Mellow case thin on details
By Brad Bumsted
Published: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 12:30 a.m.
HARRISBURG - Former Senate Democratic Leader Bob Mellow is guilty of something. That much we do know.
We also know it is serious.
It's a felony.
He signed a plea agreement with the federal government filed with the U.S. District Court in Scranton on March 15.
Two weeks ago, he entered a guilty plea to "conspiring to commit an offense against the United States and to defraud the United States."
Mellow, 69, of Lackawanna County, served in the Pennsylvania Legislature for 39 years.
He is former president pro tempore of the Senate.
He was an "icon" in his district, officials say.
There's even a park named for him in Scranton.
In 2005, he was one of the legislative leaders who backed the middle-of-the night pay-jacking that had to be repealed four months later in the face of rampant voter anger.
We know Mellow's plea involved mail fraud, filing a false tax return and using Senate resources -- his district office- - for campaigns.
He faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Beyond that we don't know much.
It was a guilty plea skimpy on the facts.
What kind of deal did the feds cut?
It includes a clause that says specific "legal and factual" issues regarding Mellow's conduct will be determined at a pre-sentence hearing or at his sentencing hearing.
It's alleged he used Senate staffers to do campaign work.
But we don't know who they are and whether they still work for the Senate Democratic Caucus.
We don't know how often they did it or on what dates.
We don't know who in his staff ordered them to do it.
We don't know how much state time through their salaries was stolen.
We don't know whether state resources were used -- phones, fax machines, computers.
By definition "conspiring" means a deal with others.
Who were they?
Who were the unindicted co-conspirators?
The public draws a big zero in the federal system where Mellow had waived an indictment and pleaded guilty to a "felony information."
At least we know the activity occurred from 2006 through 2010.
We know it took place in his two district offices and Harrisburg.
In numerous state corruption cases, grand jury presentments laid out in detail which legislative staffers conspired with legislative leaders to commit crimes.
People who weren't charged and were potential witnesses were publicly identified.
You knew who did what and when, at least in the form of an allegation.
Because the two prosecutors involved in this -- U.S. Attorney Peter Smith and Assistant U.S. Attorney Francis P. Zempa -- are two of the straightest arrows to serve in that office, expect everything that occurred to eventually be made public. Smith is a former state inspector general and was chief investigator for Sen. Bob Casey when he was state auditor general.
But right now, the public is getting shortchanged.
That must change.
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.