Judge Rusu warrants support of voters in probate court race

Probate Court

Video Set

In formulating this endorsement editorial, we went into the archives and reread what we had said on Oct. 12, 2008, when we gave our unequivocal support to then Mahoning County Probate Judge Mark Belinky. This is the headline that accompanied the editorial:

“Probate Judge Belinky has earned a full term”

Never did we imagine at the time that five years and five months later we would be publishing an editorial with the following headline: “Don’t feel sorry for Belinky for leaving probate judgeship”.

Belinky’s resignation from the bench hangs over the Mahoning County Courthouse like a cloud of political poison.

And unfortunately, his fall from grace — he was investigated for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, tampering with records, bribery, money laundering, theft and theft in office — has become the subtext of this November’s general election for probate judge.

Although Belinky pleaded guilty only to the tampering-with-records charge and was sentenced to two years’ probation, he is still on the hook with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation. The disgraced former judge must provide information that will lead to other government corruption prosecutions.

Thus, Belinky’s legacy of violating the public’s trust will live on.

Why bring up the past when there are two candidates on this year’s general election ballot who had nothing to do with the corrupt Mr. Belinky?

Public scrutiny

Because whoever is elected to the six-year term will have to constantly be on his or her best behavior; the public will be watching — closely.

The two contenders are: Atty. Susan Maruca, the Democratic Party nominee who ran in 2008 and placed third in the primary; and Atty. Robert Rusu, a political novice who was appointed to the probate judgeship by Republican Gov. John Kasich when Belinky resigned.

Rusu has been on the bench for three months, which means that the power of incumbency is not a factor in this race. He is running as an independent

An evaluation of each candidate’s credentials is necessary in order to determine who is best qualified to preside over this specialized court.

We would urge voters not to be swayed by Democratic Party operatives who argue that the probate court is no different from the other Common Pleas courts.

We recall that when Belinky pointed to his almost exclusive practice of probate law and his extensive courtroom experience, these same Democrats were silent in the November 2008 general election when Republican Scott Hunter, a county court judge, was challenging the Democratic nominee.

In comparing Rusu’s practice of law with Maruca’s, we find one major difference: Prior to his being appointed judge, Rusu had handled more than 1,200 probate cases in the Mahoning County court; Maruca can’t match that record.

To us, courtroom experience is important because it requires a particular mindset and an intimate knowledge of the rules and procedures.

Such experience was evident when Belinky was sworn in as probate judge. He was so familiar with the inner workings of the court that he wasted little time in implementing changes pertaining to case management and the day-to-day administration. Lawyers who regularly practice in the court were generous in their praise of what the judge had accomplished.

Likewise, when Rusu was sworn in, he did not need a learning curve because he already was aware of what worked and what didn’t.

The same lawyers who had applauded Belinky — Democrats and Republicans alike — are giving high marks to Rusu.

In today’s Vindicator, Courthouse Reporter Peter Milliken provides an extensive description of both candidates, their experience as lawyers, their educational backgrounds and their plans for the court.

Invaluable resource

We believe that such reporting is an invaluable resource for voters who otherwise would not spend the time researching this race.

The job pays $121,350-a-year — a salary that can easily be justified given the importance of the court to individuals and families who need its services.

Voters can rest assured that both Rusu and Maruca are sincere when they say that their desire to help those most in need is the driving force behind their candidacies.

However, only one can win on Nov. 4, and in our estimation Judge Rusu — yes, he has a right to use the title — stands head and shoulders above Maruca.

The Vindicator strongly endorses Rusu, not only because of his knowledge, experience, temperament and his performance to date as a probate judge, but because he is a political newcomer who is a breath of fresh air.