Ransom Young Needs To Address Possible Ethics Problems

In this Kent Jackson article written March 7, 2012 in the Standard Speaker Ranson Young, candidate for the House seat in the 116th Pennsylvania district and presently Butler Township Supervisor, it is reported that Young is "suing the other two supervisors and the township to regain a job as road foreman from which they fired him in January."

In the federal lawsuit, Young says Supervisors Brian Kisenwether and Charles Altmiller fired him because he campaigned against them.

Young, a Democrat now running for state representative, defeated Kisenwether, a Republican, in an election for township supervisor in 1995. Young campaigned against Kisenwether in 2009 when Kisenwether defeated Democrat James Caffray to become a supervisor. In 2011, Young campaigned against Republican Altmiller, who also defeated Caffray to become a supervisor.

When Altmiller took office in January, he and Kisenwether formed a Republican majority. They fired Young and Caffray, who was zoning officer, at a meeting on Jan. 3.

Young says in the lawsuit that he received no notice that he would be fired before the meeting and was told no reason for his dismissal. In the lawsuit, he says he was fired in retaliation for exercising his right of free speech by campaigning.

The caption to this photo reads "Asphalt from a shovel held by Luis Ocasio, who works for the Butler Township Road Department, falls to the surface of Mill Mountain Road, Butler Township. Behind him, Freeland Street Foreman Bob Babenko and Butler Township Roadmaster Ransom Young operate a spreader, while Terry Webster, of the Black Creek Township road crew, uses a rake to smooth asphalt from the side of the road. All three municipalities, including West Hazleton, work together on road maintenance and repairs to cut costs."

Back in 2010 this Standard Speaker article highlighted salary questions regarding Ransom Young's employment with Butler Township as a supervisor and a road worker. 

Young was scheduled to receive $2,000 for his job as roadmaster, which is a supervisor position and was up for a 4 percent wage increase for being road foreman. Last year the roadmaster position paid $4,000. Young's salary, including the 2010 raise, would have been $49,429.38. Additionally, any supervisor that works on roads in the township receives $24.69 per hour."

According to these three Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission rulings it appears Ransom Young has a significant ethical issue regarding his dual employment by Butler Township.

In the matter of Richard Hessinger, supervisor for Summit Township, from 1994 the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission ruled

Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 in 1988 and 1989 when he received double payment as a salaried roadmaster and as a laborer at an hourly rate for performing road related duties.

In another case before the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission from the same year Thomas Wasiela, another supervisor in Summit Township, received a similar verdict. 

Wasiela violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he received double payment as a salaried roadmaster and as a paid laborer at an hourly rate for attending the PSATS's convention in 1988 and 1989.

Wasiela violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 for receiving payment, at the hourly rate set by the township board of auditors for a working township employee, as to duties which were encompassed within the functions of elected township supervisors for the calendar year 1989.

In this matter involving Robert Noel, supervisor for Reade Township, the Ethics Commission found he committed a similar violation from 2004 through 2009. 

Robert T. Noel ( "Noel "), a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor for Reade Township ( T"ownship ")f rom January 2004 to the present, violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( E" thics Act "), 65 PSa.C.. 1 103§(a) , in relation to his actions as a Township Supervisor to approve and issue payment for hours claimed as a Township road worker at the same time he was serving asTownship Roadmaster.

Mr. Young should explain to the public in explicit terms whether the findings in these three cases applies to his role as Butler Township Supervisor, Butler Township Roadmaster, and Butler Township supervisor working on roads.  Did he approve payments to himself in all three of these roles?

 

.

Dee Deakos- The Taxpayers' Demagogue Part 1

The roll of honor consists of the names who have squared their conduct by ideals of duty- Woodrow Wilson

Men walk among their peers who judge them by their actions, not their words. Sometimes the actions are so loud the public can't hear what one is saying.

In the case of Dee Deakos it is time that the public examines her record to see if she justly deserves the title "taxpayer advocate".

Recently Ms. Deakos attacked Hazleton City Authority Board Member John Keegan over his abstention from voting on Resolution 26 of May 24, 2011 where money was being transferred from PNC Bank to Landmark Bank. She tried to insuate with her questioning that the reason Mr. Keegan was abstaining was because he was hiding some financial gain. Anyone with common sense would know that if there was a possible financial gain Mr. Keegan would have to abstain and that would be a legal action. How does one abstain to "hide" financial gain? An abstention is the duty of the board member in that case.

Mr. Keegan refused to answer her question because his potential conflict of interest has been published in the Standard Speaker no less than three times. December 24, 2010, December 26, 2010, and July 26, 2010 The last article is the one that caused the confusion with Deakos since it incorrectly mentions that Mr. Keegan was a member of the Board of Directors of the Bank. However, as one can see the subsequent articles adequately cleared up that mistake.

Properly, Mr. Keegan and the board's solicitor, Attorney Peter O'Donnell told Ms. Deakos that she could avail herself of the Open Records provisions and make a Right to Know request to see the documents that would answer her question.

However, Ms. Deakos was not satisfied with trying to follow the law. She approached the board with the matter again at the next meeting. Her false allegations made the press in this article that appeared in the Hazleton Standard Speaker.

Ms. Deakos is summarized asking making this statement by reporter Sam Galski.

Deakos, however, asked why Keegan couldn't provide a reason publicly if he wasn't realizing any financial gain. It is published in the newspaper no less than three times yet she said he didn't state his reason publically? Even if Mr. Keegan would have realized a financial gain due to the transaction he abstained which is the proper thing to do.

What the public should ask Ms. Deakos is why she didn't question the other board members who DID vote to secure the loans from the bank. She was told that no less than three banks were approached for the first loan by the HCA manager and CPA. Not one board member was involved in the process. In the case of the second loan even more were given the opportunity to submit a proposal.

The State Ethics Commission concerns itself when a board member uses his or her position for financial gain, NOT when he/she abstains from voting to prevent the conflict from influencing the outcome.

Mr. Keegan told Ms. Deakos his abstention was not for conflict of interest on Resolution 36, therefore, needed no explanation. He also reiterated that every time he felt he had a conflict of interest he followed the law and submitted in writing that he had a conflict.

What Ms. Deakos didn't tell the public was her involvement on prior occassions with the board trying to secure financial gain for herself by soliciting the board for no-bid work. The following observation by reporter Sam Galski was made in This article that appeared on December 9, 2010 in the Standard Speaker.

Audience member Dee Deakos, who offered to merge the city and authority data bases through her firm, Pharmahouse, estimates that the process could take about a month.

That action wouldn't be her last approach to the board. After a board meeting she approached four of the five members of the board to discuss her proposal. By doing so she may have inadvertently caused the board members to face the accusation of an illegal board meeting in violation of the Sunshine Act. Ms. Deakos's actions went unnoticed until now.

The public trust falls prey when the end game is the "booty" to be had.

It is a shame that the Hazleton Taxpayers Association doesn't have a code of ethics that forbids any member from seeking financial gain from boards, commissions, and councils for which it claims to be a "watchdog" over. Of course it remains to be seen if that organization is still meeting on a regular basis.

Part 2 HUD Loans....next installment

GOP Outrage Over School Closing for Clinton-Kanjorski Political Rally

The Pennsylvania Republican Party has issued the following press release over the early closing of the Nanticoke Jr./Sr. High School for the Clinton-Kanjorski Political Rally to be held at that facility.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Contact: Michael Barley
Press Release


HARRISBURG – Republican Party of Pennsylvania Chairman Rob Gleason released the following statement regarding the Nanticoke Area School District’s decision to dismiss school early and use taxpayer funds to make a robo-call in support of Congressman Kanjorski’s political rally:

“Taxpayers should be outraged at the use of public funds to advertise a political rally that will close local schools to in order to accommodate Bill Clinton and Paul Kanjorksi,” Gleason said. “Not only were public funds used to make the announcement but local children will be deprived of their education for a last minute attempt to save Congressman Kanjorski’s job.”

“The Kanjorski campaign should immediately reimburse the school district and move their event to a site that will not cause parents to rearrange their schedules while depriving children of their education. Parents across the Commonwealth are already facing greater stresses from an uncertain job climate and limited resources due to the policies that Congressman Kanjorski has allowed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to advance. Because of Congressman Kanjorski’s rally, countless families have been forced to arrange child care arrangements for their children that day and have been inconvenienced because of this event. The taxpayers deserve to know why the school district felt it necessary to spend funds helping Paul Kanjorski get reelected.”

On Friday, the Nanticoke Area School District sent a paid robo-call (click here to listen) from their Superintendent to the homes of parents with children in the district. The call warned them that a political rally for Congressman Kanjorski would be taking place at the Greater Nanticoke Area High School on Tuesday afternoon and would require the school to be closed early to accommodate the event.

Kanjorski Cuts Children Education In Nanticoke To Campaign

A developing story coming out of the Barletta campaign.

On Friday afternoon the Nanticoke Area School District sent a paid robo-call
from their Superintendent into the homes of parents with children in the district.

The call alerted them of a political rally for Paul Kanjorski that is to be held at the Nanticoke Jr. Sr. High School on Tuesday afternoon. It also said that the children's education day would be cut short due to Kanjorski's political rally and they would need to make accommodations to get their children.

Here is information that can be found on the Allentown Morning Call website.


I would like very much too attend this rally and see President Clinton. At what time does this event start, and do I nee tickets? Thank you,George Mizzer
Posted By: George Mizzer | Oct 22, 2010 3:48:59 PM

George, here are the details:

The public is invited to attend the rally in Nanticoke. More details are available below and at www.paulkanjorski.com.

• Address: Greater Nanticoke Area High School gymnasium
427 Kosciuszko Street
Nanticoke, PA 18634
• Doors open at 4:00 p.m., line to attend starts at 1:00 p.m.
• No tickets needed for the free event.


Posted By: Colby | Oct 22, 2010 11:21:38 PM



Questions:

1. Why were taxpayer resources used to make this call?

2. Why did the call (paid for by the taxpayers) alert the recipients of a
political rally and not just an early dismissal?

3. Does Paul Kanjorski think it is right to cut a student's education day
short for his own political ambitions?

4. Did Kanjorski think about the inconvenience and hardship his rally would
cause to parents who have to leave work early or pay for extra child care so
he can have his campaign rally?

Guess this proves one point. Bill Clinton never campaigned on family values.  You can't have prayer at a school but you can campaign.  Go figure.

Someone should remind Anthony Perrone, the Superintendent, about the Hatch Act. The Act forbids employees of the federal government, as well as employees of state and municipal governmental bodies and agencies that receive federal funds, from running for office in partisan elections or participating in political campaigning while working.

From the Missouri Attorney General website:

In Fort v. Civil Service Commission of the County of Alameda, 392 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1964) the California Supreme Court ruled invalid a county charter provision that prohibited civil servants taking any part in the political management or affairs of any political campaign or election. The court said at page 389:


"No one can reasonably deny the need to limit some political activities such as the use of official influence to coerce political action, the solicitation of political contributions from fellow employees, and the pursuit of political purposes during those hours that the employee should be discharging the duties of his position.



It is unfair in this case for the Nanticoke School District to force opponents of Paul Kanjorski to lend financial support to the his campaign by use of their Jr./Sr. High School building. I believe it is also illegal for school personnel to release public employees from ordinary duties during the paid working day in order to allow a campaign to be conducted on school property.

The following information was provided to school personnel in California.

District staff and Board members should always bear in mind the potentially serious civil and criminal liability that may result from seemingly harmless actions. There is no “de minimus” level of public spending on a partisan campaign that would be acceptable under the applicable laws and rules. School districts should take steps to make clear to employees that they are not permitted to use any publicly funded, District-owned equipment for any political purposes in connection with the election, including District-issued cell phones, the District e-mail system, District-owned computers (including laptops issued to staff and used outside the office), phones, fax machines, etc. There are rare instances where the line is less than bright. However, a good guide may be that if the District prohibits or even discourages use of such resources for private purposes or conversations, it should definitely forbid any use for partisan campaigning.


The Commonwealth Procurement Code Contains Some General Ethics Guidelines in Commonwealth Agency Procurements.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act similarly generally prohibits the use of government staff, time, equipment, facilities or property for non-governmental purposes -- including business, personal or political purposes. Confidential Opinion, 05-001. See, e.g. Neff, Order 1498; Maduka, Order 1273, Heck, Order 1251, Holt, Order 1153 (business purposes); Moore, Order 1317, Meduka, Order 1277, Sullivan, Order 1245, Dividio, Order 1202 (personal purposes); Habay, Order 1313,Version: August 2010 Pt I Ch 60 – Pg 3 of 17, Order 1030, Rockefeller, Order 1004, Freind, Order 800 (political purposes).

