Cook County Public Defender Ed Burnett is facing a “catch 22” and it’s time to let the public know about it.
For more than a year Burnett has been trying to get County Board President Todd Stroger to supply the funding his office needs to hire more public defenders. Instead, for more than a year, the Public Defender has seen his budget cut, Attorneys and support staff slashed to nearly half the level they were at five years ago. Burnett has been forced by Stroger to watch his staff cut to bare bones while the public’s need for more public defenders rose.
Besides cutting the Public Defender’s budget, Stroger’s office suggested that the public defenders only work three days a week – which is hard to do when an attorney is working on a capital case and a defendant’s life is at stake. After that suggestion failed, Stroger ordered the public defenders, who already have burdensome caseloads, to take furloughs to save money. Again, this is an unworkable position for attorneys who have defendants waiting for justice.
Finally, in a move of desperation some months ago, Ed Burnett filed suit against Todd Stroger, stating that the budget cuts Stroger ordered in the Public Defender’s office were making it impossible to provide the legal representation to those who have a right to an attorney but cannot afford to hire one.
Now, it appears, Stroger is striking back.
The Sun-Times, in its Friday issue, reports that Burnett is facing dismissal , allegedly for “dereliction in performance of duties” for not hiring enough public defenders to adequately provide quality legal representation to 34 Cook county jail inmates who’ve been waiting for trial. According to the Sun-Times, a letter of resolution to that effect was delivered to . Burnett Thursday and signed by Republican board members Tony Peraica, Pete Sylvestri, Gregg Goslin and Liz Gorman along with Democrats William Beavers Joseph Mario Moreno, Joan Murphy, Deborah Sims and Robert Steel.
But, while the newspaper reports on the letter and possible dismissal of Burnett for not hiring enough attorneys, it never mentions the months during which Burnett has fought to get the budget to hire more attorneys. This Kafkaesque situation changes the story completely.
And there’s more to the story—while Stroger’s office is distancing itself from the letter, the resolution delivered to Burnett appears to come straight from him. It is signed by Stroger’s attorney, Richard Velazques. That is the same Richard Velazques who Stroger ordered Burnett to hire as a public defender a year ago; and the same Richard Velazques who then returned to Stroger’s office to provide him legal assistance.
The County board president appoints the public defender. At Wednesday’s regular Board meeting, Stroger may attempt to fire this public defender. The question is why? Does Todd Stroger have a friend he wants to put in the position? Is there another cousin we don’t know about who needs a job?
To get rid of Cook County Public Defender Ed Burnett – for not having enough public defenders when he’s been prohibited from hiring more public defenders goes beyond absurd. It’s another reason why we need a new County Board President.
_____________________________________________________
Mary Laney a former TV and radio anchor is a regular columnist for The Chicago Daily Observer and member of its editorial board.
John Ruskin says:
It appears that a public relations war has begun over the termination of Mr Burnett, with each side hiring legal and public relations help. This has the potential, based on the SunTimes coverage - which included the proposed resolution - to blow up into a major public relations and legal war. It seems clear that Stroger has the right to fire Burnett for "cause or dereliction of duty", and, there seems to be plenty of cause and dereliction of duty by any objective measure. One only needs to read about the receptionist at Burnett's office at 69 W Washington, being arrested for having large quantities of marijuana deleivered to her by UPS at her county building reception work station, to know that something is seriously wrong at that office. Add to that all of the other serious matters raised int the resoultion: failure to manage the office, failure to try cases resulting in long detention periods, failure to supervise empoyees and apply progressive discipline, including terminations of employees who do not perform, and advocating a two percent sales tax increase, clearly, there is plenty of reason for the action.
This should be very interesting.
Finally, Mr Burnett has retained as his lawyer, Mr William Hooks, who was appointed by the court a special assistant state's attorney, so the poor county taxpayers are going to be paying leagal bills on all sides. Only in Crook County.
larry kugler says:
Mr ruskin :if you believe the nonsense in the county boards so called allegations--i got a bridge in brooklyn to sell you--i have worked in the county court system for 25 years and you-mr ruskin cannot slander a man like Mr.Burnette with some silly comment about one woman working in his office-public defenders have a tough job--i am proud to be one of them . I am proud to say that i work for ed Burnette. the boys down at the county board put together a lot of allegations without any supporting facts and you are ready to convict Mr.Burnette? If you get invited to jury duty some day-do not show up.Do the justice system a favor.
Tommy says:
It seems to me your County Board President has no concept of what equal protection means. While many people don't like to spend money on those accused of crimes and would love to find a way to go from charged to sentenced with no steps in between, your President exhibits that type of mentality. I also seem to recall a number of Counties and States being sued by the ACLU for exactly this type of behavior when a county cuts funding and allows caseload limits to go so high as to render counsel ineffective. The same effect is true of Counties that cut funding to support staffs. From what I recall, most PDs had over 600 cases, far above the standards set by the ABA and other reputable agencies. By the way, the cost of this is not only new trials for those accused, but I'm sure some defendant will wake up and file civil actions against the County for violating their rights to equal protection and civil rights violations. But then again, I'm not a lawyer or a politician so I can tell it like it is.
Angie H says:
I am relieved to learn that the hearing has been postponed. I feel it is a disgrace to the residents of Cook County to see the President of the County Board trying to undermine a leader who has done an outstanding job in protecting an office of dire importance to all in Cook County. These are excellent attorneys in the PD's office who represent anybody who is too broke to afford legal representation - which would be most people. I applaud Ms. Laney in seeing the hypocracy behind Stroger's tactics and more importantly for speaking up. It takes courage to speak truth to power.
Christine says:
Thank you Ms. Laney for your insight and attempt to expose the politically motivated treachery of the County Board. Our tax dollars are continually wasted on such costly machinations - the Board and Mr. Stroger should start doing their jobs and let others do the same. More than Todd's private elevator has to go....
Mac says:
So, Mr. Ruskin, what is it about advocating a 2 per cent sales tax increase that is dereliction of duty on behalf of the public defender? Is he required to adhere to the political positions of the board chairman? Also, "failure to try cases" is a direct result of the county board cutting the amount of money spent on assistant public defenders.
By the way, Ms. Laney, a subtle but important distinction -- the board chairman, not the full board, appoints the public defender, and may fire him for "good cause or dereliction of duty."
Mac says:
Oops, reread the story and it is accurate about the board president being the appointing authority.
Marienne Branch says:
Shouldn't he have responded cogently to Judge Nowicki's Second Semi-Annual Report? He had it since February. It was on the April 9th agenda He told the papers that he didn't read it. Why should he, it only involves a federal lawsuit. No, I'm wrong. It involves getting rid of patronage. I wonder how that fits into his attack on my boss.
Peg Dowdell says:
Mary Laney is absolutely right. How can Stroger even begin to politically manipulate another office when he stands amid the most ridiculous pile of patronage within his own office. Shouldn't he be cutting non-essential services such as highway department workers, forest preserve patronage staff, administrative positions etc. before he even thinks about cutting public defenders? These are lawyers who represent inmates who cannot otherwise afford legal counsel. This is an essential office to the county criminal justice system that cannot afford to take any additional hits. I wonder what the Stroger administration promised these commissioners like Tony Peraica who are going along with this ridiculous measure. This is another example of Stroger having an embarrassing lack of political prowess.