The FBI indictment of Republican and former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder mentions 21 candidates who FirstEnergy worked to elect so that they would vote for Householder as Ohio Speaker.

From the indictment:

“The Enterprise spent Generation Now money on approximately 21 different candidates –   15  (including  Householder)  in  the  primary ,  and  six  additional  candidates  in  the general election. Most of these candidates won the 2018 general election. All who won voted for Householder as Speaker; and all but two, voted for the legislative bailout for Company A <FirstEnergy>.”

According to the indictment, this cost roughly $125,000 to $150,000 per candidate or $2.5 – $3 million.  

Who are the 21 candidates?

1. Larry Householder himself

First on the list, Larry Householder. The FBI indictment specifically mentions Householder’s funneling of FirstEnergy money to his own political campaign.

“The Enterprise used some of the Company A <FirstEnergy> money to help enact the bailout legislation. Additionally, the Enterprise used millions of dollars of Company A bribe money to further Householder’s political ambitions by funding his own campaign, and the campaigns of members and candidates who would eventually support Householder’s election for Speaker. The Company A payments funded the operating costs of the Enterprise and paid for Householder’s political and campaign staff. The Defendants also paid themselves personally millions of dollars in Company A bribe payments, funneled through Generation Now and other entities controlled by the Enterprise. This includes allowing for the payment of at least $500,000 in what appears to be personal benefits to Householder that was passed through Longstreth controlled accounts.”

Outside of Householder, the indictment cites nine representatives without using their names (Eg. Representative 1, Representative 2, etc).

Representative 1 is Ryan Smith (former Republican representative OH-93)

Representative 1 is the person who became Speaker of the House before Larry Householder.

Representative 1 received no money or help from Householder or any of the other members of the criminal enterprise. He is listed in the indictment solely as the person who Householder was competing with for Speaker of the House.

Representative 2 is J. Todd Smith (Republican OH-43, Includes parts of Dayton, Preble County, and Western Montgomery County)

The person listed as Representative 2 in the indictment has been identified as J. Todd Smith.

Federal prosecutors point to Ohio House District 43 as one of the clearest examples of how Householder illegally used dark money to help a Republican candidate win a race so this candidate would then support him for Speaker.

The race in the general election was between Democratic candidate Dan Foley and Smith, the Republican. It was view as a tossup race.

Late in the campaign, an attack ad suddenly appeared accusing Foley of misusing his authority during a traffic stop. The ad was funded by a political PAC which was being funded by Householder and FirstEnergy: Hardworking Ohioans, Inc. The Columbus Dispatch identified Hardworking Ohioans, Inc. as the entity referred to as “Dark Money Group 1” in the FBI affidavit.

Though Foley passed the sobriety test and was only cited with a speeding ticket, the ad closes with “We can’t trust drunk Dan Foley.”

Smith won by 137 votes.

From the FBI indictment:

“The clearest example comes from one highly contested House District race. Although the Enterprise initially backed Candidate 1 in the primary, Candidate 1 lost in the Spring 2018 primary, beat by Representative 2. In the general election, Representative 2 faced a tight race against the opposing party’s candidate. However, Representative 2 ultimately prevailed by 137 votes. Representative 2’s victory was credited to a negative ad run by Dark Money Group 1, which showed the opposing candidate taking a field sobriety test, yet only receiving a speeding ticket. The ad essentially accused the candidate of misusing his authority. Although the candidate and the police union condemned the ad, the damage was done-the opposing candidate, who reportedly had a 10-point lead before the ad aired, lost the election. Media reports credited the Dark Money Group 1 ad with tipping the scales.”

Smith admits to being Representative 2 from the indictment and denies any connection to the ad.

“I did not raise that money. I did not spend that money. The first time I saw that commercial was 7 am when everyone else saw it,” Smith said.

Representative 3 is Jamie Callender (Republican OH-61, Lake County)

The Columbus Dispatch has identified Representative 3 from the indictment as Jamie Callender. Callender’s Lake County district includes the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

From the indictment:

“Freshman representatives, Representatives 3 and 4, who were elected in November 2018, sponsored HB 6. Both were “Householder” candidates and Generation Now spent money supporting both by paying for advertising, campaign strategy, and staffing. Although Householder was not a listed sponsor of the legislation, on the day of the introduction, he publically supported the legislation and gave a press conference to explain how it would affect Ohio. During the recorded press conference, Householder characterized HB 6 as “the mysterious energy bill we’ve been working on for quite a while in the House of Representatives.”

Additionally, Callender also received $18,700 in direct campaign contributions to his campaign from FirstEnergy.

Callender has previously served eight years in the House with Householder, including during his previous tenure as speaker from 2001-2004.

In a statement posted to Twitter, Callender claimed he didn’t understand any of what was going on until he read the indictment.

Representative 4 is Shane Wilkin (Republican OH -91, Hillsborough, Clinton, Highland, Pike counties and parts of Ross)

Representative 4 won election for the first time in 2018 with the help of Householder and FirstEnergy money.

Wilkin, in addition to Callender, had been tasked by Householder to sponsor the bill and see it through to passage.

In addition to the dark money advertising, Wilkin received $10,000 from a FirstEnergy PAC in 2018, another $3,000 during the summer of 2019 and $2,500 more that fall after the bill was signed into law.

Tim Barhorst and Stu Harris, benefactors of Hardworking Ohioans, Inc dark money advertisements

Since we know the political PAC Hardworking Ohioans, Inc. (“Dark Money Group 1”) was financed by FirstEnergy and supported J. Todd Smith in OH-43, it makes sense to look at other districts where outside money political ads were run by the same PAC.

Two of these districts were in Franklin County, OH-21 and OH-19.

The candidates helped in these two districts respectively were Stu Harris and Tim Barhorst. Both Harris and Barhorst lost their general election races.

OH-21, OH-19 and J. Todd Smith’s OH-43 were the only districts I could identify where Hardworking Ohioans, Inc. ran big outside ad spending buys.

Other clues from legitimate spending and HB6 support about possible Householder/FirstEnergy dark money beneficiaries

Four representatives (Smith, Callender, Wilkin and Householder himself) have all been identified as being assisted by dark money from FirstEnergy. Harris and Barhorst were candidates helped by outside ads from Hardworking Ohioans, Inc. and are almost certainly Householder identified representatives. This still leaves 15 other representatives who were helped in the 2018 election or primary by FirstEnergy money. 15 other representatives who were part of Team Householder and the passage of HB6.

In addition to Callender and Wilkin as sponsors, HB6 had 10 Republican co-sponsors in the House.

Here are the known donations from FirstEnergy and utility companies to 8 of the 10 other Republican sponsors:

• Jon Cross (OH-83): $20,200 total, including $12,700 from FirstEnergy and $7,500 from AEP
• Anthony DeVitis (OH-36): $34,415 total, including $33,915 from FirstEnergy and $500 from Dayton Power & Light
• Brett Hillyer (OH-98): $13,207, all from FirstEnergy
• Doug Jones (OH-95) : $1,500 total, including $1,000 from Duke Energy and $500 from FirstEnergy
• Bill Reineke (OH-26): $1,500, all from FirstEnergy
• Bill Seitz (OH-30): $16,000 total, including $6,500 from AEP, $5,000 from Duke Energy, $2,500 from FirstEnergy, and $2,000 from Dayton Power & Light
• Dick Stein (OH-57): $2,000, all from FirstEnergy
• Nino Vitale (OH-85): $3,500 total, including $2,500 from FirstEnergy and $1,000 from AEP

Seitz is the Republican Ohio House Majority Floor Leader, and DeVitis is the Assistant Majority Floor Leader.

In total, 40 of the 53 state representatives who voted for HB 6 received legitimate campaign contributions from utility PACs.

Again, it is unknown who the remaining 15 candidates/representatives who are mentioned as beneficiaries of FirstEnergy dark money in the FBI indictment, but it is likely to include some of the co-sponsors and/or other state representatives who voted for HB 6.

The Akron Beacon Journal has an excellent infographic that showcases where much of the Householder/FirstEnergy dark money went statewide.

According to an FBI indictment issued in July 2020, Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder accepted more than $60 million in bribe money from FirstEnergy Corp. in exchange for a $1.3 billion public bailout.

In any other year, this probably would have been a much bigger story. But in 2020 with COVID and the Trump circus, much of it got lost in the noise. It wasn’t until I started digging into the details that I realized the full scale of corruption and how many people were involved.

The FBI charged Householder, chief political aide Jeff Longstreth, and lobbyists Matt Borges, Neil Clark, Juan Cespedes, and Generation Now with conspiracy to commit racketeering. The plot involved getting Householder and a slate of Householder candidates elected in 2018, making Householder Speaker of the Ohio House, and then using his resulting political clout to pass a $1.3 billion bailout bill for two failing FirstEnergy nuclear power plants.

David DeVillers, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, stated:

(It) is likely the largest bribery, money-laundering scheme ever perpetrated against the people in the state of Ohio.

How did the alleged scheme work?

According to the indictment, Householder’s enterprise had several purposes:

1. To increase Householder’s power through corrupt means
2. To further his political interests
3. To enrich himself and the other members of the enterprise
4. And to assist in passing the bailout legislation for FirstEnergy

The first part of the scheme involved getting Householder elected as speaker of the Ohio house.

The prior speaker, Cliff Rosenberger, supported Ryan Smith as his successor. However, in April 2018, Rosenberger abruptly stepped down due to an FBI inquiry. This opened up an opportunity for the primary in May. FirstEnergy moved $1 million into the Generation Now, controlled by the Householder enterprise. Householder then used this money to support 15 candidates (including himself) in the May primary. Most of the Householder-backed candidates won in the primary. All told, Generation now spent more than $1.8 million on the Spring 2018 primary races—the majority of this coming from FirstEnergy.

In the general election, the Householder enterprise subsequently supported these same 15 candidates plus another 6 candidates with an estimated $125,000-$150,000 per candidate. Using this metric, the enterprise spent $2.5-$3 million on the general election in 2018.

While Smith won a heated battle to be appointed interim speaker, he lost the vote for speakership to Householder in early 2019. All of the candidates who Householder supported who had won their general election contests supported Householder for speaker.

The Householder Enterprise referred to FirstEnergy as “The Bank” because it was able to fund whatever Householder needed to achieve its’ goals. As Clark stated in a recorded conversation in July 2019:

“We call FirstEnergy ‘the Bank’ because they can do, they can do, they can fund these things for 20 years if they want to … They’ve got too much money, too much power.”

The second part of the scheme involved passing the $1.3 billion bailout of FirstEnergy.

Three months into his speakership, HB 6 was introduced to save FirstEnergy’s two failing nuclear energy plants. This bill would fund the bailout through a monthly charge on every energy bill in Ohio. According to the indictment, after introduction of HB 6, FirstEnergy began increasing its payments into Generation Now for the purposes of furthering the efforts of the Householder enterprise.

In May 2009, while the controversial legislation was pending, FirstEnergy wired four payments totaling $8 million to Generation now for the purpose of running media campaigns to convince legislators to vote for the bill and “provide cover” for sponsors and ‘yes’ votes.

On May 29^th, 2019, HB 6 passed the House, and after the enterprise members exerted pressure on the Senate, the legislation passed and was signed into law by Governor DeWine.

Subsequently, after the legislation was passed, a ballot initiative started up to have it repealed before it could take effect in October of 2019. In response to this ballot initiative, FirstEnergy wired over $38 million into Generation Now to defeat the ballot initiative. This money was used to purchase media buys against the initiative, to buy off signature collection firms so they wouldn’t work for the initiative, and to pay off and bribe signature collectors.

Signature collectors were offered payouts of $2,500 if they would stop working for the repeal initiative.

In addition, Borges paid $15,000 of Generation Now money to someone working with the ballot repeal for insider information. This money came from FirstEnergy even though Borges told the person that it was coming directly from him. The insider, upset about these bribery attempts, contacted the FBI and subsequently recorded all of his conversations with Borges, including Borges’ payment of $15,000 to him.

Personal benefits to Larry Householder and others indicted

In addition to passing HB 6 and subsequently working to defeat the ballot initiative, the Householder enterprise also used millions of dollars of FirstEnergy bribe money for personal benefit and to fund Householder’s own campaign. FirstEnergy money paid for the operating costs of the enterprise and also for Householder’s political and campaign staff.

According to the indictment, Householder also received more than $500,000 in personal benefit from the scheme. Borges, a former Ohio Republican Party chair, transferred $1.62 million to his firm out of which he paid himself about $350,000. And Longstreth, Householder’s chief political strategist, shifted more than $10 million into his firm, JPL & Associates. In addition, Longstreth received indirectly another $4.4 million that was transferred from Generation Now into another front company. In January 2020, Longstreth transferred $1 million to his personal brokerage account.

Dark money links to Governor Mike DeWine

According to a December Cincinnati Enquirer story, FirstEnergy also helped provide dark money to both Governor Mike DeWine and to his daughter Alice in her bid to become Greene County prosecutor.

This involved $20 million in donations to a group called Partners for Progress Inc. in 2019. Partners for Progress is organized as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit, which means it cannot spend more than half of its expenditures on political causes nor work closely with candidates and their campaigns. Such groups are often called “dark money” entities because they don’t have to disclose their donors.

Partners for Progress moved $13 million of this money to Generation Now.

The tax returns from Partners for Progress revealed that the 501(c)(4) also contributed:

• $75,000 to Protecting Ohio Inc., which paid for mailers supporting Alice DeWine’s county prosecutor campaign this year.
• $300,000 to Securing Ohio’s Future, a third-party group supporting Gov. DeWine and Lt. Gov. Jon Husted’s campaign.

Close

A DeWine spokesperson told The Enquirer that DeWine spoke with FirstEnergy officials in 2019 and asked them to support his daughter’s effort with independent expenditures.

This statement from the indictment much sums up the alleged corruption:

<FirstEnergy> entities paid Householder’s Enterprise $60,886,835.86 in secret payments over the approximately three-year period in exchange for the billion-dollar-bailout. The Enterprise concealed the payments by using a 501(c)(4) to receive the bribe money, and then transferring the payments internally to a web of related entities and accounts. The millions paid into the entity are akin to bags of cash- unlike campaign or PAC contributions, they were not regulated, not reported, not subject to public scrutiny- and the Enterprise freely spent the bribe payments to further enrich the Enterprise’s political  interests and to enrich  themselves.

Larry Householder lost his speakership, but in 2020 he was re-elected to the Ohio House largely because the scandal hit after the primaries and the only way to run against him was to run as a write-in candidate (almost impossible to win).

The Ohio Republican Party has taken no steps against Householder. Current House Speaker Dave Cupp has stated that they might take steps to remove Householder when he starts his new term in January 2021.

Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the Ohio House to repeal HB 6, but so far the House hasn’t taken any action on it. Some House Republicans seem to be hoping that the scandal will blow over if they stonewall enough on any repeal.

As you’ve seen in the indictment, public pressure works; this is why the Householder enterprise spent so much money on advertisements to pressure legislators. Public pressure can also be used to remove Householder and repeal HB 6.

You can help by contacting your state legislators and asking them to:

1. Remove Larry Householder
2. Repeal HB 6

1 in every 10 black men in their thirties is in prison or jail. Sentences for black men committing the same federal crime are 19.1 percent longer.

Why?

Many stages of the criminal justice system are behind these statistics. For instance, prosecutors decide what charges to bring and what sentences to recommend. Judges have the discretion to hand down sentences. Police officers make the initial bookings. Correction officers can discipline people in prison, which then plays into parole systems.

At every stage, these positions and the checks and balances on them matter because they have wide discretion over the decisions they make and how they interpret the law. These decisions can help people on the path towards rehabilitation or push them towards more punishment and incarceration.  

Here, I’m going to use the example of Hamilton County, Ohio, because this is where I live. But you can do this for any county in America.

Let’s start by looking at the elected judicial positions in Hamilton County, their roles in the justice system and some ideas that would make the system fairer for everyone whether they’re black, white, or brown. 

What does a district attorney do?  

A district attorney, or DA, is the lawyer who prosecutes criminal cases for a particular county or district. District attorneys only prosecute violations of state laws. The U.S. Attorney’s office prosecutes under the Department of Justice prosecutes violations of federal law. Crimes can range from the serious, like murder, to lesser crimes like drug possession or vandalism. In some counties, district attorneys are simply called county prosecutors or prosecuting attorneys. 

In Ohio, county district attorneys also act as legal advisors to the board of county commissioners, the board of elections, and all other county offices and boards.

District attorneys and their staff decide:

• Whether to charge someone for an offense (key when it comes to police brutality cases) 
• What charges to file and what offenses to prosecute  
• Whether or not to plea bargain with defendants

Why DAs matter

District attorneys wield immense power in our criminal justice system because they have the ability to determine when to prosecute and what charges to seek—if any. 

And they have significant discretion. Even if they believe their efforts are fair, DAs may still be pursuing harsher sentences for black and brown people over white people in the case of similar crimes.

For example, a 2014 University of Michigan law school study found that at the federal level, black people receive sentences that are 10% longer than those of comparable whites arrested for the same crime. Most of this disparity was explained by the initial charging decisions of the prosecutors.

This can be remedied if a district attorney is willing to support evidence-based reforms. A change in DA can make a big difference. For example, when reform-minded Larry Krasner was elected DA in Philadelphia, he stopped prosecuting marijuana possession. Krasner also took a different approach regarding sentencing by starting plea bargaining at minimum levels instead of maximums. If defendants fear long sentences, sometimes they are willing to plead guilty in exchange for a lower sentence even if they’re not guilty.

Bail reform 

Most jurisdictions in the U.S. rely upon some form of bail bond as a condition for pretrial release. Often this practice discriminates based on wealth and results in greater imprisonment for people of color.

According to a 2019 report on Bail reform by Harvard Law School:

On any given day, American jails imprison nearly half a million people who have not been convicted of a crime—many of whom remain in jail only because they cannot afford to pay for their release.

In Hamilton County, according to Hamilton County DA candidate Fanon Rucker, 65%-70% of people incarcerated in the justice center have not yet been convicted of any offense for which they’re charged. They’re just sitting in jail awaiting trial because they can’t afford bail.

Eliminating cash bail requirements for non-violent offenses would significantly reduce imprisonment based solely on poverty and inability to post bail.

What to look for in a district attorney

As John Pfaff, a professor of criminal law at Fordham University who studies mass incarceration, puts it:  

“[Prosecutors] can choose how harshly to go after someone, how lenient to go after someone. They have tremendous power in that respect.”

From a social justice perspective, the District Attorney is the single most important position to change .

When considering who to vote for in the race for district attorney, look for candidates who openly advocate for social justice reforms like bail reform, not prosecuting marijuana possession or other minor crimes, and/or DAs who will purge the criminal records of those who have successfully completed probation.

Look for DA candidates who are willing to talk about the inequities in the justice system and who aren’t repeating “tough on crime” rhetoric.  

In Hamilton County, the reform candidate is Fanon Rucker.

What does Ohio’s court system look like?

In Ohio, we have a state Supreme Court, 12 courts of appeals, and a county court system below the 12 courts of appeals called the court of common pleas.

Each county has a court of common pleas and this court is divided in 4 divisions: general, domestic relations, probate, and juvenile. The divisions handle:

• General – All criminal felony cases, all civil cases of amounts more than $15,000, and all cases involving title to real estate other than eviction.
• Domestic Relations – Divorces and dissolutions, domestic violence cases, parental support and custody of children.
• Probate – The probate of wills, adoptions, guardianship, mental illness cases, and the issuance of marriage licenses.
• Juvenile – Offenses involving minors, paternity cases, child support, and cases involving dependents.

There are also a number of courts with different jurisdictions like the municipal courts, mayors courts, and courts of claims. These courts handle misdemeanors, traffic tickets, and small civil claims below $15,000.

If you’d like to know more about Ohio’s court system, go here. To see the contact information for these offices in Hamilton County, you can go here.

Why do Ohio Supreme Court justices matter?

Before we look at county positions, let’s take a look at the Ohio Supreme Court because much of what they do and control greatly impacts our county justice systems.

The way to know for certain whether courts are making fair decisions regardless of race or sex is through the use of statistics.

Not only is it important that statistics be collected, but also that they be made public so there is transparency in the court system.

Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor has made it one of her goals to introduce data into the Ohio court system. In February 2019, Ohio unveiled a series of interactive dashboards showing data for all of Ohio’s courts of common pleas.

This is a giant step in the right direction because data can be used to evaluate decisions and compare different districts.

However, currently the system does not allow for searches or research on decisions based on race, sex, or other socioeconomic factors. This data, while often collected at the common pleas level, is still not available or accessible online.

To give you an example of the impact this could have, remember how I mentioned at the start of the article that black men face sentences 19.1% longer for the exact same crime? These kinds of sentencing disparities are likely going on at the state level as well. There’s just currently no insight because there’s no data. 

The Ohio Supreme Court is composed of 7 justices. Currently, there is a 5-2 Republican majority. If Democratic candidates John O’Donnell and Jennifer Brunner win this November, the court will have a 4-3 Democratic majority.

If Democrats control the Ohio Supreme Court, they can push Ohio’s county court systems to collect and publish statistics on race. This sunlight on decisions would act as a check and balance on judges across Ohio and lead to more equitable sentencing.

Why do appellate court judges matter?

Next, let’s talk about the Ohio Court of Appeals or appellate court. Think of the court of appeals as the error correction court. The 1st District Court of Appeals represents Hamilton County.

Appellate courts consider appeals from all of the lower courts–all divisions of the common pleas court and municipal court. Litigants in Ohio are entitled to one appeal; as such, the twelve Courts of Appeals hear cases ranging from parking tickets to murder or multi-million dollar corporate cases. For most cases, the appeals process ends after being decided by one of the twelve Ohio appeals courts.

So why do appellate court justices matter?

First and most importantly, appellate courts matter because they set legal precedent for all courts within their jurisdiction. In the case of the 1^st District Appellate Court, they’re setting legal precedent for every court in Hamilton County.

In other words, state laws can be interpreted in different ways. The courts decide how to interpret these laws largely through the appellate court system. Appellate courts interpret statutes and set precedent for both the lower courts and the appellate court itself.

Basically, lower courts in the district look to 1^st District Court precedent when deciding cases.

From a social justice standpoint, it’s important to set good precedent for the 1^st District and to have bad precedent challenged.

How to tell if an appellate court is doing its’ job

Second, it’s important to actively be setting precedent. This is what appellate courts do. They’re the error correction courts or courts of improvement. An appellate court should not be a rubber stamp. It’s supposed to look for and correct bad decisions. This is how the courts improve.

How can you tell if a court is setting precedent?

The way district courts set precedent is that they write what are called opinions. An opinion is when the court lays out its reasoning for the decision. Only cases with opinions can be used as precedent. The court does not always write opinions. Often cases are decided simply through a judgment entry. Judgment entries cannot be used as precedent and typically are also not considered for further appeal by the Ohio Supreme Court. Judgment entries are supposed to be for cases that don’t have merit.

If you compare the number of opinions a court writes, you can get a sense of how much that court influences precedent.  

In 2017, the 1^st District Appellate court only wrote full opinions for 20.2% of its case terminations. This was the lowest of all twelve Ohio district courts by far. The next closest was 40.3% and the average of all twelve courts was 55.3%. 

The importance of statistics in appeals

Third, remember we talked about statistics.

Appellate attorneys can use demographic sentencing data to argue that a sentence was disproportionate to others in the same situation. Appellate judges may use this data to determine whether a defendant’s sentence was based on improper factors, such as race or sex. And although appellate judges do not sentence defendants, they can push for additional data driven changes at the state level.

Ginger Bock helped appeal a case like this:

“In 2018, I represented a young black man who received a sentence that was more than 60% above the federal sentencing guidelines. Transparent federal sentencing data helped me craft an argument that his sentence was disproportionate to other similarly situated defendants.”

For the 1st District Court of Appeals (Hamilton County), the reform candidate is Ginger Bock.

Why do the common pleas court judges matter?

Remember, there’s 4 types of common pleas courts in Ohio: General, Domestic Relations, Juvenile, and Probate Court.

From a social justice standpoint, it’s important that common pleas justices make fair, impartial decisions.

For instance, our juvenile court in Hamilton County can lean towards punishment or the court can lean towards rehabilitation. The courts can decide to move youths out of the juvenile court and send them to criminal court to be tried as adults. Other types of issues handled by the juvenile court include appointment of counsel, detention, and a determination of the need for additional services. There’s a great amount of discretion in terms of whether to advocate towards punishment or towards rehabilitation.

It’s critical that these decisions be fair and not based on race. Similarly this is true for other types of criminal cases in the general court, family decisions in the domestic relations court, and to a lesser extent in the probate court simply because race doesn’t tend to be as much of a factor.

When investigating which of these justices to vote for, look for judges who are willing to openly advocate for social justice in the judicial system. Look for judges who talk about diversity and the importance of courts looking like the people they represent. 

Call to Action

Judicial races are crucial to Black Lives Matter because these positions have wide discretion in how they handle cases including when to bring charges, what charges to bring, hearing cases fairly, and sentencing. 

The most important position is the district attorney position, but Supreme Court judges, appeals court judges and common pleas court judges also make a big difference. Look for judges and a district attorney who want to make criminal justice reform an issue. We know how to solve this and have solutions; we just must get better people in place. 

In Hamilton County, Fanon Rucker is running for DA on a platform of criminal justice reform. Joe Deters, the current prosecutor, is emphasizing “law and order” (meaning the status quo). 

The Democratic judicial candidates are running on a platform of social justice reform and would make a big difference to Black Lives Matter. Remember that for the judicial races, you won’t see the party of the candidate on your ballot. For this reason, I always download the Democratic slate card to take with me when voting.

In his first year after movement activists elected him DA, Philadephia’s Larry Krasner filed 6,500 fewer charges than in the previous year. We can see results like this in Hamilton County if we elect Fanon Rucker and reform-minded judges.

Get to know the candidates and vote the judicial races!

We know there is a crisis in higher education. We see the symptoms in higher tuition, lower graduation rates, and record student loan debt. Too often, the narrative about what’s causing these problems is the idea that these universities just aren’t being run similarly enough to private businesses. Is this true, though? We’ve been cutting funding and pushing privatization on our public universities for 30 years now. What are the results?

The University of Cincinnati (UC) is Ohio’s second-largest four-year public university, withan enrollment of 46,388 in 2019. It has an annual budget of more than $1 billion per year and an endowment of $1.38 billion, ranking it 77th of 818 institutions in the United States and Canada. The school just completed a new $120 million building for its business school.

Recently, a coalition of university students launched a project that looks at the ways in which the University of Cincinnati is being run like a private university. Called “Boldly Bankrupt” (a play on UC’s Boldly Bearcat marketing campaign), the coalition shows who’s benefiting (management, administrators, athletics programs) and who is being hurt most by these practices (students and faculty).

Noemi Leibman, one of the authors behind Boldly Bankrupt and a second-year political science/English double major, told me: “While Boldly Bankrupt was meant to expose these problems at UC, it is also important to realize that these issues exist at a majority of universities.”

To provide a little bit of background and context, a 2019 study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) showed that compared to 2008, average state spending on higher education is down 13%, or roughly $1,220 per student/year in 2018. The CBPP writes: “Nearly every state has shifted costs to students over the last 25 years — with the most drastic shift occurring since the onset of the recession.”

To offset drops in state funding and increases in costs, public universities have raised tuition. Since the 2008 school year, the average tuition at a public university has risen by 37%, or roughly $2,708 per student per year. In seven states, average tuition has increased by more than 60%; 21 states have increased tuition by more than 40%.

Why are we seeing so many cuts to funding and increases in tuition? Chicago School economists such as Milton Friedman have argued that competition and market forces should be introduced into public universities in order to reduce costs and provide better education. As states have faced increased costs from pensions and health care, they’ve gradually been adopting this position and reducing public funding to higher education, pushing institutions to find new revenue streams and cut costs.

If this is the case, though, shouldn’t tuition be falling or at least remaining flat? Are we seeing increased revenue streams from the private sector? Are costs falling? What kind of effects are we seeing on education?

In The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them, Christopher Newfield argues that “Today’s problems do not reflect a failure to introduce market thinking but the effects of its long-term presence.”

Newfield demonstrates that introducing market forces actually sets up a race-to-the-bottom cycle that shifts resources away from education, while simultaneously raising costs. This happens in a variety of different fashions. Resources are shifted to revenue-generating activities like athletics; undergraduate programs are used as cash cows to fund graduate programs and research that increase university rankings; the adjunctification of staff continues; and it’s all rounded out with the introduction of cheaper, less effective online educational models, along with consolidation and administrative bloat.

As Peter Odom, a third-year civil engineering student who worked on Boldly Bankrupt, describes it:

Over our time at UC, we have observed a very clear discrepancy between what the University has promised and how it presents itself to the public versus how it actually functions. I think all students notice it to some extent. When you constantly hear about how this or that program is one of the top in the country, and then you turn around to see the crumbling buildings, the inadequate facilities, and the miserable staff, you start to realize that something doesn’t fully add up.

The numbers at UC confirm Newfield’s thesis: privatization is leading to higher costs and poor performance.

Adjunctification

In the 1960s and ‘70s, the majority of professors at public universities were full-time employees who were either tenured or on track for tenure. In 1969, these full-time professorships accounted for 78% of university faculty. Part-time and non-tenure track faculty, often referred to as adjunct professors, accounted for only 22% of faculty positions. The majority of students were taught by full-time professors.

Increasingly, universities have been shifting their workforce away from full-time professorships, which offer higher salaries and better benefits, in favor of adjuncts. Roughly half of the nation’s higher education faculty are adjuncts, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. This rises to two-thirds if other non-tenured positions are considered. In this adjunct model, students may only take a course from a full-time instructor once per semester, or only in upper-level courses.

