Meet the candidates for Milwaukee County Circuit Court

In Milwaukee County, Marisabel Cabrera and Rochelle Johnson-Bent vie for the open Branch 43 seat after Judge Marshall B. Murray chose not to run for reelection.

Cabrera is a member of the Wisconsin Assembly and an attorney in private practice at Cabrera Law Office. She graduated from Michigan State University College of Law in 2002. Her resume is here.

Johnson-Bent is an attorney and manager of procurement and risk management for the Milwaukee Public School District. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2010. Her resume is here.

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments

The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Cabrera

Marisabel Cabrera

Why do you want to become a judge?

First, my desire to become a judge stems from my deep commitment to public service. I grew up on the South Side of Milwaukee in neighborhoods that weren’t well resourced. Like most families in the area, my family struggled to get by and lived paycheck to paycheck. At times, we relied on our church or local food pantry for clothes and food. It is a core value in my family that if any of us are fortunate enough to do better in life, then it is our duty and obligation to help others do the same. For me that means public service. Having already served 6 years as a Fire and Police Commissioner and now serving my 3rd term in the State Assembly, becoming a judge presents an opportunity to continue serving the public in a different capacity.
 
Secondly, I want to become a judge to build more confidence in our judicial system. More and more the general public has lost confidence in our courts’ impartiality and independence from societal pressures. Having a judge with a relatable personal background and a professional reputation for integrity and carefully considering all positions before forming an opinion, encourages trust in the system.
 
Finally, I want to become a judge to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and equally under the law. Our federal and state constitutions guarantee due process and equal protection in our courts. Still, the available data does not necessarily reflect that our courts are fulfilling these guarantees. Is it due process if people don’t understand what is happening in court or why? And, is it equal protection when similarly situated individuals have substantially different experiences in court? As a judge, I would uphold rights and freedoms, apply the law equally and consistently, and approach parties respectfully, fairly, and without prejudice.
 
Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way.

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES is a 2015 landmark decision of the Court which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The impact of the ruling is that same-sex couples are able to marry in every state and have their out-of-state marriages recognized in other states.
 
As a member of the LGBT community, I witnessed the instant positive impact this decision had on my friends by the look of relief and joy on their faces. So many had already foregone the possibility of marrying their partners. While civil unions for same-sex couples existed in many states, they created a separate but equal standard which reinforced a stigma towards same-sex relationships. Marriage equality not only allowed same-sex couples to celebrate what was once just a dream, but it further entitled them to have their lives and relationships accorded the same value and respect by the government as heterosexuals couples. Legally married same-sex couples now enjoy tax breaks, health and life insurance benefits, recognition as next-of-kin for legal purposes and medical decision-making, evidentiary privileges, as well as adoption, parental, and inheritance rights.
 
More importantly, the Court based its ruling on sexual orientation discrimination rather than sex discrimination. A decision based on constitutionally established sex discrimination precedents could have prevented future advances in the LGBT civil rights movement.
 
Describe your judicial philosophy. 

My judicial philosophy is simple: Apply the law to the facts before me consistently and impartially. In each case, I would want to carefully consider all the facts presented and determine what the law requires for a fair outcome based on constitutional principles, precedent, statutory language, and legislative intent where necessary.
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. 

There was a case assigned to me a day before trial. While reviewing the enormous file, I read a note from prior counsel indicating they were able to vacate a 15+ year old conviction that made the client deportable, but were unable to negotiate a dismissal or plea to a lesser non-deportable offense. As a result, the client was forced to enter a new plea to the original charge. However, because the client was a lawful permanent resident, I immediately began drafting a motion to terminate proceedings because the client was not deportable due to the conviction alone. It was the combination of the charge and the date of the original conviction being within 5 years of the client becoming a lawful permanent resident. Therefore, even though the client still had the same conviction, the new plea meant the conviction no longer was within the 5-year window. Not only was the case closed and the client not deported, but they kept their lawful permanent resident status and eligibility to naturalize. Everyone at the firm thought the client would be ordered deported. The outcome of this case resulted in the same strategy being used for dozens of other similarly situated clients who were awaiting their immigration trials with little hope. This was a time when immigration lawyers did not have much experience in state criminal courts and criminal defense attorneys knew next to nothing about immigration law. Since the 2010 U.S Supreme Court case PADILLA v. KENTUCKY held that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea, attorneys now specialize in “crimmigration.”
 
Another case that is significant to me because of how it clearly demonstrates that our immigration laws are broken. The case involved a young Russian lesbian woman who had made it to the U.S. by sheer will. She was applying for asylum due to the violent persecution of LGBT members in Russia. Not only did the Russian government do nothing to protect its members of the LGBT community, but it actively encouraged violence against them. The young woman had newspaper clippings corroborating the abuse as well as photos of injuries she’d sustained from a brutal attack after leaving a concert with a female friend. The police were witnessed the attack from across the street, but did nothing to help or stop the attack. I had compiled a mountain of evidence establishing all the elements of eligibility. And yet, the immigration officer who conducted the asylum interview denied the case because a Google searched showed that there was a gay bar in the town the young lady was from. It was shocking how the officer could make such a cruel and inhumane decision based on such flimsy information against all the evidence presented. I think of this case often when I see news of the southern border and I wonder how many people with legitimate cases are being turned away.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. 

I have been a practicing attorney for 18 years, both in Wisconsin and Florida. As a solo practitioner, I have represented clients in immigration proceedings as well as traffic, misdemeanor, and children’s court. My past work at Florida firms included drafting federal litigation briefs involving naturalization applications and removal order appeals. Additionally, I trained new attorneys and managed a criminal defense department focused on litigating post-conviction motions and appeals based on pleas entered without knowledge of deportation consequences.
 
Prior to practicing immigration law, I worked at Milwaukee’s Centro Legal representing individuals with misdemeanor charges who did not qualify for a public defender. A graduate of Michigan State University College of Law, I clerked for a family court judge in Michigan. I also interned at Legal Aid of Central Michigan handling cases in family law, housing, public benefits, and consumer protection.
 
Currently, I am also serving my 3rd term in the Wisconsin Assembly advancing legislation that gives all Wisconsinites an opportunity to thrive. I have served as the Vice Chair of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators Immigration Task Force, Chair of the Milwaukee Delegation, and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. Further, I served 6 years as a Milwaukee Fire and Police Commissioner reviewing citizen complaints and presiding over employee appellate hearings on hiring and disciplinary decisions. In each case, I impartially applied legal standards to the facts and rendered judgment. Therefore, I have the unique experience of having argued the law, written the law, and enforced the law.
 
Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.

I recall an incident involving a client I represented while working at a law firm. The client’s family hired the firm for legal counsel in immigration proceedings after he’d been arrested for battery on his pregnant girlfriend and was being held in an immigration detention center. I was assigned to argue for the client’s release at the bond hearing. Because the client had not yet been convicted and the girlfriend had attempted to run the client over with their vehicle a few days prior, the legal argument for release was essentially to blame the victim. As a survivor of domestic violence myself, it weighed heavily on me. It was not the same as representing a client in criminal proceedings where the defense is that the client is innocent. However, I proceeded to make the argument because it was my duty to set aside my personal feelings and zealously represent my client to the best of my ability and within the bounds of the law.
 
Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?
 
I do support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election. I support the rules proposed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2017 requiring recusal where the following amounts are involved:
 
Supreme Court Justice - $10,000
Court of Appeals Judge - $2,500
Circuit Court Judge - $1,000
Municipal Court Judge - $500
 
I believe that the 2017 proposed rules are in line with avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, which in this context would be the impression that the judge cannot remain impartial where a party or their lawyer in some way contributed financially to elect the judge or the judge’s opponent and this lack of impartiality would inherently equate to a lack of due process.
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? 

In court, justice is righting a wrong either by restoring the person back to the position they were in or would have been in prior to the wrong occurring or by rectifying the impact of the wrong as much as possible. In criminal proceedings, justice requires that a defendant have fair and impartial proceedings, victims fully participate in the proceedings, and the disposition involves both holding the defendant accountable for harm done as well as reducing the likelihood of reoffending where a defendant is found guilty. Equally important is to ensure that the parties involved understand their rights and have legal counsel during the proceedings. I don’t believe an individual can have a fair proceeding if they do not understand what is happening or if they do not have legal counsel.
 
The greatest obstacles judges face in delivering justice is that often the judges are not properly resourced for the number of cases that come through their court and that there is no automatic right to counsel for everyone. If we want to guarantee everyone has “their day in court,” then we must (a) ensure that every court has the staff, security, prosecutors, public defenders, and judges necessary to avoid converting our courts into legal factories where parties essentially go through an assembly line and (b) provide all parties with legal representation that can present the most effective case in criminal and civil matters alike.
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote. 

I am the only candidate in this race that can say that my professional background has provided me with experience arguing the law, writing the law, and enforcing the law. As an Attorney, I have advocated for the most vulnerable in our community. As a State Representative, I have authored and co-sponsored legislation that has become law in our state. As a Fire and Police Commissioner, I have presided over hearings and passed judgement after hearing testimony, evaluating evidence, and applying the law to the facts in the proceedings.
 
Additionally, I am the only candidate that has been a public figure for over a decade and as such, I have a record of my public service. In every position I’ve held as a public servant, I have looked for the humanity in people and carefully listened to all those impacted to reach a fair outcome that factored in the issues and concerns presented. Voters can look to my record and see that as a judge I won’t make up my mind as to what the proper decision is until I have seriously considered all parties’ arguments and perspectives of the case before me.
 
Finally, I am the only candidate with prior experience serving as a nonpartisan official. As a Milwaukee Fire and Police Commissioner, I demonstrated that I can be objective and fair when presiding over a hearing as a public official. 

Johnson-Bent

Rochelle Johnson-Bent

Why do you want to become a judge? 
 
There are several reasons why I am running to fill the seat of Branch 43, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge; however, the three (3) main reasons are as follows:
 
A. Experience. Milwaukee needs more incoming judges who practice and litigate various areas of law, especially since many cases are multi-faceted in nature. Plus, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judges rotate; therefore, it will help their learning curve if they have some experience in a variety of legal areas. Further, we need judges with trial experience, who know the rules of evidence and understand the complexity and issues specific to Milwaukee County Courts. Lastly, we need judges with experience in working with varied clientele, specifically prose litigants in complex legal matters. I have this experience.
 
B. Justice & Equality for All. For most of my legal career, I have worked with or for indigent and/or the most vulnerable clientele, and with that responsibility, I have embraced the challenge of ensuring people always feel part of the process. This means I use terminology they understand, attempt to provide resources to aid their understanding, and approach matters with a level-headed and respectful tone, which tends to help de-escalate emotions. I also have shown these skills in my mentorship to others as well(1st ever awarded Outstanding Mentor Award in 2017 from YLD).
 
C. Relatability. From a personal and professional lens, I understand the heightened emotions people have when entering the legal arena, but more specifically, Milwaukee County Courthouse and how intimidating/frustrating it can be to navigate. I use my knowledge and experience to connect, listen, and empathize with the issues of our community. I also stay engaged and learn through community service, personal relations, and organizational involvement. The type of Judge I will be shows knowledge and compassion for the law, articulation, and understanding of the issues, but most importantly, the ability to personalize and relate to the parties/community to extend the arms of justice without being intrusive, biased, or detached.
 
Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way.

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC), Nos. 20-1199 & 21-707, addressing the legality of race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions programs. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found that Harvard and UNC’s admission programs, which consider race during various stages of the process, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This decision contradicted previous rulings that found colleges and universities did not improperly emphasize race or discriminate in their admissions decisions and that the limited use of race consciousness in admissions was consistent with decades of Supreme Court precedent.

The Court expressed reservations about racial preferences and placed limitations on race-based admissions programs, including the stipulation that such programs must have reasonable durational limits and must not deviate from the norm of equal treatment in a lasting manner.

Justice Sotomayor criticized the majority’s opinion, and I agree with her sentiments, expressing concern that it eroded precedent and progress, cementing a superficial rule of colorblindness in a society where race remains significant. She stated that the decision contradicted the vision of equality in the Fourteenth Amendment. However, she urged universities to continue using available tools to promote diversity in education. In a separate dissenting opinion specifically on the UNC case, Justice Jackson highlighted the benefits of considering race in higher education, noting that deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.

My biggest concern going forward is I anticipate and see  that there will be more challenges to practices involving the consideration of any protected trait as a factor in granting or denying benefits, including in the employment context. For example, the Wisconsin Legislature pulling funding from the University of Wisconsin System to directly attack DEI efforts whose goal is to give all people a feeling of community and belongingness and also helps retention of a more diverse workforce. In a country built on systemic racism, we should not remove measures in place that, in comparison to the number of years of oppressive laws and action, help ensure improved inclusivity.  If anything we should continue to support and expand initiatives that encourage diversity, equity, and fairness in the workplace, housing, education, and court system.
 
Describe your judicial philosophy. 

My judicial philosophy is summarized in saying, judges are those who show knowledge for the law, articulation and understanding of the issues, but most importantly, the ability to personalize and relate to the parties/community in an effort to extend the arms of justice without being intrusive, biased, or detached.
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
Family Law Case
The initial case under discussion involves a post-judgment family law matter, wherein the mother sought to modify a seven-year court order. The 2011 order was established during a period of instability for the parents, who were between jobs and dealing with housing and substance abuse issues. The paternal grandmother had cared for the children prior to the court's order and was present for all 2011 court proceedings, despite being unrepresented. Following the recommendation of the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) and mutual agreement of the parties, the court granted sole custody to the grandmother with supervised contact for the parents. Notably, there was no guardianship or third-party visitation motion filed on the grandmother’s behalf at that time. In 2018, I was appointed as the GAL for the minor children involved in the case. During preparation, I raised concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest related to the attorney representing the grandmother, who had previously represented the father. Additionally, I brought attention to the mother's claim of membership in a Native American tribe, prompting considerations under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Furthermore, I highlighted the absence of any formal recognition of the grandmother as a party in the case, advising her to file a guardianship or third-party visitation motion. Despite resistance from the grandmother's attorney, I advocated for the correction of issues arising from the 2011 order in the best interest of the children. This involved persuading the parties to acknowledge the invalidity of the previous order and cooperate in addressing ongoing concerns.
​
Civil Action
In the second case, a civil action was brought against the Milwaukee Public School District, and I collaborated with the Milwaukee City Attorney’s Office in managing the litigated matters involving the District. Upon receiving the file, I noted several pending motions and a scheduled mediation arising from a case filed in 2018. Unfortunately, due to staffing shortages at the City Attorney’s Office, certain information had not been promptly filed on behalf of the District. After bringing my office up to speed on the case's status, we organized and reviewed the court filing, and strategized with the Assistant City Attorney to gather evidence, conduct legal research, and prepare for the upcoming mediation. Despite the option of taking a backseat to the Assistant City Attorney’s representation, my litigation background led me to prepare our legal responses to ensure the best outcome for the District. I utilized statutes and case law to bolster the District's position during mediation, impressing the mediator with our strong legal arguments. Additionally, while recognizing the strength of the District's case based on law and facts, I remained mindful of the overall posture of the case, leading to the proactive pursuit of a fair settlement when the opportunity arose.

These cases serve as testament to my legal acumen and mindfulness in securing the best protections and outcomes for the parties involved.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
I litigated misdemeanor and felony criminal cases that included, but were not limited to: Operating While Intoxicated; Battery; Theft; Burglary; Possession with Intent to Deliver, Controlled Substance, Paraphernalia; Resisting an Officer; Disorderly Conduct; Criminal Damage to Property; Carry a Concealed Weapon, Child Neglect; Possession of Child Pornography; and many other criminal matters.
 
I litigated civil cases that involved Family Law matters (divorce, custody, placement, paternity, child and spousal support, marital presumption, harassment and restraining orders injunctions (child abuse, DV, and individual at risk), property division, and guardianship); Civil General Liability Claims; Breach of Contract; Partnership Disputes, Name Change, Small Claims, and I have litigated De Novo decisions from Administrative Law Judges.
 
As it relates to administrative proceedings, I have litigated Worker’s Compensation claims, Day Care Licensing Revocation Hearings, Probation Revocation Hearings, and Equal Rights Division matters such as claims involving civil rights, unpaid wages, personnel records, and discrimination.
 
Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.

A prime example of demonstrating courage in the face of adversity in my professional experience occurred when I assumed the role of Director of Compliance at Boys & Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee (BGCGM). Upon starting, I engaged with numerous club managers, leadership, and central office staff to establish a framework for addressing contracts, ethical considerations, and compliance issues. Building trust and understanding the historical context were essential, as I encountered reluctance from staff to openly discuss compliance concerns due to fear of reprisal. Furthermore, I discovered that operational sites were circumventing company policies, perceiving them as obstructive and inefficient. Once I identified these challenges, I devised an implementation plan, which involved the establishment of an internal Ethics Hotline and an agency-wide contractual protocol.

Initially, I collaborated with leadership to comprehend their contractual needs and processes for auditing and compliance. I undertook a comprehensive review of existing contracts, established a secure contract repository, developed an explicit authorized signatory policy, and devised a template for expedited service agreements across the 45 sites. Subsequently, I conducted training sessions to elucidate the rationale behind the changes, outline the new processes, provide an estimated approval timeline, and remained accessible for inquiries and concerns from both staff and affected vendors.

Concurrently, I conducted extensive research on the ethical and compliance investigation systems at other large non-profits and Boys & Girls Clubs in metropolitan areas. This informed the establishment of a secure website offering anonymous intake services with 24/7 translation capabilities, an independent investigation process, and a direct reporting structure to the Board Chair, coupled with an anti-retaliation policy. Rigorous adherence to policies and safeguards during investigations was crucial for fostering trust within the organization. Additionally, I conducted organization-wide training sessions, produced literature and promotional materials, and gained endorsement from trusted personnel and leadership.

