43
Follow state law, top court tells Sciortino panel
YOUNGSTOWN
The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered a three-judge panel considering the suspension of Mahoning County Auditor Michael V. Sciortino to follow the hearing procedure prescribed by state law.
That suspension panel, whose proceedings are secret under state law until it announces its decision, made a preliminary decision to suspend Sciortino, which Sciortino appealed.
The 6-1 ruling came Monday in response to a complaint filed with the top court by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, which asked for such an order.
The sole dissenter in the top court ruling was Justice William M. O’Neill, the sole Democratic justice.
Sciortino said he hadn’t read the ruling and deferred comment on the decision, or on whether he’ll proceed with the hearing or consent to a suspension, until he consults with his lawyer, John Juhasz.
Juhasz did not respond to a request for comment.
Sciortino, a Democrat, was defeated in last week’s general election by Ralph Meacham, a Republican, whose four-year term begins March 9.
The panel of three retired judges had ruled that, as Sciortino’s lawyer, Juhasz is entitled to participate fully in its suspension hearing as Sciortino’s legal representative.
Not allowing full participation by defense counsel is a denial of due process, the three-judge panel ruled.
State law, however, says Sciortino has a right to be accompanied in the hearing by his lawyer — but that lawyer is not entitled to advocate for him, present evidence or examine or cross-examine witnesses.
DeWine is trying to get Sciortino suspended under a state law that allows suspension with pay of public officials charged with job-related felonies.
“Mike Sciortino has rights, and I believe it to be unfair to make him proceed without his counsel” participating on his behalf in the suspension hearing, said attorney David Betras, Mahoning County Democratic Party chairman.
“I thoroughly disagree with the current statute” governing suspension of public officials, he added.
As to whether Sciortino should proceed with the hearing or consent to being suspended, Betras said he would defer that question to Sciortino and Juhasz.
“Our special prosecutors are pleased with the issuance of the writ and look forward to the resolution of this portion of these proceedings,” Dan Tierney, a spokesman for DeWine, said in response to Monday’s decision.
Sciortino was indicted May 14 on 16 felony counts and six misdemeanor counts for what prosecutors say was his role in trying to impede the move of Mahoning County’s Department of Job and Family Services from rented quarters to the county-owned Oakhill Renaissance Place.
Sciortino and his two co-defendants have pleaded innocent in that criminal case.
The county bought Oakhill in 2006 and moved JFS there in 2007.
When the three-judge panel met July 18 to consider Sciortino’s appeal, it offered DeWine the opportunity to file a complaint with the state’s top court to clarify the hearing procedure.
The suspension panel consists of retired Judges David C. Faulkner of Hardin County Common Pleas Court, Thomas J. Grady of the 2nd District Court of Appeals and Timothy S. Hogan of Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.
If Sciortino is suspended, he will continue to collect his $89,189 annual salary during the suspension, and the Mahoning County Democratic Party Central Committee must appoint an interim auditor at the same salary.
As to whether the Democratic Party should appoint Meacham or a Democrat as interim auditor if Sciortino is suspended, Betras said the party “will await further decisions, and we will comment at that time.”
In his complaint, DeWine said the three-judge panel is not entitled to declare the state law an unconstitutional violation of due process.
In addition to the due-process issue, the three-judge panel said in a written response to DeWine’s complaint that not allowing a public official’s lawyer to act as an advocate in the hearing also could raise an issue regarding the self-incrimination protection in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Not allowing the public official’s lawyer to act as an advocate “would require the public official to speak on his or her own behalf, potentially implicating himself or herself in the criminal conduct, with which the official has been charged,” the panel said.