Governor's Councilor Manning strikes again
Kathy Jo Cook
Published: June 23, 2008
Advocates for the underprivileged and underrepresented rejoiced when Gov. Deval L. Patrick announced the nomination of Maureen H. Monks to the Middlesex Probate & Family Court.
For more than 20 years, Monks has focused her practice on serving the needs of low- and middle-income individuals in contested family law matters. She has represented hundreds of men and women in divorce, separate support, paternity, guardianship and adoption proceedings.
She has served as the co-instructor of the Battered Women's Advocacy Project at Suffolk University Law School, and has been a board member and officer of the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, a trainer and mentor for the Women's Bar Foundation Pro Bono Family Law Project since its inception, a mediation trainer for the Community Dispute Settlement Center, and pro bono counsel to gay and lesbian victims of domestic violence for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.
She also has lectured frequently and published extensively in the areas of her practice.
Monks' confirmation by the Governor's Council should have been a routine step in the process - uneventful at best - but it wasn't. Just as during the confirmation of Superior Court Judge Margot G. Botsford to the Supreme Judicial Court and the controversy surrounding Superior Court Judge Kathe M. Tuttman, Governor's Councilor Mary-Ellen Manning's posturing once again diminishes the value of the board - an organization most citizens know little about - and forces us to question the motives of someone the Women's Bar Association previously considered a fellow advocate.
As president of the WBA, an organization that seeks to advance qualified women in the legal profession and to promote fairness and justice in society, I would be remiss if I did not draw attention to Manning's most recent actions in her elected position.
On May 29, the council met to vote on the nomination of Monks. Manning arrived late, after the votes had been cast, and voted "no." Apparently following Manning's lead, Councilor Marilyn Petitto Devaney, who had voted "yes" at the time of the roll-call vote, switched her vote to "no," resulting in a 4-4 tie. Patrick disregarded the changed votes and declared Monks' nomination official.
Manning's purported reasons for voting against Monks lack the depth, substance and objectivity required of members of the Governor's Council.
First, Manning claims that Monks is not qualified to be a judge because, as a practicing attorney, 65 percent of her clients are women. Manning reportedly stated that Monks has done nothing for men, so she shouldn't be put on the bench.
Of course more women than men need the type of legal services that Monks provides. How many male judicial nominees has Manning voted for, without ever questioning whether they largely represented male clients? While this question points out the folly of Manning's rationale, the reality is, of course, that the gender composition of a judicial candidate's client base has absolutely nothing to do with his or her qualifications to be a judge.
Second, Manning accused Monks of "embroider[ing] her resume," apparently because of a difference of opinion in Monks' involvement in the founding of the Women's Bar Foundation Family Law Project, which Monks has been active in since its inception.
Just like her inflammatory comments concerning Botsford and her demand that the governor launch an investigation into Tuttman after a criminal who had appeared before her for a bail hearing committed further crimes, Manning's unjustified criticisms of Monks threaten to shift the focus away from the most critical issues facing our system of justice.
The WBA has a deep commitment to the principles of equality and a tradition of endorsing qualified judicial candidates who foster those goals. We decided to endorse Monks only after a thorough investigation of her credentials. Although Manning is well aware of the WBA's endorsement process, she has implied that the WBA supported Monks' nomination only because she is a woman.
Indeed, it is the mission of the WBA to achieve the full and equal participation of women in the legal profession, including judgeships, and we encourage well-qualified women to seek these positions, which traditionally have been closed to them.
But the WBA does not and has not blindly endorsed any candidate, male or female. The WBA examines both the qualifications of judicial nominees as well as their commitment to justice. "Full and equal" means just that, and Manning's intimations offend the spirit and intent of the WBA mission and the work of its more than 1,600 members in furtherance of that mission.
Manning's attacks on Tuttman and her attempts to derail the nominations of Botsford and Monks, are, in effect, an attack on the progress the WBA works for each day. This is a disappointment and quite the opposite of the "public service" we expect from our elected leaders.
Boston lawyer Kathy Jo Cook is president of the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts.