To the Editor:
I am writing this letter to endorse T. George Davis for Dukes County clerk of courts. Attorney Davis overwhelmingly won the Democratic primary election on Sept. 4, and I hope you will vote for him on Nov. 6. This Island needs the skills that he will bring to the job, and we are lucky to have him available to seamlessly step into this position.
I retained Attorney Davis for a tenant eviction several years ago, and found him to be intelligent, patient, and thorough. When I learned that he was running for the clerk of courts position, I knew that he had the right personality and temperament, and that he would be an excellent candidate for this job. Attorney Davis has been a successful practicing attorney for more than 30 years, and he has a great deal of Superior Court experience.
I have recently read that Attorney Davis’ opponent, Anthony Piland, who is running as an unenrolled candidate, and who is a physician assistant at the hospital, feels he is on equal footing with Attorney Davis to step into this position. This could not be further from the truth. Mr. Piland, who has no professional legal experience or legal training, is stating on his website and his comments to a recent MV Times letter to the editor that we should “not be fooled by lawyers and professional politicians” that he is unqualified for this position. He states that the outgoing Dukes County Clerk of Courts, Joseph Sollitto, can mentor him, and he claims that he will be trained for this position by the Massachusetts Trial Court Judicial Institute in Boston. In essence, he admits that he is not ready for this position. Mr. Piland adds, “Challenge the status quo” in his comments in The Times. We do not need the status quo challenged, we need a competent and trained professional to step into this position on Day 1.
It is my understanding that the only training provided in Boston to an incoming Clerk of Courts is basic information about running an office and about courtroom policy. There is no training manual, and there is no legal training provided.
To best perform in this position, an incoming clerk of courts needs to walk in the door immediately with competent legal skills, such as knowing how to apply Massachusetts law and the rules of civil and criminal procedure. The clerk of courts needs to frequently act as a clerk magistrate, who can hear small claims cases, issue search and arrest warrants, and make many important, substantive determinations regarding the rights and liberties of litigants.
I understand that approximately eight years ago the Massachusetts legislature changed the job requirements for the first assistant clerks, who operate directly under the clerks of courts, and those individuals are now required by law to be lawyers to qualify for that position. This requirement of being a lawyer has not yet been made for the supervising clerks of courts as of this date, however, because making that change requires an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, which is a much more difficult and complicated process than simply enacting a law, as the legislature did for the first assistant clerk position. However, it is my understanding that the Massachusetts Court Management Advisory Board issued a recommendation that these clerk positions all be filled by lawyers. In fact, it logically stands to reason that if the person who works under the clerk of courts is now required by state mandate to be a lawyer, then it only makes sense, and only serves the court well, if the supervising clerk of courts above the first assistant clerk is also an attorney. This becomes more important in Dukes County because the first assistant clerk here is expected to retire in the not too distant future, and there is some uncertainty about whether the commonwealth will authorize her to be replaced because of ongoing budgetary cost cutting. If, in fact, the first assistant clerk is not replaced and the Dukes County clerk of courts is not a lawyer, there would be no lawyer at all in the Clerk of Courts Office, which would not be in the best interests of the courts or our citizens.
There was a Boston Globe Spotlight Team article, printed on Sept. 30, titled “Inside Our Secret Courts.” This article makes clear why the clerk of courts should be a competent, educated attorney.
Because Superior Court cases involve civil disputes starting at $25,000, as well as very serious criminal matters, clerks of courts routinely make major impactful decisions, therefore, it could not be more important for the clerk to know what he is doing and get it right.
One additional thing that is particularly important with respect to the Dukes County Courthouse is that a Superior Court judge is only present for two months of the year (April and October), with a judge coming to the court at most a day or two a month other than that. In those instances where a judge is not present at the courthouse in Edgartown, it is important for the clerk of courts to be able to make quick and prudent evaluations of matters in real time, and be able to determine what matters can be handled in-house and what matters require reaching out and working effectively with a judge in another Superior Court in Massachusetts.