Universities tend to pay adjuncts somewhere between $2,000 to $6,000+ per course. A full course load is considered to be three classes per semester. This translates to $12,000-$36,000 per year. By comparison, according to the most recent AAUP survey, the average salary for full professors at public universities is $105,644. Associate professors average $82,093 and assistant professors $71,210.

More than 60% of adjunct faculty report having to take one or more additional jobs to make ends meet. According to research from the University of California, Berkeley, 25% of adjuncts are enrolled in public assistance programs.

At the University of Cincinnati, adjunct faculty have increased steadily since the late 1990s.

Adjuncts at UC generally have the same teaching responsibilities as full-time professors. Adjuncts with annual contracts are offered medical insurance, but it’s expensive—and they don’t receive dental, vision, or life insurance. At the College of Arts and Sciences, adjunct faculty haven’t received a raise since 2003.

All of this is happening during a period of extended growth. In the fall of 2008, UC had 37,000 students. 2019 marked its seventh straight year of hitting record numbers, with enrollment in 2019 standing at 46,388.

Resource Shifting

Boldly Bankrupt also highlights some of the resource shifting described in The Great Mistake. Resource shifts occur and cause tuition hikes because of “the large need for institutional funds created by high-status activities that lose money for the institution.” In order to keep their status, universities invest in money-losing activities, like research and athletics. While these activities increase institutional rankings, they also often lose money.

For example, according to Newfield, public universities lose 24 cents on every dollar invested in research. In Division I college football, 12 public schools used $25 million or more in subsidies from student fees or other university support to help balance the budget in 2017, according to data from USA Today. Rutgers ranked first, requiring $33.1 million in subsidies for its men’s football program.

Noemi Leibman described it this way:

Education is clearly being pushed to the side in favor of short-term investments that will make UC “look good.” Athletics are a big flashy attraction, so the university keeps pumping in money despite the program running a deficit of millions. While education theoretically should be UC’s focus, funding academic programs is a hard sell because immediate returns are difficult to measure. That’s why we are seeing the huge increase in the number of adjunct professors and a shift to online classes.

From 2013-2017, the UC athletics program ran a deficit of $102 million. This translates to roughly $1,200 in subsidies annually from each student’s tuition, up from about $800/year in 2010. Meanwhile, from 2005 to 2015, the school saw a 30% drop in instructional spending, the highest drop of Ohio’s eight largest public universities.

Administrative bloat

The head coaches of the football and men’s basketball teams—and their 16 assistants—received a shared total of $8.76 million in 2017. That’s an average of $486,674 each, according to The News Record.

It’s likely even more than this now, as head football coach Luke Fickell signed a six-year, $13.4 million contract in 2017, for an average of $2.23 million per year.

Mike Bohn, the athletic director who left in December, had an annual salary of $552,040 without bonuses at the time of his departure. John Cunningham, the new athletic director, will only make $475,000 per year. New UC basketball head coach John Brannen will make $1.5 million in 2020. His predecessor, Mick Cronin, was making $2 million per year before he departed for UCLA. In 2017, the average pay for a men’s football or basketball assistant coach was roughly $487,000 per year.

Boldly Bankrupt also highlights some of the top paid executives at UC, including president Neville Pinto at $660,000 per year. In 2019, Pinto gave himself a $50,000 raise after the Board of Trustees voted to raise tuition by 6%.

Newfield notes that cuts at the state level are often covered up by increases to public university tuition. In Ohio, funding has increased slightly, from $2.1 billion in 2013 to $2.3 billion in 2018. Even with the slight increase, state funding remains lower than it was before the Great Recession. According to the CBPP, Ohio spending on public education in 2018 was still 16.9% lower than in 2008.

Impact on Education

How is this impacting education?

Boldly Bankrupt describes a recent survey conducted by the American Association of University Professors at UC, in which over 75% of faculty members found that the current budget model provided insufficient resources to their department. In the same survey, nearly 70% answered that the current budgeting model negatively affected the core academic mission of their department.

The model they’re referring to is what the University of Cincinnati calls performance-based budgeting. Under the performance-based budgeting model, revenue targets are set each year for individual colleges, and colleges receive a larger budget if they exceed revenue targets. For example, at the beginning of the year a target could be set at $6 million for the Engineering College. If the College takes in $7 million, it has exceeded that revenue target and may receive additional funds. If it only takes in $5 million, it’s considered to have lost money. The target isn’t based on what the college is spending compared to incoming revenue: it’s only based on the performance target assigned to the college.  

While this might sound reasonable on the surface, there are some unreasonable caveats. For example, even if an individual college generates more revenue than costs, if it is not hitting the performance goal, it is considered to be running a “deficit.” For example, if a college makes $5 million in a given year, but the performance target was $10 million, the college is considered to have a deficit … even if it only cost $4 million to run the college.

These phony deficits are also carried over year to year. In the $10 million example above, if a college misses the target by $5 million in a given year, it would start the next year with a $5 million deficit, even if the performance target is increased in that subsequent year.

When colleges have these “deficits,” they’re forced to make cuts even if they’re profitable when comparing revenue to operating costs. These false deficits carry over from year to year for individual colleges; if a college does generate new revenue, it just goes toward that “debt.” The provost’s office can continue to increase the revenue targets, even if they are unrealistic.

Performance-based budgeting has caused the College of Arts and Sciences to have a total operating budget of $0 for the 2019-20 school year.

Emily Chien, one of the Boldly Bankrupt authors who is also a journalism major, described the effects this way:

The College of Arts and Sciences, the biggest and most profitable school for the university, is living on just about nothing. They’ve been put into so much debt, their operating budget equates to $0 for this school year. Another thing that struck me deeply was that literally thousands of our tuition dollars go directly to athletics. We don’t see a penny of our money actually spent on our education. Both of those findings were completely unacceptable for a university branding itself the way it does.

Students have experienced larger class sizes, less full-time faculty, software not being available for classes, and trouble getting into labs that are required for graduation due to a lack of equipment.  

Under these unrealistic expectations, four deans at the College of Arts and Sciences have resigned in the past six years. Heidi Kloos, associate psychology professor at the university, described one dean’s departure, explaining that “We love Ken Petren … [but] no dean can make it. He was very much liked, and yet he cannot function under this budget model.”

What one change would make the biggest difference?

As a graduate of both the Engineering and Arts and Sciences colleges at UC, I was particularly interested in how we could swing the focus back toward students and education. So I asked the above question of the Boldly Bankrupt team. Their answers are below.

Noemi Leibman:

Clearly, the university wants to attract more students. However, instead of long-term investment in academics to make our programs nationally recognized, the Board of Trustees and other administrators choose instead to focus on short-term solutions. This needs to change. Students need to be seen as more than just their tuition money.

Peter Odom:

The biggest change that I can think of would be to create an official yet independent body of student power at the university, like a Students’ Union of some kind. We currently have a student government, but they don’t have any real power to influence the way the administration functions. A democratically run union would allow the entire student body to coordinate and act as a unified force to protect and ensure the rights and voices of the students, and act as a check to the absolute power of the administration. It would be official in that it would be an institution of the university, but independent in that it would be run by and for students, outside of the influence of the administration. Get involved! Meaningful change will only come through the active and democratic will of the student body.

Emily Chien:

The Board of Trustees is not at all a democratic body. Each is appointed by the governor, who happens to be a conservative with little stake in how our university actually functions. Last year, we garnered over a thousand signatures opposing a proposed 6% tuition hike that was unanimously approved by the board despite all of our efforts and support across party lines. Students and faculty must have a say!

Boldly Bankrupt was produced by Fossil Free UC, the Roosevelt Network, the Young Democratic Socialists, the Sustainable Fashion Initiative, and Sustainable Industrial Design. For more information, check out their work atBoldlyBankrupt.com. You can also follow UC Young Democratic Socialists (UC YDSA) onInstagram andTwitter.

In Hamilton County, OH, the county I live in, the sheriff’s office has recently been involved in several high-profile police brutality incidents. In May 2018, the sheriff’s office agreed to a $500,000 settlement after a corrections officer, Jason Mize, shoved a 61-year-old man, Mark Myers, headfirst into a cinderblock cell so hard he had to be hospitalized for a concussion, lacerations to his head,  and a broken hip. The incident was so violent that a nurse at the jail told a colleague: “I hope he’s not dead.” The settlement, which also involves a federal lawsuit, alleges that the current sheriff’s policies “were the driving force behind the constitutional violation.”

One of the things I often hear in cases like this is: “Maybe this man somehow deserved this treatment.” Myers’ situation was that the 61-year-old had been arrested after walking out of a Home Depot with $120 of electrical equipment that they thought he hadn’t paid for. What had happened was actually a computer error involving payments he’d made online. Charges were dismissed once the error was figured out.

Mize’s supervisor initially determined that the use of force complied with departmental policies. The matter was reviewed by others in the chain of command who requested an Internal Affairs investigation. In the Internal Affairs report, the head of the jail at the time, Major Charmaine McGuffey said: “Mize should be arrested and fired for his actions.” Officer Mize ultimately was allowed to resign from the sheriff’s office. After which, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating the incident and federal charges were brought against him.

We’ll come back to this incident as there’s more, but first I’d like to first introduce you to Charmaine McGuffey, an employee of over 30 years with the sheriff’s office who, upon being appointed to run the Hamilton County Jail in 2013, brought the jail from a rating of worst in Ohio to the best jail in the state, meeting all state standards within three years. During her tenure, McGuffey also won praise for helping addicted inmates turn their lives around. She is now running for sheriff.

1.  First, can you tell us about your background here in Cincinnati and your experience with the sheriff’s office? 

I was raised with two sisters in the Price Hill area of Cincinnati, Ohio, by a single mom. We were very poor but we were fortunate to have a mom who was very dedicated to our well-being. My mom worked hard, she was often gone when my sisters and I got ready for school in the morning and she was still at work when we got home from school.

In many ways, the community raised us. Our neighbors helped us, kept an eye out for us, and included us in their activities. The Cincinnati Recreation Commission played a big part in my life.  I participated in summer programs designed to engage at-risk children. In fact, that is where I got my very first job.    

I am also very grateful to the teachers at Western Hills High School who taught me what was possible. However, I also had to overcome a lot of doubts along the way. When I was 14, I announced to my favorite uncle Nick, himself a retired police officer, that I wanted to become a police officer. He looked at me and said, “women can’t be cops and cops can’t be women.” I respected my uncle but I decided right then and there that I was going to become a police officer. I didn’t know how I would do it but I knew I was going to do it. In fact, as I grew up, I heard the word “can’t” more than I heard “could.”   

Yet I graduated from the University of Cincinnati with a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice and went on to spend 33 years in the sheriff’s department. I was promoted through the ranks eventually becoming major, in command of Jail and Court Services, the first woman ever to achieve this rank in the history of the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department.   

2. When you were head of the Hamilton County jail you received accolades for bringing it up to state standards. How did you improve the jail? What worked? What was a struggle?

The Hamilton County Justice Center is the third largest jail in the state of Ohio with a population capacity of 1,240. With an annual budget of $39,200,000 million, it is one of 313 local detention centers in Ohio’s 88 counties. Statewide, our jails house 20,000 inmates in facilities managed by local sheriff departments.

As major of Jail and Court Services, I was charged with the command of 500 uniformed men and women as well as 80 civilian support staff personnel. Within the first three months of my being promoted to major of Jail and Court Services, the Hamilton County Justice Center was ranked the worst jail in the state of Ohio by the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. That ranking was based on an onsite inspection of the jail facility and its operation. The Justice Center failed 48 of the 69 standards that were inspected. It was my job to bring the Justice Center up to standard.

Because of a series of budget cuts to the sheriff’s office from 2008 to 2012, training for the jail had been suspended and the personnel assigned to training for the jail were laid off from the sheriff’s department. As commander, I immediately began the process of collaborating with newly appointed training personnel to rebuild a comprehensive training program and established a cadre of training personnel.  

I created a team of supervisors that met biweekly to evaluate our jail compliance progress. The key to creating sustained change was to train supervision and line staff. An important part of maintaining compliance was implementation of a system of in-house inspection by supervisors. Historically, supervisors are mandated by policy to complete rounds throughout the day. We improved the productivity of these rounds by requiring that supervisors inspect the daily activities log. We discovered that some jail officers were either not documenting or were not using correct coding for activities.

We also discovered that prisoner social service requests were not being processed in a timely manner. As well, there were policy issues that needed to be addressed. For instance, to achieve compliance with the use of force standards (essential), the policy needed to include an addendum to the Sheriff’s Office General Order outlining the use of force policy for the jail. The compliance section assigned to our road patrol division insisted that the sheriff’s office use of force policy not include a separate jail service division supplemental policy. They had the opinion that having just one policy for the entire department pertaining to use of force would make reporting and investigation more efficient. 

The administration of the sheriff’s department also decided that our department should adhere to only one set of procedural guidelines that applied to all sections of the sheriff’s office: Road Patrol, Court Services and the Jail.  

At my insistence, I met with the command staff to discuss the jail standards and the reasons it was imperative for us to implement the supplemental use of force policy for the jail. It was literally the last standard that we received approval for just before the deadline. The use of force policy is critical to improving jail procedures as it mandates that any use of force that occurs in the jail be documented with video footage that is attached to the report if a camera has captured that activity.

When I assumed the position of major of Jail and Court Services our jail had been ranked the worst jail in the State of Ohio and under my leadership we ranked the best of the large jails in Ohio.

3. When I heard you speak one of the things I was struck by was that you said you invited in outside agencies to help. Tell us a little about this and how it made a difference. 

As the commander of the jail, I wanted to connect inmates with social services in the community in order to enhance their ability to re-enter the community as successfully as possible upon leaving the jail. To start that, I invited agencies to a weekly meeting we named WRAP (Working to Refer Appropriate Placement). At times we had 50 people in the room.

The agencies were interested, engaged, and creative. Ideas emerged around the table that resulted in a number of areas of the jail (pods) being re-purposed to address specific ways to improve safety and services. As an example, with the rise of the heroin crisis in our community, we created the women’s heroin recovery program, that targeted resources to help women start their recovery process while they are in jail in order to move out of the jail with success and a support system.

I actually went to the county administration to get some seed money to help get this program started and I was turned down—but I knew this was the right path so I did it anyway—and, at NO COST to our budget. Looking back, I learned a valuable lesson when my funding request was denied because it forced me to find ways to engage the community social service agencies in Cincinnati to help make it happen.

In addition, we developed an exit program for men with six months or less on their sentence. It was designed to connect them with community resources before being released so when they are released, they have a support plan for success.

We had a Sister of Charity who attended the meetings who had a passion for working with the veterans who were in jail.  At her prodding, we also created a veteran’s program that allowed inmates who had experienced trauma to receive special services and attention.  

I want people to know that I am a law and order type of law enforcement leader. However, I also know that the progressive jail policies I championed, with a focus on rehabilitative, rather than punitive strategies, have been proven to lower recidivism. Research has proven that comprehensive justice reform results in overall healthier families, safe communities, and it saves money. It is my belief that, justice is a bargain, injustice is expensive.

4. What do you see as the biggest current issues with the sheriff’s office? 

The overarching issue is that we have a 1950s model of hard incarceration rather than one of quality justice. Justice reform is not on the horizon, it is not months away, it is here and it is now.  Justice systems across the nation are embracing reform with changes to services, bail reform, and community engagement. To bring those types of comprehensive changes to Hamilton County, you need a sheriff who is engaged, passionate, and has a vision and a plan.

The sheriff’s office is also millions of dollars over budget. Because of this, other county agencies, such as Jobs and Family Services, the prosecutor’s office, and probation are not able to receive the funding they need. Our current sheriff has stated that, “he was not hired to manage a budget.” I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. It is a critical part of the job and the sheriff is accountable to the taxpayers for the money that is spent.

As an example of issues that affect the budget that are not being addressed is, in 2018, the current sheriff stated he hired 95 line-staff officers to work in the jail. By 2019, 94 officers in the department had resigned or left for other departments. Attrition like that is not a success. Staffing is a critical part of the budget, and the cost of training and equipping those officers is lost and mismanaged. Fixing the staffing model would go a long way toward reducing costs.

5. Based on your experience, what could we do to make things better?  

The sheriff’s office touches every aspect of the justice system, from law enforcement, to the jail, and the courts. I have a plan that is based on: accountability, reform, and community engagement.

Accountability means we ensure safe communities. Communities where uniformed officers feel safe to enforce the laws, and citizens feel that our system of justice will be fair and equal. If we have a lack of accountability, it undermines trust in the entire system.

Transparency is the key to accountability. Transparency related to day-to-day operations and to how our tax dollars are spent. The sheriff’s department has the largest part of our county’s budget and taxpayers deserve to have someone in leadership who will take responsibility to manage the budget in a way that increases efficiency and effectiveness.

When we talk about quality reform, the reality is there are people in our society who are a danger to others and they need to be incarcerated, some for the rest of their lives. However, there are also people languishing in our jails and prisons who embrace rehabilitation and want to return to their families and their community and we can help them achieve that goal. It not only helps them, it strengthens our community.

In my 33-year career, I have witnessed justice and I have witnessed injustice. One of the experiences that helped shape how I work in the system is a day when I encountered a young man seated on a bench in the jail. He was waiting to be transported. As I walked toward him, I said, “Good morning, sir. How are you?”

And do you know how he responded?  

He said, “I’ve been in this jail for a week and a half, and you are the first person to treat me with any respect. I thank you for that.”  

The experience of jail can be isolating and drains people of any hope. That incident taught me a simple lesson about humanity and dignity, and it’s a lesson I will bring to the office of the sheriff. You may ask yourself, why is this important to people who’ve had no interaction with the criminal justice system? It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Independent, or Republican, there is something in justice reform for everyone.

If we aren’t preparing and giving those who are incarcerated a way to improve their lives to re-enter our community as productive citizens, then we aren’t doing our job and we are letting the community down. Accountability, reform, and community engagement have been proven to lower recidivism and leads to healthier families, safer communities, and saves taxpayers’ dollars.

6. To bring things back to the Mark Myers incident, you were fired in 2017 by the current sheriff after you refused to accept a demotion to a lower-paying position. You filed a lawsuit against the sheriff’s office that is currently ongoing. Can you tell us what happened?  

The incident that you are asking about is more commonly referred to as the Mize incident. Mize is the name of the officer at the center of that use of force incident. During my tenure as commander of Jail and Court Services, I was faced with the most difficult decision of my career. I was expected to go along with decisions that did not hold officers accountable for excessive use of force. I was told to go with the flow, to be quiet, and to stay in my lane. While it was difficult to stand up to the administrators on this issue, it was actually easy for me to make the decision to do so. Throughout the five years that I served as major, I voiced my disagreement with findings of Internal Affairs related to holding supervisors and officers accountable for reporting use of force, and insisted that jail policies outlining procedures for de-escalation be followed.  

I stood up for what was right and summarily, I was accused of interfering with investigations, being hostile to supervisors and officers, and not being truthful. I became the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation. During the investigations, I began to receive hostile treatment by some administrators. The head of Internal Affairs personally told me that I was in big trouble, but would not explain further.  

Subsequently, a complaint was made to Internal Affairs by my assistant, that I was hostile to her because I expressed that she was not meeting her job standards. I had sought to hire an additional person with a higher skill base who would be more motivated to work toward achieving future goals for the jail. Internal Affairs decided to broaden their investigation of her complaint to include supervisors and officers who had disagreed in the past five years with my decisions and my insistence that policies and procedures be followed.

What followed was the creation of a report written by Internal Affairs that outlined accusations of my conduct being hostile. One such accusation was that I stated that command staff “should mentor and promote more women” and as a result, I was accused of being “pro-lesbian.” I was never given an opportunity to address the accusations outlined in the report or even to have the opportunity to read the report before the current sheriff met with me stating that based on the findings of Internal Affairs, he was firing me if I did not agree to a demotion. I subsequently filed a federal lawsuit alleging wrongful firing and violations of my civil rights.

