Opinion
NO 6 JD 16
03-06-2017
IN RE ANDREW M. HLADIO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 36-1-01 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (BEAVER COUNTY)
APPEARANCES: JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD BY: ELIZABETH A. FLAHERTY, DEPUTY COUNSEL PENNSYLVANIA JUDICIAL CENTER 601 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE SUITE 3500 HARRISBURG, PA 17120-0901 717-234-7911 FOR - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS BY: HEIDI F. EAKIN, ESQUIRE 831 MARKET STREET LEMOYNE, PA 17403 717-761-2121
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON PETITION FOR INTERIM SUSPENSION BEFORE: THE HONORABLE JACK PANELLA THE HONORABLE JOHN SOROKO THE HONORABLE JEFFREY MINEHART THE HONORABLE JUDGE DAVID BARTON DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2017, 10:27 A.M. BY: KAREN BLOUCH, NOTARY PUBLIC REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER PLACE: COURT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE 601 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA APPEARANCES: JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD
BY: ELIZABETH A. FLAHERTY, DEPUTY COUNSEL
PENNSYLVANIA JUDICIAL CENTER
601 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE
SUITE 3500
HARRISBURG, PA 17120-0901
717-234-7911 FOR - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
BY: HEIDI F. EAKIN, ESQUIRE
831 MARKET STREET
LEMOYNE, PA 17403
717-761-2121 TABLE OF CONTENTS WITNESSES
| DIRECT | CROSS | |
| FOR THE BOARDAILEEN BOWERS | 7 | 56 |
| FOR RESPONDENTANDREW M. HLADIO | 73 |
| BOARD EXHIBIT | MARKED | ADMITTED |
| Number 1 - 1/4/17 memo from NancyBorkowski | 25 | 26 |
| Number 2 - Confidential MemorandumMay 13, 2016 | 25 | 26 |
| Number 3 - E-mails May 10, 2016 | 25 | 26 |
| Number 4 - 10/18/16 e-mail fromJudge Hladio to Aileen Bowers | 25 | 26 |
| Number 5 - Confidential Memorandumdated October 19, 2016 | 25 | 26 |
| Number 6 - E-mail December 7, 2016 | 25 | 26 |
| Number 7 - E-mail dated January 5,2017, from Judge Hladioto John McBride | 25 | 26 |
| Number 8 - Sworn statement by ChiefJames Mann | 70 | 70 |
| Number 9 - 3/10/15 deposition ofJudge Hladio | 71 | 71 |
| Number 10 - 10/26/16 deposition ofJudge Hladio, and thumbdrive with audio-video | 71 | 71 |
| RESPONDENT EXHIBIT | MARKED | ADMITTED |
| Number 1 - Letter from Judge Hladioto Attorney Robert Mielnicki | 98 | 106 |
| Number 2 - Work policies | 98 | 106 |
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Good morning, everyone. As I always like to do, let's just get some information as to the reason why we're here on the record. We are here In Re: Andrew Hladio, Number 6 JD of 2016.
I believe the Judicial Conduct Board today is represented by Attorney Elizabeth Flaherty, and the respondent is represented by Attorney Heidi Eakin.
My review of the file indicates that a complaint was filed by the Board against the respondent on December 7, 2016. Also filed with the complaint was a petition for interim suspension and, as I just said, that was also filed on December 7, 2016.
The respondent filed an answer to the petition on January 9, 2017. And basically the petition, the suspension was very short, it didn't really need an answer, but the answer being filed to the complaint, that was sufficient.
We are here today regarding the petition for interim suspension, and we're prepared to go forward. Attorney Flaherty, we are ready to hear from the Board.
MS. FLAHERTY: Good morning, Your Honors.
The purpose of this hearing is twofold. First, to put on evidence to convince this Court that the grant of the petition for relief for interim suspension, with or without pay, of Judge Hladio is essential during the pendency of this case.
The Board will present witness testimony and exhibits of recent conduct that bolsters the Board's plea for suspension.
Deputy Court Administrator Aileen Bowers will testify about complaints she received from District Court clerks, the Central Court clerks, police officers, members of the public, regarding Judge Hladio's nonjudicial demeanor and the results of her investigation into those matters.
She will also testify about complaints she received from Judge Hladio himself and the results of her investigations.
Further, she will testify about the requests for and the equipment provided to Judge Hladio to accommodate his disability.
Chief of Police Jim Mann will testify about his concerns for his Ambridge Police Department officers who appear before Judge Hladio and his belief that Judge Hladio fails to rule on the cases presented by those officers in a fair and impartial manner.
Both Ms. Bowers and Chief Mann will testify that they have observed a deterioration in Judge Hladio's physical and mental status that has significantly impacted his ability to manage his District Court and to treat individuals in a respectful manner.
Both Board witnesses will state that Judge Hladio continues to retaliate against those who have complained about his conduct and that they find such retaliation to be unacceptable.
Second, although not set forth in the petition for suspension, the Board requests, pursuant to CJD Rule of Procedure Number 601, that this Court order physical, psychiatric, and psychological examinations of MDJ Hladio.
The results of those exams and the recommendations of those professionals should be submitted under seal to this Court, the Board, and Judge Hladio and his counsel for consideration, along with the charges set forth in the Board complaint.
Thank you.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Attorney Eakin, would you like to make an opening statement?
MS. EAKIN: We will reserve. Thank you.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Thank you very much. In that case, Attorney Flaherty.
MS. FLAHERTY: Yes. Now I am ready to call my first witness. And so bring that up, the speakers up.
AILEEN BOWERS, called as a witness, being sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. FLAHERTY:
Q Good morning, Ms. Bowers. Would you please introduce yourself to the Court.
A My name is Aileen Bowers. My first name is spelled A-i-l-e-e-n. My last name is B-o-w-e-r-s. And I am the deputy -- one of two deputy court administrators in Beaver County.
I am a graduate of Duquesne University School of Law. I graduated in 1991. I clerked for a Common Pleas Court judge, spent time in the law department, and I have held my current job since December of 1991.
My -- I'm sorry.
Q And what are your responsibilities as deputy court administrator? Whom do you supervise?
A Primarily, the biggest function of my job is to supervise and administrate the magisterial district courts in Beaver County. There are currently eight courts. We recently consolidated from nine to eight, so we now have eight.
But I am responsible for doing their budgets, helping with fiscal matters, acquiring equipment, office equipment, maintenance of their physical courts, providing staffing when needed, additional staffing, getting training, interviewing potential employees or applicants, screening them for the MDJs, making sure background checks are done.
I also supervise the operation of Central Court. In Beaver County, we do not have preliminary hearings in the individual magisterial district courts. For more than 30 years, Beaver County has had a centralized preliminary court system.
So I supervise the staff that works for -- that works in Central Court.
Q And in that role, have you had occasion to supervise Judge Hladio's court?
A I have. I have. Over the years, I have -- I don't spend a lot of time down at Central Court. I have other responsibilities. But I do, on a daily basis or the four days a week that we have preliminary hearings.
The courtroom that is used is down the hallway from my office, I will stop in. I will check on what they how things are going, check in with staff. And that -- that's not just when Judge Hladio's there. I do that as a regular course of business no matter who the MDJ is.
Q And in your role as deputy court administrator, do you handle requests for change of venue?
A Typically, that is an assign -- that is a function of the court administrator. However, the District Court Administrator, A.R. DeFilippi, has been out on medical leave since October of 2016, and I -- in his absence, I will handle those requests.
Q Ms. Bowers, how long have you known Judge Hladio?
A I would say I've known him for approximately 25 years. I graduated law school in 1991 and joined the Bar that year, and he was already a member. He was in the Public Defender's Office at that time. And my first job out of law school was as a judicial clerk for a judge who handled criminal cases.
Q So you knew him while he was a practicing attorney?
A That's correct.
Q As deputy court administrator, were you aware of complaints about Attorney Hladio?
A I was not. I was not aware of complaints regarding his performance as a public defender or regarding any manner of his private practice.
Q Have you had an opportunity to read the Board complaint filed against Judge Hladio on December 7, 2016?
A I have. I have read it in its entirety.
Q And have you also read the petition for relief for interim suspension of that same date?
A I have also read that.
Q Did you file the 2014 confidential request for investigation against Judge Hladio?
A I did not. That was filed by then President Judge John D. McBride.
Q Were you aware of the alleged misconduct presented in the Board complaint when it was first filed?
A I was aware of some of the allegations, ones that I had been personally involved in. I was not aware of some of the allegations, such as the overweight truck that -- the overweight truck dispositions that Ambridge police had complained about.
Nor was I aware of some of the allegations relating to treatment of members of the public in his court, other than a complaint that had been made by a mother regarding her juvenile daughter.
Q And we'll talk about that shortly. How did you become aware of some of the alleged misconduct in the complaint?
A I received phone calls and e-mails from court staff, members of MDJ Hladio's staff, his former office manager, his current office manager, sometimes part-timers.
I had complaints from my full-time Central Court clerk, Shannon Preininger. I had complaints from a number of staff people. I had complaints from the current DA, David Lozier, about the treatment of his Assistant District Attorney, Ashley Elias.
And there were other people who brought complaints to my attention, and they all seemed to be complaints of behavioral-type, with a couple of exceptions.
Q And did you also receive complaints from police officers?
A I did. A lot of them were complaints that were verbal. When I went back and looked through some notes, I did find I had written down some complete -- some complaints from Chief Mann.
And some of the officers -- there was an officer in particular who would complain about his treatment in that court, Officer Depenhart. I would instruct him to document it and go to his chief.
Q Did you ever meet with Judge Hladio to discuss the alleged misconduct?
A I have had meetings with Judge Hladio regarding misconduct. I was in three meetings regarding -- with Judge McBride and the court administrator. But I also -- I also had occasion to discuss with him behavior at Central Court and the treatment of Ms. Preininger and Ashley Elias.
Q So you
A And I
Q Go ahead.
A I have had -- I have had the opportunity to talk with him about some of the behavioral complaints. And in particular, last March, I talked to him about -- that there had been complaints about him yelling at Ms. Preininger. And he seemed very surprised at that, that while he didn't deny it, he said that, well, she throws files up on the bench.
And that same day, I had received a complaint from District Attorney Dave Lozier about the way he was treating his DA, Ashley Elias. And when I asked Judge Hladio about that, he said he had no idea what the issue was involving Ms. Elias.
And he went on to say, well, it gets crazy in Central Court; and that he said he looks out for Shannon or any other clerk, but no one looks out for me.
So I did talk to him about behavioral issues, yes.
Q During the meetings that you had with -- that involved former PJ McBride and Court Administrator DeFilippi, what was your role in those meetings?
A My role solely was to listen and to document those -- to document those meetings. I had -- I did not participate in terms of asking questions or going over allegations.
This was -- I was in there strictly to take notes of and to record Judge McBride's admonition of MDJ Hladio or to -- and to address the continuing, ongoing problems we were having with him.
Q Do you recall what the topic was of conversation at the November 2012 meeting that involved Judge McBride and Mr. DeFilippi?
A I do. That focused on ongoing complaints from Office Manager Nancy Borkowski that Judge McBride apparently had met with him, had met with MDJ Hladio previously, as did Court Administrator Rich DeFilippi. And from my memo, it appears that they met with him separately.
But the -- at the December 1st, 2012 meeting, Judge McBride told Judge Hladio that his behavior needed to stop and it needed to stop immediately; that he saw it as retaliation; and if it didn't stop, Judge McBride's only recourse would be to report him to the Judicial Conduct Board. And he said if he had one further -- one more complaint, that he would do that.
He also -- he also urged MDJ Hladio to find a counselor, and he wanted him to -- the counselor to send Judge McBride confidential reports. Judge McBride told him, he said to him, Andy, if you don't get counseling, your behavior is going to bring you down.
So he would -- directly, he said the behavior had to stop, he viewed it as being retaliatory, and he told him then that the next course of action for him would be to report him to the Conduct Board.
Q And did Judge Hladio comply with submitting confidential reports from counseling?
A To my knowledge, no, he did not. And I believe that because I was in the meeting of May 17th -- I'm sorry, not May 17th, October 17th, 2014. And Judge McBride had told Judge Hladio he had reviewed his notes prior to convening the meeting on October 17th, and he went to his file and did not see any reports.
He didn't recall receiving reports and wanted to check. He believes he -- that Judge Hladio, if he did go to counseling, did not forward or have the treating physician forward any reports to him.
Q And
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Attorney Flaherty, one moment. Ms. Kane, would you come up here, please. (Pause.)
You may proceed.
MS. FLAHERTY: Thank you. BY MS. FLAHERTY:
Q And, Ms. Bowers, during those meetings, was there also a directive pertaining to seeking legal counsel with AOPC?
A Yes. They encouraged him to do that at the first meeting, because Judge McBride had told him, my next step is to report you to the Judicial Conduct Board. And he also told him that if you get sued, this is going to be on your own dime. He said, you risk losing a lot.
So he encouraged him to call AOPC legal counsel, hoping that maybe if he heard that, that would be an incentive to stop the behavior.
Q To your knowledge, did he follow through with that directive?
A To my knowledge, he did. Yes, I believe he did contact AOPC legal. From -- I recall conversations I had with my court administrator, I -- and John McBride. I believe he did follow through.
Q From your observations at the meetings with Judge McBride and Mr. DeFilippi, was Judge Hladio receptive to what Judge McBride was saying to him?
A In terms of the counseling, I couldn't tell.
Q Overall.
A I know -- overall? I would say his demeanor changed drastically between the first two meetings, the one in 2012 and 2014. The one we had in May 2016, MDJ Hladio's demeanor was combative. He would shout. He would talk over Judge McBride.
I'm going to -- I recall the first two meetings, I don't think he liked the substance of the conversation. He disputed it, but in a respectful manner. Because at the second meeting, Judge McBride told him pointblank that the behavior didn't stop; and that he was going to report him to the Judicial Conduct Board. He told him that pointblank.
And -- but the thing that sticks out in my mind is this last meeting on May 17th, that he was combative with Judge McBride and made statements like, well, maybe -- maybe you don't like me because you're not a single hand -- you're not a handicapped single male; people think I'm a stupid idiot because I'm in a cart.
And Judge McBride said that was not true, that he had a longtime close friend who was in a wheelchair, that he didn't think that had anything to do with his -- his disability was not -- not impacting people's perceptions; people's perceptions and opinions of him were being formed by his disrespectful treatment of them.
And Judge Hladio responded, well, maybe they don't like a single handicapped male, and I have an issue with that and I'm tired of it. People don't listen to me. And -- but his demeanor was so different than the first two meetings.
Judge McBride offered at this -- at the May 16th meeting to offer to place a call to Judges Concerned for Judges or to an EAP program offered by AOPC. And all he had to do was let Judge McBride know and he would do it.
Judge McBride said that he really felt that people's treatment of him was not based on his disability, but of the -- due to the manner in which he was treating people.
And he -- they used -- used an example of the way he treated ADA Ashley Elias, that she left the courtroom in tears. That was witnessed by a colleague, who actually left the courtroom and went and got the district attorney and said, you have to come down to the courtroom.
And this ADA feared retaliation, so much so that when Judge McBride said this to Judge Hladio, his -- he replied, if they were fearful of me, that's fantastic. And he said, people treat me differently because of my handicap; people like to get an edge on you complaining, and people have a bad perception of handicapped people.
And again, Judge McBride reiterated, it was not his physical challenges; it was his behavior, his demeanor, and the way he was treating people that people were complaining of. And he again reiterated that there were counseling resources, Employee Assistance Programs, and Judges Concerned for Judges.
And we ended the meeting by -- the judge said, people are concerned about you. He said, that's what I'm concerned about and you should be concerned about too.
But that -- the whole demeanor was dramatically different from the previous two.
Q And how about during the individual meetings that you had with Judge Hladio, how was his demeanor then?
A His demeanor with me was fine. I think there's times he disagreed with what I was asking him. I asked him about -- told him we had gotten a complaint from the Housing Authority, who filed a landlord-tenant case.
They had a -- they were seeking an eviction, of course. It was -- they had a two-hour hearing, and at the end of the hearing, MDJ Hladio said, well, I'm going to continue this case for 60 days for you guys to work this out.
And so when I talked to Judge Hladio about it, he said -- and I pointed out the rule that said, you know, you've got to make a decision within three days, that's what the rule requires. And he said to me, well, if that's what you want me to do, I'll do it. And I said, it's not what I want, it's what the rules require.
But, you know, it was -- I'm not going to say he was combative or hostile with me at all. He was not. It was -- I just thought it was unusual.
And we had another instance at Central Court where we had a defendant who was waiving a case that was proceeding by summons, and the clerk noticed that there was a warrant out for this individual. And when we called the MDJ office, it was an arrest warrant, an active arrest warrant for this defendant on a corruption of minors charge.
And the clerk told MDJ Hladio. And he proceeded to take the waiver and set ROR bond on the summons case. He did not tell the -- he did not tell the deputy to take him into custody. He wrote on the ROR bond to -- for this individual to report to the office where the warrant was issued out of within two weeks.
So when I asked him about that later, initially his response was, oh, I thought it was a Common Pleas warrant and that the deputy would just take him into custody. And later in the conversation, he said, well, I thought it was a summary warrant, and that's why I told him to go clear up the warrant within a couple of weeks on the corruption of minors charge.
MDJ Hladio practiced criminal law for a long time prior to going on the bench. And a corruption of minors charge is not a summary offense, it's a Felony 3, or at least in that case that's what the grading was.
He was not combative. It was just an unusual conversation.
Q What's the frequency with which you've received complaints about Judge Hladio? Let me rephrase that.
Have you noticed a change in the frequency of complaints about Judge Hladio through the years?
A I have. I would say that I had -- I have one long memo from 2012 that contained a handful of, I think, I won't say insignificant, but issues. And then 2014, there were some more.
But 2016, I believe I wrote eight confidential memos describing a variety of issues, from the Housing Authority's complaint to the juvenile -- the juvenile defendant's mother complaining, to his treatment of clerk -- the clerks at Central Court, the assistant district attorneys, his own staff.
And two -- so within a 10-month period in 2016, I wrote eight confidential memos to the president judge and court administrator regarding different complaints I had had, even including two complaints from the judge himself about our employees, where I investigated and did a follow-up.
Q So when you say you wrote a memo to the file, does that include the complaint and the results of your investigation?
A Yes.
Q Now, let's move to some of these more recent incidents. And at this time, I'd like you to -- I have sent you, as an attachment to an e-mail, a copy of the Board Exhibits 1 through 7. Do you have those there in front of you?
A I do.
Q Would you please look through those now and ascertain if they are accurate copies of the documents that you received or generated?
A Yes.
MS. FLAHERTY: At this time, I would like to hand up copies of those seven exhibits to the Court, if I may.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: That's fine.
MS. FLAHERTY: We have already provided a copy to opposing counsel.
(January 4, 2017, memo from Nancy Borkowski marked as Board Exhibit Number 1.)
(Confidential Memorandum dated. May 13, 2016 marked as Board Exhibit Number 2.)
(E-mails May 10, 2016 marked as Board Exhibit Number 3.)
(10/18/16 e-mail from Hladio to Aileen Bowers marked as Board Exhibit Number 4.)
(Confidential Memorandum dated October 19, 2016 marked as Board Exhibit Number 5.)
(E-mail December 7, 2016 marked as Board Exhibit Number 6.)
(E-Mail dated January 5, 2017, from Judge Hladio to John McBride marked as Board Exhibit Number 7.)
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Any objection?
MS. EAKIN: No objection. Thank you very much. BY MS. FLAHERTY:
Q Ms. Bowers, have you had an opportunity to look through those exhibits?
A I have.
Q And are they accurate copies of the original documents?
A They are. They appear to be just as I received them or generated them.
Q Thank you. Could you please turn
MS. FLAHERTY: And I would like to submit those to the Court for admission as part of the record. I can do it now or I can do it later, if you prefer, after we have looked through them.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Since there are no objections to them, you can move them into the record.
MS. FLAHERTY: Yes. I'd like to move those into admission now.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: And there being no objection, they're admitted.
MS. EAKIN: No objection. BY MS. FLAHERTY:
Q Ms. Bowers, we're going to look at Board Exhibit 1, and if you could just identify for us what that is.
A This is a memo from Nancy Borkowski, the office manager in District Court 36-1-01, that she faxed to the court administrator's office and asked for this to be added to her file.
Q And what is the date of that?
A January 4, 2017.
Q And could you summarize the content of that for the Court, please?
A This appears to be a dispute between the judge and the office manager, where he accused her of either adding something to a criminal complaint or taking something out of it, basically altering the criminal complaint, which she denied.
She understands that, you know, a clerk would never, or should not do anything to original documents, that they are not -- do not have the authority to add anything or take anything out.
And he said that there was one page that wais not there yesterday. And she -- I guess they had a dispute over whether she added a page to this complaint. She said she didn't.
Q Did she say -- did she describe Judge Hladio's demeanor when they were having this disagreement?
A She described him as being very intimidating and very angry, and it upset her.
Q Thank you.
Besides Ms. Borkowski -- and I don't believe we have an exhibit. I'm just going to ask you. Did you receive communications from Shannon Preininger regarding her concerns about a communication from Judge Hladio?
A There was an e-mail that was sent to the Court of Common Pleas and to all the MDJs. My colleague, Bill Hare
Q Is that the same as Exhibit 7, the January 7th -- January 5th, 2017
A Yes. Yes, it is. Yes, it is.
Q So Ms. Preininger was aware of that e-mail?
A It was -- I was made aware of it through Judge McBride and my colleague, Bill Hare. And I made her aware of it as well.
Q We will discuss that e-mail a little later on, but is it sufficient to say her name is mentioned within that e-mail?
A It is.
Q And is it critical of Ms. Preininger?
A It is critical of her, yes.
Q So when she reached out to you, can you summarize your discussion with her?
A I received an e-mail from her that after she read it, she said that -- she asked if I set up -- could set up a meeting with him, and she said because she wanted to refute this. She was afraid of the perception that the other MDJs and the Court of Common Pleas judges would have of her, because it inferred that she didn't know how to do her job.
My response to her was to let it go, that meeting with MDJ Hladio would be futile because, based on the meeting I had with Judge McBride back in May, that he would not be receptive to having a meeting where you could talk about things amicably.
And my response to her was, you've established your own reputation over the years, and it will be futile to have a discussion with him over this. You're not going to change his mind.
Q And have you had a recent meeting with Ambridge Police Chief James Mann?
A I did. It was not something planned. He stopped by my office. But we did have a conversation within the last couple weeks.
Q Can you describe what that was about?
A He asked me, he said, how can I get my -- we can't go in front of him, meaning Judge Hladio, because I don't think we can get a fair hearing, and
Q Define -- excuse me for the interruption. Who is "we"?
A Ambridge Police Department, his department he doesn't feel can get a fair hearing. And I -- my response was, the president judge, who is now Judge Mancini, is limited in what he can do.
I said, if you feel that way, pending the outcome of the disciplinary matter -- and at that time, we didn't even know that this had been scheduled. I suggested that maybe -- that maybe the judge would be open to moving the overweight truck cases.
And I said that only because in the criminal complaint, that's what the Ambridge police complained -- that was their big complaint, most defined or the biggest impact, pending the outcome of the disciplinary matter.
So that was the extent of our conversation. I told him, you know, the judge, the president judge is limited in what they can do, but that would be an option, to ask the president judge if he would consider moving some of -- I didn't say all. I thought maybe it would be reasonable to move the overweight truck cases.
Q Since then, have you become aware of a request from Chief Mann for change of venue?
A I have. I was not included in the meeting. I became aware that Chief Mann went to Judge Mancini and has talked to the current district attorney, Dave Lozier, about that. And I am not aware of what transpired in that meeting, what Judge Mancini's response was, or where that stands.
I know I would -- if Judge Mancini had made a decision, I would have seen a court order to the effect that certain types of cases or all the cases would be moved to another district.
Q Next, let's talk about complaints that you may have received from members of the public who appeared before Judge Hladio.
A In particular, do you want me to discuss
Q Yes, I would like you to discuss the complaint you received from a mother of a truant.
A Last May, I was in the front business office. And a woman came in and said, I have a complaint I want to make about a magisterial district judge.
Q And before you go on with that, may I just refer the Court to Board Exhibits 2 and 3, which are your confidential memo on this matter and then an e-mail pertaining to your investigation.
And I apologize for the interruption. Could you please go on and describe your meeting with the mother of the truant.
A The mother came -- said to me that she had just come directly from her daughter's court hearing before MDJ Hladio. And she was very upset. And she said that her daughter was there on a contempt charge.
And that puzzled me, because to have a juvenile on a contempt charge was somewhat unusual. But, as she explained it, her daughter had previously been in front of the judge on a truancy hearing. And she admitted to me, she said, my daughter was rude, disrespectful. She said, my daughter has mental health issues and she's pregnant.
And at the conclusion of the truancy hearing, her daughter must have used an expletive or a swear word; and the judge had his office manager, Nancy Borkowski, file a contempt citation against her.
So they appeared on May 9th for this contempt hearing. Now, apparently the judge was irritated with them because that was not the scheduled public defender day. And the juvenile didn't know that.
And, in fact, the juvenile probation officer had prepared her to go in and to be conciliatory, to apologize, which apparently, to start the hearing, that's what the child did. She apologized and said she was sorry for her prior behavior.
And allegedly, Judge Hladio responded something to the effect of, oh, well, you know, drug dealers come in and say they're sorry, but that doesn't mean they stop selling drugs. So that got the attention of the mother and the child and the probation officer, who thought it was a very off-the-wall comment; and that the child said I don't sell drugs.
She said that the judge had his head down most of the time, didn't lift his head, didn't make eye contact. At times, he would be in mid-sentence and stop for as long as 90 seconds to two minutes.
He threatened to put her in jail for contempt. He made comments about that other court personnel talk about this juvenile, that he knows what she's all about, which was very upsetting and I don't believe to be true, based on the confidential nature of juvenile proceedings. And at times, he was chewing a piece of gum so loudly they had trouble understanding what he was saying.
So -- and then the mother was further upset because when they were leaving the office, the office manager gave them a piece of paper that she wanted them to sign. And apparently this is a standard -- standard information that is typically given to people who are charged with 1543(b), driving under suspension. That they need to get a lawyer; that they need -- that they risk going to jail.
And I think the mother and the daughter were confused by the paper, because the daughter was not charged with the offenses that were -- that was in this homemade or office-generated form. So they didn't want to sign it. And the office manager just -- relented, but said, you need to get a lawyer. So they rescheduled the contempt hearing.
So there was a lot of confusion on that. And I followed up with the office manager, asked her why that was given to the juvenile. And she said, well, we give that paper to anybody who's facing jail time.
And I said -- asked her, I said, you don't have anything -- you know, she's a juvenile, she's a contempt. And the office manager said, I just do as I'm told.
Q So when you have been reporting on your findings of the investigation, was this based on the report of a probation officer as well?
