JCB handling of Conahan complaint questioned

Former Luzerne County judge Ann Lokuta is questioning whether the Judicial Conduct Board’s handling of a complaint filed against former judge Michael Conahan was influenced by the fact he was a key figure in the agency’s misconduct case against her.

Lokuta, who continues to challenge the Dec. 9, 2008, ruling that removed her from office, has repeatedly portrayed Conahan as a dictator who improperly influenced court employees who testified against her at her trial.

Lokuta and her attorney, George Michak, said Wednesday that testimony presented this week at hearings of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice raised serious questions about how diligent the JCB was in probing allegations of wrongdoing against Conahan.

The commission was formed in August to investigate the county’s juvenile court system in the wake of corruption charges filed against Conahan and former judge Mark Ciavarella related to rulings that benefited two private juvenile detention centers the county utilized.

Testimony at Tuesday’s hearing revealed the JCB held a complaint that accused Conahan of various improprieties, including case fixing and rampant nepotism, for nearly two years before it turned it over to federal authorities for a criminal investigation.

The complaint also included allegations that placement rates at PA Child Care, which was owned by Conahan’s and Ciavarella’s one-time friend, Robert Powell, were exceptionally high under Ciavarella’s tenure as juvenile judge.

Lokuta on Wednesday confirmed the complaint was authored by a member of her staff. It was received by the JCB on Sept. 28, 2006 – two months before the board filed the misconduct charges against Lokuta that led to her removal from office. But the JCB did not give the complaint to the U.S Attorney’s Office until 2008, Edwin Klett, a member of the JCB, testified Tuesday.

Members of the juvenile commission questioned Klett on whether the JCB took any action to investigate the complaint, but he refused to answer, citing the confidentiality of misconduct proceedings.

Michak said he believes testimony indicates the board did nothing to look into the Conahan complaint. He cited Klett’s testimony that he did not even know the complaint existed until the summer of 2009, when he read media reports about it.

Reached Wednesday, Patrick Judge, an area businessman who sat on the JCB board in 2006, also said he never saw the Conahan complaint. Judge, who once had business ties to Conahan, declined to comment further, directing all questions to Joseph Massa, chief counsel for the JCB.

“What are the practices and procedures that they waited two years to do anything?” Michak said. “Considering the JCB was relying heavily on Conahan and Ciavarella in the case against Lokuta, I would think they would have accelerated their investigation into the complaint.”

Lokuta and Michak said they also questioned why the JCB’s board apparently was not made aware of the complaint’s existence by Massa or Francis Puskas, who prosecuted the misconduct case against Lokuta.

Lokuta said Conahan was a key figure in her case. He was the first person the JCB met with when it began investigating her. The JCB prosecutors maintained a close contact with him, she said.

“Look at the role he (Conahan) played in the Lokuta investigation and the cordial relationship he maintained with the JCB prosecutors throughout that proceeding, even when they were aware of allegations against him in the complaint,” Michak said. “Was that sufficient for him to get a pass from the JCB prosecutors?”

Lokuta and Michak said they are also troubled by conflicting testimony regarding how the Conahan complaint was passed on to federal authorities.

Massa previously said the Conahan complaint was sent to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in accordance with JCB’s policy to alert law enforcement if a complaint contained allegations of criminal activity. But in testimony Tuesday, he acknowledged he acted on his own – without consulting the board – when he gave the complaint to federal prosecutors and when he testified before a grand jury.

Lokuta said she found it “quite a coincidence” that the Conahan complaint was “languishing” with the JCB while the agency proceeded with its prosecution of her without delay.

“Apparently it was kept from the view of the board. It’s the board that has the constitutional imperative to investigate, not the staff,” Lokuta said.

Contacted Wednesday, Massa referred all questions to attorney Paul Titus of Pittsburgh, who was specially retained to represent the JCB at the juvenile commission hearings. Titus said he was precluded from commenting specifically on the Conahan complaint because misconduct charges were never filed against Conahan, meaning all documents related to the case are confidential.

Speaking generally, he said the fact Klett said he did not see the complaint does not necessarily mean it was not investigated. JCB attorneys often present a synopsis of allegations contained in a complaint, rather than the entire complaint, to the board, he said.

Titus said he understands the public might be suspicious of the JCB’s handling of Conahan’s case, given the ongoing corruption probe within the county.

He said he wishes he could provide more information, but it’s crucial that the JCB ensure the integrity of the investigative process is not compromised. Releasing confidential information, even to the juvenile commission, could irreparably harm that process because it could dissuade people, who fear their identity would be revealed, from reporting wrongdoing.

John Cleland, chairman of the juvenile commission, said he understands that concern, but finds the JCB’s position “frustrating.” He said he is hopeful both sides can reach some sort of compromise that will allow for the release of information the commission needs to evaluate the JCB’s actions regarding the Conahan complaint.