By Sherry Larson

People’s Defender

Transparency – there’s a word that’s been thrown around quite a bit as of late, particularly regarding HB283 in the Ohio House.. Here is some background if you’re learning about this bill for the first time. The bill initially presented, “To amend sections 2151.07, 2301.02, and 2301.03 of the Revised Code to add a judge to the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, who shall be designated as the judge of the court’s Probate and Juvenile Division, and to declare an emergency.”

Suppose you have read previous articles about HB 283 in The People’s Defender. In that case, you know that while the bill states adding a new judge to Adams County is an emergency, the sponsors nor supporters of this bill consulted with the residing Honorable Judge Brett Spencer.

A passed note, journaled documents, and published minutes may have indicated a possible consideration of adding a judge to the Common Pleas Court. But neither Representatives Justin Pizzulli nor jean Schmidt, the sponsors of HB 283, nor the Adams County Commissioners bothered to ask Judge Brett Spencer if the need was pressing or required. A simple reaching out with a question and qualifying conversation to the one who knows the needs of the court best could have cleared up misunderstandings and misinformation given to the Ohio Supreme Court.

With no response from Pizzulli to his inquiries, Judge Brett Spencer testified in a November 14, 2023, Ohio House Civil Justice Committee hearing regarding HB 283. As previously reported by The People’s Defender, Spencer shared that he had no knowledge or support of HB 283, saying, “This acknowledgment of what the commissioners and State Representatives presumably are attempting came as a surprise when the Supreme Court of Ohio called me and wanted to talk to me about logistics and cost of this second judgeship that ‘I was requesting and supporting.’ I had to explain to them I didn’t know anything about it. And I certainly was not in support of this.”

Spencer testified to the Civil Justice Committee and said, “Not one of the presenters or written supporters of this monumental modification ever reached out to inquire, observe, or research the current status of court operations. Unfortunately, and disappointingly, State Representative Pizzulli has refused to speak with me, although requests nearing double digits have been made by me to the representative.”

Ranking member and Democrat Representative Tavia Galonski of District 33 stated, “Unfortunately, this committee has been misled.” She continued, “There is no reason in this legislative body for any legislator or aide or anyone else to lie or misconstrue any part of legislation. In fact, good ideas have supporters on all sides of the aisle.”

“Good ideas have supporters on all sides of the aisle” seems a valuable enough statement to reiterate. Why aren’t the leaders who represent Adams County pulling up a seat at the table and asking some crucial questions? Why the elusive comments like, “People have asked for,” “I’ve been told,” or “This has been something talked about for years.” How about – leaders engaging in conversations and inviting others to sit and chat, too? Who wants a seat at that table?

A staggering number of children are being served by Children Protective Services in Adams County – most would not contest that fact. The innovative Common Pleas Court staff continue to advance, developing state and nationally-recognized inventive programming by collaborating with other area agencies. These programs are gap fillers and a concerted effort to support adults and children to form viable family units. There are definite needs. But rather than base legislation on hearsay or closed-room conversations – pull up a chair at the table. Do the hard work to determine what is needed, in what order, and the necessary available resources to sustain meeting those needs.

Although Spencer does not support HB 283, he testified, “I’m not certain if I’m truly an opponent if it is the intent and effect of House Bill 283 to appoint an additional probate and juvenile court judge with me, completing the balance of my term as elected by the people of Adams County, Ohio as Judge of the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Common Pleas as well as the Probate and Juvenile Courts.” He continued to explain that his “issue of opposition is if it is the intent, and then the effect of the sponsored legislation, to change the 2022 ballot retroactively, modify the will of the voters of Adams County and strip me of the jurisdiction of the juvenile division where my greatest passion lies and the ability to change lives for the better of those less fortunate children exist – then my opposition has no boundaries. In essence, I challenge if my elected jurisdiction can be abolished retroactively. It appears to be a dangerous precedence.”

Judge Spencer continued encouraging additional research. He said, “Regardless of the passage of HB 283, or pause in the action of this legislation, to allow a due diligence assessment of the future needs of Adams County based on actual documentation, observation, and conversation.”

At the November 28 hearing, Committee Chair Brett Hudson Hillyer announced that HB 283 had been amended and stated that Judge Spencer’s current jurisdiction would not change. Hillyer said, “The delegation of the juvenile probate division judge will not begin until February 9, 2029. However, this change DOES NOT reverse the bill calling for an emergency judge to begin their term on February 9, 2025. The language of HB 283 remains clear that an additional judge would be elected in 2024. Hillyer said, “We will pause on that for just a moment and let the amendment for 283 digest and will likely be up for a vote next week.”

In a written response to Braden Watkins, Legislative Aide to Chair Hillyer, regarding the amendment, Judge Spencer said, “I believe my November 14, 2023, testimony before the honorable Civil Justice Committee was unambiguous as relates to the original sponsored HB 283, but in an abundance of precaution, I renew that my opposition has no boundaries to HB 283 as originally sponsored and co-sponsored. This fervent position is based upon retroactively abolishing my elected duties, retroactively abolishing the 2022 ballot, as well as the effect of changing the will of the voters of Adams County, Ohio, at the 2022 general election. The further suggestion to ‘allow’ me to retain jurisdiction in those courts the sponsor and co-sponsor ‘allowed’ while stripping me of jurisdictions their desired candidate(s) desired, seemed overtly calculated to deprive me of continuation of our innovative and highly successful juvenile programming.”

“The proposed amendment to HB 283, as forwarded last week, prior to tomorrow’s anticipated fourth hearing and possible vote, appears to still propose emergency legislation for a second Probate and Juvenile Court Judgeship, in addition to the current Probate and Juvenile Court, which will exist through February 9, 2029. It further appears, per my understanding of the amendment’s intent, that the next person elected to my currently elected position, would then only have Jurisdiction in the Common Pleas Civil and Criminal Divisions, as well as jurisdiction in the Domestic Relations Division after the November 2028 general election. The second Judge would have exclusive jurisdiction in Probate and Juvenile cases as of February 9, 2029.”

“While I deeply appreciate the amendments to HB 283 appearing to not divest me of my jurisdiction in Probate and Juvenile cases until conclusion of my elected term, I am NOT a proponent of HB 283 as amended,” says Judge Spencer. “The ‘Emergency Legislation’ causes me pause and opposition for the following reasons:

1) The Supreme Court statistics do not reflect a current necessity of a second Probate & Juvenile Court Judge. As widely noted, overall cases are down approximately 12.5 percent from 2013 to 2022, being the Supreme Court’s available look-back period for matters such as the one now before the legislative branch. In addition, the census documents a reduction in the county’s population of over a thousand citizens since 2010.

2) There is no ‘backlog’ of cases, as the proponents casually suggest. Not one statistic or case has been cited to support such claims. The docket is dictated by statutory requirements, Rules of Superintendence, and Supreme Court guidelines, as well as the availability of litigants and their respective counsel.

3) The originally proposed HB 283 has never had available for consideration any documentation from the County Commissioners as to the actual or even approximate cost of construction and/or location of the second Courtroom, office facilities for staff, equipment costs for new staff, etc. With the amendment, as I understand it to be, instead of simply adopting the budget of my current Probate/Juvenile Court staff, facilities, and equipment ( plus their proposed additional $255,000.00 court staff), the second Judge will now require their own independent slate of Probate/Juvenile Court staff, offices for that staff, an additional Courtroom and Chambers, all new recording equipment for the Courtroom and operational equipment for the offices. I am of the belief this information is extremely valuable and quasi-required submitted for not only the Civil Justice Committee’s consideration of fiscal responsibility but also for the taxpayers of Adams County, who will be required to sustain the operations and pay for the initial costs of constructing a new facility, or in the alternative, remodeling a current structure alluded to by Commissioner Ward in both written and oral testimony.

4) I renew my November suggestion that The Ohio House of Representatives take pause and deny ‘Emergency Legislation’ for just some of the reasons cited, to permit the widely perceived curtain of secrecy at the local level to be pulled back and, with transparency, allow the County Commissioners, the local Bar Association, as well as the taxpayers of Adams County to have each of their respective voices heard, utilizing current data, as well as evaluate the initial costs, feasibility and sustainability of the proposed adding of a second Probate & Juvenile Court Judge.”

Is HB 283 emergency legislation? Do the constituents of Adams County want to pay for the election and establishment of an emergency judge when the data does not support such an emergency? Has there been transparency?

When asked by Representative Brown from the 5th District at the November 14 hearing if he “could handle the caseload before him with all of those disciplines adequately and competently without the need for a second judge to assist.” Judge Spencer answered, “Without hesitation or reservation – the answer is yes. And the Supreme Court Records reflect that.”

Upon receiving a voicemail requesting comment from The People’s Defender (after numerous requests), Representative Pizzulli texted this comment, “Our intention with House Bill 283 was never to remove jurisdiction from a presiding judge. My joint sponsor and I listened to feedback and worked with members of the Civil Justice Committee to find a solution. The amendment that was accepted during committee yesterday simply clarifies that the bill does not change current jurisdiction and the delegation of the judgeship created under the bill will not begin until 2029, avoiding any changes mid-term. Families and children deserve our best, and I’m committed to making sure the needs of my communities are met.”

The People’s Defender appreciated the response from Representative Pizzulli and followed up with additional questions. Why was the bill written as such if there was never the intention to remove jurisdiction from a presiding judge? And again, has Pizzulli spoken to Judge Spencer? Has he seen a Common Pleas Court backlog? As of the writing of this article, there is no additional response from Pizzulli.

An urgency is uncovered in this story—the need for communication and transparency. The opinions or conversations held thirteen years ago under different circumstances are weak evidence on which to base someone’s views or judgments today. Adams County’s constituents are responsible for asking questions and expecting clear answers from their leaders. Why is HB 283 being pushed expeditiously without the due diligence required to justify the need or the cost to the Adams County taxpayers? Public servants need to be candid and not skirt the issues. Engage and discover the decisions being made on your behalf. Grab a chair and join the conversation.