians of loved ones, and mental health involuntary commitments, along with all of the Court’s other responsibilities.”

So wrote Mahoning County Probate Judge Mark Belinky in the investigative report pertaining to deputy clerk/investigator Donald D. Gaudio Jr., who had been placed on administrative leave without pay. The report concluded that Gaudio “has not engaged in such egregious conduct during his employment that would warrant his dismissal from his employment.”

“There is no evidence of criminal behavior. However, Mr. Gaudio’s work performance [needs] to be improved to demonstrate a more solid work ethic, to more strictly abide by the standards of employment and to better observe the Court’s reporting requirement.”

With that, the investigation came to a fizzling end. But, if the judge thinks that the tortured language used to justify Gaudio’s employment will cause the court to be “viewed as above all suspicion,” he had better think again.

Indeed, the fact that the deputy clerk/investigator has been reinstated, but will be docked one week’s pay, only serves to increase the intensity of the spotlight already shining on the court.

Independent investigation

Last week, this writer called for an independent investigation of the allegations of misconduct made against the court employee. The reason: Having the court’s magistrate, Richard Burgess, conduct it simply provides fodder for those residents who already view the county’s criminal justice system with a jaundiced eye.

But just two days after the column was published, Judge Belinky filed his “see no evil” report.

A careful reading of it prompts this question: Why would Belinky, who has long presented himself as a paragon of virtue, and in his former life as a vocal critic of the Mahoning County politics railed against the incestuous nature of county government employment, hire someone lacking the relevant education or work experience to serve in the probate court, and with a pretty long rap sheet, to boot?

In his investigative report, Belinky uses the “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” justification for hiring Gaudio. Such humanity will certainly assure him a place in heaven. However, redemption paid for by the taxpayers in a county that has been battered by the national economic recession is judicial arrogance.

Or, is there some other reason Belinky was moved to hire Gaudio.

While the judge’s report goes into detail about the employee’s extensive “legal history,” the point is made that his trouble with the law “primarily occurred prior to his employment with the Court.”

And yet, one of the areas of inquiry by Magistrate Burgess was whether the deputy clerk/investigator had improperly used his position in his dealings with lawyers. What is curious about this is the fact that there were no allegations of loans having been made by lawyers, or of Gaudio having sought money from them. So, why even pursue such a line of questioning? Was it because of his “legal history?”

All that leads to the over arching issue of Gaudio’s being hired in the first place. There is nothing in the report to indicate how he got the job. Is he a former client of Belinky’s? Is he a friend of the family? Was he recommended by someone whose advice the judge respects? Was the name dropped by a major campaign contributor? Did he simply walk in off the street one day and ask for a job?

Kindness?

Or, is the hiring a goose-bumpy example of Belinky’s kindness and generosity?

“It is difficult, and on some level unfair, for persons who are trying to rehabilitate themselves to have their past played out in the media,” Belinky wrote in his report. “People of good will believe that people can be redeemed. Are there any of us who are without sin, or who have not had family or friends who needed a second chance in life? This court believes in redemption and the Court does not apologize for trying to help a person rebuild their life.”

No one is asking for an apology. The public just needs to know that this isn’t one big cover up. Only an independent investigation would put suspicious (inquiring?) minds at ease.