During the League of Women Voter’s candidates night on Tuesday, October 23, a lot of attention was paid to the races for the two Marion County Common Pleas judge positions. In many past elections, judges have run unopposed, but this year both are being strongly challenged and the fierce campaigns took center stage at River Valley High School.
Note: This story is part of a series on the League of Women Voters Candidates Night that took place on Tuesday, October 23, 2012. We broke down the evening into individual stories to make sure we were as thorough as possible.
The evening started with all the candidates briefly introducing themselves and/or their campaign.
Kevin Collins said he is the only independent candidate for judge, explaining the reason is because he does not believe party politics belong in the courtroom. He stated that because he is not a career politician, he will bring a fresh face to the issues at the court and, because he is an independent, he will not be beholden to party influence.
Robert Davidson, the incumbent judge, talked about his family and years of experience as a judge and as a private attorney. He became a judge in 1996.
Jim Slagle said that he believes courts need to be more than a revolving door for criminals. He stated that Marion County is the fifth highest county in the state for recidivism, people committed repeated crimes. Slagle said a significant amount of people do not even serve their jail terms, in part because of the shortage of beds at the multi-county jail. He outlined his experience with 24 years as Marion County Prosecutor and working at the state level in the Attorney General’s Office.
In the other judge race, Warren Tom Edwards said that he is running because he is worried about crime in Marion. He stated his opponent recently said in an interview that he didn’t see light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to the crime problem. Edwards said he does see the light and believes the community needs someone who does. He explained his experience in the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office and said that he is “not a good ol boy.”
William Finnegan, the incumbent judge in this race, also outlined his experience, saying he started in 1989 as judge at the Marion Municipal Court where he handled over 100,000 cases. He said he ran the court efficiently and even taught himself Spanish to save taxpayer money on interpreters. He stated that he has brought the same efficiency to the Common Pleas Court. Finnegan stated that he, along with Davidson, has sent 44 percent more criminals to prison compared with previous judges.
It is important to note again that there are two judge positions up for election. Davidson (incumbent), Collins, and Slagle are running for one. Finnegan (incumbent) and Edwards are running for the other. Because of this, some of the questions submitted by the audience were only posed to one judge race or the other so not all candidates got the chance to answer all questions.
The first question to the judge candidates asked about recidivism and how they would keep people from returning to crime. Collins said he doesn’t believe judges alone can do a lot to keep people from re-offending. He said it needs to be a community effort to offer people services and education to help keep them out of prison.
Davidson said there are several things he has done as a judge to help the issue of recidivism, including pursuing a re-entry grant to help those coming out of prison, increasing use of counseling and halfway houses, and instituting a special OVI docket to handle those crimes.
Slagle took exception to Davidson’s claims, explaining that he was the one who brought the re-entry grant to Davidson’s attention and urged him to pursue it. Slagle also stated that the OVI docket and other issues are actually state programs that were not initiated by local judges. Slagle said he has been active in the community, including working with Marion Matters to help ex-offenders find employment.
The next question asked the candidates about harassment in the workplace and how they would handle complaints. Collins said that you must first determine the nature of the harassment as there is some that are more serious than others. He said some issues could be handled in house. Davidson agreed with Collins that the procedure would depend on the nature of the harassment. Slagle said that obviously all the candidates would agree that harassment is not acceptable. He said he has experience with dealing with a range of these issues from when he was the county prosecutor.
The next question from the audience was directed at Davidson regarding his involvement in the dissolution of the Kling Trust. Davidson explained there was a movement among the beneficiaries of the trust to pursue more aggressive investments. He said those more aggressive investments, coupled with disbursements that were too high, resulted in the loss of money and eventually the loss of the trust entirely. Davidson said it was one of his biggest regrets.
Slagle stated there were a series of poor decisions by Davidson in this situation. He said that one of those came when Davidson became a Common Pleas judge and he allowed his wife to take his place as a trustee of the Kling Trust. Slagle called that a clear conflict of interest.
Collins said that the court and the judge have to maintain the appearance of trustworthiness. He said he would not comment on the situation any further because he felt the question was purely political in nature.
Davidson, who had a chance to rebut since the question was directed at him, said the trustee change was made after seeking council from multiple sources including a division of the Ohio Supreme Court. He said everyone agreed that there were no ethical issues involved in the change.
The next question went to the other candidates when Finnegan was asked about double dipping by officials. If re-elected, Finnegan plans to retire and be re-appointed as judge so that he can start collecting the pension he has earned while continuing to work as a judge.
Finnegan stated that he has earned the pension and what he is doing is legal. He said that it will not cost taxpayers a single penny and does not hurt the pension fund. Finnegan said that it would, however, keep an experienced judge who has proved his efficiency. He said his opponent simply does not have the experience needed to be judge.
Edwards said it is not true that it will not cost more, saying that Finnegan’s plan would hurt other people who have a vested interest in the state pension fund. He also took exception to Finnegan’s assertion that he lacks experience, saying that he has more than enough and Finnegan’s comments are based on an outdated resume.
Finnegan said the resume he is referring to was submitted to the prosecutor’s office just last year.
Edwards was then asked if he had submitted his required financial statements on time and, if not, to explain why. Edwards said that, yes, he had made the required filing and it was done on time. He stated that another filing is due soon and the paperwork is ready to be submitted.
Finnegan said the question was referring to the financial disclosure statement, not campaign finance reports. He said the disclosure was due eight and a half months ago. Finnegan said that if Edwards was willfully not submitting the disclosure form, it could be a jailable offense. He said that if Edwards is not aware of the requirement, then it shows his ignorance of the law.
Edwards said he believes he has filed everything that is required. He stated that if Finnegan is aware of something he has missed, then he is required to report it and not doing so would be an offense.
Slagle was asked how he, after his extensive time as a county prosecutor, could be impartial as a judge. Slagle said that while most of his experience is as a prosecutor he was in private practice as well. He stated that his position as prosecutor came with a duty to be fair and impartial when it came to charging and trying defendants.
Davidson said there is another world besides the criminal world, explaining that while there are about 600 criminal cases per year, there are also about 1,000 civil cases filed. He said Slagle’s experience is not quite as broad as you might think when you take into account the different types of cases.
Collins agreed with Davidson on the broad scope of the Common Pleas Court. He stated that Slagle would have a great resume if he was running for Prosecutor, but being a judge is a much broader job.
Slagle countered that as the county prosecutor he also acted as the civil attorney for the municipalities within the County and had experience in civil cases through the State of Ohio’s Auditor’s Office.
The final question to the judicial candidates asked if the judge position was a full time effort. Collins said the position is probably full time and even more. He said with his current private practice and other endeavors it is hard for him to remember when he had just a five-day work week.
Davidson agreed saying being a judge is more than fulltime. He stated there is a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes and doesn’t take place in the courtroom. He explained that he often works late into the evening and on the weekends. In fact, Davidson said that he still had work to do that night once the debate was completed.
Slagle said there was no question that being a judge is more than a fulltime job. He disputed Davidson’s answer saying that he was not being completely candid. Slagle then stated, without offering details, that the court has been closing early because Davidson is at the golf course. Due to the debate rules, Davidson did not have the opportunity to dispute Slagle’s statement.
The General Election is November 6, 2012. You can vote early by absentee ballot or by going to the Marion County Board of Elections. You can find more information by visiting www.marionelections.com.
About Sean DeWitt
