THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, June 5, 1996 TAG: 9606050348
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY LYNN WALTZ AND ANGELITA PLEMMER, STAFF WRITERS
DATELINE: PORTSMOUTH LENGTH: 115 lines
A state Supreme Court investigation of Portsmouth's magistrates concluded that the office suffers from personality conflicts, perceived favoritism by a judge, inflated figures in workload reports and possible civil rights violations.
But, despite the problems, the office continues to fulfill its core mission: determining bail amounts and issuing search and arrest warrants, a report released Tuesday said.
``Notwithstanding the problems in this office, the basic ability of the Portsmouth magistrates is not questioned,'' the report said.
Chief Magistrate Gwendolyn C. Barrick said Tuesday she was unhappy with the result of the investigation, which she said was ``not a true review'' of her office.
``No one has cheated or lied or done anything deliberate,'' Barrick said. ``Anything we've done incorrectly was because of ignorance on our part.''
Circuit Judge Norman Olitsky, who supervises the magistrate office as chief judge, said Wednesday he had just received a copy of the report but had not had time to study it.
Ronald B. Neely, a technical assistant for the state Supreme Court who conducted the investigation and prepared the report, refused to comment on his findings.
Olitsky, who requested the investigation, received a detailed oral report from Neely on April 4. Olitsky said then he was ``very distressed'' but would not take action until he received the written report.
At least one magistrate said Olitsky raised the possibility of firings, reprimands and probation for some magistrates.
Highlights of the investigation included reports of personality conflicts between Barrick and another magistrate that disrupted the rest of the office and caused low morale.
``One of the key issues appears to be personnel management,'' the report said, saying the chief magistrate was having a problem maintaining ``office-wide compliance with policies and procedures.''
In addition, the report said, only one of seven magistrates was accurately reporting workload statistics to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court uses workload statistics to compare magistrates offices statewide and to help determine staffing and funding.
``As an office, this visit found the workload statistics very unreliable,'' Neely wrote in the report. ``It would be extremely difficult to make informed decisions on actual workload based on the findings of this visit.''
In the most extreme case, one magistrate reported issuing 356 civil processes in 1995. She later admitted to Neely that the accurate number was between six and 10.
Such examples, Neely wrote, ``place serious doubt on the reliability of their workload statistics office-wide.''
The report placed part of the blame on Barrick for a ``lack of uniform supervision.'' Also, the report says, Barrick did not correct inaccuracies in workload statistics even when she found errors.
Barrick said in an interview Tuesday that there are no personality conflicts in her office and that office morale is better now than it has been in the past.
``There's never been a conflict. . . . It's not true,'' she said. ``Management is what I've done all my life. I've never had a problem till the last couple years. Why has no one complained before? All they said was, `You're doing a great job.' ''
The report also blamed morale problems on a perception of favoritism within the office. One magistrate receives a higher salary than others of more seniority and service, an issue which ``continues to fester,'' the report said.
``Office-wide, magistrates feel that this same magistrate has abused office policies and has a tendency not to work for the betterment of the office as a whole,'' the report said. ``Co-workers perceive that a friendship between this same magistrate and a member of the bench, has created a problem for the chief magistrate in terms of maintaining office-wide compliance with policies and procedures.''
The perception of favoritism is ``disrupting office unity and discipline,'' the report said, and ``reduces the tendency of everyone to work for the betterment of the whole office.''
Deborah Clark, who was not named in the report but is apparently the magistrate cited as being a source of conflict, says she has been put on the ``hot seat'' for her problems in reporting her workload, her conflicts with Barrick and her perceived friendship with Circuit Court Judge Johnny Morrison.
Clark worked for Morrison as a law clerk before he appointed her as a magistrate. Their perceived friendship has been a source of friction in the office, she said in an interview.
Morrison said Tuesday he had not seen a copy of the report and could not comment. He was not mentioned by name in the report.
``They talk about me and the relationship with Judge Morrison, but everybody knew I was his clerk. What was the big issue?'' Clark said. ``They were afraid to do things around me for fear I would snitch, but nothing came out of that office through me. I just want to do my job, but there's a stigma that's not fair to me.''
Clark was responsible for the most serious reporting discrepancy cited in the report.
``With the exception of one person, everyone was doing it inaccurately,'' Clark said in an interview. ``I didn't do it deliberately. I don't think anybody did. . . . I have no problems recognizing that I made a mistake.''
In regard to allegations of racism in the office, Neely interviewed three African-American magistrates and four Caucasian magistrates. He concluded that there was no evidence of racism.
Neely's investigation also revealed that the city jail may be violating the civil rights of prisoners who are in custody awaiting trial by not allowing them to bond out after midnight and during weekends.
In some instances, magistrates had to turn down bond requests on weekends and after business hours because they could not obtain court papers held by the Records Office of the Sheriff's Department.
But Sheriff Gary Waters, in a letter to Barrick this week, said court records would now be made available to magistrates 24 hours a day and during weekends. A representative for his office said Waters did not realize that his office procedures posed a problem.
``This is the first time that it's ever been a major problem, and it's been brought to his attention,'' Lt. Elizabeth Aronson, the representative, said. ``If there was a problem, he definitely wants to correct it.'' ILLUSTRATION: ``Anything we've done incorrectly was because of
ignorance on our part,'' Chief Magistrate Gwendolyn C. Barrick said.
KEYWORDS: VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT AUDIT PORTSMOUTH MAGISTRATES by CNB