CT chief public defender spars with oversight commission at termination hearing

With her job on the line Tuesday, Chief Public Defender TaShun Bowden-Lewis dodged questions about her conduct and members of the commission that oversees her office seemed at times incredulous at her responses.

At one point, Commission Chairman Richard Palmer, who was questioning Bowden-Lewis about her admission that she secretly accessed his email conversations with division employees, asked whether she believed it was “appropriate” for her to surreptitiously read his legally privileged correspondence with the division’s legal counsel.

“Any email on a computer at the division of public defender services is free game,” Bowden-Lewis replied.

Bowden-Lewis’ decision to access email accounts of her critics was just one of the topics that came up as an unusual hearing began at the Capitol complex in Hartford that seemed, at least on Tuesday, possibly to cost the embattled chief public defender her job.

CT commission delivers sharp, public rebuke to state’s chief public defender

After her new lawyer, former Bridgeport mayor Thomas Bucci, argued for nearly at hour that what amounts to a termination hearing was a violation of Bowden-Lewis’ constitutional due process rights, members of the Public Defender Services Commission questioned her about a detailed list of 16 “charges” that runs from email hacking to making unfounded allegations of racism to lying to and impeding the work of the oversight commission.

Frequently Bowden-Lewis gave short responses to questions or said she could not recall events, answers that appeared to frustrate the commission members.

A forensic examination of the hacked email accounts revealed, according to the commission, that Bowden-Lewis was provided with printed copies of Palmer’s email correspondence, but when pressed, she said she could not recall whether she read the material.

New issues about race and spending divulged in CT public defender’s office documents

She was asked specifically about written warnings to the commission from one of her personal attorneys implying that the commission discriminated against her as a Black woman by questioning her management decisions. Members also wanted her to give her view of an outside investigation by the Hartford law firm Shipman and Goodwin that concluded she has shown “a propensity to resort to baseless allegations of racism merely because someone disagrees” with her.

Bowden-Lewis’ response suggested that she views the termination hearing as evidence of ongoing discrimination. She referred to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that she says held that “it is discrimination to retaliate” against someone who makes allegations of racial discrimination.

Commission members pressed Bowden-Lewis repeatedly on what they clearly believed was her inappropriate snooping into email correspondence between two senior division lawyers and Palmer — earlier this year when the commission was considering her termination.

A forensic examination determined that Bowden-Lewis ordered a junior member of the division’s information technology department to override a security system and print out email conversations involving Palmer..

In response to commission questions about whether she believed such surreptitious email accessing was permissible, Bowden Lewis read a legalistic regulation from the division’s policy manual that says employees have no expectation of privacy and the contents of state computers are state property.

CT commission delivers sharp, public rebuke to state’s chief public defender

Asked repeatedly to elaborate — commission member Elliot Solomon wanted to know whether she believes the policy authorizes improper email searches — Bowden-Lewis said only, “I will stand by the policy of our division, 606.”

“All right, I’m going to view that as a non answer,” Solomon said. “That’s a non answer.”

When the head of the division’s IT department, Greg Dion, learned of the email hacking, he notified one of the targets, division legal counsel Deborah Del Prete Sullivan, who complained to Bowden-Lewis. Bowden-Lewis almost immediately suspended Dion and issued a letter of reprimand to Sullivan.

Bowden-Lewis denied that the Dion and Sullivan discipline was in retaliation for revealing the email hacking. She told the commission that she imposed the discipline for prior behavior by Dion and Sullivan, some of it a year earlier. She suggested it was coincidental that the two were disciplined when the email breach was disclosed.

The commission expunged the discipline against the two in February at the same time it suspended Bowden-Lewis with pay pending Tuesday’s hearing.

Commission members also wanted to know why Bowden-Lewis sent out a division-wide email instructing employees to ignore an email notification it sent to all employees clarifying hiring policy. At the time, Bowden-Lewis and the commission were at odds over control of hiring and she sent out her email without notifying or consulting the commission, which had adopted the hiring policy at a meeting she attended a week earlier.

“As chief, I can send any email to the division without permission from the commission,” Bowden-Lewis said.

Asked by Palmer why she did not consult with the commission before attempting to repudiate its hiring policy, she first complained that the commission did not consult with her before sending its email. She later conceded that, in retrospect, as she faces a termination hearing, she might have handled the email situation differently.

She was asked specifically about an outside investigation by the Hartford law firm Shipman and Goodwin that concluded that Bowden-Lewis essentially forced former division human resources director Erin Ryan, hired by a previous commission, to resign by making her working conditions intolerable. With Ryan gone, Bowden-Lewis appointed as acting director someone she supported, but who the prior commission had found unqualified.

“As chief, I have the right to decide who should be in a position,” she said.

Pressed to elaborate, she pointed to a portion of the Shipman-Goodwin report that said her treatment of Ryan did not meet the legal definition of creating a hostile work environment, which involves some form of illegal discrimination.

In a closing statement, Bowden-Lewis said there had been a breakdown in her relationship with the commission and it was attributable, among other things, to a “personality conflict” and questions about who has “power.” She said she has not been accused of offenses such as embezzlement or another criminal violation.

She said she is ready to talk and find “a common ground,” but said Palmer has turned down offers to mediate a solution that could return her to work.

At another point in the hearing, she said, “I fully expect to return to work.”

The commission made no decision on whether to fire Bowden-Lewis or impose some lesser sort of discipline and will do so at some point in the future at a closed session. It adjourned the hearing to allow Bucci and Bowden-Lewis to decide whether they want to extend the hearing in order to call witnesses in her defense at a future session, as they are permitted to do so.

Palmer said the commission would have to meet in a closed session at some point to decide what punishment up to and including termination, to impose on Bowden-Lewis.