ShareThis Page
News

More information sought from Carlisle

| Saturday, Jan. 20, 2007, 12:00 p.m.

Investigators for Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. have requested more information from City Councilwoman Twanda Carlisle's attorney in their investigation into her questionable spending practices and possible ethics violations.

"There was a request for information, and we're cooperating with the DA's office," said Carlisle's attorney, T. Brent McCune, of the law firm Ecker Ecker & Ecker.

McCune declined to say what type of information was provided.

Zappala said in December that the investigation has broadened, with questions about ethics and elections code issues. He said he instructed investigators to conclude their work as soon as possible because Carlisle, 47, of Homewood, faces re-election this year. The primary is May 15.

Zappala also said in December that new witnesses -- including former staff members -- had emerged.

In May, then-city Solicitor Susan Malie asked Zappala and the state Ethics Commission to investigate more than $177,000 in payments that Carlisle made to friends, relatives, political supporters and neighborhood groups.

Malie began investigating Carlisle after the councilwoman refused to release a "health study" done by a man who shares a Penn Hills home with her mother. Carlisle said Lee O. Johnson was a medical doctor who has expertise in community-related health issues, when, in fact, he received a degree from a diploma mill closed down by federal authorities.

Carlisle later released the report, which was riddled with grammatical errors and contained information from previous research.

Zappala spokesman Mike Manko said Carlisle and McCune have been cooperative.

"We have requested information, and it's being provided," Manko said.

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.

click me