According to the state Judicial Tenure Commission, Probate Judge David Stowe did something wrong in connection with a whistleblower case that resulted in a $69,000 payoff to a former court employee.
Exactly what Stowe did that the Tenure Commission thought was improper and exactly what "corrective action" he faced is anybody's guess. The Tenure Commission won't say, and the judge himself isn't talking.
That leaves the people who elected Stowe and pay his salary of more than $139,000 and doled out the $69,000 payoff totally in the dark -- apparently right where Stowe and the commission think they should be.
The facts are pretty clear. While Stowe was deciding child custody matters in Cynthia Curry's divorce case, Stowe -- who was married at the time -- had a personal relationship with Curry. She worked at the time for Stowe in Grand Traverse County's family court.
Stowe hired Cynthia Curry in 2002 as a juvenile probation officer, and they allegedly began a personal relationship by year's end. Stowe presided over Cynthia and Ronald Curry's divorce and ongoing custody issues from 2001 until 2006, when Ronald Curry complained of the relationship to court officials.
When family court administrator Michael Stein learned about the situation and complained to Grand Traverse County officials, Stowe fired him. After Stein threatened a whistleblower lawsuit Stowe, with the approval of top Grand Traverse officials, paid him $69,000 to go away.
Stowe obviously -- blatantly, in fact -- violated the basic ethics of his profession by having a personal relationship with someone whose case he was deciding.
Ronald Curry in 2008 filed a complaint with the Tenure Commission over Stowe's actions. Paul Fischer, executive director of the Judicial Tenure Commission, brushed off Curry's concerns in a Nov. 12 letter:
"Occasionally, a judge's conduct falls short of the ideal judicial officer, yet does not warrant commencement of formal discipline proceedings," Fischer wrote. "In this matter, the Commission has taken an appropriate corrective action."
Fischer declined to explain what that "appropriate corrective action" was.
Not only was Ronald Curry not given an explanation, but the people who elected Stowe and pay his salary and rely on him to fairly dispense justice may never know what discipline Stowe was subject to.
Once again, the local justice system -- which has taken a beating in the past six years -- has another self-inflicted blow. How are local residents supposed to have faith, respect and confidence in the judiciary when local judges pay off whistleblower complaints and local officials help?
The public has not forgotten past cases of police and judicial misconduct and the special treatment so many of those on the other side of the badge or the bar have gotten.
Further, the wider legal profession has shown it cannot be trusted to police itself. The Tenure Commission -- and the state Court Administrator's Office before that -- acted more like Stowe's defense team than agencies deciding what appear to be serious ethical lapses.
To Paul Fischer's claim that the "Commission has taken an appropriate corrective action" local voters likely want to respond that they'll be the judge of what's appropriate -- if someone would tell them the whole truth. The public isn't demanding an "ideal judicial officer" as Fischer put it, just a judge who doesn't blatantly cross the ethics barrier.
The one person who can -- and should -- clear the record is David Stowe. If Judge Stowe is concerned what voters and those who appear before him, think he should come forward.
He should make public the letter from the Tenure Commission and his role in paying Michael Stein. He should explain why he continued to oversee Cynthia Curry's divorce proceedings after entering into a personal relationship with her. He should explain why his court more than doubled the amount of funds it paid Holy Cross Children Services after Cynthia Curry went to work there.
Most of all, Stowe should apologize. He has violated the public trust, used public dollars to make a whistleblower lawsuit go away and further eroded the public's very shaky confidence in the judiciary.
So far, all we've gotten from Stowe is an effort to shoot the messenger.
"If you just speak to knowledgeable people in the community you could easily be dissuaded from disparaging our court," Stowe said in his lone on-the-record statement to the Record-Eagle.
Everyone can read between those lines.
Print this story
E-mail this story
