ILNews

Chief PD: No one forced me out

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The top public defender in Marion County said he wasn't forced to leave the agency for any reason, though he does worry that politics could play into the naming of his successor.

Indiana Lawyer put the question to David E. Cook after reading a posting on Ruth's Blog, a Web log devoted to news and commentary. The posting claimed that Cook was forced from his job for political reasons.

While Cook is cognizant that his position is a political one and attempts have been made in the past to further politicize the office, he said that no one forced his hand when he resigned late last year. Politics was one of many reasons for his decision, he said.

"As I've said before, you have to have a fire in your belly for this, and it's not there anymore," he said. "I wasn't up for the political fights, the budget-setting process, the fire you need to do this work, all of that. It was time to pass the baton on to someone else."

But Cook is concerned about politics when it comes to the person who will take charge of the office he's led for 12 years.

"I work in a political world, but I've never been a political person," he said. "Politics hasn't mattered to me in this office. Sure, this is a political position; I've always known that just because of the visibility and nature of the (City-County Council) confirmations. But we haven't played politics here."

One of the issues he regrets not changing is how the council reconfirms the chief public defender each year. Cook hopes that's the first task his successor takes on and something the agency's board addresses, possibly looking at giving the public defender a term similar to what elected prosecutors have.

"If this position goes to a political hack and the agency starts going backward, it'll be sad and distressing," Cook said. "But it's not my problem."

Cook is stepping down March 15 from the agency's top post, where he's served since 1995. He is going to work at Indianapolis immigration firm Gresk & Singleton - something that's been in the works since spring 2007, he said. Originally, he'd planned to leave by Feb. 15 but decided to stay longer to give the board more time to find a successor without having to name an interim director.

The attorney who chairs the Marion County Public Defender Agency's governing board also said that politics isn't at play in appointing someone to succeed Cook, and board members plan to fairly interview all applicants and appoint the person they believe will be the best choice.

"I think the process we have now is designed to de-politicize that," said board chairman Jimmie McMillian, an associate with Barnes & Thornburg. "Politics are completely irrelevant in this, and we've always strived as a board to be non-political. We want to find the best person to fill this position. If it were up to us, Dave would be over there forever."

McMillian emphasized that the nine-member board is committed to having an interview process free from politics. Ten attorneys applied for the position by the Feb. 1 deadline; first interviews are planned for Feb. 26 and second interviews are set for March 3. The board will determine the next step after those second interviews, McMillian said. The City-County Council must confirm the appointment.

Members plan to ask each candidate to talk about four agency-important topics during their interviews: the ability of public defenders to continue in private practice, the office's budget priorities, training of public defenders and staff, and the screening process to make sure all indigent clients are being adequately identified.

"That sends a message of how serious we are as a board about appointing someone in a non-political way," McMillian said. "We don't care what political party you are but want to make sure you have good answers about these important issues."

Former chairman Jon Bailey with law firm Bose McKinney & Evans said that any public defender needs to be able to work with everyone in the courts and City-County Building, despite any political affiliations. While federal caselaw recognizes that political affiliation may be a legitimate consideration in top policymaker positions, Bailey pointed out that any political-affiliation test used during the appointment process would be wrong.

"In the Marion County context, given the history of the board and agency, permitting a political-affiliation test would be absolutely wrong and a huge step backward," he said.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT