Children's Services Levy - Issue 8
In recent editorial, a prominent local Judge wrote, “Please join my wife and I in supporting Issue 8.” The Judge goes on to say, “My personal belief is that we need to support local levies that fund services that we as a community decide are important to us. One replacement levy on the ballot this November is the children’s services levy, Issue 8,that provides funding to protect and improve the lives of children that are abused and neglected.”
When in fact, the truth be told, our County spends almost five times as much on our Geauga Park District than we do on children services…and this Judge is the appointing authority for the Park District so he knows full well. He knows that we spend more money counting woolly bears and picking up dog excrement at the Sunnybrook Preserve than we spend caring for abused and neglected children. The Judge admitted, “If you look at your tax bill, you will see that the children’s services levy makes up a tiny sliver of the local taxes you pay, yet it is critical to protecting the most vulnerable of our children.”
If so important, if so “critical” why such a “tiny sliver”? Because our tax structuring shows that the Geauga Park District is more valued and important than are the abused and neglected children of Geauga County.
In light of this disparity of funding, it is disingenuous at best to present yourself and your spouse as magnanimous supporters of a levy for children, when in fact he is the appointing authority for the tax hog of Geauga County. He should initiate a levy to rescind public funding of the Geauga Park District and allow the parks to be funded privately. And then we could divert those monies to Children’s Services to “protect the most vulnerable of our children.”
Judy K. Zamlen-Spotts
I think it's obvious the Judge being referenced here is Charles Henry, juvenile/probate judge.
Judy, this man's hypocrisy has no limits!
Judge Henry has a zero tolerance alcohol policy in the juvenile court yet it is fine with him that the Geauga Park District policy allows alcohol consumption in the parks... the only park system that does so.
He appoints the park commissioners, having direct control over them, although falsely leading people to believe he doesn't.
Judge Henry's support of this, or any other levy, is just more insight of his hypocrisy. Being in control of the tax hog Park Board, why would he ever publicly denounce any other levy....that would make him look bad. He hears Children's Services cases all the time in court and is friendly to that agency...which would also make him biased in his support.
"My personal belief is" that it is not appropriate for Judge Henry to publicly support this issue because of bias, and judges are supposed to be unbiased, neutral.
When I have asked judges to speak at public forums I put on, about particular subjects or areas of law, I am told they can't because they hear cases concerning these areas. Their public speeches would make them look biased and they would have to recuse themselves, not being allowed to hear certain cases that might come in front of them.
Judge Henry....from this point on, it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself from hearing ANY children's services cases.