Pa. treasurer says Corbett's lawyers mishandled pension investigation
HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania's elected state treasurer said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday that lawyers for Gov. Tom Corbett have mishandled an investigation into unspecified possible misconduct by the chief investment officer of the $26 billion state government employees' pension fund.
The Dec. 4 letter from Treasurer Rob McCord to State Employees' Retirement Board Chairman Nick Maiale said he was troubled that the board's own lawyer waited nearly a month to tell the board two days earlier about the allegations concerning the investment manager, Anthony S. “Tony” Clark.
McCord is among the Democrats seeking the nomination to run against Republican Corbett, who is seeking a second term.
He said the delay by the board's acting chief counsel, Victoria Page-Wooten, called into question whether she had acted properly as the board's lawyer.
“Moreover, the failure by the governor's Office of General Counsel to share the allegations of possible criminal and unethical conduct by the system's chief investment officer during this two-month period resulted in the board's consideration and/or approval of investment actions that involve billions of dollars based upon recommendations from the very person who is the subject of these allegations,” McCord wrote.
Page-Wooten said McCord's letter was “very interesting” but declined additional comment.
McCord wrote that the board, which meets in Harrisburg on Wednesday, should not hire an investment manager until it knows that the process is free of conflict.
Office of General Counsel spokesman Josh Maus said in a statement that the office fields allegations of impropriety on a regular basis and handles them seriously.
“That obligation is to gather the facts and uncover the truth, and is far greater than grabbing headlines,” Maus said.
Clark was put on paid leave two weeks ago.
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.