In other words, the position of the Dukes County clerk of courts on Martha’s Vineyard belongs in the hands of an experienced attorney who knows what he or she is doing and who understands how the court works, as well as knows the law and complicated rules of procedure. Experience as an attorney, relationships with other legal and court professionals, and understanding of the laws, rules, and procedures will also be of great benefit to attorneys who are litigating in the court as they seek direction or assistance from the court on various issues. This is not a job for someone who has no experience in this field, no legal training, and is hoping that “on the job training” in a professional arena will be sufficient. That is not what the Island needs in their clerk of courts. We do not need someone who is interested in this job; we need someone who is qualified for this position.
We have a choice to put someone in this position who is a graduate of Georgetown Law School, who has been a lawyer for more than 30 years, and has been a lawyer on the Vineyard for the past 18 years, or to put someone in this position who is a physician assistant at the hospital who has no training as a lawyer and no relevant professional experience of any kind. Mr. Piland tells us in a recent comment in The Times “not to be fooled by lawyers.” While Mr. Piland may be a nice man with good intentions, with no disrespect to him or his interest in this job of Dukes County clerk of courts, I ask that you not be fooled by him. He is profoundly unqualified to step into this position, particularly in light of the outstanding candidate we have in Attorney T. George Davis.
Robin Canha
West Tisbury
Robin’s comments are misleading as she is confusing the role of the Clerk of Courts (Superior court) with the role of the Clerk-Magistrate (District Court). It is a common mistake. The Boston Globe article she references relates directly to the District court not the Superior Court. The Clerk-Magistrate is a life time appointment by the governor to the District and Municipal courts throughout Massachusetts. There are about 70 Clerk-Magistrates. The role of Clerk-Magistrate of the District Court is currently held by Liza Williamson.
The Clerk of Courts position in the SUPERIOR court is distinctly different. It is important to make the distinction because the roles and responsibilities are not the same. It confuses the voters because they may not realize the difference between the Superior Court and the District Court. The requirements are and should be different. The Clerk of Courts leans more to that of an administrator and manager. There are 15 successful Clerks of Courts in Massachusetts and 4 are non-lawyers. (Nantucket, Berkshire, Suffolk, and Norfolk counties)
An interesting historical fact is that the Clerk of Courts prior to Joe Sollitto had a high school diploma and she trained Joe “on the job” to be a successful and respected Clerk.
Contrary to Anthony Piland’s patronizing assertions, I am neither misrepresenting nor confusing the role of Clerk of Courts (Superior Court) with the role of the Clerk-Magistrate (District Court). On Tuesday, October 23rd, I had a lengthy telephone conversation with Michael Sullivan, Clerk of Courts for Middlesex Superior Court, who is also the President of the Massachusetts Clerk of Courts Association and the person responsible for the “training” that Mr. Piland claims he will receive. I made it clear to Clerk Sullivan that I was writing a letter to the editor, and it was Clerk Sullivan who directed me to the Boston Globe article as one way to support his proposition that the Clerk of Courts needs to be lawyer. As he explained to me, the Clerk of Courts is much more than an administrative position, but rather has numerous magistrate responsibilities, some of which are part of the Clerk of Courts’ mandated responsibilities (which Mr. Piland doesn’t seem to realize) and some of which are overflow responsibilities designated by the District Court Clerk-Magistrate.
Mr. Piland mentions that there are 15 Clerks of Courts in Massachusetts and 4 are non-lawyers. However, none of these people became Clerk of Court without extensive experience in the law before walking in the door. For example, in the case of Nantucket, that person had served as an assistant clerk for 5 years in the Clerk’s office at the time of her promotion to acting Clerk of Courts when her predecessor left office. Comparing her 5 years of on the job training to Mr. Piland’s complete lack of training in the law or experience in any courthouse setting is a no brainer. Furthermore, Mr. Piland has no response to the fact mentioned in my editorial that approximately 8 years ago the Massachusetts State Legislature enacted a law requiring the first assistant clerk, who works under the clerk of courts, to be a lawyer. As I stated in my editorial, the reason it has not become law that the Clerk of Courts (who supervises the first assistant clerk) needs to be a lawyer is because it requires a change to the Massachusetts Constitution. However, the Massachusetts Court Management Advisory Board has recommended that all Clerks of Courts should be lawyers.
Mr. Piland ends his response by mentioning that Joe Sollitto’s predecessor of 42 years ago had a high school diploma. What he fails to mention, however, is that the very reason Mr. Sollitto was recruited and hired in the first place was because he was a lawyer, and one was needed in the office to assist his predecessor.
In response to Anthony Piland’s rebuttal to my well-informed and researched letter to the editor, I ask the reader to go back and read my letter, and recognize that Mr. Piland is trying to take the voter down an irrelevant and diversionary road. He ignores the body of what I said because he has no comeback to it, and in my opinion he reinforces why he is not qualified for the Dukes County Clerk of Courts position. Lastly, with all Mr. Piland’s experience at the hospital, and in the ER, I wonder if he would support someone coming in off the street to work in a physician assistant position with the thought that he or she could be “trained on the job”.
Robin,
Thank you for your comments, research, and opinion. Thank you for being an informed and active voter. Our country needs citizens like you more than ever. I encourage all who read this to become informed on the issues, to remember the importance of our American way of life, and meditate on why our constitution was written to allow any patriotic citizen of good character to serve in government and seek to serve the public.
I appreciate the feedback from the Middlesex Clerk of Courts and respect his perspective as well as the work he has done. However, I respectfully posit that to automatically discount non-lawyers when the state’s courts are under investigation and fighting a lawsuit against the Boston Globe would be in haste. It is prudent to do internal discovery to ascertain the root cause of the problem with the current court system. We need to wait to see what the investigation reveals about the efficacy of lawyer and non-lawyer clerks, especially when politicians, police officers, and court officials may have been given preferential treatment in private hearings as brought out in the well written article.
It is imperative to understand that The Boston Globe article (https://apps.bostonglobe.com/spotlight/secret-courts/ ) does not explicitly imply that blame for mishandled cases falls on non-lawyer clerks. However, again with politicians, police officers, court officials, and friend’s and family being excused from accountability for their behaviors, it is far more likely that someone “in their club” would dismiss or absolve these offenses. The real problem is with the current system and a need for transparency and a stepping away from the status quo, which I have built my platform on. The article is titled “Inside our Secret Courts” and again it dealt with the Clerk-Magistrates in the District Courts and their PRIVATE HEARINGS. The article pointed out that some Clerk-Magistrates (both lawyers and non-lawyers) made their decisions on whether to allow criminal charges to proceed were based on who the person being charged was, who they knew, and in some cases the race of the person. Basically, favoritism was shown to one group while disfavor was given to another group.
Finally, I have had numerous conversation with two Clerks from other counties as well as with our current Clerk of Courts and Clerk-Magistrate and I do know what the job entails in regards to the magistrate functions. In fact, I spoke with Michael Sullivan as well and he informed me that he manages over 56 employees and has a case load of about 13,000 civil cases and 1,000 criminal cases. Compare this to about 80 civil cases and 1 criminal case on the Vineyard. He inferred that based on the Dukes county case load there would be more then enough time and resources to master the court systems processes and procedures. He said that the Clerks work collaboratively and utilize their networks to help each other across the state. Another clerk, from a similar county to ours stated that she refers to her manuals (rules of criminal and civil procedure, etc) on a daily basis to guide her in her work. All the Clerks said that anyone elected, even a lawyer would need to learn how to be a Clerk and all that is involved with the job. That was their personal experience when they started.
You mentioned in your response about someone coming in off the street to work as a PA in the hospital. That is a valid point but flawed in a sense since it is not a direct analogy to the Clerk of Courts position. Our state requires a license to work as a PA. The Clerk of Courts is an elected position, you do not need a license. Leadership, character, integrity, and a passion for public service is all that is needed to run for any elected office. There are no education requirements to run for office. People vote for who they want to vote for. Some will vote for me and some will vote for your candidate.
I can assure you that as an Air Force veteran, father to three successful sons, medical professional for 26 years, community volunteer, mentor, husband (27 years), and a law abiding American, I have had enough real-life experience and the aptitude and moral integrity to more than succeed as the next Clerk of Courts, if elected.
Again, I want to thank you for being engaged and informed and I look forward to seeing you at the polls on Tuesday.
Anthony, please do not use me as your platform to make yourself look magnanimous by profusely thanking me for my “comments, research and opinion”, etc, as you go on and on with in your response.
You spent two paragraphs in that response focusing on a minimal and inconsequential mention I made in my original letter to the editor regarding a Boston Globe article. My brief mention of that article was anything but the focus of my letter, and it is simply a diversion, yet again. I have already previously addressed in prior comments that the Boston Globe article is not the focus of my letter to the editor, but you continue to focus on it. I would suggest that is because you cannot adequately respond to the other legitimate concerns that I brought forward.
The Massachusetts Court Advisory Board has issued a formal recommendation that all clerks of courts be lawyers. The reason that the clerk of courts position description does not state it must be a lawyer is because it would require a change to the Massachusett constitution. The Massachusetts State Legislature made it law that the first assistant clerk in the courts must be a lawyer. The first assistant clerk works under the clerk of courts. It stands to reason that the clerk of courts that supervises the first clerk should also be a lawyer so that the first clerk under the clerk of courts is not more knowledgable with respect to the law than the clerk. I hope that, after this, the state will make further review and take steps to change the constitution, as burdensome as that might be, in order to protect the integrity of the office of clerks of courts and ensure that those who are allowed to apply for the position are adequately professionally qualified to step into the role on Day 1, just as the state has already done with respect to the first assistant clerk. In the meantime, I can’t think of any reason for someone to vote for a physician assistant with no experience at the courthouse and no legal background instead of a seasoned lawyer of more than thirty years for one of the top positions in the courthouse. This is not the administrative, clerical position that you suggest to people. One must have legal knowledge as a basis to properly function in the role.
Please do not use further responses to thank me for my efforts or profile your resume again, as you did in the current response. Your resume shows no proper experience for this position and your letter, once again, side tracks the reader away from the relevant legislative concerns they need to consider when voting.
Heavens to Betsy. The last thing a female voter is going to do, in this day and age, is vote for the condescending man-splainer who thinks he’s as qualified as the more qualified candidate. I might add, temperamental fitness in the anti-misogyny-department swings the female (and, I hope, male) vote more than some people realize. I learned plenty from the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing. Vote George! He talks down to no one, even when campaigning.
Mr. Piland, you are coming off very thirsty in this comment thread. The best way to extract oneself out of a hole is not to keep digging.
Jackie, why talk down to Anthony? You stated yourself your opinion of condescending “splainers”, isn’t that what you are doing???
Do I think this job should be filled by a lawyer? Yes but apparently you don’t have to be or he wouldn’t be running. It’s his right as an American to run for an elected position. Vote for him or not, that’s YOUR right.
Of course it’s his right. And it is my right not to support him for the valid reasons I gave. I don’t support men who talk down to women in such a patronizing and public way. This alone is a disqualifier for the position as it shows an inappropriate temperament. The term man-spraining is very specific. It refers to men who feel the need to explain things to someone, usually a woman, who knows more than the guy who likes to hear himself talk. Since you obviously didnt know that, you can’t accuse me of splaining nuttin’, lol.
“Man-splaining”, not “spraining”. Auto-correct didn’t know either, so don’t feel bad.
I agree with B4JawsIV,
Full disclosure, I agree with Jackie. Dude was totally Mansplaining. He also got lit up by her in the comment section of this rag. Not a great way to look qualified for Clerk of Courts…
When it comes to internet comments,nothing could be more true than that old saw. Brevity is the soul of wit.