Share This Page

Dermody: Democrats on ethics committee will participate, be fair in evaluating colleagues

| Monday, May 5, 2014, 10:57 p.m.
Submitted
House Minority Leader Frank Dermody, D-Oakmont, said on Monday, May 5, 2014, that he expects fellow Democrats on an ethics panel to fully participate and fairly weigh any evidence against four colleagues accused of taking cash from an undercover informant for the Attorney General’s Office.

HARRISBURG — The House Democratic leader said on Monday he expects fellow Democrats on an ethics panel to fully participate and fairly weigh evidence against four colleagues accused of taking cash from an undercover informant for the Attorney General's Office.

“We have good, responsible people on the committee. They'll do their job,” said Rep. Frank Dermody, the minority leader from Oakmont. But he said rules that provide for secret House Ethics Committee investigations constrain him, even though the four Philadelphia Democratic lawmakers' names are public knowledge.

Informant Tyron B. Ali, a lobbyist, recorded the four legislators and a former traffic court judge, who took an expensive bracelet.

Unlike most committees with a tilt toward the party in power, the Ethics Committee is evenly balanced: four Republicans and four Democrats. Either party could block action against its members.

House Democrats didn't attend the first session in March.

Rep. Scott Petri, R-Bucks County, the panel's chairman, said he could not discuss the case. The committee may vote whether to move to a formal investigation.

Dermody, a former Allegheny County prosecutor, said he believes evidence sought by the committee could hit hurdles if there's a criminal investigation.

“It's unlike most any other issue I've seen or dealt with,” Dermody said.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams is reviewing evidence to decide whether to conduct a criminal investigation. He's doing so because Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who sent him the evidence, shut down the legislative sting last year amid concerns about its supervision under former attorneys general from 2010 to 2012. Kane took office in January 2013.

Stephen Miskin, a spokesman for House Republicans, said leaders ask members on the committee to follow the facts presented.

The committee has subpoena power. Asked theoretically whether the committee could obtain evidence in a criminal proceeding, Petri said, “It depends on the facts, on the circumstances and who you're dealing with.”

The Wiretap Act prohibits disclosure, generally, except in criminal cases, Dermody said.

The committee can take no action or recommend sanctions, such as censure. The latter could result in a lawmaker's expulsion vote by the full House.

In recent decades, neither chamber has issued public discipline against a lawmaker, experts say.

The four legislators named — Reps. Ron Waters, Vanessa Brown, Michelle Brownlee and Louise Bishop — have declined to comment. They accepted a combined $16,500.

Because prosecutors botched the case, taxpayers are out the money, Kane has said.

Supporters of the sting investigation, several of whom work for Williams, have defended the investigation as a professional operation with proper controls.

Leaders from both parties pledged financial resources for an investigation. The committee may need to hire outside counsel, officials said.

Dermody said none of the lawmakers requested anything from the Democratic Caucus.

“I've talked to them, obviously,” Dermody said.

Brad Bumsted is Trib Total Media's state Capitol reporter. Reach him at 717-787-1405 or bbumsted@tribweb.com.

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.