Cross-posted from ‘a public defender’:

As I alluded to in my last post, Jacksonville, FL, has an ethical controversy brewing. It involves the elected public defender Matt Shirk and some very questionable hiring decisions he’s made¹.

Matt Shirk was covered here in 2008, when he defeated longtime public defender Bill White in an election for the job of Public Defender. Back then I lamented the problems with the position of public defender being an elected one. Shirk’s platform promised no changes to the way things were done, which was kept by him until the day he started when he made huge changes by firing all the most experienced attorneys². He was also endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and promised not to raise questions about the integrity of their work.

This recent article, however, provides more troubling information about Shirk and his allegiances:

Before his election, Shirk was a relatively unknown in political and legal circles. But he had a strong backing from the local Republican party, the support of Sheriff John Rutherford and friend State Attorney Angela Corey.

Angela Corey, you remember, is the stalwart whose office prosecuted Zimmerman. But there’s more:

Shirk campaign’s website noted that he’d worked “under the direct tutelage of Angela Corey.” Many regarded Shirk as her protégé. (How close were they? After he was elected, Shirk spokesperson Ron Mallett referred First Coast News’ call for comment to Corey’s office.)

Shortly after taking office, Shirk drew criticism for firing the Public Defender’s most seasoned lawyers and many of those qualified to try death penalty cases. Shirk himself has never tried a death-penalty case or even a murder case.

When he was assigned as counsel for 12-year-old murder defendant Cristian Fernandez, a group of high profile criminal defense attorneys filed a motion to have him removed. Shirk eventually agreed step down as Fernandez’s attorney.

The evidence neatly sums up the fact that Shirk was elected purely because of his political leanings, his overtures to the police department and his close ties to the establishment, when, in fact, all three of those things should expressly disqualify him from holding the position of a supervisory public defender. His closeness to the the State’s Attorney’s office and the police department underline his extreme unsuitability to lead an army of attorneys whose job it is to undermine and confront those two establishments.

Not to mention him being utterly unqualified to be a regular public defender employee representing people accused of serious crimes.

But none of this matters to voters as he has apparently just started a second term. A man with no qualifications, with strong ties to the very people who are trying to put his clients in jail and a man with, shall we say, questionable judgment:

It was a turbulent month in Public Defender Matt Shirk’s office, beginning with the May hiring of a young woman Shirk sought out after seeing her photo on social media and ending with Shirk’s chief of staff asking a former investigator to help him avoid following the public records law.

I guess the flirting is whatever, but what really troubles me is the last bit: the cover-up that includes changing documentation and deleting access records:

We made public records requests July 22 seeking out details of the resignation of lead investigator Alton Kelly. At the time, we were told, there was no resignation letter. It was not until the Florida Times-Union was tipped off about a voice mail that we learned the Public Defender’s Office was not telling us the truth.

Ron Mallett, who is the chief of staff for Matt Shirk, left this message for Alton Kelly after our request:  “Hey buddy, it’s Ron. We’ve had a public information request regarding your resignation from Action News. Would you mind if we actually typed up a resignation letter so we don’t have to use the email, and make it, uh, more official? Anyway, if you want to give me a call back or shoot me a text and let me know what you think.” That voice mail references an email dated July 15, seven days before our initial request.

Here is a man, tasked with protecting the core Constitutional individual rights of all citizens, yet he has no experience, no training and no desire to do the job. Yet he’s in a position to affect the lives of so many and seemingly has only done so in a negative way.

Requiring elections for what should be independent positions like the public defender is a recipe for disaster. It becomes a political yo-yo, swinging back and forth between the favored child of whatever party happens to have a stronghold on that district³.

The lives of those these decisions affect are disregarded, because it is more important to have that job, than to do the job, apparently.