NC Voters: Retain President Judge Baratta

President Judge Steve Baratta has begged me not to say a word about his retention campaign. So that's exactly what I'm going to do. He is indisputably the court's hardest worker, and his decisions are always well-reasoned and fair. Judge Baratta actually ruled against me in the Gracedale saga, but he was extremely fair and let us have our say. Also, he was affirmed on appeal. His budgets are lean,and when he makes changes, they often result in net savings to the county. He could easily decide to go into the private sector and double his income, but I think he knows that he is providing an important public service.

We need him. 

Judge Baratta is a graduate of Bangor High School, and played basketball for Lafayette. He graduated from Fordam University School of Law in 1981. He understands Northampton County well. He was an assistant solicitor to the County,and also served as First Assistant DA under John Morganelli. He was first elected to the bench in 1997. His father, the late Renald Baratta, was one of Northampton County's most colorful trial lawyers     

I think Judge Baratta is worried that my endorsement is the kiss of death. But that's a myth, Judge. I'm really getting better at this.

Brown Abdicates Control Over Understaffed Row Offices

Exec John Brown and PJ Stephen Baratta (right)

Most Pennsylvania counties elect their row officers, leading to petty fiefdoms in which cronyism runs rampant. Northampton County, when it adopted its Home Rule Charter, transferred those offices to the County Executive, placing them under his control. For the first 25 years or so, that system worked well. For the last ten years, not so much. From time to time, someone suggests transferring the Criminal and Civil Divisions to the courts. Everyone agrees it's a wonderful idea. Nobody does anything. So last year, when President Judge Stephen Baratta personally pitched this idea to Council, nothing happened.

At least not on the surface. But behind the scenes, Executive John Brown has quietly ceded de facto control over these offices. On paper, he is still the man, and he recently reported to Council that he is still in control. But employees are being told to take their problems to the Court Administrator, who is supposed to make sure that these offices are "more in line with the Court's day to day activities."

What are row offices? Historically, they were located in a row next to the courtrooms. They often have strange sounding names like Prothonotary, Clerk of Quarter Sessions and Orphans' Court. Basically, they are where court papers are filed in civil and criminal matters. They are where people go when they get a marriage license, or open an estate for a deceased relative.

In addition to being a repository for court records, these offices serve another important function. Indices and other dockets provide notice to the world of the existence of liens, estates and other matters that have a direct impact on people and their lives.

It makes sense that the courts, and not the Executive, should run these offices.

"With all due respect," Judge Baratta stated last year, "they're [the Brown administration] not involved in what the clerks do." In contrast, the judges are involved in the legal system, and understand the rules as well as the reason for them. Also, the courts take the hit from higher courts when clerks fail to transmit records to appellate courts promptly. So though I am suspicious of giving courts more control than they already have, this is really a good idea.

Part of the problem was created by John Brown's refusal to fill vacancies in the Civil and Criminal Division. These penny wise and pound foolish staffing shortages have led to instances in which the court has actually had to adjourn and sit on its hands while waiting for Civil or Criminal Clerk.

I have supported this change since it was first proposed over ten years ago, by none other than Ron Angle. But I support it being done the right way, not by some end run around the Home Rule Charter.

Here's what the Home Rule Charter (Section 905) says:

(Section 905) "The County Executive shall have the power to organize and reorganize the agencies under his direction and supervision and to assign and reassign their functions, powers and duties by submitting to the County Council a written proposal on the matter. If the County Council fails by resolution to reject or by ordinance to adopt or modify such a written proposal within sixty (60) days after the date of its submission, such written proposal shall have the force and effect of an ordinance amending the Administrative Code."

So at a minimum, Executive Brown should have submitted a written proposal to Council concerning a reorganization of the Criminal and Civil Divisions. He has no authority to cede de facto control over those offices without Council's assent. This transfer to the courts might also require a Home Rule Charter change. That's because our county constitution (Section 1304 (b) (2)) specifically transfers the duties, powers and functions of Clerks of Court, both Criminal and Civil, "to the County Executive or to his subordinate as provided by law." If control over these offices is transferred to the courts, the people need to approve it.

What is happening now is yet another Brown end run around the requirements of the Administrative Code or, in this instance, the Home Rule Charter.

This leads to another very important question. President Judge Baratta, for very good reason, told Council last year that he wanted control over the hiring process. He correctly called the Civil Division "grossly understaffed," and warned that there are problems created by a delay in indexing judgments. He said things are even worse in the Criminal Division.

So once again, it makes perfect sense to give the courts full authority over the staff. But for whom will they be working, the courts or the Executive?

This is no "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" scenario. There are significant differences between working for the Executive and the courts. The biggest is that those who work for the courts are at-will employees. So do row office employees lose their due process rights?

How about their First Amendment rights, too? Judicial employees are barred from core political speech like political contributions, posting yard signs, circulating nomination petitions or becoming members of party committees. Row office workers are specifically permitted to engage in political activity, and I know one row office worker who is a member of her party committee.

These questions need to be answered, and will almost certainly require a change to an existing union contract.

There was a reason the President Judge appeared in front of Council last year. He engaged in a public discussion of a serious situation. John Brown has chosen to respond privately instead of being transparent, as his oath of office requires.

Council needs to insist on that transparency and accountability. This is not a corporate board room, but a local government in which Council must agree to these changes, even if it is only a test situation. If it is permanent, both Council and the people - remember them? - must agree.

President Judge Baratta Opposes New Magisterial Realignment

In a letter to Chief Justice Ron Castille, President Judge Steve Baratta stands by the plan already approved. But he still submits the Magisterial Realignment Plan proposed by a bare majority of Magisterial District Judges Association. "[M]y opinion is not infallible," he concedes. "It may be that the political concerns of our [District Judges] in avoiding an election contest between sitting District Judges should be the most important consideration in any redistricting plan."

Baratta criticizes the plan proposed by District Judges because "it sets irrational and unreasonable boundaries that are not convenient for the public and law enforcement." He argues that the consolidation of the Magisterial Districts in the northwestern corner of Northampton County is the only fair solution, even though it has the unfortunate side effect of requiring a run-off election between District Judges Robert Hawke and Diane Marakovits. "[A]ny plan that would avoid the election run-off could only be achieved at the expense of convenience, rationality and gerrymandering."

According to an informative story in The Express Times, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts states it would be "unusual" to consider a second realignment plan. But Baratta's letter to Castille notes that the Chief Justice did agree to consider a revised plan.

Reporter Tom Shortell also reports that District Judge Jackie Taschner, which at least was the President of the Magisterial District Judges' Association, refused to provide a copy. That plan is a matter of public record, and was provided by the Court Administrator on Friday. You can review it here.

Here are some other documents I have obtained:

Letter from District Judge Jackie to PJ Baratta, indicating that magistrates adopted their own realignment plan.

Letter from Hanover Tp to PJ Baratta, suggesting district judge realignment is a gerrymander.

Letter from Bethlehem Tp Police Chief Dan Pancoast, objecting to the magisterial realignment because it threatens public safety.

Colonial Police Chief Roy Seiple notes District Judge Robert Hawke refused to provide copy of plan.

State Senator Lisa Boscola opposes elimination of Bethlehem Township magisterial district.

Letter From PJ Baratta to Chief Justice Castille, opposing the realignment plan in a rather clever way (He argues that maybe the Chief Justice thinks politics should trump the public interest).

Is Judge Baratta Trying to Discourage Gracedale Appeal?

On February 16, I appealed Judge Baratta's denial of my Election Code challenge to the Gracedale Initiative Petition. As expected, the Commonwealth Court is fast tracking the matter. I've been excused from assembling a record, and both sides have been told to get their briefs in by March 15.

What puzzles me are two Orders of Court from Baratta on February 17, the day after my appeal. One of them orders me to supply him with a "concise statement of the matters complained of on appeal," and by March 10. I am ominously warned that "failure to comply" could be considered a waiver of all complaints on appeal.

Now this might make sense in an ordinary appeal, especially if there was no opinion from Judge Baratta. His opinion could address my concerns. But here, it's just a hoop to jump through. For one thing, Judge Baratta has already issued his opinion. On top of that, the Commonwealth Court has ordered him to transmit the entire record, including his opinion, by March 7, three days before my "concise statement" to him is due. So basically, he has directed me to file something that won't help him or the Commonwealth Court a bit, but could hurt me if I forget.

The second February 17 Order of Court that puzzles me is one scheduling a Friday hearing on Larry Otter's claim for $24,000 in attorney's fees. I'm not even sure that Judge Baratta has jurisdiction at this point. If he does, isn't it a tad premature to decide attorney's fees on a matter under appeal? On the merits, I am certain that Baratta knows as well as I do that Otter's motion is frivolous. But of course, the time I spend researching and briefing that matter is time I won't be spending researching and briefing my appeal to Commonwealth Court.

Judge Baratta must have known that he would be appealed. But the two Orders he filed on February 17 certainly seem designed to discourage me from moving forward. If that was the plan, it failed.

A Reader Reacts To Judge Baratta's Latest Gracedale Decision

Brenda, a new reader, was raked over last night for daring to criticize Judge Baratta's decision. She's anonymous, but I think she's Brenda Song, who's always calling me and asking me for dates.

Brenda has a reaction to Judge Baratta's tortured decision upholding the Gracedale initiative against a claim that it violates a Northampton County Charter prohibition against plebiscites that "extend to the budget." Hizzoner agrees that Gracedale certainly has an impact on the budget, but inexplicable concludes that an initiative concerning its fate does not "extend to the budget."

"The recent decision of Judge Baratta to allow the Gracedale question on the ballot has left a miserable looking scar on the faces of all Northampton County taxpayers. Where else in the world is a flame throwing special interest group allowed to buck their agenda onto an election ballot? The answer is nowhere, Judge Baratta. Allentown State Hospital never appeared on the ballot. Hagedorn State Hospital in NJ, again, not on the ballot. In your decision, you have just literally required a permission slip signed by the voters for a government to sell off an asset. This precedent you have set is not only bothersome, but also frightening. The petition process was flawed and contained upwards of 3,000 invalid signatures. Will you allow me to vote twice on this issue and bring all of my NJ friends to the polling place to have their vote? Regardless of profitability or lack thereof, governments need not compete with the private sector. Excellent patient care exits in privately run nursing homes. We elected a county council to make the decisions that need to be made. That is why they are there. If the county voters are disappointed by council's decisions, they can vote them out of office. When a judge is so fearful as to crawl underneath his bench in his own courtroom to avoid emotional upheaval and bad press, the citizens he serves should be fearful of him. I hope you are appealed and swiftly reversed at the Commonwealth Court. A disgrace!"

If I didn't know any better, I'd say Steve Baratta is doing his best to help Dem candidates. But we all know judges stay away from politics.

Judge Baratta Dismisses NorCo's Home Rule Challenge to Gracedale Initiative

Reading this decision is like reading monks from the Dark Ages, trying to decide how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I'll have more to say later.
Judge Baratta Dismisses NorCo's Home Rule Challenge to Gracedale Initiative

Reaction to Judge Baratta's Decision

When he stood for retention in 2007, I penned a blog called "Three Reasons to Boot Judge Baratta." I also criticized his reliance on local lawyers for campaign dough, as well as his use of now political consultant Tom Severson. These are just two of several posts I've written over the years that are critical of Steve Baratta.

I know this bothers him because people who know him tell me it bothers him. I also know that, in open court, he once complained about my general criticism of the nonexistent judicial work ethic.

But when I heard that Judge Baratta was assigned to the Gracedale ballot challenge, I filed no motion for recusal.

I thought he could be fair.

Now that he's ruled against me, has my opinion changed? No.

I can tell you that I think his decision is seriously flawed, because I do. He invalidates over 2700 signatures above and beyond what had been invalidated by the Voting Registrar, and incredibly refuses to go by her numbers. He forgets that she did testify that the signatures I was complaining about were not among those she had already stricken on her own. He accepted the testimony of two witnesses who filed 38 false affidavits. He even accepted the testimony of a woman who claimed she circulated as many as 15 petitions simultaneously, as though she has eyes in the back of her head. Basically, I think he was so caught up with a liberal construction of the Election Code - and he is supposed to construe the Election Code that way - that he abdicated his equally important responsibility to preserve the integrity of the election process.

So I completely disagree with him.

But I must also tell you that Judge Baratta's decision was fair. He was very even-handed during the hearing. His opinion is lucid and mostly well-reasoned. He also handled the challenge very expeditiously.

If it's necessary, we will appeal. But I also believe Judge Baratta called this as he saw it, and handled a difficult political case with integrity.

You can't ask for more than that.

Judge Baratta's Dismissal of Gracedale Initiative Ballot Challenge

I will have more to say about this later.
Judge Baratta's Decision on Gracedale Ballot Challenge