Every citizen of Columbus should be alarmed by the recent actions of two local politicians. One politician—who was up for re-election in November-directly contacted a judge to influence a pending civil matter in which he was named a party. And that judge then failed to disclose the full details of such ex parte action until after the election.

As Mayor, Andy Ginther is a party to City of Columbus v Wilson 845 LLC et al 2023 EVH 060592. As disclosed by Judge Stephanie Mingo on December 8, Ginther called the personal cell phone of Judge Mingo with specific needs on the case.

We always hear politicians talk about the need for accountability and full transparency in government. This is the exact opposite for both elected officials.

The timeline as indicated in court filings is important:

October 11, 2023: Judge Stephanie Mingo described the communication as follows: “On Wednesday, October 11, the official called my cell phone, and I spoke with the official. The following is not a word-for-word account of what the official said, but to the best of my recollection, the official made the following statements: I know you care about the community. I care about the community. This Greyhound station is a problem for the community. We really need you to do the right thing for the community and shut it down.” (Emphasis in court filing.)

October 12, 2023: Judge Stephanie Mingo discloses the telephone communication during an Emergency Status Conference. Attorneys for both Plaintiff and Defendant ask her to disclose the name of the elected official, but Mingo declines. Mingo stated that she was “not inclined to specifically name that official, unless or until this Court is compelled to do so.” Mingo did indicate that the elected official is an official with the City of Columbus, the plaintiff in the pending case.

November 21, 2023: Judge Mingo, in an order granting Defendant’s request, identifies Andy Ginther as the elected official who contacted her.

This series of alarming events raises serious questions for both Andy Ginther and Judge Stephanie Mingo.

1. Exactly how did Andy Ginther get the personal cell phone of Judge Stephanie Mingo?

2. What is the protocol for Judge Stephanie Mingo’s courtroom in dealing with ex parte communication on pending matters?

3. Why didn’t the Judge have her bailiff return the call to Ginther? Did the Judge invite ex parte communication by returning the mayor’s phone call herself?

4. Why didn’t the Judge order Ginther to stop talking to her immediately when it became clear to her that he was violating the law?

5. Where and when exactly did this phone between Mingo and Ginther occur? Are there cell phone records/logs to document such time and length of the conversation?

6. Will Andy Ginther confirm or deny Mingo’s recitation of the communication?

Court transcripts indicate that on October 12, attorneys from both sides requested that the Judge reveal the name of the city official. But the Court stated it was, “not inclined to specifically name that official, unless or until this Court is compelled to do so.” The fact that the legal counsels for both parties desired that city official to be identified on October 12, was compelling enough.

The Judge failed to reveal the name of the city official knowing that this would result in a motion from the defendants thus delaying the identity of the mayor until after the election. 

Judge Mingo was well aware of the fact that Mayor Ginther was running for re-election and that the election was less than a month away. She also knew that revealing his name on October 12th would have negative implications on his re-election efforts. The Judge’s decision not to reveal Andy Ginther as the city official who participated in ex parte communication on October 12th brings to question judicial partiality of a high-ranking city official. And Ginther’s unethical and illegal decision to contact Judge Mingo may have poisoned the trial.

In the transactional nature of local politics, the actions of these two elected officials are far, far from transparent.