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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT