CPT • Brancatelli defenders reluctant to accept a new day is dawning

Cuyahoga Politics Today

Sour grapes campaign maligns judge and her supporters

Councilman’s defenders unwilling to accept “there’s a new sheriff in town”

By R. T. Andrews

Judge W. Moná Scott

Attorney W. Moná Scott’s defeat of incumbent housing court judge Ron O’Leary has not been well received in certain parts of our town. The reasons are worth looking at.

First, some facts.

Cleveland’s housing court, a special division of Cleveland Municipal Court, was established in 1980. It has jurisdiction over criminal cases involving violations of Cleveland’s housing, building, fire, zoning, health, waste collection, sidewalk and agricultural and air pollution codes. It also hears civil cases involving landlord and tenant disputes.

Arguably, it is the most powerful of Cleveland’s municipal court seats, not just because of its jurisdictional portfolio: it has also has about sixty employees, and the housing court judge has the power to hire and fire most of them.

The court’s activities have become more consequential since the Great Recession of 2008 and the formation of the County Land Bank in 2009.

When longtime housing court judge Ray Pianka died suddenly in early 2017, then-Gov. John Kasich, picked a fellow Republican, attorney Ron O’Leary, to replace him. At the time, O’Leary was director of the city’s building and housing department. In November 2017 he won a relatively short campaign to retain the seat for the balance of Pianka’s term, defeating Moná Scott in a three way race by less than 400 votes.

Scott challenged O’Leary again last year, this time defeating him in a two-way race for a full six-year term. It’s interesting to note that while Scott’s received 246 fewer votes in the second race, O’Leary’s vote total fell by 4,284. Scott won by a decisive 55.6% to 44.4% margin.

Let’s also remember that Scott’s credentials are at least on par with O’Leary’s. She is a former Cleveland fair housing administrator for Cleveland, and a former assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor, with prior experience the prosecutor’s tax foreclosure division. Unlike either O’Leary or Pianka, she ascends the bench with actual trial court experience.

Cleveland is a majority black city, and most of the city’s municipal court judges are black. In fact ten of the 13 city municipal court judges are women, and nine of the judges are people of color [8 black, one Hispanic].

So what’s the fuss about?  

The complainants are publicly grousing through their media connections[1] that Scott won because voters ignored qualifications and blindly voted “D”, and that she then vindictively pursued a complaint against councilman Tony Brancatelli, a Democratic ally of the Republican O’Leary, based on long-established Democratic Party rules.

We’ve already addressed the qualifications issue; that is not substantial issue. We would add only that Scott reportedly spent part of her childhood living in public housing. That’s a credential that likely resonated with many city voters.

As to voters following the “D” in hypnotic fashion — a trope gratuitously pushed and hyperbolically extended in this Plain Dealer hit piece, obviously sole-sourced in the Brancatelli camp — let’s recognize that O’Leary only became a judge because he is an “R” and was able to extend his initial appointment tenure only by virtue of a short campaign in a three-way race he narrowly escaped with less than 40% of the vote.

We’ve not spoken with either candidate or their official representatives, although we have reached out to supporters on both sides.

What we do know is this:

First and foremost, Judge Scott is not a part of the old boy network. She is the first woman to serve as housing judge in the court’s 40 year history, and the second African American [the long forgotten Clarence Gaines was the first].

Second, Brancatelli knew his public support of O’Leary was in violation of Democratic Party rules that he, as a party official, has regularly taken an oath to uphold. Further, while he angelically denies being an active supporter of the O’Leary campaign, he delegated that role to at least one key member of his camp. His various stated reasons for supporting O’Leary in 2019 are suspect because he also actively supported O’Leary against Scott in 2017.

It is thus understandable that Scott pursued her intraparty complaint against Brancatelli; how else does one deter a repeat violator?

The Democrats’ Party Unity Review Committee [PURC], which reviews complaints of this type, is worthy of a separate discussion. Suffice to say here, Brancatelli openly and knowingly violated the rules, and is now recruiting megaphones to complain on his behalf.

That may be one of the reasons that even before his punishment was meted out by PURC, Brancatelli lost in his own ward caucus for the position of ward leader by a more progressive activist in his hard-scrabble community. When you can’t fend off a challenger on the home turf you’ve ruled for more than a decade, you likely should be looking for your next job.

We think the real reason Judge Scott’s name, temperament and qualifications are being tarnished is that she has disrupted the white boys club. It’s a stark statement but one supported by the evidence. It’s most obvious in the tone of Brancatelli defenders who think Scott couldn’t possibly be deserving of the position, though she checked every darn box, including the most important one: she got 55% of the vote.

Those on the losing side have argued, and their minions have echoed, that Scott somehow knew she was unqualified because she failed to participate in judge4yourself.com, the establishment blessed gauntlet for judicial candidates. That attack fails in the light of what is increasingly being acknowledged: the judge4yourself process contains some inherent biases that must be addressed before it is worthwhile for many black candidates to participate. As we reported this past week, other organizations have stepped up to initiate new judicial candidate vetting. We will report on their initial results tomorrow, assuming they adhere to their previously announced schedule.

Scott’s success has disrupted the cozy network established by the former regime. It’s what happens when seats change. Brancatelli wasn’t the first to be PURC-ed [party regulars pronounce it “perked”] for violating the rule and he shouldn’t be the last. Incidentally, black Democrats will face the same dilemma this fall when deciding whether to support the highly competent appellate judge Ray Headen notwithstanding his “R” credential.

Cleveland in many ways sits at a crossroads. All the signs say that change is coming. The results of this year’s Census will be a huge element. The voters’ decision whether to amend the city’s charter to reduce the size of council from 17 to nine is another immense choice point. And whether a challenger will arrive to convince the Mayor not to extend his administration to twenty years is another crossroads moment.

What will not help us progress is playing three-card monte with principles and rules, and then claiming foul when the card that comes up isn’t yours, and it’s your turn to — if not rise and fly — then at least open up the table to a new player.

# # ## # #

---

[1] The Neighborhood News, Brancatelli’s ethnic neighborhood newspaper, wrote a rare front page editorial decrying his modest punishment by the Party. It read, in this reader’s eyes, like a call to return to an era when black people knew their place.