BishopAccountability.org
	Monitor Appointment Challenged By Paul A. Long The Cincinnati Post [Kentucky] March 14, 2006 http://news.kypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060314/NEWS02/603140366/1014 The judge presiding over the sexual-abuse lawsuit against the Diocese of Covington has no authority to appoint a monitor to oversee the distribution of payments, both sides said in a rare joint filing in Boone Circuit Court. Attorneys Stan Chesley and Carrie Huff are asking Senior Judge John Potter to rescind the appointment of Cincinnati attorney Matthew Garretson. Both argue that Garretson is not only unqualified for the position, he is unnecessary and unwanted. Potter made the appointment last week, saying he wanted someone to act as his "eyes and ears." He previously said he planned to make the appointment, and even then, both sides objected, saying the job was an unnecessary expense, with tasks that far more qualified people were already doing. A hearing on the dispute is set for today. The settlement agreement both sides signed does not mention such a position. State law gives Potter no authority to make such an appointment, the lawyers said. Chesley and his partner, Robert Steinberg, filed suit against the diocese in Boone Circuit Court in 2003 on behalf of hundreds of people who were abused by priests and others in the diocese over the past 50 years. Eventually, the two sides agreed on an $85 million settlement, to be paid to people who show they were abused. Huff, a Chicago attorney, represents the diocese. The exact amounts of the payments to each person will depend on the nature of the abuse, as outlined in a grid that is part of the settlement. Payments will range from $5,000 to $450,000 for claims of extraordinary abuse. More recently, the two sides announced they had recruited William Burleigh, chairman of the board of the E.W. Scripps Co., which owns The Post, and Thomas D. Lambros of Ashtabula, Ohio, former chief judge in the Northern District of Ohio, to be special masters who will determine the individual awards. But Potter, who is overseeing the case, said he wanted a third person to administer and monitor the payments. Potter said that Garretson's job will be "to see that the process runs as it should, and who will act as the court's eyes and ears." Attorneys Huff and Chesley agree that Potter should maintain oversight over the case. But they argue that is a judicial function, which cannot be delegated to someone else. "It is abundantly clear that there is no need for a monitor," the two lawyers say. "If there were such a need, it should be filled by the presiding judge. ... In this case, there is nothing for Mr. Garretson to do that the court cannot do itself."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.