A Well, after I took the mother's statement, I wrote up a memo, and I also contacted Gary Rosatelli, who is the head of juvenile services. He put me in touch with a supervisor, Charles Rossi, who contacted Kris McCafferty, who is the child's probation officer.
And I asked her to write up a narrative, because I wanted the perspective of the probation officer, which may have been different than that of the mother. But the e-mail I received from the probation officer corroborated what the mother had told me.
Q And that's what the Court has in front of them as Board Exhibit 3, correct? It's that summary by the probation officer of the incident.
A Yes, the May 9th.
Q Now, have you received any complaints from Judge Hladio himself in the recent past?
A I have. I have. I received a complaint from Judge Hladio, or actually, Judge McBride received a complaint from Judge Hladio in August pertaining to a court employee, but the incident was actually in May, but was not reported until August.
And I also had a complaint about Nancy Borkowski, the office manager, not training a new employee, Pam Spencer. So I've had two recent complaints from Judge Hladio.
Q And is that -- the complaint about Nancy Borkowski, is that what the Court has before them as Board Exhibit Number 4?
A Yes, it is.
Q Can you just read into the record the date of that e-mail, who it's from and to, please?
A It's from Andrew Hladio, Tuesday, October 18th, at 1:44 p.m. And it's
Q And the year?
A 2016. October 18, 2016.
Q And who is it addressed to?
A It is addressed to myself, with copies to then President Judge McBride, current President Judge Richard Mancini, and Court Administrator Richard DeFilippi.
Q And we can all see by the subject line that it's regarding a situation about night duty and a new employee, but if you could 38 summarize for the Court
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: In all honesty, I think the Court has had an opportunity to review Board Exhibits 4 and 5, and I don't really think we need any more evidence about it. You can move on.
MS. FLAHERTY: Okay. BY MS. FLAHERTY:
Q Looking to Board Exhibit 7, that's an e-mail dated December 7, 2016, from Judge Hladio to you and also President Judge McBride, former President Judge McBride, current President Judge Mancini, Mr. DeFilippi, and Mr. Hare.
And who is Mr. Hare?
A He is the other deputy court administrator.
Q And can you just briefly summarize what was the content of that e-mail?
A Actually, this -- I was not included on this e-mail. It was not sent to me. It was sent to those judges -- I don't know why Senior Judge Dohanich is in there -- my colleague and his colleagues.
And it is complaining about me as well as Shannon Preininger, the Central Court clerk, complaining about whether there's been confusion as to whether arraignments should or should not be performed in Central Court.
But more than the confusion -- and I'm not quite sure I follow everything about the arraignments -- I think the real point of this is that he asserts that Shannon Preininger and that I have reported him to the Judicial Conduct Board, which he believes is totally improper.
And he doesn't know -- he said he doesn't know whether we did the filing ourselves or went to Judge McBride and asked him to file.
Q Does it also include that there's a highlighted portion that you provided that there was a criticism of you sending a -- or asking Andy Simpson to send a scathing report, is that correct?
A That's correct. Andy Simpson is an employee of the AOPC Judicial Programs Department. He handles -- for all Magisterial District Courts in the Commonwealth, he gets copies of audits that are done by county auditor as well as the Auditor General.
And it is his job to go through them; and when there are findings, he sends a follow-up letter to those courts and copies the court administrator and the president judge as a matter -- as a regular business practice. It is not unusual.
They are looking for MDJs to respond to the findings in the audit if they haven't done so. They like to see something in writing. He also follows up to see if there's any help or suggestions.
But Andy Simpson, that is his sole function at AOPC Judicial Programs is he's the audit scout. He gets audits from over 500 MDJ courts across the Commonwealth. And that's what he does; he follows up. That's -- that -- I've gotten the Andy Simpson letter from -- on a number of our MDJ courts.
Q Thank you. And that highlighted section, I just want to correct, for the record, that was within Exhibit 6, correct, about the scathing report? Toni is helping me out here, that I may have misstated that on the record.
In the last Board exhibit, the January 5, 2017 e-mail, I believe that's the one where he has criticized you and Ms. Preininger, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And I know the Court's eager for us to summarize here. Do you believe that the mention of you and Ms. Preininger within that e-mail was retaliatory?
A I do, because MDJ Hladio knows that Judge McBride is who -- is the individual who filed the complaint against him with the Judicial Conduct Board. He knows that. Judge McBride told him he was going to do it. He told him he did it.
Q Have you seen any evidence of bias against Judge Hladio in the local community, based on his disability?
A I have not seen that, no.
Q The same question as to the legal community.
A I have not experienced -- I have not seen that, no.
Q The same question as to his court clerks. Have you seen or heard of any bias against Judge Hladio by his court clerks, based on his disability?
A I have not seen it. They have reported to me that he makes comments to them that he believes that they -- that they make fun of him.
That he made a comment to Joanne Tisak that he said, I know you sit out there and make fun of the cripple. And she was so offended, she contacted me right away. And she told him, don't play that card with me, you know that's not true.
Q Do you know when that conversation occurred?
A I do. It was August of 2016. August 10, 2016.
Q Ms. Bowers, again, trying to summarize your testimony, have you noticed a change in Judge Hladio's ability to manage his judicial responsibilities?
A I have, in terms of his temperament. He's quick to anger. He -- it's hard to have a rational conversation with him, because things will go around in circles.
It is hard for his staff to work, because they don't -- what the rule -- what a rule is one day may not be the rule the next day. And they -- they're belittled, they're demeaned. They lack self-confidence.
Ms. Tisak also told me that he was angry because she hadn't copied a schedule and made a comment that if you can't handle a task like that, I don't know how you do the rest of your duties. And that is typical of the comments that I hear from his staff.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Ms. Flaherty, may I just interject for a moment?
MS. FLAHERTY: Yes.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: I would like to ask the witness a question. BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA:
Q Based on what you just said to us, is all of that interfering with the proper administration of justice in Magisterial District 36-1-01?
A I believe it is. Ms. Tisak -- Ms. Tisak has told us that, but for the fact she doesn't want to leave Nancy Borkowski, the office manager, to, quote, fend for herself, she would have asked for a transfer by now.
In fact, the court had even offered to transfer Ms. Borkowski in 2012. And she said, no, I've done nothing wrong, I like my job, I like my colleagues, I'm close to home. So we have offered to move her.
Ms. Tisak has come -- she's documented that she's considering asking for a transfer, but for she does not want to leave her colleague, because she fears the treatment.
Q What the Court is interested in hearing about today, and I want to make sure we're on the same wavelength, is the question that I just asked you as it pertains to 2017 so far and 2016.
So are the things you have testified about today interfering with the proper administration of justice in that District Court in both 2016 and 2017 so far? Answer it in both questions.
A I believe, yes. Yes, in both. There are indications when, in early 2016, I'm getting e-mails about -- from staff saying, he's resisting the use of part-time help, or it can only be done, part-time help is only allowed to come on hearing days, that meanwhile -- meanwhile things are piling up that need to be docketed, hearings scheduled. Things are not getting done in a timely manner. Excuse me.
Q That's okay.
A We had -- so we went from the beginning of the year, where he resisted me sending part-timers, until the end of the year, demanding that we give him another full-timer. The pendulum has swung back and forth.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Thank you, Attorney Flaherty.
Let me ask any of my fellow judges, do you have any questions, based on what I asked? Judge Barton?
JUDGE BARTON: I do. BY MS. FLAHERTY:
Q And to follow up on that, what is the willingness of the part-timers to be assigned to that court?
A I have -- I have had part-timers
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: She can get a glass of water. BY MS. FLAHERTY:
Q Yes, do you want to get a glass of water? It's right behind you. We can wait.
A Thank you.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: After you finish your question, Judge Barton does have a question.
MS. FLAHERTY: Okay.
A There are current part-time staff and former part-time staff that would refuse to work in that office. There were times I had to -- just to staff the office, I might have to borrow a full-timer from another court.
And I've had full-timers from other courts tell their MDJ, upon return, don't ever ask me to go there again. BY MS. FLAHERTY:
Q And why are they responding that way or making those statements? Do they say?
A Because of the way -- he doesn't talk to people. He talks at people. He talks down to people. He shouts at people.
I think they're shocked when they see the difference in his demeanor as compared to what they're used to in their own courts.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Judge Barton.
JUDGE BARTON: Thank you, Judge Panella. BY JUDGE BARTON:
Q Ms. Bowers, in responding to Judge Panella's question about whether Judge Hladio's behavior is currently interfering with the administration of justice, you indicated that things are piling up.
Can you be more specific? Tell me what evidence you have that things are or are not piling up and the work is or is not getting done.
A Well, the last audit that was done, they had a finding of inadequate warrant procedures and DL-38s, the driver's license suspension. So that's an indication of
Q What was the time period for that audit? That audit period covered some prior years, though, right?
A Right, right.
Q We're trying to focus in on what's occurring in 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And, in fact, even if we could go in more detail, I would be interested from when the complaint was filed on December 7th of 2016 through today.
Do you have any evidence that the administration of justice is being affected by his conduct since December 7th through today?
A I do not, other than the complaint that came in from Nancy Borkowski about the way she was treated.
I still think that he tries to -- for some reason, there has to be -- he only wants people on days he has hearings, even though there is work to be done. There's work to be done on days other than hearing days. And sometimes it's beyond the capability of two people. If they have -- if they have to wait on the window, if they have to docket things, if the phone is ringing.
Let me just say that we had an employee retire from that office in May of 2016. She gave us a year's notice. I started asking MDJ Hladio in January of 2016 to please start interviewing people, looking for candidates, and so that we would be able to fill that full-time position as soon as the person -- as soon as the person retired.
And we had a gap. Linda David retired in May of 2016; and Pamela Spencer did not start until July of 2016, because I didn't have a recommendation until July. He interviewed -- he interviewed people over and over and over again. And I know that, because I had a part-timer at his office who told me she -- he interviewed her four times. And she was -- she could have stepped in and started right after Linda David retired. And he didn't hire her, and that's fine, but we had gaps -- we had a two-month gap of not having three full-timers in that office.
I even kept the part-timer going there after he hired Ms. Spencer, because you've got this -- you've got this learning curve for new employees. They just don't step in and hit the ground running.
So when Linda David retired, that left Joanne Tisak as the only person to do night duty, because Ms. Borkowski in 2012 requested that she no longer have to do night duty, because she didn't want to be alone -- left alone with him.
Q Any other evidence of the administration of justice impacted from December 7th through the present time?
A Not that I'm aware of, Your Honor.
JUDGE BARTON: Thank you.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Anybody else? Thank you. You may proceed.
MS. FLAHERTY: Okay. Thank you. BY MS. FLAHERTY:
Q Ms. Bowers, based on your experience with these complaints from various people, including Judge Hladio, do you question his ability to properly supervise his court clerks and manage his court as a healthy work environment?
A I do. I do. And I base that on an interview I did with the most recent hire, Pam Spencer. MDJ Hladio had made an allegation that Ms. Borkowski was not helping train her, that she snapped at her, that she wasn't helping her get up to speed.
And so I brought Ms. Spencer in and interviewed her. I wanted to find out whether that was accurate, because I was concerned that it might be that maybe Nancy had reached the end of her rope, that maybe MDJ was retaliating against MDJ Hladio, or maybe there was a personality conflict.
So I brought Ms. Spencer down to the courthouse and interviewed her. And I asked her -- I addressed all those things. Are you being snapped at? Are you -- is she helping you? Is she being difficult with you? Is she rude to you?
And she answered no. And she finally said, where is this coming from? Nancy has been nothing but helpful. And she said, I know the judge doesn't like her.
And the other thing that Ms. Spencer said to me that leads me to believe that he cannot manage his staff in a healthy way is her statement about that the four of them, meaning the judge and the three clerks, were talking about how Pam would get ready -- learn how to do night duty. And she said, the four of us were talking today about this; that doesn't happen very often, because sometimes the judge doesn't let Nancy and Joanne talk.
And that -- that statement came -- that was on October 19th. Ms. Spencer had been an employee since middle of July. And those were the observations she made.
Q Did Ms. Spencer say if Judge Hladio had criticized her coworkers?
A She did. And she said it made her feel very uncomfortable.
Q Do you believe it's possible for Beaver County court administration, including the president judge and the court administrators, to effectively handle this matter with Judge Hladio?
A At this point, I do not. I -- we met with Judge Mc -- Judge McBride addressed him in 2012, 2014, and 2016. It does not appear to have had any impact on him.
And in October of 2016, Judge McBride and I had a conversation about whether Rule 704 could possibly be applied in this situation, and he even went to the extent of calling -- of contacting Tom Darr, the court administrator, the state court administrator, to see if it was possible that if a president judge who believes that a judge cannot effectively carry out their duties because of a mental or physical impairment, that you can take some action.
We had that discussion. Judge McBride contacted Tom Darr. Tom Darr was having AOPC legal look into it.
I'm not sure where that ended up, because then the complaint was filed on December 7th. But I can tell you, that's the point we had reached in October of 2016.
Q Finally, if you could please let the Court know about any accommodations you have made for Judge Hladio, based on his needs due to his disability.
A Well, early on, we added a ramp so that he could -- a ramp to courtroom number 3 here at the courthouse, so he could access the bench at Central Court. We added automatic door openers to the exterior door at his court in Ambridge.
We have since made -- he asked for different microphones at Central Court, which we provided. And we're in the process of installing equipment that MDJ Hladio will be able to open -- use an automatic door opener to open interior doors at his court. So those are things that the county and the courts have procured to help him.
We also have a second tipstaff here when he is on Central Court duty to help him, because there are doors we can -- such as security doors, secured corridors that go to chambers, that we cannot put an automatic door opener, because it would defeat the security risk -- the security for those doors.
Q Thank you, Ms. Bowers.
MS. FLAHERTY: Now, I have just been informed by my assistant that it is 11:45. Do you know if Chief Mann has knocked at the door there yet or not?
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: May we have some input on that? The Court just consulted with itself, and we don't have a necessity to hear from Chief Mann. So if you're
MS. FLAHERTY: Okay.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: If you are finished with your presentation, Attorney Eakin could cross-examine the witness, if she would like, but we don't really need to hear from Chief Mann.
THE WITNESS: May I have a moment to tell
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: The answer, anticipating what your question is, yes, you may tell him. Is that what your question was going to be? So he can leave?
MS. FLAHERTY: Was that your question?
THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't --
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Yes, I'm talking to you, Ms. Bowers.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I would just like to be able to tell him, because he's a witness in a homicide trial, and the trial judge is having a nervous breakdown about him leaving the
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Let's get him back there. Why don't you tell him he can leave, if that's okay with you, Attorney Flaherty. We don't really have a need to hear from him.
MS. FLAHERTY: Okay. We do -- actually, we do -- we were prepared for this in case this might arise. We do have a sworn letter from Chief Mann that we can submit as an exhibit.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: If there's no objection to that.
MS. EAKIN: There's not.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: We will gladly take that in lieu of his testimony.
MS. FLAHERTY: Do you want me to hand that up to the Court at this point, or after she does her cross-examination of Ms. Bowers?
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Why don't we finish with Ms. Bowers first, and then that way we will keep things in order on the transcript.
MS. FLAHERTY: Certainly.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: That's okay. Please.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. EAKIN:
Q Good afternoon, almost. I just have a few follow-up questions for you, Ms. Bowers.
Am I correct that the Central Court takes place right in the courthouse, right?
A That's correct. It's here at the Beaver County Courthouse.
Q Is it done in a courtroom?
A Yes, it is.
Q And how many people generally are in that courtroom during Central Court?
A Oh, it can be a lot. You have the gallery. You have public defenders and DAs. So sometimes you may have 30 people in that courtroom at the same time.
Q And everybody's negotiating their cases?
A Yes.
Q Trying to get things worked out?
A Yes.
Q And there's stuff going on up at the bench?
A Correct.
Q And it gets loud?
A Yes.
Q Have you been in Central Court during one of these, for lack of a better term, like cattle calls?
A Yes, I have.
Q And sometimes do the judges have to raise their voices to, I guess, be heard over the din in the courtroom?
A Yes. And sometimes some of them clear the courtroom when it gets to that extreme.
Q And have you seen this done by multiple judges, not just Judge Hladio?
A Yes.
Q Do any of the other judges ever raise their voices during Central Court to gain people's attention?
A Yes.
Q Have you personally witnessed any of this erratic behavior that you've described for us, aside from the meeting? I'm not talking about the May 17, 2016 meeting with the judge.
What I'm talking about is personally, when you were in Central Court, have you ever seen erratic behavior yourself?
A You mean like the demeaning addressing of the assistant district attorney, or the way he refused to acknowledge ADA Elias?
Q That's what I'm asking you, did you observe this?
A I have not observed that. That has -- that has been told to me by other lawyers, staff, sheriff's deputies, the district attorney.
Q So even though you have been in Central Court when Judge Hladio was there, right?
A Yes.
Q But you never observed any behavior.
A When I say I'm in Central Court, I'm -- I may stop in and then pick up, you know, or ask the clerk a question and leave. I don't -- Central Court is something that sometimes normally goes on for three hours. I don't stay in there.
Q Sure.
A And that's with any -- any judge.
Q All right. Now, with regard to -- you said that you sat through three meetings with Judge McBride. You said one was in 2012. Do you recall that date?
A Yes, I do. If you give me one moment. It was December 1st, 2012.
Q And then you mentioned that we have the May 17, 2016 date.
A I'm sorry.
Q Go ahead.
A I'm sorry. That's -- the date of my memo is December 12 -- 1st, 2012. The meeting was held Thursday, November 29th.
Q Thank you. And how about the 2014 meeting?
A That was October 16th, 2014.
Q So during that -- the time period between November 29, 2012 and May 17, 2016, you say that the judge's demeanor changed drastically.
A In those meetings, yes.
Q Can you just make us understand what you mean by that?
A I would say that during the first -- when I'm looking back here at my memos, the November 29th meeting, he listened to Judge McBride and then said he disagreed with some of the allegations, saying they were inaccurate, and went on to place blame on former employees and current employees in his office.
That's the only thing I have. And I don't recall him being rude or disrespectful or anything to Judge McBride.
The 2014 meeting, when I go through this, the only statement I have in here from Judge Hladio is that he claims his office manager was using his previous complaint, quote, as a crutch, and that she had been insubordinate. Judge McBride advised MDJ Hladio that it would be in his best interest to say as little as possible and obtain legal counsel.
So I don't remember -- I don't think MDJ Hladio agreed with Judge McBride and some of the allegations, but I would consider it something that was civil.
And that was remarkably different than the meeting we had on Tuesday, May 17th, where Judge -- I would describe Judge Hladio as very irritable, combative, raising his voice, talking over Judge McBride. And that's -- I think it was a remarkably different demeanor than what I had seen in the first two meetings.
Q All right. Now, you mentioned that you made accommodations for Judge Hladio's physical disability, right?
A Correct.
Q Are you aware of what his exact medical condition is?
A My understanding is that he has muscular dystrophy.
Q And have you seen him struggle in the courtroom with regard to trying to gain access to files?
A I have not seen that. He has made that complaint to me. And I have asked the clerks to ask him what his preference is, whether he wants them to place the file on the bench itself, where he wants it placed.
And we actually have a tipstaff in the courtroom with him now whose job is to solely be with him during the course of the day, to open doors and to do those things.
Q They actually have to hand the files up to the bench, right?
A Absolutely. They have to place them on the bench.
Q Because he can't reach.
A That's correct. I have noticed that his range of motion has deteriorated.
Q And when you say that, you believe that based upon those three meetings you had with Judge McBride, or just in interacting with him in the courthouse?
A I would just say my observations. If I stop in to pick up paper to get it to the clerk of courts, and I see him trying to -- I know that it's hard for him. I've seen over the years. It is difficult for him to put on his robe; it takes him longer to do that.
So those are observations I've made. I've noticed it is difficult for him to sign his name when he's got to put his name on a warrant, that it's impacted his ability to sign his name legibly.
Q Now, I want to direct your attention to August 2016. Did you receive a complaint from the judge with regard to a comment that had been made to him by court personnel when he was using his cart down a back hallway?
A That complaint went to Judge McBride, who turned it over to me to investigate. So that complaint was made in August?
Q Correct.
A And -- but the incident was in May.
Q Right. And what
A And it occurred -- I'm sorry. I just wanted to say, we figure -- that that incident happened right after MDJ Hladio left Judge McBride's chambers after the meeting we had.
Q Oh, the meeting where you say he was more erratic?
A Belligerent and hostile towards Judge McBride, yes.
Q And what was the complaint?
A May I -- if I can just
Q Anything you need to look at, with regard to the scooter and the horn.
A Um-hmm.
Q Does the name Dee Wicz mean anything to you?
A Oh, absolutely. Her proper name is Dolores Wicz, W-i-c-z. And she worked for the courts for almost 60 years. She started at age 18. She's one of those grande dame people that are in every courthouse in the Commonwealth who has been there forever.
Q Right.
A Is highly respected.
Q Does this help you? Did Judge Hladio make a complaint to you that she had made a comment to him about slowing down, that he should have a horn for his cart?
A He did not make that complaint to me. He sent an e-mail to Judge McBride on August 8th, and he -- Judge McBride forwarded the e-mail to me and to Mr. DeFilippi.
So in the course of my investigation, because this complaint wasn't made until August 8th, we determined, in talking -- when I talked to Shannon Preininger and asked her if she had any recollection of this event, she said, yes, but this happened, she said, two or three months ago.
And she said that Mrs. Wicz was walking up the hallway -- because she was a retired employee, she typically worked half a day -- and was leaving. It was around, somewhere around the lunch hour.
Q Sure.
A And she was with a juror headed out to go home. And she said MDJ Hladio came, as she said, flying up the hallway on his scooter. And she said, hey, buddy, you better put a horn on that thing. And she said she was j oking.
And MDJ Hladio, as he was going by, said, stop, you know, you're making fun of me. And, of course, she was mortified. She said, I am not making fun of you; I would never do that.
Q Have you noticed at all, in your interactions with the judge, have you noticed his sensitivity to his disability?
A Based -- he's not made those statements to me, but I -- he has made those statements to other people, yes.
Q Thank you. Thank you. Now, I just have one other area I really just want to touch on with you.
You said that during your last meeting with Judge McBride and Judge Hladio, the one that you said was very, very tense, that there was a suggestion made that with regard to Judges for Judges and some intervention possibly as far as counseling?
A Yes.
Q And did he make any comments about that recommendation?
A I don't believe so. I don't believe so. I just have in my notes that the judge offered to place a call to Judges Concerned for Judges in order for MDJ Hladio to start with a professional counselor in order to work through these issue. Judge McBride said he didn't want the judge to place the call, he wouldn't do it.
That's the one thing, Judge McBride in 2012 told him to go for counseling. And in 2014, he observed that he didn't believe he had gone for counseling. And in 2016, he made the suggestion that he seek employee assistance or would make a referral to Judges Concerned for Judges.
Q To the best of your knowledge, and I'm simply asking you whether or not you know, did Judge McBride ever rescind his recommendation that Judge Hladio should go into some sort of counseling?
A To my knowledge, no, because it's in the 2012 memo, it's in the 2014 memo, and it's in the 2016 most recent meeting memo.
MS. EAKIN: If I can have just a minute, Judge.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Yes.
(Pause.) BY MS. EAKIN:
Q Ms. Bowers, what is the policy as far as arraignments in Central Court?
A I'm confused by his -- by the judge's e-mail. When we have arraignments, that could be -- they could arraign people who are on cases preceded by a summons who are there.
And if the case has either been waived or held for court, then an arraignment is done on cases that proceed by summons. Usually, it's doing nothing more than setting ROR bond. So they do that type of arraignments routinely.
But while judges are in Central Court, they have a backup. There's always -- they have -- judges have someone covering their office while they're in Central Court.
Q Sure.
A So if there is a warrant out of their office or if officers from their district pick up somebody who needs to be arraigned, they take them to the adjacent jurisdiction.
Q Right.
A Or whoever, whichever MDJ is covering.
So I'm not sure -- I've seen the e-mail and the question about arraignments and, frankly, I'm not sure I understand it.
Q Okay. That's what I suspected.
Since this complaint has been filed with the Board, has Judge Hladio been sitting in Central Court?
A Not yet. He's scheduled next week. His -- the last time he was here was the last week of December, the week between Christmas and New Year's. And I was -- I was not -- I was on vacation those three days, so I was not in the courthouse those three days. But he has not been here for Central Court since that last week of December.
Q And that's because you rotate one judge one week, and there are eight judges, right?
A That's correct.
Q That's why he would be coming up shortly in the -- I guess next in order? He sat Christmas week.
A Yes. Yes. Yes. So for Christmas week, eight weeks later, he will be here next week.
MS. EAKIN: Thank you, ma'am. Thank you very much.
A Thank you.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Any redirect?
MS. FLAHERTY: No, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: May we dismiss Ms. Bowers then?
MS. EAKIN: Absolutely.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Ms. Bowers, you can return to your regular duties. And we are going to shut the video off. We thank you very much.
A Thank you so much.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: You're welcome.
MS. FLAHERTY: Thank you.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Attorney Flaherty.
MS. FLAHERTY: Yes. As I mentioned previously, because of Chief Mann's busy schedule up there with the homicide trial, he did draft a letter, and it is to the Court and it is a sworn statement. And we would now like to present that to the Court as Board's Exhibit 8.
I don't believe -- I have already provided that to Ms. Eakin.
MS. EAKIN: I have no objection.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: And that is admitted.
(Sworn statement by Chief James Mann marked as Board Exhibit Number 8.)
MS. FLAHERTY: I believe, and in respect to the Court, I believe that the letter speaks for itself, and I don't feel compelled to do a proffer as to its contents, for the sake of time.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Okay.
MS. FLAHERTY: So I would, as long as -- oh, and I do have two other exhibits that I'd like to provide to the Court, and those are the transcripts of the depositions of Judge Hladio and -- let me check the dates on those. Excuse me one moment. (Pause.)
The first one is dated March 10, 2015; and the second one is dated October 26, 2016. So that -- the first one, the March 2015 is Board's Exhibit 9.
The October 26, 2016, is Board's Exhibit 10. And the thumb drive is being submitted as part of Board's Exhibit 10. That's the audio-video recording of that deposition.
(3/10/15 deposition of Judge Hladio marked as Board Exhibit Number 9.)
(10/26/16 deposition of Judge Hladio and thumb drive marked as Board Exhibit Number 10.)
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: So we have both the transcript as well as the audio-video.
MS. FLAHERTY: Yes, and it's printed. I do apologize to the Court. In preparing for this hearing, we did not have an opportunity to edit that recording. So there's some downtime at the beginning, and Toni clearly marked on the bag where it starts so you could move right into that portion.
And there may be some other downtimes where we're taking a break. Certainly, we would have that in polished condition for trial, as needed.
Thank you. I have nothing more on direct.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: So you rest?
MS. FLAHERTY: Yes.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Okay. May I make a suggestion? We would like a five-minute recess. The Court will be in recess for about five minutes.
The Court is now in recess.
(Brief recess.)
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: We are ready to hear Judge Hladio's side.
MS. EAKIN: We are going to try to streamline this a bit, Judge. Does he need to be sworn in?
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: You know, that is a policy now. I'm sorry about that.
ANDREW M. HLADIO, called as a witness, being sworn, testified as follows:
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: We accept that. You may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. EAKIN:
Q Just for the record, state your name, and spell your last name, for the record.
A Andrew M. Hladio, H-l-a-d-i-o.
Q You are the respondent in this case?
A That is correct.
Q Judge, when were you elected to your magisterial district?
A I believe 2009.
Q Now, could you explain for the Court's purposes what exactly your medical situation is at this point?
A What my medical -- my circumstances are, how some people get, you know, cancer or heart disease whenever you're born and that shows up later in life. I ultimately was walking, running, just like any other person. I was playing basketball, baseball, was on my baseball team in 9th grade.
And then in, like, 10th, 11th, 12th grade, my shoulder muscles and hip muscles started to weaken. And it ended up being a form -- I went down to see doctors, and I ended up having a type of muscular dystrophy. The type I had is called limb-girdle muscular dystrophy.
And whenever I was diagnosed, what they told me what would happen is, the muscles in the hip and the shoulders would weaken, and generally from about 18 to 35, 36; and eventually there probably would come a point where I would probably have to use a wheelchair, either through the muscles weakening or other circumstances.
In my circumstances, what happened was I would stand and walk. I went to law school in Widener University, Delaware Law School of Widener University. I graduated in '88, and I was still walking then.
I graduated. I went back to my hometown area, the Pittsburgh area. I was still walking then. I -- as an attorney, when I started practicing there, I would actually walk into the courtroom.
And I had to figure out what would work for me, because eventually what would happen, it was difficult for me to get into a standing position from a chair.
JUDGE BARTON: Judge, we have a great court reporter, but you are going really fast.
A I'm sorry. You're right.
JUDGE BARTON: If we could ask you to slow down. We have all the time in the world.
A I apologize for that. Thank you.
But what happened was, when I graduated in '88 and went back to western PA, started practicing as an attorney with Rob Taylor, and they -- I had a difficult time, because at that time I still could walk, but whenever I sat, I walked into the courtroom and I sat down, it was difficult for me to elevate, stand up to a standing position and then stand upright.
So what I ended up doing was I designed a small, lightweight podium that I carried with me. I carried my briefcase and this podium with me and walked in and out of the courtrooms.
During my jury trials, I would put the collapsible podium on the table there. I would stand. And I was still able to stand and walk, even though there was weakness.
And, sorry, the question is supposed to deal with the medical matter, but -- and so I would stand through jury trials.
It eventually came to the point where in about 1999-2000, I was getting up one morning and I had a -- I took a spill, got a hairline fracture on my left leg above the knee. And it was casted. I tried to get back to standing. And essentially, I have been using this cart since that time.
Q All right. And as far as do you have any other health issues that changed most recently?
A Yes. Within the last about year-and-a-half, two years, I was diagnosed -- I was in a bad auto accident about four or five years ago, and where I had a couple fractured femurs, fractured jaw.
And I was actually still driving then. I had modifications to my van. I trained at Harmar, it's a wheelchair for people with quadriplegia, people of that nature. They trained me there. I did that.
I had an accident. At the time I had the accident, they mentioned to me that I had like a diabetes reaction to stress or whatever else, and they told me I might have to watch out for diabetes down the road.
About a year-and-a-half to two years ago, they did a blood test on me, and the blood sugar level was elevated. Whatever it was, they said, well, we're going to have to start prescribing this Metformin for you. You can try and do it with diet, but it's a diabetes issue now that you are going to have to deal with.
So I tried doing it with diet when I started. And one of the things, surprisingly, I started doing this broccoli diet. And it wasn't too bad, it worked, but obviously from the standpoint of foods.
So then they started prescribing Metformin with regard to that. And I've been taking that, and I have been taking some supplements and vitamin-type things over about the last year or so.
Q Does that medication in any way affect your disposition or your performing your job?
A I don't think it does. I think the diagnosis of diabetes does. With regard to -- and I looked this up. I never asked what are all the different things with diabetes.
One of the things with it, sometimes if you have blood sugar issues, it can be irritability or things of that nature. Sometimes dry mouth. A bunch of different small things, you know, that I've noticed.
And I try and make sure I regulate a little bit better with regard to food, a little bit better with regard to, you know, taking and adjusting to the Metformin, and also with regard to the supplements. And I'm slowly starting to get things with these supplements.
There's a supplement called shilajit. This may be a little pointer for anybody you know who has diabetes. I've been -- I ordered that, and it seems to be very good with regard to regulating the diabetes, blood sugar/glucose levels.
Other things I do too is I'll take a little lunch bag now. And I take it sometimes to Central Court, and I'll put the little lunch bag up on the bench. I'll have a drink there just in case for me. Sometimes I'll have a cheese stick or something like that.
Also when I'm in my Ambridge office, I'll take that and have some things, like nuts, you know, things of that nature.
Q You have been -- you have obviously been served with a copy of the NOFI?
A Yes.
Q You sat through this proceeding today and
A Yes.
Q -- listened to the court administrator. You are aware the allegations are essentially that your disposition has become increasingly erratic over the last approximately two years. What do you have to say about that?
A I disagree with that. I mean, as an attorney, I have dealt with a lot of different things, issues and things of that sort on the job.
I am doing my best at doing the job and dealing with odd and strange situations that, you know -- by and large, I -- from my standpoint, I disagree with her assessment, if that's what you're referencing, Aileen Bowers.
Q Correct. So these allegations by either -- well, we will get into it a little bit more specifically.
A Sure.
Q But with regard, there were police, staff, district attorneys, the public, that -- and the police officers who supposedly cited your behavior, nuances with regard to your irritability, you disagree with that?
A Well, I mean, any time you're in -- that's what everybody says. Whenever you're at the bottom level of the court system, you get to see the ground level of everything.
And any time you're there, any district judge will tell you, there's some crazy days. I mean, I worked as a public defender for about 18 years. And you got to see, you know, a lot of different interesting issues there too.
And so you do your best to get through it. And you are dealing with people, everyday people. And there are some days that can get a little more difficult to get through than most, and you do your best to get through it.
Q Do you ever raise your voice in Central Court?
A I have. I mean, like Aileen said, it is like a cattle call. So there are some days it can go smooth as possible.
I was an attorney practicing there for -- I had about 50 jury trials. I probably had about 1,000 or 2,000 preliminary hearings there. And by and large, in Beaver County for Central Court, I did preliminary hearings. In Allegheny County, they do it in their own offices. That worked out fantastic.
There's advantages and disadvantages to both, I guess, because sometimes you'll be transporting prisoners and things. There could be issues there.
And there are days in Central Court where it can get crazy, where sometimes you have to raise your voice. And, you know, a lot of times, talking to other judges about it, like, it's your courtroom. You're supposed to control your courtroom, if you think you need to do something.
And this is one thing I've explained, I mentioned to you, Attorney Eakin, and I also mentioned in the response to the Judicial Conduct Board, is I was in Central Court when one of our senior judges, one of the magistrate judges at Central Court, it was a crazy day, he said, stop. You know, everybody stopped.
And like here, this Court of Judicial Discipline, you got a nice clear court. The Court of Common Pleas judges in Beaver County, it's a nice clear courtroom, you know?
There, you got people all over talking about their cases. Sometimes if you're sitting up on the bench, you don't know if they're talking to you. You don't know if they're talking to Shannon or the court clerk. You don't know if they're talking to the sheriff to bring somebody up.
And it's like you're supposed to be the one in charge, like you said. But Judge DiBenedetto raised his voice to the point of saying, clear the courtroom. He stopped everything. He said, we're doing one case at a time.
He had everybody go out in the hallway. And they went out. Then one case at a time. One. One defense attorney, one DA, one defendant, one police officer, sheriff, you know, kind of narrowed it down. They bring the case in; the judge gets the file.
I mean, I am the other way. The halls will get crowded, and -- but at the same time, it's a lot more orderly and a lot more settled for the judge to have more control there.
Q But you haven't been doing it that way?
A I have not. That's one thing I was asking -- I mentioned to you about, that I did put in one of the responses to the Court of Judicial Discipline that that is done, and I may want to do that.
And I was going to mention to you that if I could, if I could request one thing, if the Court permits me to continue, obviously. And that's why we have all these proceedings going on. I would like to continue. But if that could -- how Judge DiBenedetto, he basically did it, it was basically like a one-case-at-a-time situation.
In other words, if this was Central Court here today, you would have maybe, like, anywhere from 5, 10, 15, 25 police officers, depending, in this courtroom. You might have 5, 10, 15, 25 different defendants or gallery people, you know, family members in this courtroom.
You might have 5, 10 different DAs, police off -- and defense attorneys. There may be other peripheral people. And they're wandering around right in this area here, talking to each other. They're wandering around. Sometimes they're coming up to the bench. The attorney wants to ask the judge something. And all this is going on, and they expect you just to know everything, or who's next or who, you know -- or, okay, this.
And essentially, how I would request, if it's possible, and I mentioned this to Attorney Eakin before, and I said, if it's okay for me to do this. And if the Court of Judicial Discipline could tell our now president judge, Judge Mancini, to say, hey, if Judge Hladio has it, he would like to prefer to do it that way, and he thinks that would solve a lot of problems and issues. And I think it would.
And if that could be done, if the Court permits me, I would appreciate that. And some of the people there might not like that though because sometimes it's a social time for the people. Like the DAs like sitting in the courtroom and talking in the back.
And there are going to be positive things from that too. Like sometimes I see police officers talking in the back. And they start talking about a defendant that might have charges in neighboring jurisdictions. They could exchange information that helps them solve a case or things like that when they're there too.
But the problem with that though is if everybody is at Central Court, sometimes that detracts from the judge in Central -- you know, doing the one case at a time, different errors happening in Central Court. They could do that in the hallway.
Q Okay, Judge.
A Sorry.
Q Since you brought it up, there was an indication that at some point you had actually reduced Ms. Elias from the DA's Office to tears.
A Yeah. And I did not understand that.
Q Do you have any recollection of that?
A Well, see, and I believe it was the day that Judge McBride did call me back one time to talk about stuff, and he said something in chambers. He said, oh, you almost brought her to tears. And I kind of was taken aback, because I didn't know what was happening. It was one of those busy days. Sometimes people come up to the counter, and everybody is talking.
And my recollection, I think I was -- it was in the NOFI and some of the information was, she came up -- or there was people to the left of me. There was Attorney Goodwald, I believe. She was there. Ms. Preininger is right below. And then -- and there's obviously other people through the whole courtroom.
And Mr. Goodwald, to my recollection, was he came up with like one, two or three, four different cases. He started, oh, we have this, we have this, we have this.
And I think she might have said something. And my recollection was I really didn't recall the specific instance of whatever happened where she was reduced to tears or have a hearing or something, because, to be honest, like, next week -- how our schedule goes is, I'm on Central Court next week. I was on Christmas week.
How we do it in Beaver County with the Central Court system is, if you're the judge, you have night duty the weekend before you go into Central Court. So, in other words, technically, I actually had switched with Judge Swihart for tonight and Judge Loughner for tomorrow.
Technically, what would happen is, I would be on night duty. I would have my phone at 4:30 Friday until 8:30 Friday morning, so I could get a call at any time.
And I was on last week. I had last Friday cover for Judge Swihart. It really wasn't fun. It was a really busy one. But, like, a 3 a.m. PFA, but
Q Judge, I want to redirect you.
A Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Q Just try to focus on the question.
A I'm sorry.
Q Do you ever recall
A Oh, yeah, sorry. Okay, but you're right.
Q -- reducing her to tears?
A I do not recall any specifics with that. I recall it being busy. I recall Judge -- or Attorney Goodwald to my left mentioned, oh, we have this case. I got this, this, this, this. I recall her being there. And then apparently there's something about Attorney Lozier coming in.
I don't recall specifics, because -- and the reason I bring up the night duty stuff is, when you're in Central Court as district judge, you want to get cases out of there. If somebody comes up to the podium and says, I got a case, I got such and such here, I have this, you're, like, let's do it, you know. I want to do it. Let's get this done. Let's get Central Court done.
Because you're so tired from Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, you want to slowly get to the end -- from the middle of the week to the end of the week and slowly readjust to a, you know, non-night duty schedule.
Q Now, Judge, Aileen Bowers testified about three meetings that you had with Judge McBride where she was present, essentially, to take notes. Correct?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember the three meetings?
A Generally, I did. I actually -- I think I actually sent them some letters in response to some of those meetings.
And from the standpoint of the investigation items too, I don't know if you or Elizabeth or the Court of Judicial Discipline, those letters I sent to Aileen in response to those meetings or to Judge -- I gave one to Judge McBride. I think I gave Rich one. I think I gave Aileen one.
And I don't know whenever, like Attorney Flaherty mentions about, you know, investigating, I don't know if that means that you guys have those letters too that I sent to them. Because I sent letters in response to all those different meetings, you know, regarding some of the things she's indicated.
Q Now, the 2012 meeting was the first meeting with Judge McBride, right?
A I didn't realize that it was all that. I would have brought those letters if I knew that.
Q That's all right.
A I remember more.
Q Do you generally remember the three meetings?
A I know we met, yeah.
Q And the first was November 29, 2012. 91 And during that meeting, according to the court administrator, Judge McBride suggested that your behavior toward Nancy
A Borkowski.
Q -- Borkowski
A Yes.
Q -- had to cease. What was he talking about?
A Well
Q Just a very short version of what was going on.
A Well, I asked her out. That's what I mentioned in our -- in my response. I did. And there are circumstances where I was feeling bad for her. I knew -- and I have all this in my responses too. So I can reiterate, I guess, everything on that.
I ended up where I came into the office. I knew Donna Platz, who was the office manager. I kind of knew Nancy. Her kids had played soccer off and on with my sister, Annie
Q Now, Nancy said no.
A Well, yeah. I went out. And so basically, one time Donna told me, oh, yeah, she'd be in here crying because her oldest son, he's hooked on drugs, her husband just died and all this, and she's crying to the senior judges and -- that why does always everything happen to her.
And as I was leaving the office one day with her, as I was going to our parking lot right nearby there, I went out. And I felt bad once I heard, you know, Donna say that about her.
And I said, Nance, I said, I don't know if you would be interested, but if you are, maybe you would like to go to dinner or something. And she kind of hesitated a bit, and she said no. I said, okay, well, I would have never known if I would have never asked.
And so after that, I went, okay, I mean, that's okay. You know, I appreciated knowing somebody. I mean, she knew my sister in the office -- or from, you know, high school stuff. I actually was at -- when her husband died, I was probably coming in. I was actually -- they did a collection for her and stuff there. And so she did. Yeah, she did.
Q Now, did you ever retaliate against her because of her refusal to go out with you?
A Yeah, I -- my -- I never would. I mean, I appreciate her. She's been through so much bad. And I know now that -- I mean, I don't know where she's getting that. I don't understand.
I just want to make sure I get -- it's a difficult job, to get stuff done. I do request stuff to be done. But, I mean, the circumstances she has gone through, I mean, you know, nobody should have to go through that.
Q Do you speak badly about her to other staff members?
A Well, I -- I do correct different staff members on different things they've done. For instance, one of these work policies, I started doing some different work policies, I talked to you about different things like that.
I also called our solicitor, Dennis Joyce, about different things. He said, oh, when you have new policies or something, you have to let people know. I said, okay. Because what I did when I first started was I told them what to do for different things. I said, okay, I want this done. This is how I want it done. This is what I want.
Like one thing dealt with if people have three or more cases or they owe $500 or more, they got to see the judge. Now I have them see the judge all the time. But -- because they weren't scheduling any hearings for -- they were making payment plans themselves. I said no.
So I mentioned a policy like that. And I said, okay, if you need to know what it is and want to know what it is, write it down, you know. And they wouldn't write it down.
And so things of that nature, they'd come in with different things and not follow different things I requested.
And so in that context, I would say, hey -- like whenever I first hired Pam. Pam was the most recent hire. I said, Pam, this is a situation that happened. I explained to them that I wanted this done. I said, you know, are you able to do that? Okay. You know, that isn't being done. That is something that has to be done. Can you do it? Yes.
So I would bring things up about the different employees. I would -- and like with Joanne too. One of the things, I was out in Harrisburg about a year or two or three ago. And one of the judges I was talking to over lunch, they said, oh, it would be nice to have my files for different things. I said, hey, you're the judge; if you want to get this stuff, get the stuff and be prepared so you can do a good job.
Q Okay, but back to my original question.
A Sorry. I'm sorry.
Q Back to my original question. Did you talk about Nancy's work behavior to your other employees or police officers or anybody else?
A Well
Q If she doesn't follow your directions.
A Well, it's basically trying to figure out if there's anything going wrong, to correct it or do different things. Like one of the policies I mentioned was, there was a time within the last three months, six months, I forget what the policy is, but where I wrote on a summary trial notice dealing -- or a notice for recovery of property dealt with landlord-tenant.
And I wrote on there, continue the case for 30 days at landlord's request because, obviously, there could be an issue where the landlord objects to the time period and certain things, because they wanted to present evidence.
There was an issue with regard to a tenant filing a cross-complaint, which I did not permit them to do, because it was untimely, but I did permit the tenant to testify regarding their defense.
But I wanted to be clear in the continuance that the landlord agreed to it, and also that they're the ones that were going to present evidence. So I said to put in the comment. So I wrote it on the hearing notice, which is what I normally do if I want something. I put stars on it.
So the next day, I was thinking, you know what, I hope it was done, but I don't know, you know. So I saw Pam. I said, Pam, did you do that landlord-tenant, you know, a day or two ago. In fact, I think in the work policy, I might have mentioned the case.
Q Well, we're going to get to that.
A You know, but -- but from the standpoint of criticizing, I'm on -- I'm trying to correct. And she said, oh, the incident. I said, okay. I said, bring the file in.
Nancy brought the file in. She did not put the comment that I requested on there, that it was continued at the landlord's request and to present evidence. And so I did this work policy because of that.
Q You started these work policies after the inception of this complaint, right?
A Right. Technically, what I did before with policies, I told them what I wanted done and then I told the staff. I'd go up to them, hey, write it down. If you don't think you can remember this, write this down. And rarely did they ever write it down.
Q And that's what's contained and what's been marked Respondent's 2, the work
A If that's what you marked it, yes.
Q Okay. You gave this to me, right?
A Yes. Well, I faxed it, I think, yesterday.
(Letter from Judge Hladio to Attorney Robert Mielnicki marked as Respondent Exhibit Number 1.)
(Work policies marked as Respondent Exhibit Number 2.) BY MS. EAKIN:
Q And then also, we're going to be referring very, very briefly to Respondent's 1, a letter that you wrote to an Attorney Robert Mielnicki with regard to an arraignment in Central Court. Is that right?
A Yep. Yes. That dealt with the case that Aileen was talking about. And I kind of -- one of the allegations of misconduct in a NOFI -- am I going too quick? I'm sorry.
One of the cases in the NOFI that was filed that Attorney Flaherty questioned me on dealt with -- what's the name on that NOFI, or the -- I'm forgetting already. But she dealt with the arraignment.
At Central Court, the -- at Central Court, you're there, you're doing a lot of cases for waivers. They're before you. And so then all of a sudden, the case that Aileen Bowers was talking about was -- no, the NOFI allegation. There should be a separate -- the NOFI page.
Q It's not on this.
A It might be separate.
But you're there, okay? All of a sudden, the case she's talking about, Shannon Preininger is sitting to my left right in front of the bench, and she says to me, we have an arraignment. Okay.
And that was a bit strange and odd, because the -- or excuse me. There was a case that Tim Carland, an attorney, was waiving for an ARD on a case. So I had to set bond on the ARD, because it was by summons. So that is no problem; we always do that there. So I set bond.
Shannon looks up at me and she says, oh, he has a warrant. I'm like, okay. And usually whenever there's warrants, if it's from another office, the sheriffs are already cuffing the defendant at the podium to take them away is what's normally supposed to happen, always happened prior to that day that I knew of.
They'd cuff the defendant, they'd take them to jail, and then they'd do a video bond at jail at -- out of a warrant -- out of the office where the warrant's from.
Like, for instance, in this case, the warrant was out of Judge Nicholson's, okay. He's in New Brighton. So normally what would happen is they'd cuff the defendant.
In fact, as an attorney and also as a judge, I'd see where you've got a defendant up there, you're doing a waiver on him on a case, and they're cuffing him away before he's even able to sign his waiver for ARD on that one.
And so she's looking up at me and she says, oh, he has a warrant out at Judge Nicholson's on a drug case. I'm, like, okay. The defendant is still at the podium.
I don't know what's going on, because I also recall whenever I first started my first two years and I was up at Central Court, I tried to do arraignments like that.
Shannon complained about me. Aileen came to me and lectured me after Central Court and said, you can't be doing arraignments like that, you know, it's too busy in Central Court. If the warrant is out of somebody else's office, they should take them away and have them arraigned by video or whatever else.
So she complained to me about that my first two years; and Shannon complained about me -- about me trying to do an arraignment like that.
So the funny thing -- did you find it?
Q Are you talking about this?
A No, I just want the NOFI. It mentions the name, and the name will probably come to me in a minute.
But -- so the case that she is talking about that Attorney Flaherty questioned me on and said, why didn't you do this arraignment. What happened was, on the day, I didn't know why they're not taking this guy away.
Shannon is not passing up a warrant to me. Shannon is not passing up the corruption complaint to me, obviously because she doesn't have it. It's at Judge Nicholson's. Shannon is not passing any documentation up to me to do this arraignment for this person.
So I ended up putting a bond -- a bond condition on his ARD case saying, okay, you've got to go to Judge Nicholson's within a time period and be arraigned there. I mean, technically, he didn't even have to do that. There's a warrant, you know. But I had no idea why they were not taking this guy away.
And interestingly, they arraigned him, obviously, and Attorney Tim Carland, he knew. He said, okay, I'll get him out there. I said, I know, because if he walks out this door, he could be picked up by the sheriffs at the front door as he's leaving, you know.
So what ended up happening was the next thing I know, Central Court's done, Aileen is coming up to me saying, why didn't you arraign that guy. I'm like -- and I said, normally -- I was -- no idea what she was talking about.
Next thing I know, there's an allegation that Attorney Flaherty is questioning me on that you should have done that arraignment, which is totally not the procedure. Okay?
So they filed this complaint against me to the Judicial Conduct Board, which is not what's supposed to be done.
And the funny thing about it, and I told Attorney Eakin about this, in December, I had a case where Attorney General Hurst, I worked with -- his dad worked at the sheriff's office. He was a great guy, helped me out when I was a public defender, doing my trials and stuff. His son is now with the Attorney General's. He had a drug case.
He came to my office in Ambridge, and he says, Judge, we got a warrant for this guy, Maurice Harvey. I said, okay. I signed the warrant.
He said -- I said, well, what do you want for bond. I started asking him about bonds and everything. And he said, ah, don't worry, he's at Central Court tomorrow, whatever it was. We'll take care of him there. I'm like, okay.
And with this complaint and stuff, I'm thinking, okay, I have no idea what's going on, and I didn't want to, like, say something to make -- blow things up even worse. Next thing I know, he said the next day -- and I have a letter that I sent.
Q That's Respondent's 1.
A Okay. I end up finding out Attorney Mielnicki, he has this guy, because I saw -- I forget how it came up, if he called about setting a date for him for a preliminary or not. They had this Maurice Harvey. He had a prior case at Central Court, a warrant out of my office, okay?
So they take him to the podium. And I have been getting ahold of Attorney Mielnicki and memorialized this in the letter to Attorney Mielnicki. Asked Attorney Mielnicki's client -- Maurice Harvey is at the podium at Central Court. The Central Court staff in that case, no, we can't do it here, there's a warrant, we can't do the arraignment here. Okay.
They take him out of Central Court. I end up arraigning him, like, that day or whatever else. And I think there was a question about -- Attorney Mielnicki had. They set him for a hearing on another date.
Oh, Attorney Mielnicki had to continue his case, because they took Maurice Harvey away in cuffs to be arraigned by me. Whereas, in the case where I had in Central Court, they tell me to do the arraignment, they don't take him away in cuffs, and they file a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Board.
Q That's what's essentially contained in this
A Exactly right.
Q And Respondent's 2 is your work policies that you initiated to try to solve some of the problems that have come up since the NOFI?
A Yes. If that's what you have marked, yes.
MS. EAKIN: Do you have any objection to this?
MS. FLAHERTY: I have no objection.
MS. EAKIN: I have copies of Respondent's 1 and 2 for the Court. BY MS. EAKIN:
Q Now, let's just
MS. FLAHERTY: I have no objections.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Okay. Thank you very much. BY MS. EAKIN:
Q Let's just
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: So Respondent's -- right before you do that then, are you going to ask for the admission of Respondent's 1 and 2?
MS. EAKIN: Yes, sir.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: There being no objection, they are both admitted. BY MS. EAKIN:
Q Let's just get back to this November 29, 2012. During that meeting, did Judge McBride suggest to you that counseling was in order because of the whole Borkowski situation?
A Well, I believe he mentioned counseling. He also mentioned AOPC, meeting with AOPC. And I -- on one hand, after he said the counseling, I didn't understand that a bit. I'm like, well, I'm a single guy, she's a single woman. I did ask her. I'm not doing anything else.
And I didn't understand what he meant by the counseling. And I'm like, okay, I guess I'll follow this up with whatever, if I have to go talk to AOPC counsel and see, you know, what's going on.
And I ended up talking to Caroline Liebenguth. I met her at my private law office. I talked with her. I explained everything.
I mean, technically, I mean, prior to this, the thing I didn't understand from Nancy was, she ended up making an improper innuendo to me in the office in front of another staff member, implying I don't like women. And
Q Explain to the Court what happened.
A Well, what happened is one day, it's like I'm -- and on top of this, this is the time period, this is the fall after my bad auto accident. And I'm slowly coming back from that.
And so one day at the end of an office day, we had some part-timers come there now and then. And at this time, we had a Daunte D'Antonio come there. He's the son of an attorney that I work with, good guy. And I've had cases with him. Dan D'Antonio.
And so he's working there. He worked at another office. He came in and did subbing for us. So he's there, Nancy's there, I'm there.
And I'm thinking everything's fine at the office, whatever else. I have been out socially. I have been out different places. You know, she's been there, different things socially.
And out of the blue -- it's the end of the day and it's raining a bit. And so Daunte's there. And I said, well, Daunte -- and I forget if he had to leave early. I memorialized this in some letters and -- to either the president judge and/or -- I did send -- I sent a packet to Aileen and I think Judge McBride. I remember responding at some of these meetings too.
