Ciavarella: I disgraced judgeship

By Steve Mocarsky smocarsky@timesleader.comStaff Writer

Luzerne County Judge last week acknowledged in a letter to county President Judge Chester Muroski that he disgraced his judgeship.

But Ciavarella disputed other statements Muroski made about his actions while serving as president judge before resigning that post on Jan. 23 – three days before the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced corruption charges against him and former Senior Judge Michael Conahan.

“While much of what has recently been reported in the press about me is inaccurate or untrue, your statement that I have disgraced my judgeship is true,” Ciavarella wrote in the letter, which was dated Feb. 5 and copied to the other judges in the county Court of Common Pleas.

Ciavarella and Conahan agreed to plead guilty to charges that they took $2.6 million in kickbacks in a scheme involving a juvenile detention center in Pittston Township. The men face 87 months in prison; their arraignment is set for Thursday at 1 p.m. in Scranton federal court.

“My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I only have myself to blame,” Ciavarella wrote.

However, contrary to some of Muroski’s statements, Ciavarella stated he did not make unilateral decisions on court-related issues that Muroski has since either overturned or pegged for review.

Ciavarella acknowledged that it was his idea to change how court-appointed attorneys are appointed and paid. But he wrote to Muroski that his “insinuation it was me and me alone who implemented these changes is misleading and wrong.”

Ciavarella sent a proposal to every judge asking for input; Joseph Augello was the only judge to respond, he said.

A court en banc meeting was held to discuss the proposed changes, and at the end of the meeting, “it was agreed by the judges, not me individually, to have me sign the order” adopting the changes and pay schedule, Ciavarella wrote, adding that no judge there voiced opposition.

Everyone agreed the changes were “appropriate and in the best interest of the efficient operation” of the court system and “in the best interest of defendants,” he wrote.

Commissioners have said the pay schedule was too high.

Ciavarella also wrote that a lawsuit filed against the commissioners to prevent cuts to the 2009 court budget was brought before the court en banc for approval. “It was agreed by the entire court that the court could not effectively operate with the effects of a $1.8 million personnel budget cut. I was authorized by the judges to commence a lawsuit. … It was a decision made by all the judges and filed by me based upon their directive.”

Muroski has said the issue was never put before the judges for a vote, and all of the judges supported withdrawing the lawsuit. Muroski and Commissioner Chairwoman Maryanne Petrilla signed a settlement agreement Friday, agreeing that the judges would scour the court payroll to find $1.99 million in salary cuts.

Ciavarella also disputed Muroski’s statement that Ciavarella bypassed sentencing judges and furloughed prisoners into the Crossing Over transitional-living program. He wrote that the issue was discussed at length by the court en banc, and the procedure for issuing furloughs was agreed upon by the court.

He stated that the problem was lawyers were presenting orders to the sentencing judge to have their clients furloughed to Crossing Over and the judge would sign the order, but neither the judge nor the attorney would notify the probation department, so furloughed inmates were being released without Probation Department supervision.

The new procedure required all furlough requests to first be approved by the prison and then the probation department, and an order would be sent to Ciavarella to sign because he was in the same building as the probation department, Ciavarella wrote.

Ciavarella also disputed that he “rarely” held court en banc meetings. “In the two years I was president judge, I held 11 court en banc meetings … to keep each judge updated on what was happening in the court system.”

“Every meeting ended with me giving each judge the opportunity to discuss any court issue. … At no point did I ever muzzle any judge from voicing his or her opinion on any court-related matter,” Ciavarella wrote.

In response to the letter, Muroski on Sunday read a prepared statement on behalf of himself and the other county judges.

“We disagree with his recollection of the manner and nature in which court en banc meetings were conducted. Rather than engage in public debate, all the members of the court are working vigorously to address the matters on a forward-thinking basis and making every effort to restore public trust and confidence in the court, which has been terribly shaken by recent events,” Muroski said.

Visit www.timesleader.com to read Judge Ciavarella’s letter.

Steve Mocarsky, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 459-2005.