7. Up to this point, I haven’t mentioned that you’re also openly gay because I wanted to focus on your experience and what could be done to improve things at the sheriff’s office. I understand this came out in a very public incident that probably didn’t help you in your career. Can you tell us about this incident and/or some of the challenges in being openly gay in a position like yours? 

You are referring to an incident that happened nine years ago, in April of 2010. A few of my friends and I were attending an event at a gay bar in Covington, KY., There were 4 of us. Unfortunately, much of what has been reported about the incident is incorrect. In reality, this was a targeted, unjust action by police that should not have happened. We were stopped simply because we were exiting a gay bar. It was about 11 PM at night and it was dark outside. We had exited the bar and were walking to our car in a crosswalk. There was literally no one else around and no traffic on the street. As we crossed the street, I heard someone yelling loudly “Drop it, drop it now, drop it right now. You’re under arrest. Drop it.” I can tell you, when you’re a cop, those are gun words. I literally thought I was going to be shot. It scared the hell out of me. I looked around and couldn’t see anybody. It was dark. There was no traffic. I eventually saw two police officers stationed under an awning about 40 feet away, angled at the bar door. They were yelling at someone standing inside the doorway of the bar. I immediately recognized that they were targeting the bar. They had alarmed me and I was very upset about it.  

I yelled over to them, “You guys are targeting a gay bar and that’s not right.” And I also said, “You should find something better to do with your time.”

After I said that, one of the officers approached me and told me that he was going to arrest me. It was then that they discovered that I was a police officer and that two of the women with me were also police officers. The officer then decided that instead of arresting me, he would issue me citations for menacing, intoxication, and disorderly conduct. These citations were issued without merit.

I immediately reported the incident to my chain of command the very next day. The citations were summarily dismissed and expunged within a couple of months of the incident. However, I was given a 5-day suspension for actions considered “conduct unbecoming” and the disciplinary report went into my personnel file. That report remains the only discipline in my file spanning a 33-year career. I think that it is important to note that I also have received over 100 commendations in my career.  

I called out wrong behavior of a police officer and I paid a price for it. I expect people who wear a badge to do the right thing and that didn’t happen in this case. I will continue to speak out when justice is not served. I was once asked by a reporter, “so what did you learn from that incident.” Without hesitation, I answered, “I learned what it is like to be targeted for who you are and not something that you did, and that’s not a good feeling.”

Three years after the incident, I was promoted to major in the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office.

Former Major and Commander, Charmaine McGuffey is a candidate for Sheriff of Hamilton County, Ohio. McGuffey is challenging the incumbent in the March 2020 Democratic primary. Charmaine, a 33-year veteran with the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office, achieved the rank of Major and Commander of Jail and Court Services, the highest rank ever achieved by a woman in the department. Charmaine resides in downtown Cincinnati with her wife Christine Sandusky and their two dogs, serves on several non-profit boards, and is a certified self-defense training instructor.

Cross posted to Daily Kos.

One of the ways that corporate media spins against popular programs is by focusing on costs. We saw this on display in the Democratic debates with questions like this one from Savannah Guthrie: 

Vice President Biden, thank you. Senator Harris … There’s is a lot of talk in this primary about new government benefits, such as student loan cancellation, free college, health care, and more. Do you think that Democrats have a responsibility to explain how they will pay for every proposal they make along those lines?

When the moderators talked about education, it was framed as “free college.” Renewable energy also got the “how will you pay for it” treatment. Why? Because corporate special interests know that they can raise support for programs by focusing on benefits and lower support for them by focusing on costs and having to pay for it. 

This is why there’s only one response anyone should ever give to the question: “How do we pay for it?” This response is: 

The same way we pay for all of the “free” stuff Republicans want. 

The same way we pay for wars, walls, and Wall Street bailouts. 

When Republicans want a wall, cost is never an issue for our politicians. When Republicans want wars, cost also doesn’t seem to be an issue. So we know we can afford these things. We’ve never gone broke because of them. 

It’s always okay when certain corporate special interests want things. So there’s no reason from an economic perspective why it shouldn’t be okay for things the 99% support. Things like health care, better public education, and infrastructure programs. 

How this works in practice

Corporate special interests have handy outlets that teach them how to use tactics like these to attack “the libs.” All too often we take the bait and think, if I can just answer this question then they’ll agree with me. In a rational world, this would be how things work. It’s not how things work in the entertainment/advertising world we live in though. 

In our entertainment world, trying to explain things gets complicated and tends to reinforce the point the opposition is trying to make that these things will be costly and therefore we shouldn’t support them. In the entertainment world, we need a quick snappy answer. This is why saying that we’d pay for them the same way we pay for everything else works so well. If the person you’re speaking with objects, just ask them how we paid for those things. Put them on the defensive. 

I’ve played this out in countless conversations and you can’t lose. Here’s a quick example. 

My response:

Again, the reason this works is because: 

1. Republicans spend all kinds of money on things they want 
2. The answer to the question doesn’t fall into the trap of trying to figure out some actual plan that they would just attack anyways 
3. If they keep coming at me I’ll just keep asking: “Well, how do Republicans pay for things?” 

Here’s how this threw him off balance: 

All I have to do is return to answering the original question: 

Now you might not convince the person you’re talking to if that person has an agenda. But you have taken cost off the table. You’ve shown that you’re willing to have honest conversations without calling people names. And you may have raised the question: “Are our priorities right?”  

Hopefully some of our candidates will start doing this as well with a hostile media. Since the media is putting their thumb on the scale, I think it’s fair to raise these questions with them. How come our country can afford certain things and not others? 

David Akadjian is the author of  The Little Book of Revolution: A Distributive Strategy for Democracy (ebook now available). 

One of the best workshops I went to this year at Netroots Nation was called “The Race Class Narrative: Putting It to Work.” Put together by SEIU and conducted by Josh Keller (SEIU Minnesota State Council), Tinselyn Simms (SEIU), and Christopher Lampkin (SEIU 1199NW), the seminar helped me answer a question I’ve had for a while:

How do we connect race and class?

This is a very timely subject because Donald Trump connects these two narratives in a very powerful and scary way. He tells people that you can only “win” when some other race loses. He demonizes black people, new immigrants, migrants, Muslims, and others and tells white people that the only way they will win is if these other people lose.

I keep hearing a narrative out there that says the solution to this is that we have to moderate in order to win. Here’s an example:

Does anyone think if Joe Biden wins the primary, Republicans are not going to run against Ilhan Omar? We’re seeing the 2020 campaign right now and we know the narrative. It doesn’t matter who we put out there, there will be some racist narrative of us vs. them. See also: Benghazi, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, birtherism, “white genocide,” and “Obama is a secret Muslim.”

Once we understand that nothing the Democratic Party does is going to change this, the question then is: How do we fight it?

One of the best answers I’ve seen is that we have to have a different and more powerful vision of America. This involves linking race and class narratives to unite people instead of divide them.

The data that tells us this is a winning strategy

Before talking about how to do it, I’m going to talk a little bit about why. It’s important to know that the reason for doing this is not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s also a winning strategy.

The strategy I’m writing about was tested in a nationally representative survey, plus four state-level deeper dives (in California, Indiana, Ohio, and Minnnesota) with subsequent follow-up online ad testing, independent surveys, and canvassing experiments. The original national survey results I’m highlighting below were drawn from a sample of  1,500 adults in spring 2018, plus over-samples of 100 African Americans, 100 Latinos, 100 millennials, 100 drop-off voters, and 100 unlikely voters.

Of this group:

• 23% were considered our base: Strongly concerned about bias against people of color, they support a progressive  agenda on racial and economic justice and approve of our narratives.
• 59% were persuadables: They toggle between views shared by our base and by the opposition. For illustration, 72% of persuadables asked say that “focusing on and talking about race is necessary to move forward toward greater equality.” But 65% asked this question also believe “talking about race doesn’t fix anything and may even make things worse.”
• 18% opposition: They think wealth is a product of individual effort, hold African Americans and Latinos responsible for their own conditions, and disapprove of our policy agenda across issues.

To test the theory that combining race and class is both persuasive to the middle and galvanizing to our base, they tested specific sentences against a colorblind approach that was otherwise the same. That is, one formulation was just about class, while the other was about race and class. The only difference was adding in race in a very specific way.

What they found was that adding race improves the efficacy of economic populism, reducing the support for opposition. Hearing these assertions moved people toward wanting to “join together across racial differences.”

Adding race to specific phrases showed a 3% gain in effectiveness with base voters and an 8% gain in effectiveness with persuadables. In addition, when asked about wanting to “join together across racial differences,” the race-class phrasing moved 12% of base voters toward excited (79% saying they were initially excited) and 21% of persuadable voters toward excited (with 55% saying they were already excited).

Part of the reason for this is that people hold two different views about the world: They can have both progressive and regressive views on race, the economy, and government.

Contrary to what many people think, people don’t need to be convinced on many of our issues. They believe many of the things we believe. We just need to participate in the conversation, instead of staying silent and allowing their negative frames to be triggered without opposition.

What does an example look like?

Here’s an example that contains all of the elements of a full race-class narrative.

You can do this in conversations

When you’re talking with people, especially persuadables, a race/class narrative like the one above can help garner support, especially if they maybe “kind of” think it’s important but feel other things might be more important.

What links the two together is that the right is using race narratives to divide us against each other. They’re using divisive strategies.

By talking about this openly, it can allow people to see race in a different way, and to see AM radio and Fox News pundits in a different light.

I’ll often ask questions like:

• Why are there so many pundits in the media who scapegoat people?
• Why doesn’t Donald Trump run on his policies, like cutting taxes for the rich and turning the country’s regulatory agencies over to corporate special interests? Why does he hold racist campaign rallies that demonize black people, Latinos, and Muslims?
• Why doesn’t he focus on health care or education, or things that everyone needs?

So many people in our country are struggling right now. We all want access to quality education, to good jobs, to better healthcare. Why aren’t these pundits and politicians trying to solve problems?

When you open conversations up in this way, it gives you the opportunity to then say that we should all come together—white, black, brown—to work on a better life for everyone.

