Montco's new ethics rules face legal challenge

In its second week of existence, Montgomery County's new ethics policy landed in court yesterday.

Sheriff John P. Durante sued to overturn the policy, which prohibits 180 county workers - including one in his department, the chief deputy - from political activities including running for office and fund-raising.

Durante claimed in the suit that commissioners wrote the policy "to limit the power of the sheriff to hire, fire and supervise his employees" despite state law giving Durante that authority.

"They are saying to me that they'll tell my employees what to do," Durante said in an interview. "I have a right to govern who works in my office."

Durante said he filed suit in Montgomery County Court because commissioners ignored a warning from his department solicitor, Thomas J. Speers, that the ordinance would overstep their authority.

"The fact of it is that these guys, all three commissioners, did not say, 'Let's sit down with the row officers,' you know?" Durante said. "[They said] 'we're just going to impugn their rights.' "

District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman, like Durante a Republican elected to a county row office, had similarly voiced opposition to the policy but has not joined the suit. She said that she was consulting with outside lawyers about a possible challenge to the policy and that she agreed with Durante.

County Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel III, who introduced the policy, said he had expected the lawsuit and predicted the policy would stand.

"We are doing what the county has done for over 200 years," said Hoeffel, a Democrat, "setting rules and policies and protections for employees consistently across the county."

No court date has been set for the suit, pending the county's response.

Republican Commissioner Bruce L. Castor Jr., who opposed the policy, said that if Durante did not prevail, the issue could reverberate statewide, with other counties' commissioners putting restrictions on row offices.

"This is a major state constitutional issue," Castor said.

Durante also alleged that the ordinance had been improperly advertised before being enacted, since it was amended to change the covered employees and the restrictions on them at the April 2 meeting at which it was passed.

Hoeffel rejected that claim as well.

"You don't have to keep readvertising it every time you amend the ordinance in front of you," Hoeffel said.

He said commissioners would discuss the lawsuit at this morning's meeting, which Durante and Ferman said they did not plan to attend.