Panel ponders ousting chief public defender
After repeated clashes with board, Bowden-lewis accused of improperly accessing chairman’s email correspondence
The commission that oversees the state public defender system voted Tuesday to begin the process to possibly remove embattled chief Public Defender Tashun Bowden-lewis, who has clashed repeatedly with the board and is accused, among other things, of improperly accessing the chairman’s email correspondence.
After 20 months as the first Black female chief public defender. Bowden-lewis’ term at the head of the division that defends the indigent has been a tumultuous and divisive period for an agency that is rarely in the news.
She was publicly reprimanded and, later, suspended last month for defying the Public Defender Services Commission, which by law has the final word on division hiring, spending and policy. An investigation by a private law firm accused her of bullying employees, withholding resources to those perceived as disloyal and implying that disagreement with her instructions is the result of racism. Unionized lawyers voted 121-9 that they lack confidence in her leadership.
In response, Bowden-lewis complained for more than a year that she has been treated differently than previous office holders because of her race and, in letters signed by an employment lawyer, threatened to sue the commission.
The commission did not explicitly announce that it was setting in motion the cumbersome government personnel process necessary to remove an agency head. But after a closed, executive session on “personnel matters,” chairman Richard N. Palmer said that it is taking action, which he did not disclose, based on a state law governing suspension and removal of the chief public defender.
“Pursuant to subsection (d) of C.G.S. 51-290, the commission will schedule a hearing in the matter of Chief Public Defender Tashun Bowden
Lewis for a date in April 2024,” he said.
Experts on state personnel policy said a hearing is required by law to give Bowden-lewis an opportunity to rebut whatever grounds the commission might present for possible termination. She has the right to decide whether the hearing is open to the public and to appear with a lawyer to argue for her continued employment.
Prior to the hearing, the experts said the commission would have to present Bowden-lewis with a list of grounds on which termination would be pursued. After the meeting Tuesday, Palmer would not discuss removing Bowden-lewis or otherwise elaborate on his reference to the law governing termination.
Jacqueline Rodriguez, the spokeswoman for a group of friends and supporters of Bowden-lewis, had argued to the commission earlier that she has been treated unfairly by both the commissioners and the press.
Rodriguez said Bowden-lewis has the authority as chief not only to set the direction of the division, but to access email accounts of her subordinates.
“We know her well and we want you to know her well. Twenty months is not enough time for you, the division and the state to see exactly what the chief can do,” Rodriguez said. “So my ask today is for you to reinstate the chief public defender, Tashun Bowden-lewis.”
The personnel experts said the record of Bowden-lewis’s continuous conflict with two separate oversight commissions contains multiple grounds for action.
There have been complaints that she failed to fill vacancies, address high caseloads and delayed putting into effect budget measures that would pay public defenders at rates equivalent to state prosecutors.
At the same time, she spent money on and advocated for programs that the commission has not endorsed as part of the division’s core mission, such as creation of a public affairs operation, commissioning a new logo, buying promotional gifts and pushing for a new unit that would help find housing, jobs, food and social services to inmates who are released from prison.
The disclosures concerning email tampering alone could be sufficient for dismissal, one of the experts said.
Preliminary results of a forensic computer audit show that Bowden-lewis instructed a subordinate to collect a variety of email exchanges, including legally privileged conversations involving Palmer and the division’s legal counsel during a period when the commission is believed to have been building a case for her removal.
Although the email snooping led to her being put on paid administrative leave on Feb. 9, Bowden-lewis’ conflicts with the oversight commission date almost to her appointment. Four members of the five-member commission that appointed her resigned as a group early last year when she accused it of racism and threatened to sue for rejecting her appointment of a division human resources director.
The commission had decided that a Bowden-lewis candidate, Paula Lohr, a Black woman, lacked the qualifications for the position and chose instead to appoint Erin Ryan, a white woman it considered better qualified.
A report by the Hartford law firm Shipman & Goodwin, hired to investigate low morale and other issues at the division, determined that Bowden-lewis eventually succeeded in making Lohr acting director by forcing Ryan to resign.
“Our factual findings lead us to conclude that Ms. Bowden-lewis had a preferred individual for the HR Director role and thus made the working environment for Ms. Ryan hostile,” the report said. “We conclude that Ms. Bowden-lewis marginalized Ms. Ryan specifically so that she could appoint her choice for the HR Director role — Paula Lohr — on an interim basis, thereby circumventing the established requirements for the job.”
Other division employees have complained of being treated abusively or retaliated against after somehow displeasing Bowden-lewis.
There also have been allegations that Bowden-lewis ordered staff not to comply with public records requests made under state Freedom of Information law, in particular requests for records that would detail her work schedule.
Multiple division employees said Bowden-lewis took control of the public records review process, cutting out the legal officer who is responsible for such reviews under division regulations. They said she also ordered the division information technology officer not to undertake data searches needed to comply with records requests without her explicit approval.
Division responses to records requests that had apparently been ignored for months began arriving after Bowden-lewis was placed on paid leave last month. One of those requests shows that it was a staff lawyer who distributed an anonymous email that many colleagues found disturbing by calling for resistance to what it described as “racist” efforts to undermine Bowden-lewis by preventing her from hiring Black defense lawyers.
“They want us to sit down and shut up and not complain in the face of the racist systems that are impacting and infecting our very own Division,” the email read. “How do we stand in the face of these systemic issues that exist within our own job? We do not. We do not abide.”
In October, the commission issued an unusual public reprimand of Bowden-lewis for allowing division morale to plummet, disregarding its instructions and leveling baseless allegations of racism against those who disagree with her, including commission members.
“You have engaged in a practice of marginalizing members of the Division with whom you disagree or who you do not like or respect, and you have engaged in a practice of retaliating against persons who you perceive as standing up to you or who otherwise express their disagreement with you,” the letter said.
“You frequently talk about “collaboration,” “cooperation,” “communication” and transparency” but too often you do not engage in those critically important practices, either in your dealings with the Commission or in your dealings with members of the Division.”
One of the last clashes between Bowden-lewis and the commission took place in January when she publicly disputed its authority over division hiring policy.
When the commission issued an email to staff setting out division hiring policy, Bowden-lewis issued an all-staff mail of her own and — without giving the commission advance notice — denounced the commission policy as “incorrect.”
Hiring had become a concern among office supervisors who believed they were not being involved sufficiently in decisions affecting their own staffs. In some cases, supervisors complained they have been unable to learn why some candidates are granted job interviews and others are not.
When the commission, which has statutory authority over hiring, issued another notice to staff affirming that its policy was correct, Bowden-lewis’ employment lawyer delivered another letter challenging the commission’s authority and warning that it was again exposing itself to a suit by treating her in a discriminatory and retaliatory manner.
The commission’s response suggested it had lost patience with Bowden-lewis.
“Indeed, all the facts contained in that letter are wrong,” the commission replied.