Judicial Politics Roils Defense Attorney About Ethics Board
A political tiff between a candidate for a seat on the Court of Common Pleas and the Philadelphia Bar Association has sparked a side battle between a high-profile defense attorney and the city Board of Ethics. Roxanne Covington has been complaining for a week that the Bar's decision to "not recommend" her in the May primary election was driven by City Solicitor Shelley Smith to get even because she turned down Mayor Nutter's request to step down last summer from the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority board.
A political tiff between a candidate for a seat on the Court of Common Pleas and the Philadelphia Bar Association has sparked a side battle between a high-profile defense attorney and the city Board of Ethics. Roxanne Covington has been complaining for a week that the Bar's decision to "not recommend" her in the May primary election was driven by City Solicitor Shelley Smith to get even because she turned down Mayor Nutter's request to step down last summer from the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority board.
Nutter denies that. The Bar says its process is not political. And Covington is sticking to her claims. To back her up, defense attorney Chuck Peruto Jr. and former prisons commissioner Leon King sent e-mails this week to Shane Creamer, executive director of the Board of Ethics, asking the board to look into whether Smith's participation in the Bar's review of judicial candidates was inappropriate political activity. Peruto and King sent copies of their e-mails to reporters.
Creamer, in a letter to Peruto yesterday, pointed out that is is a violation of the city's Ethics Code to make public any request or referral for an investigation. A violation carries a maximum fine of $2,000.
Peruto didn't like that much. After the jump, you can read his response to Creamer, who declined to comment when PhillyClout asked him about this yesterday. Peruto provided copies of Creamer's letter and his response.
UPDATE: 4:25 pm: Creamer just called PhillyClout to issue this statement about Peruto: "Mr. Peruto is attempting to abuse both the complaint process and the Ethics Board for political gain. This is precisely the type of abuse that the confidentiality is designed to prevent. By informing reporters again about his complaint after being told that all complaints are confidential, Mr. Peruto has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the city's Ethics Code."
And it keeps going. While we were chatting with Creamer, King fired off a couple of e-mails attacking the Ethics Board for noting that requests for investigations are confidential. You can read King's e-mail after the jump, below the e-mail from Peruto.
April 23, 2009
Mr. J. Shane Creamer, Jr.
Executive Director
City of Philadelphia Board of Ethics
1441 Sansom Street - Second Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Dear Mr. Creamer:
Your letter dated April 22, 2009 starts out by thanking me for my letter, dated April 21, 2009; but it is obvious that you weren't thanking me at all.
I then looked at your letterhead and then realized, the reason I'm not getting anywhere with you is that my complaint is lodged against one of your "teammates."
Yes, my letter dated April 21, 2009, is in the nature of a complaint, because I thought that was your job to look into it. It is not your job to threaten and scare people away from making complaints.
Maybe I should find out who I complain to about your letter?!
While you would like to rely on the Ethics Code to intimidate me so that you can conduct a star chamber proceeding, I stand ready, willing and able to take it on.
I can tell from the tone of your letter that you have no intention of acting in any meaningful way about my complaint of April 21, 2009, and you only wish to make my complaint disappear. Be advised, this complaint will not disappear and you will not scare me away.
I look forward to a meaningful response from the Board of Ethics.
Very truly yours,
A. Charles Peruto, Jr.
April 23, 2009
Dear Mr. Creamer:
I have reviewed your response to my letter of April 21, 2009 and I must say it troubles me on many levels. The most important being that it seems you are more interested in threatening a private citizen who is attempting to raise a legitimate issue. Second it seems clear that you are, under color of law, attempting to prevent, and are retaliating against me, for exercising my First Amendment Right to Free Speech. You also seem to be intentionally interfering with the Right of the Press to explore an issue of great public concern. If I recall my law correctly, conspiring to deprive someone of their Constitutional rights is a crime in this Country.
Your response troubles me even more when I understand that despite what you cited in your letter, the City Solicitor has been freely commenting on this complaint to the Press, and I am sure a whole lot of other people that your unconstitutional ban on free expression would seem to intend to reach.
Since my initial inquiry to you has been deemed by your office as either an improper request for an advisory opinion, or in the alternative, not a complaint since it did not comply with Board Regulation 2.4, I think you are ethically obligated to begin an investigation of the City Solicitor on your own authority based on what you have been told. (See Board Regulation 2.3 (c))
Sincerely,
Leon A. King II, Esq.