Isn't that what Bonusgate was all about? Look at this Order by the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission against Stephen Freind relative to conducting campaign activity using his state office.

Update On Eachus Travel Claims

In today's Times Leader Steve Mocarsky pens an article about House Majority Leader Todd Eachus's admission that he accepted a flight back and forth from Harrisburg to Hazleton on January 31, 2007. He attended the press conference announcing a proposal to build a cargo airport outside of Hazleton where now admitted felon Robert Powell was a partner. He made the claim that he had to return to Harrisburg to vote.

The round trip between Harrisburg and Hazleton was job-related, Eachus said, and he made it because it was the only way to make it back to Harrisburg in time to cast votes in the state House.

According to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Legislative Journal report for Wednesday January 31, 2007 the House convened its proceedings at 11:00A.M. and adjourned at 11:02A.M.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The House convened at 11 a.m., e.s.t.

CALENDAR
RESOLUTIONS PASSED OVER
The SPEAKER. Without objection, any resolutions on
today's calendar will be passed over. The Chair hears no
objection.

ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Chester, Representative McIlvaine Smith, who moves that
the House do now adjourn until 11 a.m., e.s.t., Thursday,
February 1, 2007, unless sooner recalled by the Speaker.
On the question,
Will the House agree to the motion?
Motion was agreed to, and at 11:02 a.m., e.s.t., the House
adjourned.

Previously SOP provied a link to House Actions on Wednesday January 31, 2007 that provided evidence there were no votes in the House on that date.

Mr. Eachus has created more questions than answers.  It should be noted that the press conference was held at 1:00P.M.  He flew back to Harrisburg after the adjournment for the day according to records.

The following information from this flight tracking site was obtained by SOP for N69WU, the tail number for Powell's Rockwell jet.

31-Jan-2007
SBR1/L Capital City (KCXY)
Allegheny Co (KAGC)
04:15PM EST 05:10PM EST 0:55

BREAKING NEWS EACHUS ADMITS TO FLYING ON ROBERT POWELL'S JET

The Times Leader is reporting that House Majority Leader Todd Eachus is finally admitting to taking a flight on Robert Powell's jet on January 31, 2007, the day of the cargo airport announcement in Hazleton. SOP has been saying for months that Eachus took this flight and never reported it on his Ethics Commission filing dated 02-07-2008.

The approximate value for that trip in that type of jet could run as high as $750.00 one way. Since there were four trips involved (down and back twice) the value could hit as high as $3,000.00.

The round trip from Harrisburg to Hazleton and back was job-related, Eachus said, and he made the trip because it was the only way to make it back to Harrisburg in time to cast votes in the House.


Guess the Wilkes Barre Airport was closed that day. To be clear Harrisburg is a one hour and twenty minute drive from Hazleton.

From the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission Restricted Activities Page:

(b) No person shall offer or give to a public official, public employee, or nominee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, anything of monetary value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward or promise of future employment based on the offeror's or donor's understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or nominee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby.


(c) No public official, public employee or nominee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept anything of monetary value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding of that public official, public employee or nominee that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or nominee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby.

On June 18, 2007 House Bill 1589 was introduced in the House that was amended June 28, 2007. Printer Number 2107 shows that language was inserted into the bill to provide $250,000,000.00 funding for Powell's proposed cargo airport outside of Hazleton less than six months after Eachus accepted the ride on the jet to participate in the announcement.

Eachus received a donation from Robert Powell through his PAC, Conservatives For Good Government in the amount of $5,000.00 on February 6, 2007, just six days after accepting a flight on his jet to and from Harrisburg. Robert Powell donated over $18,000.00 to Todd Eachus from the year 2000 through 2007 according to state records.

Here is a link to the House Actions on January 31, 2007. Since there appears to be no votes that day Eachus should explain to the media which bills he actually voted on.

Eachus should also explain if he took more than one flight on Powell's jet. According to flight records obtained by SOP the following flight to Harrisburg occured on February 2, 2007.

History Search for N69WU
02-Feb-2007
SBR1/L Hazleton Municipal (KHZL)
Capital City (KCXY)
08:35AM EST 08:56AM EST 0:21


02-Feb-2007
SBR1/L Capital City (KCXY)
Hazleton Municipal (KHZL)
10:34AM EST 10:48AM EST 0:14

It should be noted that Powell's jet left Harrisburg on January 31, 2007 at 4:15 in the afternoon. How many votes occcurred on January 31, 2007 after that time?

