Ruling delayed on pay for Melvin, awaiting trial
By Jeremy Boren
Published: Tuesday, June 12, 2012, 8:28 p.m.
The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline on Tuesday delayed ruling on whether Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin should continue receiving her salary while she fights criminal corruption charges.
The Harrisburg-based court enforces judicial ethics rules. President Judge Robert Curran said he will schedule a hearing to consider witness testimony and evidence in the case, though he noted that the court has the authority to suspend Melvin's salary without such a hearing.
Melvin, 56, a Marshall Republican, is paid $195,309 a year.
Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. charged Melvin on May 18 with illegally using her state Superior Court staff in 2003 and 2009 to perform campaign work. She has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, she could go to prison.
Separate charges in front of the Court of Judicial Discipline could cost Melvin her job.
Melvin's attorney in the disciplinary proceedings, William Arbuckle, did not return a message seeking comment.
Effective Saturday, eight members of Melvin's nine-person staff will be furloughed without pay. Her sister and longtime aide, Janine Orie, will be fired. The staffers are paid between $53,600 and $109,900 a year.
Orie, 58, of McCandless is scheduled for trial in August on charges that she did political work on state time. Her sister, former state Sen. Jane Orie, was sentenced June 4 to 2 1/2 to 10 years in prison on similar corruption charges.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.