And I'm, like, I didn't appreciate what she did here. I'm there at the end of the day, and it's raining. It was raining. And I said, well, Daunte, I said -- I think I had a black umbrella with me. I said, Daunte, I said, if it's raining a bit, you might want an umbrella. And there was this pink umbrella there.
And so I said, well, I said, I have an umbrella and you're not getting mine. I said, so if you want one, this will be the only other one left. It's a pink one, I said, I don't think you want that.
And so, you know, he kind of just nods or whatever. And Nancy goes, oh, well, he can't have it because it's yours, ha ha. And she's, like, laughing at my face, you know.
Q And why were you upset by that?
A Well, I mean, obviously, I mean, I didn't appreciate. I didn't understand too. It's like, you know, I'm like, Nance, we were out socially. I was at a graduation party with her. It's like -- and on top of that, doing it in front of a son of an attorney that, you know, I work with.
Q What did you think that she was innuendoing?
A Well, I think it's pretty obvious.
Q What did you think?
A Well, I think, and -- well, she laughed at it. So, obviously, she's laughing. And I guess the key question, if anybody is investigating it, they should ask Nancy, but my perception, and I think a general overall perception of anybody, would say, okay, you don't like women or, you know -- I mean, whatever -- whenever you talk, you see different things that, say a sportsman, sometimes different sports teams paint different locker rooms all pink, you know, to -- for that.
So -- and I think it's obvious. And I think Nancy thought it was obvious, because she was laughing at my face. And I didn't appreciate it, because I didn't work with Dan -- Daunte that much as it was.
But that's what happened. I didn't appreciate it. I memorialized it to Judge McBride and Aileen.
Q Do you think you're sensitive about the fact that you say you are in a cart?
A Well, it is difficult. And for me, on my end, my parents have always encouraged me to be involved.
And I get a lot -- I mean, I go up and down the streets on this cart everywhere in Ambridge. It's an old mill town. I grew up at one end up on 22nd Street. Whenever I was in kindergarten, we moved down to 10th and Maple.
And, you know, I've carted around this town, my town, Ambridge. I've carted in the neighboring community in Harmony Township. It's like 24, 28 blocks away, up, down, all over. And I think whenever I'm out and about, people appreciate that.
And there are times when it's difficult, and a lot of people don't understand. They think sometimes, like when Dee Wicz made that comment about me, it's a joke.
Q Are we talking about the horn?
A Yeah. I mean, I was coming down the hallway that time. And the comment she makes, she laughs, but then there's two other people there laughing at my face, you know? And here I am, a judge coming off Central Court.
And I mean, people don't understand how difficult it is day-to-day just to get through the different things I have to deal with, I mean, you know.
And at times people -- and sometimes people see me, like down in my office at -- in my courtroom office, I have pictures from when I stood.
And I hate to say, sometimes people see me and they think I can stand and walk, as there are people who use these carts that can stand and walk. And, unfortunately, sometimes that perception can be very bad and negative on my end, because
Q What do you mean by that?
A Well, I mean, people sometimes could see me, and they say, oh, he can stand, he can walk, you know. And it is different. I walked until, you know, 2000 or so.
And I remember I was talking to my constable, Mark Kolakowski, about this. He stopped in a month ago. We were talking. He said, hey, Andy, you're -- you know, whether you're in a cart, standing, whatever. I said, Mark, it's different. I said, I stood and walked as an attorney, you know? I was walking down the hallway. I would stand in a courtroom. I said, I'd go to different events where I would be standing, you know, whatever.
People treat you different. They view you different. They perceive you different whenever you're just in a cart.
And, you know -- and in addition, due to my muscle weakness like with my shoulder and hands and everything, sometimes, like, if I have to go -- like in the courthouse, when I go down the hallway, I kind of, like, go a little bit, swing my hand up to grab the door handle.
There's tons of good people in the world. I mean, maybe, you know, the good and the bad in all this too. There are times that I have seen people treat me so fantastic. You know, they see my circumstance. They see -- they hold the door or do something else. And, you know, to a certain -- I mean, that's life, I guess. But it's difficult sometimes.
You don't realize sometimes how people, sometimes they're trying to be nice, and you just get slammed, you know, me, that is. And it's difficult to handle, the day-to-day stuff. It's like
Q Let's try to refocus here, Judge.
A Sure. I'm sorry.
Q Did you follow Judge McBride's recommendation that you seek some sort of counseling?
A What I did is I met with Caroline Liebenguth first, and I discussed everything with her. And I explained everything. And she said, well -- she said, well, that's how people meet sometimes. You know, she said, just watch. I said, okay, I understand.
I said, you know -- and, you know, from my standpoint, Nancy knowing my sister, knowing her kids. She had three kids. She's got her oldest son, Amber, and then Ashley. And, you know, Brian, he ended up having a drug problem. I felt horrible for her.
And on that end, I basically talked to Caroline Liebenguth and explained everything. And I wrote a letter and explained everything to Judge McBride. I said, okay, look, this is what happened. I talked to her. You know, I said, I hope this satisfies whatever you're talking about for counseling.
I didn't understand if he meant anything with regard to asking her. I don't know if he meant anything with regard -- I kind of didn't really understand that.
So I sent the letter. I gave it to Aileen. I gave it to Judge McBride. And I never heard anything.
Q All right.
A The next thing I heard was the next time when Nancy got mad at me and called me an idiot, and then also other stuff came up, so...
Q That's what prompted the 2014 meeting with Judge McBride?
A I forget the specifics, but there was a day -- I think it was towards the end of the day. Yeah, it was towards the -- I memorialized this in some of the things I said to them too.
Where Nancy came in, she said, oh, I have some cases with regard to posting a bond and whatever else. And I said, well, okay, well, you know -- and she says, oh, I told him it's going to be 50 percent.
I said, Nance, I said, you shouldn't be telling people what the bond is going to be. Technically, that's the judge's decision. And with regard to that, you know, if you start telling them, you can get yourself in trouble.
I start telling her this stuff, and she's in the courtroom. And I said, you know, that would be like you setting a bond in an arraignment case in a Federal case. She, like, got mad. Oh, well, you're an idiot. And I said, okay, you know. And I said, well, go home early. You know, so we had a little confrontation.
And I didn't appreciate her calling me an idiot. That's when I called Rich, the court administrator, Rich DeFilippi, right away after that. I actually got home, called him right away. I said, Rich, I said, you know, I don't appreciate this, I don't like it. I said, I'm just telling you about this.
And the next thing I know, they called me down and had another meeting about all these different things. And I said, you know, I said, she called me an idiot. She -- you know, and I'm trying to get stuff done, I'm trying to do what the State wants me to do, and I'm getting this.
And that's whenever I found out -- I had said, and, you know, she did this innuendo before. And I found out he didn't do anything about that.
Q All right. Then we get to the May 17th, 2016, your last meeting with Judge McBride and court administration.
You heard Aileen Bowers' opinion that you had -- your demeanor had completely changed from two years hence, back in 2012; and that you were belligerent, and I think combative was her word, that you referred to yourself as a single white male in a wheelchair; and that at the conclusion of that meeting that Judge McBride again suggested counseling, that he would make the call to Judges Concerned for Judges, or perhaps you needed to seek some individual counseling.
Now, this is the second time this has come up. Did you follow through?
A Well, what that reference was, he mentioned, he said, oh, we have complaints and all this. And I said to him, well, Judge, I said, if you want to explain to me what the complaints are, I'm more than willing to respond. And he ended up -- during the course of the meeting, he didn't tell me. He didn't tell me anything.
And he was like, oh, well, there's so many. I said, okay. I said, I find it interesting, here I am talking to a judge, and due process is essentially a right to be heard. And I said, I'm being denied due process by the judge, number one, being told what the complaints are so that I can respond to them.
And one of the ones were -- was that arraignment situation that I think Aileen and Shannon filed improperly.
And the other thing he mentioned too was, and you're going out to these clubs now a little too much, you know. And Ambridge is an old mill town. There are bars, clubs. And I do go now and then to Eagles Club. Now and then sometimes I do karaoke, just little things like that. So he was saying about that.
And so he said, here's something. And that one, my understanding, is whatever reference to something with regard to, like, Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers or Judges for Judges. And so he gave me a pamphlet, put it in an envelope. I took it.
And within that week, or maybe even the next day, it was around the time I was in Central Court. I was sitting on the bench at Central Court. Judge McBride came up the back entrance, and he comes up to me. And I, like, look back, because I didn't know he was 119 there. He says, Andy, he says, you don't have to do that. I said okay, you know. And
Q So he told you you didn't have to seek counseling?
A Well, yeah, he -- that flyer he gave me, he said, you don't have to do that. I said, okay.
Q Now, obviously, you looked at the eight exhibits presented by the Board in this case, right?
A Yes.
Q I really don't think that we need to get into each and every one, but you dispute the contents of these exhibits, is that correct?
A Well, I have an explanation.
Q The circumstances. The circumstances.
A There's that NOFI right there (indicating).
The case with regard to Aileen referencing that she wanted -- Lampkin. She and Aileen wanted me to do the arraignment for a Mr. Lampkin in a warrant out of Judge Nicholson's office in New Brighton.
I didn't do it, number one, because Shannon didn't give me the paperwork; and number two, because that normally is never done. And that was the thing that Aileen had told me my first two years, that we don't do arraignments in Central Court out of warrants out of another judge's office, because that will slow down Central Court so much.
The next thing I know, they filed this with Elizabeth Flaherty, saying, we're filing this complaint against you because you didn't do it.
Q And you understand -- I think the Court understands the confusion with you with arraignments right now. You're still unclear.
A Well, I'm not only concerned for myself, but my other district judges. I don't know if they're going to file a complaint against them for doing or not doing an arraignment.
And my understanding is the policy is, we're not supposed to do arraignments at Central Court, because it's going to bog down all the craziness even more if I start doing arraignments on Judge Nicholson's warrants at Central Court or somebody else does one of mine at Central Court, and -- sorry.
Q So the last exhibit presented by the Board was the Ambridge Police Department letter from James Mann.
A Yes.
Q As recently as last week, have you had contact with the Ambridge police officers?
A Yes. And I filed a response with the Board regarding my -- you know, my interpretation of the law and these different things related to statutes and all these issues for trucking.
I had a case last week on a trucking matter with Officer Bialik. He's one of those certified inspectors. But he came in on a trucking case. He came in and -- oh, an interesting thing about this one was, the defendant didn't show.
So I said, okay, I'm going to the rules here. I said, normally we do the trial, I go to the rules and find the provisions. I say, okay, you conduct it just like any other summary trial, okay.
And then their comment says, whenever you do the hearing, there's a provision. Okay, you, as a judge, can ask questions for the prosecution or whatever.
And the issue I've had with these trucking, and I mentioned a couple different times, nobody has ever asked me to elaborate on any of it, is it deals with the tolerance and error sections of the different statutes.
One of the sections that's listed mentions a tolerance. It says per axle, 3 percent per axle.
And I have discussed this with a couple police, a couple other judges. And how it's worded, dealing with, you know, it says weight of vehicle, I haven't been able to figure out -- and that's what I told this officer last week from Ambridge.
I said, I haven't -- why don't they put in here, why doesn't the legislature put in here, this excludes -- this section does not apply to 490.28, you know.
Q I guess without detail, what happened with the officer at that last hearing?
A Oh, yeah, I went through all my analysis with everything. I have the case, and it was brief. The defendant didn't show. Because -- I'm like, okay, I'm going to conduct it like a normal trial. This is my analysis; these are my questions.
So I ended up saying, okay, five axles, five times 3 percent, 15 percent. There's another section dealing with another 3 percent error. So I gave an 18 percent reduction. And basically, I did the fine according to my analysis and interpretation of the statute, which worked out good.
And, I mean, technically, I guess there can always be a little more -- I have never been told about the axles warrant until that case last week.
And so he was happy. I just saw him yesterday on the thing. I said, hey, were we okay in how I interpreted this; do you have any other different position; do you have anything, you know, contrary or something else that might help me interpret this better.
He says, no. He says, I'm good with that, you know. He said, I'm -- and he's one of the guys that's before me. It's Officer Bialik, Officer Seng, and I think Officer Owen has one now and then. But they were before me. He was fine. I talked to him yesterday about it.
And so, I mean, it's a thing I grapple with. I remember when I was an attorney, one of the big issues with these truckings, we used to have different cases in Bridgewater. And Judge Hayes, he became a federal magistrate judge. He had some different cases dealing with these trucking issues too, case law-wise.
Q All right. Let's -- again, we've got to
A Sorry. I'm sorry.
Q -- stay on track here. We have to try to stay on track.
A Yes.
Q You said at the very outset that you would like to remain doing your job.
A Yes, I would appreciate that.
Q What steps have you been taking to try to clear up some of these problems that you have become aware of?
A Well, I mean, some of the things you mentioned. I've talked to Dennis Joyce, our solicitor.
I prepared some different policies from the Ambridge office area with regard to their duties, what they should do and how to do it. Some things I have, you know, like that thing with Nancy where she didn't fill it out, I prepared a policy on that.
I said, okay, any time I write a comment that I want in a continuance or anything like that, you do it, you bring it to me immediately. I'll mark off in the work that it was done. So then I know it was done, you know? And that protects me if something I wanted done, to be included. So I made that a policy. I wrote it out and initialed it. I hope I initialed it.
The issue, there's an allegation in the NOFI with regard to Andy said I wasn't signing the bills. I thought I was, all the ones I had. I mean, I don't know.