31-Jan-2007
SBR1/L Capital City (KCXY)
Allegheny Co (KAGC)
04:15PM EST 05:10PM EST 0:55

The jet flew onto Allegheny County presumably to drop of Greg Zappala.

Eachus-I Won't Follow Your Rules

At Tuesday night's meeting regarding a permit application by Hazleton Creek Properties Todd Eachus displayed the type of behaviors that have become all too common with him according to those having any dealings with the solon.

In the introductory portion of the meeting DEP Director of Communications Helen Humphreys laid out the rules of the evening. She stated that audience members could ask one question at a time. After everyone had an opportunity to be heard she said she would allow audience members more time to ask additional questions.

According to witnesses in the audience Todd Eachus ran up to the podium to be first. He told Ms. Humphreys "I appreciate your setting the rules but I represent all the people here so I will ask as many questions as I want." Imagine a legislator that thinks he has more important things to say at a hearing than his constituents. Arrogance is something Eachus has worked hard to perfect. He basically told her "I won't follow your rules". That is what brought him smack dab in the middle of Bonusgate. Start at Exhibit F and work your way down. .

When Donna D'Amato turned to Eachus and said, "You said you represent everybody here. I am part of everybody here." he responded by stating "I won't be interrogated." That statement probably explains why he refused to testify before the Grand Jury investigating Bonusgate when he was given an invitation by Attorney General Tom Corbett.

This testimony may offer a glimpse into why he received that invitation and is undeniably in the middle of Bonusgate.

In a May 2008 grand jury appearance, Jones said that while he was working for the House Democratic Campaign Committee in the run-up to that pivotal 2006 election, he and another campaign committee employee worked closely with Eachus out of an office in the Capitol’s East Wing.

He said they helped Eachus phone Democratic state representatives to pressure them either to donate to the campaign committee or promise to spend a certain amount on their own races.

“As Todd would often say, he wanted to spend what he called soft dollars, which were government dollars, on public service announcements so that we had to ultimately spend less hard campaign dollars,” Jones testified.

Jones said that for a time he and two other legislative aides spent nearly all day on political matters, raising money and performing other campaign-related duties. A phone number could not be located for Jones.

An unidentified state prosecutor, in the grand jury transcript, asked Jones whether Eachus was “directing and encouraging” their campaign efforts.

“Oh, yeah, sure,” Jones responded. “There were plenty of times where (an aide) and I would be in to make phone calls or to staff Todd so he could make fundraising phone calls out of his office.”

Eachus was closely allied with former House Whip Mike Veon, D-Beaver, whom prosecutors have portrayed as a leading figure in a conspiracy to divert public employees and resources for campaign work before he lost re-election in 2006.

Veon and as many as four others with ties to House Democrats are expected to go on trial next month on charges of theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest.

Veon co-defendant Rachel Manzo had been House Democratic policy committee executive director under Eachus at the time of her arrest in July 2008. On the same August day that she appeared before the grand jury, she signed an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor count of theft of services.

A prosecutor asked Manzo about talking to Eachus about moving state workers spending time on campaigns to another office, according to a transcript.

“So those discussions manifested direct knowledge by Eachus that these people were involved in politics as part of their daily work?” the prosecutor asked.

“Yes,” she testified. “He used them daily for politics.”

Eachus worked for Paul Kanjorski. It appears the apple doesn't fall far from the tree where rules are concerned. Let's revisit one of Paul Kanjorski's more memorable moments.

During the interview, Kanjorski said he was “used to getting a great deal of money for my district” and when questioned about the funding for the garage, Kanjorski used the term “free money.” He said it was “free money for the community” because it “doesn’t cause any difficulty for the community to take that money."

Kanjorski said that in Congress “we have our own rules and we allocate this money.”

While Todd Eachus insists he wants to ask all the questions he wants tell him you just want to ask one question. Mr. Eachus how many times did you fly on Mr. Robert Powell's jet and did you declare it on your Ethics Commission filing? See if he is willing to answer just one question.

You might want to ask just one more question. Mr. Eachus can you enlighten the public about the altercation that took place after the event in the parking lot between you and one of your chief of staff and two participants who attended the hearing?

