Chief public defender claims discrimination amid dispute
Letter similar in tone to two others over past year
Chief Public Defender Tashun Bowden-lewis has delivered another letter to the agency’s oversight commission, this time challenging its authority over hiring policy and implying again that the commission is, in her view, exposing itself to a suit by treating her in a discriminatory and retaliatory manner.
The Jan. 23 letter, signed by Bowden-lewis’ employment lawyer Claire Howard, is similar in tone to two others over the last year. Specifically, it demands an immediate apology from the commission for issuing memos directing staff at the Division of Public Defender Services to follow what it says is policy on hiring without consulting Bowdenlewis, who claims the policy is dated.
“We demand that the Commission immediately retract both wildly incorrect memos and apologize to staff for causing confusion,” Howard’s letter said.
The clash of letters and memos on hiring is another indication that the commission, which has statutory authority over division hiring and spending, is losing faith in leadership by Bowdenlewis, the first Black woman appointed to lead the agency that provides legal services for the state’s indigent.
Her appointment 18 months ago was greeted as a milestone in diversity. But she has since become a divisive figure because of what colleagues call a preoccupation with matters of race and a record of retaliating against those who challenge her management decisions.
She has been publicly reprimanded by the commission, with which she has clashed over what she considers its infringement on her authority as Chief Public Defender. The commission was appointed 11 months ago to replace a previous commission that resigned as a body when Bowden-lewis threatened to sue it for discrimination after it overruled one of her hiring recommendations.
Speaking for the commission, chairman Richard N. Palmer on Friday said allegations of discrimination are “baseless and appear to be designed solely to divert attention away from issues concerning the Chief Public Defender’s conduct and her management of the Division of Public Defender Services.”
In the area of hiring, there has been concern that under Bowden-lewis’ leadership that supervisors have not been allowed sufficient involvement. In some cases, supervisors have complained they have been unable to learn why some candidates are granted job interviews and others are not.
The commission took up the question of hiring policy earlier this month, setting in motion the latest clash with Bowden-lewis.
The commission “affirmed” what is known as its policy 205, adopted in 2014 to establish procedures for interviewing and hiring job candidates. Palmer notified agency staff it had done so in a Jan. 10 email distributed through the division’s legal counsel.
Eight days later, without consulting the commission, Bowden-lewis distributed an all agency email of her own, informing staff that the commission was mistaken and its directive should not be followed.
“The policy distributed on Jan. 10, 2024, was incorrect,” Bowden-lewis wrote. “Please see the attached and correct version of policy #205. The Commission at its meeting on Jan. 9, 2024, ‘reconfirmed and confirmed’ policy #205. If you have any questions, please reach out to the HR department.”
The version of 205 which Bowden-lewis attached to her email appears, according to several agency lawyers, to have been a 2019 elaboration on commission policy adopted by the division’s human resources department for its use, but not approved by the commission.
A day later, in response, Palmer circulated another memo assuring the staff that the commission had distributed the policy it intended. He also addressed “misstatements contained in an email you received yesterday evening from Chief Public Defender Tashun Bowdenlewis.”
“Neither I nor Legal Counsel was informed of the Chief Public Defender’s email before it was forwarded to you yesterday,” Palmer wrote.
“Contrary to the Chief Public Defender’s representation, the email sent to you by Legal Counsel at my request was correct in all respects,” Palmer wrote. “The policy attached to that email, Policy 205 of the Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, has been in effect since 2014 and it is indeed the policy that was reaffirmed by the Commission at its meeting on January 9, 2024.”
In the latest letter, Howard criticized Palmer and the commission for sending memos to staff concerning personnel matters, “without consulting the Chief Public Defender who is directly responsible for personnel matters.” As a result, Howard said the commission distributed “an incorrect and outdated” policy that it “erroneously” reaffirmed. Bowden-lewis corrected the error in her email to staff, Howard wrote.
“Rather than talking with the Chief Public Defender, Chairperson Palmer doubled down on this error, calling her email a “misstatement” and sent out a defamatory memo to staff insisting that the outdated version of Policy 204 (sic) was the correct version,” Howard wrote. “This memo was then released to the Hartford Courant — something that is becoming a pattern by the commission and is intended to cause maximum harm to the Chief Public Defender’s reputation.”
Staff lawyers at the division provided the Courant with multiple copies of the email distributed by both the commission and Bowdenlewis.
Howard declined to elaborate on her letter, including its contention that Bowdenlewis’ 2019 policy on hiring is operative rather than that affirmed by the commission earlier this month.
Palmer said that the commission distributed the policy it intended.
“Although the Commission has not publicly responded to Attorney Howard’s prior letters, her most recent letter contains such glaringly incorrect factual statements that a brief response is necessary,” Palmer said. “Indeed, all the facts contained in that letter are wrong.”
“Most fundamentally, as the policy-making authority for the Division, the Commission had every right to reaffirm its Policy 205, concerning hiring and recruitment, a policy that was adopted by the Commission in 2014 and remains in full force and effect to this day. The Commission was not addressing the 2019 policy, which sets forth procedures adopted by the Division’s Human Resources Unit and is not a Commission policy.”
When Bowden-lewis emailed staff ostensibly to correct the commission, Palmer said she “not only exceeded her authority, but she also was completely wrong.”
Howard also criticized the commission for failing to allow Bowden-lewis to participate in an executive session involving a personnel matter at a meeting earlier this month. It was during the closed session that the commission “reaffirmed” the 2014 hiring policy.
“Furthermore, had the commission included the chief public defender in this executive session they would have quickly become aware of their error of reaffirming an outdated policy,” Howard wrote.
The letter revisited previous claims that the commission’s treatment of Bowden-lewis is discriminatory.
“By purposefully excluding the Chief Public Defender from an executive session regarding personnel matters, for which she is responsible, and then publicly embarrassing the Chief Public Defender for attempting to provide clarity to the staff she is responsible for supervising, the commission is attempting to set her up to fall in retaliation for her earlier complaints and a discriminatory act,” the letter said.