Case Title: In re Disqualification of Glickman

Citation: 2002-Ohio-7471

Docket Number: 02AP022

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Glickman, 100 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2002-Ohio-7471.] 
 
 
 
 
Opinion in Chambers, per Moyer, C.J. 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF GLICKMAN. 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS v. THE STATE OF OHIO ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Glickman, 100 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2002-Ohio-
7471.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Affidavit seeking disqualification of all 
common pleas judges of Cuyahoga County not timely, when — Affidavit 
denied. 
(No. 02-AP-022 — Decided March 19, 2002.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 
case No. 448900. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
This affidavit of disqualification filed by Alan Schwepe and 
Juliane Barone, counsel for defendants, seeks the disqualification of Judge Robert 
Glickman and all judges of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, from 
further proceedings regarding the above-captioned matter. 
{¶2} 
The underlying case involves a lawsuit filed by the Cuyahoga 
County Commissioners against the Department of Job and Family Services, 
Governor Bob Taft, and Ohio Budget Director Tom Johnson, in which the 
plaintiff-commissioners essentially challenge the reduced Temporary Assistance 
to Needy Families (“TANF”) funding allocated by the state to Cuyahoga County 
for the current fiscal year. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
Affiants contend that the state’s reduction in TANF funding, 
together with declining county revenues, have required the plaintiffs to reduce 
county budgets for fiscal year 2002.  Included among these reductions is a 
reduction in funds allocated to the court of common pleas in the current year.  
Affiants reference newspaper articles in which the court’s administrative judge 
states that there is no room for reduction in the court’s budget and has made 
comments regarding the impact of the proposed county budget reductions on 
court operations.  Affiants maintain that the county’s budget reductions and the 
state’s TANF funding reductions have been “inextricably linked” in the public 
and press and that no Cuyahoga County judge can preside over this case without 
giving an appearance of impropriety. 
{¶4} 
Affiants also note that Judge Glickman conducted a scheduling 
conference and hearing on February 12, 2002, relative to their motion for a 
change of venue.  Prior to that hearing, Judge Glickman indicated that he had 
been contacted by one of the commissioners, who informed the judge that a 
number of county agency representatives would be in attendance at the venue 
hearing.  Affiants state that the hearing was conducted in the courtroom, before 
more than 100 spectators, including county commissioners, representatives of 
county agencies, and the media, many of whom applauded when Judge Glickman 
announced that he was overruling the motion for a change in venue.  Affiants 
claim that the manner in which this hearing was conducted emphasizes the 
perception of bias and partiality that exists by virtue of having a Cuyahoga 
County judge remain on the case. 
{¶5} 
In response to the affidavit, Judge Glickman denies any bias or 
prejudice regarding his consideration of the underlying matter and states that he is 
unaware of links between TANF funding reductions and reductions in the budgets 
of the county and court of common pleas.  Judge Glickman further states that the 
hearing on the change-of-venue motion was properly conducted in the courtroom, 
January Term, 2003 
3 
as are all motion hearings at which the parties are in attendance, and that he 
admonished spectators who applauded his ruling on the motion. 
{¶6} 
Affiants rely on In re Disqualification of Corrigan (1996), 77 Ohio 
St.3d 1235, 674 N.E.2d 350, in support of their claim of disqualification.  
Corrigan involved a civil case that sought recovery of county funds that were 
invested by the county treasurer.  In that case, county agencies and offices, 
including the court of common pleas, were subjected to significant budget 
reductions as a result of lost investment funds. Moreover, representatives of the 
court of common pleas were quoted extensively in the media as to the impact that 
the budget reductions would have on the operations of the court.  Although Judge 
Corrigan recused himself from the case, all Cuyahoga County judges were 
disqualified to avoid the appearance of impropriety. 
{¶7} 
Although Corrigan is relevant to consideration of the pending 
affidavit, there are circumstances that distinguish this matter from Corrigan.  In 
Corrigan, affiants promptly sought the disqualification of Judge Corrigan and his 
colleagues upon becoming aware of a possible link between the substance of the 
underlying case and budget reductions ordered by the county commissioners, and 
the impact those reductions would have on court operations.  Here, affiants admit 
that they were aware in late 2001 of the public perception, largely reflected in 
media reports, that reductions in TANF allocations would have an adverse impact 
on the operation of county government and the court of common pleas.  However, 
affiants did not seek the disqualification of the trial judge and his colleagues until 
Judge Glickman rendered an adverse ruling on their motion for a change in venue.  
If affiants believed that a link existed between TANF funding allocations to 
Cuyahoga County and the county’s budget and that this real or perceived link 
created an appearance of impropriety, affiants could have sought the 
disqualification of the Cuyahoga County judiciary in a more timely fashion and 
well in advance of the February 12, 2002 hearing. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶8} 
Affiants could not defer their decision to request judicial 
qualification based on an assumption that the judge would rule favorably on their 
pending venue motion, thereby obviating the need to seek disqualification of the 
Cuyahoga County bench.  The fact that affiants did not file their affidavit in 
advance of the February 12 hearing suggests that they continued to believe, as 
stated in their October 2001 Memorandum Contra Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal, 
that Judge Glickman could remain impartial and that his participation did not 
create an appearance of impropriety.  Only after the change-of-venue motion was 
overruled did affiants contend that the alleged TANF-budget link created an 
appearance of impropriety, which suggests that the adverse decision is what 
prompted the disqualification request. 
{¶9} 
Affiants also reference events at the February 12, 2002 hearing that 
demonstrate the appearance of impropriety that allegedly will exist should a 
Cuyahoga County judge remain on this case.  Having reviewed the various 
characterizations of that hearing that are contained in the record, I find nothing in 
the manner in which that hearing was conducted that would merit Judge 
Glickman’s disqualification. 
{¶10} For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well 
taken and denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Glickman. 
__________________