THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, July 2, 1996 TAG: 9607020240
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY LYNN WALTZ, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: PORTSMOUTH LENGTH: 94 lines
The city's chief magistrate, whose office was sharply criticized in a recent report by the Virginia Supreme Court, is no longer head of the city's magistrates, according to the court.
Effective Monday, Gwendolyn C. Barrick, who was chief magistrate for 13 years, gave up the office's top job and took a $5,000 pay cut. Another Portsmouth magistrate who was criticized in the report also received a pay cut Monday.
It was unclear Monday whether Barrick, 70, was demoted or voluntarily took the lesser job.
Judge Norman Olitsky, who was chief Circuit Court judge when the investigation was completed, said he could not comment on the changes, citing privacy and personnel issues. However, Olitsky, who as chief judge oversaw the magistrate's office, said earlier that he was ``very much distressed'' by the results of the Supreme Court investigation and pledged to take action.
Barrick could not be reached for comment Monday. The other magistrate criticized in the report, Deborah Clark, reached by phone at the office, said she did not wish to comment.
The Supreme Court investigation revealed an office in disarray, where magistrates ``willfully'' misrepresented their workload to the state Supreme Court.
Technical Assistant Ron Neely, who conducted the investigation,said the office's statistics were so inaccurate that they were ``useless.'' Further, Neely learned of ``a feud'' between Barrick and Clark that was affecting office morale. The investigation also revealed management and supervisory problems in the office.
But, despite the problems, the office continued to fulfill its core mission: determining bail amounts and issuing search and arrest warrants, said the final report, released in June.
Neely began his investigation in late March after The Virginian-Pilot raised questions about Portsmouth statistics published in the Supreme Court's annual State of the Judiciary Report. The newspaper also raised questions about personnel issues.
Those statistics indicated that Portsmouth had the busiest magistrates in the state, that they were overworked and that Clark had the heaviest workload of any magistrate in the state. Statistics also showed that police have a harder time getting arrest warrants in Portsmouth than anywhere else in the state. Neely said those conclusions were not true.
Neely wrote in his report that the office suffered from personality conflicts and perceived favoritism by a judge.
Barrick said at the time that the report was ``not a true review'' of her office. ``No one has cheated or lied or done anything deliberate,'' Barrick said then. ``Anything we've done incorrectly was because of ignorance on our part.''
The report concluded that only one of the city's seven magistrates was accurately reporting workload statistics to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court uses workload statistics to compare magistrates' offices statewide and to help determine staffing and funding.
In the most extreme case, Clark reported issuing 356 civil processes in 1995. She later admitted to Neely that the accurate number was between six and 10, the report said. Though the report did not name Clark, an independent assessment of workload statistics provided by the Supreme Court showed that Clark was the magistrate to whom the report referred. Also, the report said Barrick did not correct inaccuracies in workload statistics even when she found errors.
The report also cited a perception of favoritism toward Clark from Judge Johnny Morrison, who was not named in the report but who was identified in interviews. Morrison became chief judge on Monday, thereby assuming oversight of the magistrate's office.
Clark worked for Morrison as a law clerk before he appointed her as a magistrate during an earlier term as chief judge. Their perceived friendship has been a source of friction in the office, the high court report said, and ``has created a problem for the chief magistrate in terms of maintaining officewide compliance with policies and procedures.''
The report was especially critical of Barrick, concluding that personality conflicts between Barrick and Clark disrupted the rest of the office and caused low morale.
``One of the key issues appears to be personnel management,'' the report said, placing part of the blame on Barrick for a ``lack of uniform supervision.''
As of Monday, the high court said, Barrick was a Magistrate VI, and her salary was reduced from $42,454 to $37,890. Clark received a reduction in salary from $27,558 to $24,393. Her position, Magistrate VI, remained the same, the high court said.
Barrick has worked as a magistrate since 1977 and was appointed chief magistrate in 1983.
Barrick has consistently maintained she has done nothing wrong. In one recent interview, she said there were no personality conflicts in her office and that office morale was at an all-time high.
``There's never been a conflict. . . . It's not true,'' she said. ``Management is what I've done all my life. I've never had a problem till the last couple years. Why has no one complained before? All they said was, `You're doing a great job.' '' MEMO: Staff writer Angelita Plemmer contributed to this report. by CNB