Encourage people and talk about how we did this in the past to win things like the 40-hour work week, weekends, and civil rights.

Here are some tips from the SEIU research for your story:  

1. Begin with a shared value before moving on to naming the problem:
   • The shared value says “I’m a friend”
   • Positive framing is retained better by audiences than negative framing
2. Call out divide-and-conquer tactics (scapegoating) and connect them to how it economically hurts us all.
3. Explicitly name race when articulating an agenda to make life better for working people.
4. Name the villain(s) by the tactics they employ, not just who they are:
   • If you name villains by what they do (for example, corporate special interests that buy government), you don’t overgeneralize
5. Connect the value of working together to achieving an effective government that works for everyone.
6. Offer a specific and unifying call to action. Name the payoff from it. 

Why this works

Persuadables hold both progressive and reactionary views on race.

If we stay silent and don’t talk about race, then the opposition will talk about it and own the narrative. We see this with race-baiting pundits constantly blathering on AM radio and Fox News. The opposition plays to “fear of the other” narratives instead of linking the solving racism to our shared economic success.

If we talk about racism alone, many may struggle to link solving racism to their own personal situations, especially if they are not minorities.

If we talk about class alone, we risk alienating folks with valid concerns about racism and xenophobia. They may see it as minimizing their struggle. Talking about race and class simultaneously improves the effectiveness of economic populism and reduces support for opposition views.

Basically, we can’t separate the two. They’re linked by the way the wealthy use race to divide people. Instead, use narratives that speak to both race and class as a powerful way to unite people.

——————————–

Summaries of the SEIU research can be downloaded here (C3) and here (C4). The Demos RCN toolkit can be found here. A full report can be downloaded here.

Thank you to the following people behind this wonderful work: Chris Lampkin is the political director of SEIU Healthcare 1199NW, a local union covering 30,000 members in Washington State, Alaska, and Montana. Josh Keller is the communications director for SEIU Minnesota State Council, a united body of  Minnesota’s 53,0000 SEIU members who come together to improve the lives of all Minnesotans. Tinselyn Simms is the assistant director of communications at SEIU within the Racial Justice Center, a hub and resource for SEIU’s work to create a world where everyone, no matter the color of their skin, can participate, prosper, and reach their full potential.

SEIU is engaged with the Race-Class Narrative work as a part of a fight for a multiracial democracy that serves the needs of all working people whether white, black, or brown. They are committed to winning $15 an hour and a being a union for all working people. If you have questions or would like to talk more about this research, please reach out to the Racial Justice Center at rjc@seiu.org.

In July 1960, James Baldwin wrote the following in an article in Esquire, “Fifth Avenue, Uptown: a Letter from Harlem”: “Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.”

This week @girlziplocked asked a wonderful question on Twitter. 

What's something about being poor that middle-class people absolutely don't understand?

— holly wood phd (@girlziplocked) January 24, 2019

It’s a great question, and the full Twitter thread is well worth the read. Below, I use some of the responses to the question to talk about 13 ways living in poverty is more expensive than being middle-class. 

1. Poverty charges interest 

A few of the ways the poor pay more in interest: 

• Higher interest because of lower credit scores
• Loan-shark levels of interest if you have to use payday lending
• Acquired interest because you’re making minimum payments
• Overdraft fees
• Late fees
• Reconnection fees

2. Break/fix mode 

“Keeping the lights on” is a phrase used in the corporate world to describe a group or organization that is so stressed or strapped that it can’t do anything else. This is the situation poor people often find themselves in. 

Lack of choice. They just don't get that poverty is all consuming, staying afloat takes all of a persons energy. None left for self-improvement, planning etc

— Chris O'Donoghue (@chrishiking) January 26, 2019

How can you better yourself and your family if you have to spend all of your time on existing? 

3. Inability to take advantage of bulk pricing or competition 

When you have to buy small quantities because you can’t afford the larger ones, it ends up costing more.  

The inability to purchase in bulk. 1) you don't have the money to pay upfront for something that will last a year and 2) you have nowhere to store it.

— brianneg78 (@brianneg78) January 24, 2019

In addition, as you make more money and your circumstances become better, you’re able to take better advantage of competition. If your transportation is better, you can drive to more places. The poor often do their shopping at neighborhood convenience stores that charge higher prices. 

4. Fines and fees 

Not being able to pay a fine on time often doubles the fine. If you can’t afford insurance or to register your car, you can be fined.  

Hiding your car because you can’t afford to pay your registration, and really can’t afford a ticket for expired tags.

— on my world we say good journey (@chochacho) January 24, 2019

Often, fines also involve other fees like court fees or convenience charges. Some states will suspend your driver’s license, and then you need to pay reinstatement fees. 

Court fees can also be significant and can compound. The people most likely to face arrest and go to jail are poor. 

5. Transportation is more expensive 

If you take public transportation, the biggest cost is often in time. In Cincinnati, for example, bus service is routed through downtown. If you need to get across town, you may have to connect through a route downtown that adds extra time to each trip you make. 

"Driving is a privilege."

My dude, do YOU want to bring me to work?

— Gregory Palermo (@gregory_palermo) January 24, 2019

If you’re lucky enough to have a car, it may be at the point of needing constant repair. But it’s unlikely you can afford to get a loan for a newer one. 

6. Housing is more expensive 

Renting often costs more than a low-interest mortgage on a home. And renting for the short term tends to cost even more. 

You want to rent an apartment, but you don't have first/last/deposit. So instead of paying, say, $500 a month, you pay $200 by the week — because you don't have any savings. Things cost more when you're poor.

— Inez Russell Gomez (@inezrussell) January 24, 2019

7. It affects your physical health

Food is often different where poor people tend to shop. The produce is bad and/or they don’t have all the same options. The poor don’t have as much time to cook so they often eat canned, boxed, or other prepackaged foods. All of this can lead to health issues. 

This is spot on and you eat worse food which leads to health issues. Literally your cost per u it of whatever is higher than it would be if you had the means to "get up above it". It is SO expensive being poor that you are virtually certain to stay poor.

— BlissRage (@bliss_rage) January 25, 2019

8. And your mental health 

The overhead, stress, and worry of having to deal with poverty can directly impact how you think. Researchers have found that poverty can reduce your IQ by 10 points. 

How the chronic stress of poverty affects everything – your relationships, your ability to make decisions, your ability to focus, your ability to regulate your emotions. It also restricts your freedom because accidents that might not be a big deal for others would ruin your life.

— Amber?WeShouldImproveSocietySomewhat (@Amber_Dawn89) January 24, 2019

Sadly, this can result in people being more likely to make mistakes that contribute to extending their poverty. 

9. Food insecurity 

Not being able to afford enough food may be an issue as well. Feeding America estimates that one in eight Americans is food insecure. This equates to 40 million Americans, 12 million of whom are children. 

Food insecurity – what it actually feels like running out of food and not having money that week for more.

— Dr Adi MacArtney (@Science_Hooker) January 25, 2019

10. Losing out on job opportunities 

When you’re first starting out, sometimes the only way you can get job experience is through unpaid internships. If you’re poor, this is not a route you can take. Other situations that affect opportunity in the workplace include not being able to move for a job, not being able to get experience for better jobs, not being able to pay for needed training or education, or not being able to interview.  

Hell, you get offered a great opportunity but it might not work out, so you can’t take it because you actually NEED to get paid.

Or it’s across the country, and you can’t fly out for the interview.

Or it doesn’t start for 3 months, and you need a job TODAY.

— William Potter (@BillPotterNYC) January 24, 2019

11. You may have to take care of parents or other family members

If you’re poor, you can’t afford day care or elder care for family members. You may also have other relatives who are also poor and who need a place to stay and/or other help. 

that you often have to take care of your parents or other family members because no one else is going to do it for you

— David Graeber (@davidgraeber) January 25, 2019

Several people mentioned that a question they sometimes hear is, “Why don’t you borrow from your parents?” This assumes that parents are available and willing and have money, a very middle-class assumption. 

12. Social costs 

People who make it into the middle class often do so because of networking. Many jobs often come through your contacts, whether it’s family, professional relationships, or friends. 

This is what I hated about early adulthood. I realized I had the choice of spending at least $20/week on it or not having friends. I've come to terms with it and I've gotten more creative (and have more money), but I really wish social interaction wasn't automatically an expense.

— Dr. April C. Armstrong (@AprilCArmstrong) January 25, 2019

Poverty is often very isolating. 

13. Higher taxes

This is a critical comment, given all we hear in the media about how the wealthy pay so much in taxes. As a percentage of income, the poor tend to pay more in state and local taxes, even if they don’t pay much income tax. This is because state and local taxes are typically regressive and cost those in the bottom fifth of income earners 11 percent of their income. In addition, they pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. All told, those in the bottom fifth pay an estimated 20 percent of their income in taxes.  

You pay way more in taxes. I was born dirt poor, worked after college before med school, so 1st decade of adulthood middle class and now 1%-er. I pay about 2/3 as much tax as a percentage of income now than I did when I was middle class.

— Nick Gorton MD????? (@RNickGorton) January 26, 2019

Middle and upper classes may pay less as a percentage of income because they tend to have more loopholes. 

Summary

This list isn’t all-encompassing. I’m sure there are other ways it costs more to be poor. What I often encounter, though, are people who talk about how easy it is to overcome poverty. In my experience, these are mostly people who come from a middle- or upper-class background who, if they have ever been poor, have been so temporarily, while in school, for instance. 

There is also a strong media narrative in our culture that all that’s needed is to simply work harder. The assumption is that if you just work harder, eventually you will break into the middle class. While that’s still possible, statistically it’s becoming less and less likely in America today. 

Sharing personal stories like the ones in this Twitter thread brings these statistics to life. 

Cross posted at Daily Kos.

I talk to people all the time about politics and one of the things I hear most often is: “We need to get the money out of politics.” Everyone seems to have ideas how to stop this, ranging from third parties to repealing Citizens United to the “small government” ideas of libertarians.  

While researching voting recently, I stumbled across a great report by the U.S. Bureau of the Census on voting in congressional elections that suggests one of the big reasons our government works for the wealthy is that the wealthy vote. 

Here’s a look at the statistics, and why more people voting could go a long way toward reducing the influence of money in politics. 

Voting in congressional races by age

The first chart shows the historical rates of voting in congressional elections (non-presidential) from 1978-2014. 

Age tends to lead to increases in wealth and earnings, so what we see are the people who make the most money and wealth voting. 

If more young people voted, it would reduce the influence of money in politics. 

Voting in congressional races by race and ethnicity 

The second chart looks at voting by ethnicity during congressional elections over the same period of time. 

Black and especially Latino voters tend to vote at lower rates than white voters. 

Because there tend to be wealth and wage gaps between white voters and black/Latino voters, these voting patterns favor money in politics. 

If more black and Latino people voted, it would help check the influence of money in politics. 

Age distribution of the voting population

The next chart looks at age distributions in elections from 2004 to 2014, including presidential elections. This is another way to slice the data to look at trends. 

The first thing that stands out in this graph is that the largest voting group is from 45-64 years old. This is because this group, which includes a large segment of the baby boomers, is the largest portion of the electorate. 

This chart also illustrates how those over age 65 are voting more, and those younger than 44 are voting less. 

These trends favor money in politics. Once again, if more young people voted, it would help check the influence of money. 

Comparisons to the voting population

By comparing a group’s share of the voting population to their share of the voting-eligible population, we can see how a given group is voting relative to their eligibility. If a group accounts for both 50 percent of the population and 50 percent of the voting population, then the group is voting evenly with their eligibility.

If we look at race, what we see is that white voters are voting above their eligibility and Latino voters are voting below their eligibility.

Similarly, we can compare age groups to voter eligibility.

What we see here is that young people vote way below their eligibility, and older voters vote above their eligibility.

Summary

The report lists these as some of the top conclusions: 

Voting rates were highest for Americans 65 years and older, non-Hispanic Whites, individuals with high levels of education, and those with relatively high incomes.

In addition, it especially highlights the gap in youth voting and says that this is true even when you account for aging population: 

In recent elections, voting rates have been low among young people and high among older Americans. These results are not the product of the American population aging as a whole, as both the low level of engagement among young people and the high level of engagement among older Americans have increased in recent congressional elections, even after accounting for changes in age distributions.

When I talk to people under 45, I increasingly hear a couple of things. One is that people want to get the money out of politics. And two is there’s a frustration with the current system that they don’t feel voting addresses. They don’t feel that their vote matters. 

Statistically, voting matters. Small changes in voting percentages can have significant impacts. This is why conservatives spend so much time trying to turn out their older, wealthier white base and work to make it as hard as possible for everyone else to vote. If young people, Latinos, and black people voted more in congressional elections, it would go a long way toward checking the influence of money in politics. 

Cross posted at Daily Kos.

David Akadjian is the author of  The Little Book of Revolution: A Distributive Strategy for Democracy (also available as an ebook).

I met Judge Michael Donnelly at an event in Cincinnati where he spoke about some of the issues he was seeing in the justice system. He opened my eyes to a few of the challenges our judicial system faces, so I asked him if he’d answer a few questions. 

1. Transparency in the plea-bargaining process is a major platform of your campaign. Can you explain why?

97 percent of all criminal cases in the justice system do not proceed to trial. They are resolved by negotiated plea agreements. As one United States Supreme Court Justice once put it, plea bargaining isn’t just a big part of the criminal justice system, it IS the criminal justice system. Even though plea agreements are the main mechanism through which we resolve criminal cases, the process remains a mystery to the vast majority of the citizens we serve.

In a typical plea bargain, the prosecutor, who wields great power in the process, must first decide whether to prosecute someone to the fullest extent of the law or whether there are valid reasons to exercise restraint. He or she will then offer some form of benefit to the accused in exchange for an admission to the criminal conduct contained in the indictment. This benefit will almost always relate to the consequences, i.e. the sentence the defendant will likely receive if he or she chooses to enter into the agreement.

There is one final step that must take place to finalize a plea agreement in open court: the judge presiding over the case must sign off on it. This important step is supposed to be a check on the system by having a neutral party determine if the accused is entering the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily.              

I believe part of the reason why there exists so much perceived injustice and disparity of treatment in our system is because the law provides very little guidance to judges on how to exercise their power to approve or reject negotiated plea agreements. Indeed, a defendant in a criminal case has no right to even be offered a plea agreement.

In our state, many pleas are finalized in off-the-record discussions that usually take place in a judge’s chambers. Early in my first term as a judge I began to question why this occurs and I arrived at the conclusion that NO ONE in the process should ever say anything in these discussions that they would not be willing to repeat verbatim on the record. I also concluded that stakeholders such as the accused, the victims, and the general public should have the right to be present when these agreements are finalized. For these reasons, I chose early on to have all discussion in open court and on the record, so everyone can understand how cases are being resolved. I believe this transparency fosters confidence in the judicial process.

2. When I heard you speak, you talked about baseless pleas. For example, someone being charged with rape being allowed to plea to an unrelated felony like aggravated assault. What are baseless pleas, and why do you believe they should not be permitted?

Baseless pleas occur when the accused is allowed to resolve a charge by pleading to another charge that does not resemble the original accusation. These types of resolutions are barred in the federal court system because they are inconsistent with the courts’ main objective to seek the truth.

I have a blanket policy for plea agreements in my courtroom. If a prosecutor presents a resolution that does not in any way resemble the original accusation, I require him or her to state facts on the record that, if true, support what the defendant is admitting to in order to resolve the case. If they can’t, the plea is baseless and I won’t approve it.

I believe baseless pleas undermine the public’s confidence in the justice system. The current Ohio Supreme Court rejected a proposal I and others pushed for to ban baseless pleas statewide without telling the public their reasons.

3. What is a “dark plea”? And how do we end this?

I coined the phrase “dark plea” to describe a particularly nefarious practice exercised all too frequently by prosecutors against incarcerated individuals who claim that they are actually innocent and request a new trial.

Attorneys file written motions for new trials for their incarcerated clients for a variety of reasons including: the discovery of new evidence undermining the theory used to convict them; that their convictions were based on junk science; or that material witnesses have recanted their testimony. Such motions are usually accompanied by a request for a formal hearing where the merits of the prisoner’s allegations can be tested in open court.

In Ohio, however, prisoners don’t have a right to a hearing on such motions. (I personally believe such hearings should be mandatory.) Prosecutors routinely oppose such motions, including the request for a hearing, either to protect their trial victory or to avoid re-opening a settled case.  

If the prisoner, however, is fortunate to be granted a hearing, a dark plea will occur on some occasions prior to the hearing being held. The prosecutor essentially dangles the opportunity of freedom in exchange for a plea of guilty to the charges in which THEY HAVE ALREADY ACHIEVED A CONVICTION! It is the legal equivalent of putting a gun to someone’s head to extract a confession—offering a plea when the prisoner is in a state of complete uncertainty with no leverage to negotiate. In my opinion, it is completely at odds with the tenets of truth and integrity of convictions. We can end this practice by educating the public, letting them know it’s occurring, and by creating rules outlawing the practice.

4. You also spoke of what you called the “justice gap.” What do you mean by a “justice gap”?

The justice gap is the difference in treatment and outcome experienced those in our society who can afford legal representation and those who cannot. We have a huge justice gap in Ohio.

Our courts exist to resolve disputes and administer justice and people need help to navigate the maze of the justice system. In criminal cases, you are entitled by law to have an attorney represent you. This is not the case in civil disputes. We must work on policies that provide better access for people who cannot afford legal representation, so that they can have confidence that their interests will be protected in our court system.

5. What’s the importance of ethics and culture to the judiciary?

Ethics are rules we use to formally define how people should behave. Culture is the means by which we establish and communicate social norms—the informal understandings that guide behavior. Both are critical to the judiciary.

In Ohio, judges are directly elected and have broad discretion within their courtrooms. While their decisions can be overturned by a higher court, judges are really only accountable to voters and, within certain boundaries, they are free to—and obligated to—exercise their best judgment.

If we want our legal system to live up to our ideals, we have to establish ethical rules that embody those values, that make sense, and that are well-communicated to the system’s stakeholders. We also have to build a culture that reinforces the importance of following the rules we set for ourselves.

6. How do we make sure there’s an ethical culture in our judiciary?

We do this through a variety of means. As mentioned earlier, judges should do as much as they can on the record in open court. Transparency is the most important ingredient in ensuring the public has confidence in our court system because it gives people the ability to discern that everyone in the system is doing his/her job correctly.

The Ohio Supreme Court has an obligation to educate new judges on the importance of transparency and ethics. It is not only important to be fair, the appearance of fairness must always be in the forefront of every judge’s mind in the decision-making process.

We always have opportunities to strengthen the ethical rules that govern all stakeholders in the process. As a Supreme Court Justice, I intend to help lead these conversations.

Most importantly, we must lead by example and remain vigilant. We have to hold ourselves and our colleagues to the high standards to which we aspire.

7. Why are you running for Ohio Supreme Court?

I’ve loved being a trial court judge for the last 13 years because every day I get to help people find resolutions to their disputes. It’s this ability to help people resolve disputes that makes our courts the backbone of our society; without the court system, people would have nowhere else to turn in the face of conflict and society couldn’t function. For this to work, however, the public has to have faith that the courts will treat them fairly and that the outcomes they produce will be just.

I believe that, unfortunately, people fear that our courts are focused less on the fair application of the law and more on serving the wealthy interests of those who can afford the high cost of accessing our courts and who help fund judicial election campaigns.

I’ve worked hard in my courtroom and in the other professional settings to advance policies that would improve our court system. But, inevitably, there is a limit to how much a single trial court judge can do; building greater trust in our court system requires advocating for systemic criminal and civil justice reform. 

I’m running for the Ohio Supreme Court to help restore and deepen the public’s trust in our justice system. 

Following seven years as a civil litigator in private practice and five years as an Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, Judge Donnelly was first elected to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in 2004. He lives in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, with his wife and two teenage children. In his spare time, Judge Donnelly plays guitar and sings in the band Faith & Whiskey. He can be found on Twitter at @Donnelly4Ohio.