When Mr. Eachus ran for office he told the public he was in favor of term limits. Maybe it is time he keep that campaign promise.

Yudichak Leads Effort To Reform Pennsylvania Government

In this Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article by Ashley Mannings and Brad Bumsted State Rep. John Yudichak is credited with leading the effort to reform the way Pennsylvania government accounts to its citizens.

"This effort is aimed at making sure we do not repeat the past mistakes," said Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-York. "We have a lot of work needed to get Pennsylvania back on track."

"Our freedoms and liberties, guaranteed and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, are under attack, and the threat is from within," said Rep. Curt Schroder, R-Chester County.

Schroder and DePasquale, with Rep. John Yudichak, D-Luzerne County, and Rep. Mike Vereb, R-Montgomery County, unveiled their proposal outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

"This legislation is a step in the right direction," said Vereb, a former police officer. "A Public Integrity Commission with law enforcement powers will be able to root out corruption and make government more transparent for all citizens of Pennsylvania."

House Majority Leader Todd Eachus first won his seat with the support of State Rep. Bill DeWeese, now facing serious charges in the Bonusgate matter and headed to trial. Todd Eachus previously said he was "proud" to introduce Robert Powell, now admitted criminal, formerly associated  with Gladstone Partners, many times at public announcements regarding the proposed Hazleton Cargo Airport. Todd Eachus previously stood at the podium and introduced now admitted criminal Greg Skrepenak at the proposed cargo airport press conferences.

According to a January, 2010 article by Brad Bumsted [Former staffer John Paul Jones said he was brought onto Eachus' staff "solely" to do political work. He said he had a "beard assignment" that he was supposed to be working on "alternative energy" issues.

"But you didn't study alternative energy?" a prosecutor asked him. "No," Jones told the grand jury.

Jones testified that Eachus wanted to spend "soft dollars" through state-paid public service announcements so the campaigns would spend less of their resources.

There were occasions, Jones testified, where he and another aide were called in to provide staff support so Eachus could make fundraising calls in his office.]

I wonder when Todd Eachus is going to lead the charge for reform and greater transparency in Pennsylvania government.

They Call Me Mellow Yellow!!

 

Senator Mellow Pays Himself Rent With Taxpayer Money

Philadelphia Inquirer reporters John Sullivan and Mario F. Cattabiani are reporting that Senator Bob Mellow from Lackawanna County has been the recipient of $200,000.00 of Pennsylvania taxpayer money for rent on a building owned by him and/or his then wife, now former wife.

Mellow appears to have some ethical questions to answer concerning this deal according to the details laid out in the article.

When the General Assembly passed the Ethics Act in 1978, it created the State Ethics Commission to interpret the law. Public officials frequently ask the commission about possible conflicts.

In 1989, a state representative from Erie named Italo S. Cappabianca asked the commission if the law would allow him to rent a district office, using taxpayer money, in a building he owned. He would pay the prevailing rates.

The commission said no.

Mellow said he saw no ethics problems when his wife was an owner. Once he acquired a stake in the property after the divorce, he said, he realized he had a "problem," reported it, and began taking steps to sell the property.

"If I thought I had done something inappropriate back in 2000, I never would have made the declaration in 2006, to expose myself," he said.

Though Mellow acquired his interest in the building in 2007, he did not report the Brad Inc. acquisition until the spring of 2008. That was the deadline to report financial activity from the previous year.

In his defense of the rental agreement with a company his wife partly owned, Mellow cited a Senate resolution - routinely passed by the chamber dating back to the early 1980s - that appears to contradict the state ethics law.

The resolution says that if a senator rents an office from himself or a family member, the Senate clerk must obtain an appraisal.

The State Ethics Commission has never considered whether the resolution, passed only by the Senate, somehow allows senators to do something banned under a state law.

Bruce Ledewitz, a professor of constitutional law at Duquesne University, said the resolution is irrelevant to the rental question.

"I can't say if this is a violation. I can just tell you that if it is, the resolution has nothing to do with it," he said.

I just added one more Democrat to my list at the right. And another reason to support newspapers by buying one or two or three. I do.

DeWeese, Stilip, States Ethics Commission and Freedom of Speech

This story by Eric Heyl of the Tribune-Review is quite astounding. Can anyone explain what the State Ethics Commission really does? Is it really effective when it is appointed by the people it is supposed to oversee?