There was -- and so I said, okay, now I have a policy if there's a bill, bring it to me immediately to sign. I'm on the bench all the time, bring it right up for me to sign.
If there's a subpoena -- there was an issue with a subpoena. I thought that was an issue for one of the police. They complained about it one time, where they didn't get one in time or something, or they missed it a day. And they did bring it down to me at Central Court. I said, bring it to Central Court for me to sign.
So I issued a policy like that. If there's a bill, if there's a subpoena, bring it to me immediately.
Q So, for clarity's sake, you are reducing these policies to writing?
A I'm doing -- Dennis mentioned it. You mentioned it. I'm e-mailing different things now with different things, issues at Central Court. I'm sending letters.
There was a situation where I told Attorney Lozier. Last time I was in Central Court, I had a case where there was a circumstance with Attorney Lozier came out and the DA's Office were before me. And Attorney Lowe told me -- I'm before a case, and I'm refereeing a matter. He said, I didn't get notice from the DA's. They continue -- I want it continued. And they're going back and forth.
And so what I ended up doing was, I explained everything. I talked to Attorney Lozier. I told him, okay, I'm going to -- I'll get you the information, I'll send it to you. So basically, what I'm doing is I'm memorializing these different things to make sure that the DAs or the defense attorneys at Central Court don't make things seem too out of control. I'm doing the e-mails. I'm doing these work policies.
Q You had the microphones put in?
A Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. Yes. Yes.
One of the other things I did is back in April or May, I believe, I mentioned for the court administrator, I said, get me somebody there for Central Court. And they have -- instead of these microphones, they've got those little, you know, black ones that -- like, little, small things they have out in Federal Court for bankruptcy and other stuff like that.
But -- so they have those there. I said, bring it in. When I'm on Central Court, it want that microphone turned up all the way. They had a sound guy come in. And so they have it there.
I make sure the microphone is there. I'm going through that microphone even more.
And although I do have to say, even though that microphone is there, there have been times -- Shannon is, like, right in front of me. I said, Shannon, could I have -- she still didn't hear me. There's times she's said stuff to me, she's right there, and I didn't hear her.
Q Shannon is the young lady who will hand you the files?
A Right.
Q And explain to the Court why that's necessary for you.
A Well, what happened is, like how you guys -- sorry, I apologize -- how Your Honors are at the bench and you're up at that chair. With me, with my muscle circumstance, I have to, like, reach forward a bit. And it's difficult sometimes.
I can. I eventually, like, move my arm all the way up, and then I can, you know, eventually grab it. But it's difficult. I'm slow. Like I can't go left, right as well, and I can't reach as far. If she would actually put it up right in the right position right directly there in my reach and pull it back, it works.
So what I did is, I said, I want the microphone there for the voice. I said, I want to reserve the right to the tipstaff that's in the courtroom, have them stand up by the bench. And they would hand it to me and hand -- and it's worked out great.
Mr. Bristol, he's an old teacher at Quigley Catholic High School. And he stands there and passes it right to my hands. I have it. That works out fantastic.
I hope it continues. I haven't gotten anything in writing that says, yes, he is someone that will stand there all the time. And that's the only other concern.
Well, I'm memorializing the other stuff with these policies. I think what I'm going to do is I probably will e-mail President Judge Mancini and Aileen and Bill Hare, the other court administrator, and say, look, this has worked out, this is what I need.
Q And the County has been helping you, has been accommodating?
A Right. And technically, how this first started out, whenever I went on the bench, they had that ramp there, some of the workers there. I knew them, and they did good to get me up on the bench.
What they did first when I first started, they actually gave Shannon, the clerk at Central Court, a little stepstool. So what she used to do, she would have the file, she would stand on the stepstool and actually pass it to -- hand it to me appropriately.
But then after awhile, I kept on telling them, and she didn't like that and she stopped using that. And I -- you know, not smart on my part, I didn't memorialize, look, I need that to be done.
And so basically, as of May, that's why I e-mailed again. And having that tipstaff there has worked out great.
MS. EAKIN: I think I'm going to stop there, if the Court has questions, or Ms. Flaherty.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: We will see if Attorney Flaherty has questions.
MS. FLAHERTY: I do not have any questions for cross with this witness.
MS. EAKIN: I'm sorry. He has one more point he'd like to make with regard to staffing.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: No problem.
A I'm sorry. One of the things I told Attorney Eakin was that I have -- the other thing I have been documenting is since I started, our office is busy, Ambridge office. We had nine. Now we're down to eight.
Ambridge office is busy. We have a lot of walkup. We're right next to the school. We're right next to the police station. We're right next to downtown Ambridge. It's an old mill town trying to hang on. And we constantly, we make the rounds...
Q Just try to keep it brief.
A I apologize for going on. I'm so sorry.
But I have requested by e-mail a bunch of different times. I asked verbally a lot of times of Aileen, saying, our office is busy, please give us part-time help, we need part-time help. So she is getting to the point where -- and I said, we need a full-timer too.
The part-timers she sent, I talked to my full-timers, Joanne, Nancy, and Pam. I said, look, when do you want the part-timers here. They said, well, if we have a preference, we want them here on the days we have hearings, because it's busy, you know.
On the day -- and Aileen -- and if you go through my NOFI and the other information, responses, I adjusted my schedule -- about how our office wasn't getting warrants out, different things.
I adjusted the schedule, where every now and then, like one or two days a week, I don't schedule hearings so they can catch up on stuff.
And -- so in talking to them, where Aileen said, oh, he only wants them there when there's hearings. That's what our full -- my full-timers want. They want it when it's busy. Because there were different times when all of a sudden the part-timers are coming on a day off or where there's no hearings. And then there's hearings and it's really busy, and we only have three part-timers. And they even counted.
So that's where that reference is from with regard to staffing. That's why I requested that.
The other thing is, with the full-timer, I've requested, I've requested, I've requested, not -- have not gotten another full-timer. Joanne complains about them, and I try to tell them, because I end up getting frustrated with them about not getting help for them.
And Joanne just told me -- Joanne is one of the part -- full-timers, I'm sorry. She told me, she said, you know what, Aileen should come down to the Ambridge office and work here in the office for a week. She said, not a day, because maybe she'd get, you know, an easy day. Be here for two weeks and see how crazy it is, where she thinks whether or not we should get a fourth full-timer or not.
And Mark Kolakowski, Constable Mark, he goes to these different magistrates' offices. He said our office is busy, with a lot of counter. And they recently hired another full-timer, Judge Swihart, who is not around ours. And my staff on that are now mad at me because, oh, they got another one, where's ours.
So from the standpoint of Aileen talking about with the staffing, I'm doing my best to work around different things so the full-timers can get breaks and can, you know, have a better work environment, but I do -- I do have to say a fourth full-timer should be there.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Okay. Attorney Flaherty, no questions?
MS. FLAHERTY: No questions.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: I think Judge Barton has some questions. BY JUDGE BARTON:
Q I do have a couple questions, if I may.
A I'm sorry, sir.
Q Judge Hladio, can you estimate approximately how many cases were in your court last year?
A I don't know the different judges. They check on the computer stuff. I don't go on the computer
Q Just tell me if it's 5,000, 4,000.
A 4,000, 5,000, I think we're in that range.
Q And to be clear, when you described -- after President Judge McBride's request that you consult with legal counsel, you described your interaction with Caroline Liebenguth, and
A That's correct, Judge.
Q Let me finish the question, if I may.
A I'm sorry.
Q I want to make clear that you met with Ms. Liebenguth in her capacity as AOPC legal staff, is that correct?
A I believe. Yes. I mean
Q You didn't retain her privately?
A Oh, no, no, no, no.
Q Okay. Looking at Respondent's Exhibit 2, I think it's page -- the fifth page back in Respondent's Exhibit 2 is a letter from you to the three chiefs of police, Ambridge, Baden, and Harmony Township.
A Yes.
Q That letter is dated January 31st.
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me the circumstances that led you to write this letter and why you wrote it?
A Yes. What happened was, I had a case with Officer Depenhart in my courtroom on a parking ticket. Usually I require, at the very minimum -- I've even mentioned this to different police. I said, put down there property posted, you know, I mean, basically trying to follow the language of the statute.
I had a hearing with this woman on a parking ticket with Officer Depenhart. She was in the courtroom. Surprisingly, she asked a question about the signage, because she said, I don't know what they do; one day it's on this side; one day it's on this side.
And to be honest, I'm not even sure what the sign says, if, in fact somebody can park on one side or the other. So she said something, because she -- and she kind of, like, asked him a question about that.
He started saying, well, you know, sometimes the street sweeper's broken, so one side they don't, they do. And then he said something like -- and then he starts explaining something, I don't know what the sign, if it does say something about if it's broken or one side or something like that.
There was some confusion, at least. I mean, technically, the legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt even on that. And so there was a question on it. I already had his testimony, the question about the signage. I made a finding of not guilty.
After the hearing is concluded, she's leaving the courtroom. He's going to the back door, which goes to our office staff area.
As he got close to the back door, he said, oh, Your Honor, can I ask why you made that finding.
And with all these different allegations and things of that sort, I'm thinking, okay, I don't know what's going on. So I said, no comment. Okay?
And I'm like, well, technically, you know, magisterial district courts are courts of no record so, I mean, the case can be the case. And so I felt legally, I did what I was supposed to do. I heard the evidence, made the decision I think was legally proper. So I said that.
As he's opening the staff door -- oh, prior to the hearing too, there was an Officer Zadok Dismuke from Ambridge. You probably want the spelling on that. D-i-s-m-u-k-e.
He -- they told me he needed to come in to get an arrest warrant signed by me. I said, okay, once I'm done with this hearing. So he was waiting right outside the staff door from my courtroom to the staff area.
So as he -- as Officer Depenhart opens the door, he starts to go into the staff area, I hear, what a jag-off. Okay? And basically, I'm like, that's not right.
Officer Dismuke comes in. So he's the first. He comes in. He has the complaint and the affidavit, so I have to swear him in to the affidavit. And then they'll print out the arrest warrant for me to sign. So he comes in. I said, did you hear that? I said, did you hear him call me a jag-off? He said, it was worse, he actually said F-ing jag-off. All right.
So I'm like, that's not right. And technically, as he
Q I'm sorry. As a result of that incident, you wrote the January 31st letter, is that correct?
A Yes. What I did is I actually also sent a letter to the Ambridge mayor. I sent a letter to the solicitor of Ambridge. And I said, I am filing a conduct unbecoming of a police officer complaint.
And I believe I did get a letter. I don't know if it's in the pack or not. Was it in there? Okay. There was a letter, I believe, yesterday I got at my Ambridge office. They said they took some appropriate action against him. I don't understand what that means, but...
Q Thank you.
A And so I actually asked Pam, the staff, I said, did you hear that. Yeah, I heard that. I asked Nancy, did you hear him say that. She said, oh. I said, what did you hear him say. Nancy said, oh, I heard him calling you an asshole. I said, well, I heard jag-off. She said, well, okay, I think it was that. And so...
JUDGE BARTON: Thank you.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Any other questions?
JUDGE BARTON: No.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Any questions, Judges? No. Judge Minehart. BY JUDGE MINEHART:
Q Judge, did you say you only asked out Nancy Borkowski once?
A That's my recollection. I don't recall -- there were -- like, for instance, I don't know -- there was one time I asked her about the umbrella out in the office area -- or out in the parking lot. I said, what is -- I said, what was -- I don't understand what's going on.
And she's standing there. She looks over, she sees a police officer. She stomps her foot. And I think I also wrote this to Judge McBride. She stomps her foot, and she says to me, as she's looking at the police officer standing by, she says, why do you always tie it to work.
And it was, like, totally out of context about what we were talking about. And I don't know if she's saying, like, I'm asking her out then or something. But that one time I did ask her, that's what I said.
Q Okay. All right.
A Any other specific circumstances, I don't recall. In other words, there were times that we were -- I was there with one of her friends, Lori Johns, and her sister-in-law, Becky Latomb (phonetic), down at a club, and we were talking, socializing.
There was a time that she and a couple other people came down to Rook's and I talked to her and stuff like that. I don't believe I ever -- yeah.
Q Very well. I have nothing
A I apologize. There was one other thing that Attorney Eakin, I mentioned, talked about.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: There's no question in front of you.
JUDGE MINEHART: There's no question.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: We're good.
A Oh, you're okay?
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Yes.
With no other questions from the Court, Attorney Eakin, anything else?
MS. EAKIN: No, sir.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: May I suggest again another five-minute recess, let the Court confer, and then we will come back.
We might request counsel to join us back there. We'll see.
(Brief recess.)
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: Let's go back on the record.
Judge Hladio, we thank you very much for being here today.
JUDGE HLADIO: Thank you, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT JUDGE PANELLA: We appreciate your conduct during this hearing.
We have made a decision, and the following is the unanimous decision of the judges presiding over the petition for interim suspension.
So we will need a caption and then Order of Court.
And now, this 17th day of February, 2017, after hearing, the Court orders and directs that the Respondent, the Honorable Andrew M. Hladio is suspended for a period of 90 days, with pay and without any effect on his health benefits.
The main justification or reason for this order is what the Court considers to be a breakdown in the functioning and administration in Magisterial District 36-1-01.
By the Court.
Okay? We thank you all. We're in adjournment.
(The hearing was concluded at 2:06 p.m.)
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the within proceedings and that this copy is a correct transcript of same.
/s/
Karen Blouch, RMR
Notary Public
The foregoing record of the proceedings of the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed.
/s/_________
JACK PANELLA, JUDGE
__________
DATE
Image materials not available for display.