Despite encountering resistance initially, my steadfast commitment to consistency, transparency, and adaptability to feedback facilitated significant progress and widespread adoption of the contract process and ethics hotline across the organization. In hindsight, many staff members acknowledged the importance of both the contract protocols and the ethics hotline, expressing appreciation for the presence of written contracts to enforce services, particularly during the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and recognizing the value of the ethics hotline as a means to report potential issues for investigation.
 
Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?
 
I believe that a judge should exercise their rightful discretion to recuse themselves if their relationship with a donor or indirect supporter violates any of the seven (7) factors outlined in Wis.Stat. §759.19, particularly if the judge "determines that, for any reason, they cannot, or it appears they cannot, act in an impartial manner." Presently, the statute and judicial oath do not mandate a justice or judge to recuse themselves from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election. Legal precedent emphasizes that "Due process requires an objective inquiry into whether the contributor's influence on the election under all the circumstances would offer a possible temptation to the average judge to lead the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true" (Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 129 S. Ct. 2252, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1208 (2009)).

Therefore, at the commencement of a case, if one of the parties raises an objection to the judge's assignment or if the judge themselves believes that the donation or connection to their election could raise questions about their ability to be impartial, the judge should document the objection, provide a rationale outlining the decision to recuse or not, and declare their decision. If uncertain, the judge or justice could seek guidance from the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.

I do not believe we should establish a specific amount, as doing so would only create a rigid standard in a situation that necessitates and encourages discretion and analysis of specific facts. Implementing donation limitations for donors and indirect supporters is adequate for setting a specific contribution limit. If Wisconsin intends to adjust donation caps from individuals, candidate committees, or PACs, the legislature should propose modifications to the statutes accordingly.
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?
  
As judges endeavor to uphold true justice, they encounter significant obstacles, namely time and resources, particularly within Milwaukee County. Many judges express concerns about the volume of cases, turnover or shortage of court personnel, and the inadequate resources at their disposal to mitigate inequities and ensure a uniform and fair courtroom experience for all.

Addressing High Caseloads
For new or unfamiliar judges grappling with high caseloads, embracing mentorship and seeking guidance can be pivotal in devising efficient case management strategies. Remaining open to feedback and recommendations from fellow judges, clerks, and bailiffs is also essential. Furthermore, thorough familiarity with the law, observing courtroom proceedings before assuming assignments, and meticulous case preparation are crucial steps to avoid on-the-record learning, which might lead to errors and appeals.

Managing Turnover of Personnel
To address turnover of personnel, judges can try to establish clear standards of operations (SOP) tailored to the specific roles within their courtroom. This approach facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the responsibilities of each staff member and provides a framework for communicating expectations. Moreover, judicial flexibility and adaptability are imperative in navigating personnel changes.

Overcoming Resource Constraints
In the quest to bridge resource gaps that hinder equitable access to the courts, judges can tap into various resources available within the courthouse, including engaging with the Chief Judge, collaborating with other judges, and consulting with the Clerk of Court and the Milwaukee Community Justice Council (CJCC). Furthermore, staying informed about external entities such as community organizations offering support services to litigants, including the Marquette Law Clinic, Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, Legal Action of Wisconsin, Sojourner Peace Center, Family Mediation Center, Jewish Family Services, and Community Advocates, can be beneficial.
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.
 
Rochelle Johnson-Bent, hailing from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is an accomplished Managing Attorney in Procurement & Risk Management at Milwaukee Public Schools. Known for her expertise in workers' compensation, contract law, risk assessments, and insurance regulations, she plays a pivotal role in collaborating with the Milwaukee City Attorney's Office, addressing diverse legal matters with adept skill.

Her journey in the legal field is marked by significant roles, including Director of Compliance at Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Milwaukee and Supervising Attorney at the Legal Aid Society's Family Court Division. Rochelle's diverse experience extends to private practice, where she excelled across several areas such as Family Law, Criminal Law, and more, showcasing her versatile legal acumen.

A staunch advocate for justice, Rochelle's dedication to serving children, low-income individuals, and at-risk communities is unwavering. Her active participation in legal and community organizations, including the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation and the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, reflects her commitment to making a difference. Rochelle also held the position of Vice President on the Highland Community School Board and she is a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.
​
Beyond her professional life, Rochelle is a devoted mother to two talented children and a 1-year-old English Pointer rescue dog. Her commitment to family extends to caring for her grandmother and serving as a respite caretaker for family members in foster care.