Justice for all

Don’t let judicial whistleblowers be thwarted

When it comes to protecting children in the justice system, Pennsylvania’s courts shouldn’t say one thing and do another.

They shouldn’t profess a desire to do right by wayward juveniles, demand that court personnel report misconduct they encounter and then punish employees who step forward. It appears to have happened in Washington County, even though the state Supreme Court explicitly prohibits retaliation against judicialbranch whistleblowers.

David Scrip, a former juvenile probation officer, sued the county and various officials, alleging the county’s onetime president judge, Debbie O’Dell Seneca, improperly fired him in 2014 after he refused to drop his concerns about unethical behavior in the probation office. He claimed that youths were being placed in an Abraxas facility merely because of a relationship his boss was having with the organization’s recruiter. The claim conjured memories of Luzerne County’s Kids for Cash scandal, in which two judges received millions of dollars in kickbacks for sending youths to for-profit detention centers.

Senior Common Pleas Judge William Nalitz dismissed Mr. Scrip’s case, and he appealed to Commonwealth Court. A seven-judge panel heard arguments Wednesday in Pittsburgh. The case revolves around the question of whether Mr. Scrip is legally entitled to challenge his termination. Among other arguments, the county says the state whistleblower law doesn’t apply to the judiciary, an independent branch of government. Mr. Scrip’s lawyer, Noah Geary, says it does.

Mr. Scrip and Mr. Geary have the better case, not to mention the moral high ground. After the Kids for Cash scandal, embarrassed officials across the state hurried to make reforms. An Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice issued a report with dozens of suggestions, many of which were implemented. In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a code of conduct for judicial employees.

The code requires courtrelated personnel to report misconduct by co-workers and others. The very next sentence says: “Discrimination or retaliation against an employee based on a good-faith report of wrongdoing or participation in an investigation, hearing or inquiry held by an appropriate authority is strictly prohibited.”

If employees can’t challenge retaliation, what good is that language? It’s highly unlikely that the Supreme Court intended it to be window dressing given the hand-wringing, soulsearching and voiding of 4,000 juvenile convictions that followed Kids for Cash.

Mr. Scrip’s case has wide ramifications. If he wins, employees will be more likely to follow the code of conduct and report misconduct.

If he loses, court personnel may be more inclined to look the other way when they see wrongdoing. That has the potential to put more kids in harm’s way.