This is what Easton Mayor Sal Panto says at Neighbors of Easton: "Yes, I did say 'I was recommending to the council that we get rid of it.' I stated this because we have a state ethics board and that board has no local ties that would be seen as a conflict. Fortunately in Easton we have elected officials of honesty, character and integrity. I can’t tell you the last time there was an ethics probe. In four years of asking members of council if they have any residents that would like to serve and advertising vacancies on all of our Authorities Boards and Commissions one council member just gave me three names."
Pennsylvania does have a state ethics commission whose jurisdiction includes local officials. Allentown's ethics commission, which has handled a few complaints against the Mayor, is dogged by complaints of bias.
Unpersuaded, blogger Noel Jones asks, "How would the state even know to look into the ethics of a local government?"
The answer is simple. File a complaint. That's what blogger Chris Casey did in Upper Macungie, and the entire Board of Supervisors skedaddled.
30 comments:
Should have had one for Northampton County the last 10 years.
Bernie is again covering for hid pal Sal Panto.
Ethics Boards shouldn't be in the locality or even the county. To take away any sense of bias the state has created am Ethics Commission and all elected officials have to register annually.
In Easton it appears that this topic is more of not filling the positions on the board. The mayor says he has tried but can't get anyone to serve. It only meets if there is an allegation of inpropriety. If there are ow people to fill it heshould do that but I believe he is right in trying to get it out of the charter and into the state like most other cities. However, I would caution him that he not appoint everyone front he same group of people. They are te most negative in the city and appear to want to make this commission more than it is. Sal is a big guy doing a great job so I am sure he realizes that.
I think there is a legal problem. Because the city is governed by a home rule charter and the charter opted to have an independent ethics panel, the city is not covered by the state act. Other home rule charters specify that the community is covered by the state legislation and the state panel. I would recommend that the mayor make appointments so at least there is coverage and then seek to eliminate the local board in favor of the state board. The same is true for a local city human relations commission. I think that the authors of the charter need to stand up and reveal what deficiencies exist in the state law to necessitate a local version. If none, use the state law and do not reinvent the wheel. I also think that the mayor risks personal liability if there is a complaint and there is no board to address such a complaint.
Not sure that the charter erases the state commission's jurisdiction. It is more likely they co-exist, and each have authority. The state commission was established by legislation unrelated to the municipal law that normally governs the city, so it was not wiped out by the charter.
Unpersuaded, blogger Noel Jones asks, "How would the state even know to look into the ethics of a local government?"
Does this person realize that an ethics board only hears cases when there is an allegation -- and that all hearings and iquiries should be private until decided.
In many communities these have become nothing more than ways for people to fabricate dirt to get bad publicity for the individual. In this country we call that elections. Where were these people when it came time to throw their hat in he ring?
I don't live in Easton but I know that the city is doing better than ever. I also know Sal Panto and his ethics are solid. He is an upstanding man. If these people suspect something afoul than they should report it to the state ethics commission because that's what they do and there can be no alleged bias.
The problem is that the commonwealth at best writes that "it appears" that the Pa Ethics Act cannot be removed by a home rule charter. Commonwealth law does not specify ethics legislation being exempt from home rule charters as it does other specific pennsylvania legislative acts. The issue has yet to be tested in the courts. Again, why reinvent the wheel? Incorporate the state act and processes into the local charter and be done with the matter and any questions.
In reference to the local ethics act, the act covers not only the mayor but other elected officials and appointed officials as well. It does not cover only one person. The desire to appoint people should not be interpreted as being directed at the mayor. There are six other council persons, an elected controller and numerous appointed employees who come under the legislation.
"I think there is a legal problem. Because the city is governed by a home rule charter and the charter opted to have an independent ethics panel, the city is not covered by the state act."
The City is covered by the Ethics Act. It can impose more stringent rules, but can't stop the state from examining ethical behavior. It can have its own Ethics Comm'n, but what's the point when the state is already doing it and would be less affected by the local politics?
As for the claim that I am taking this position bc I like Panto, I should point out that I've seen a local ethics commission at work in Allentown. First, it had to be reconstituted. Then a member had to recuse himself. Then its solicitor. They were all good people, but none of them have any familiarity with ethics laws.
I have also had experience with the state. There, the members are professionals and are removed from
the officials whose conduct is being examined.
It might sound great to have a local ethics commission, but if you want results and real scrutiny, it is best to rely on the state and perhaps strengthen it a bit.
It is not about "going after" Mayor Panto or anyone else. It is about the audacity of simply refusing to fulfill the law because an official doesn't like that law, and then announcing that he's going to get rid of the law without ever fulfilling it. This law has been on the books for FOUR YEARS.
It is also about feigning that a real attempt by the city was made to fill the board. Within 24 hours of requesting volunteers for the board on my blog, the mayor had at least 12 citizens step up to the plate (there may be more, but 12 reported to me that they sent their names in). About halfway through, as the offers were coming in, Mayor Panto posted to let everyone know that he had also posted in another unnamed "venue" and that he was getting responses there too.
After a similar "attempt" by the city to fill the Zoning Board just after he was elected the first time, the mayor appointed his wife to the board, saying that he had to, because it was a small town and no one else had come forward.
What has to stop is disingenuous attempts a filling board seats required by law, so that elected officials have the option of either letting the boards sit idle, or appointing family and friends to the boards that govern this city.
Is there any attorney reading here, who would disagree that if you want to change a law, you should get the law changed first before you break or fail to fulfill it? Or does the ends justify the means?
And why on earth are the people who insist that the law be followed tagged a "negative group"? Isn't demanding that your elected officials obey the law a positive thing?
I have come to realize that in Easton, "negative" simply means "against the status quo" and whenever someone challenges the status quo, backlash from the insiders is harsh and immediate every time. No wonder apathy and cynicism are so prevalent in this town and voter turnout is so low.
Noel,
I think you are way off on this one. Local ethics commissions don't work. They just don't. The difference is that you RECRUITED citizens for the vacancies. The Mayor or any other elected official would be under fire if they were to recruit as you did and at the end of the day should there be an issue - the conclusion of findings by those recruited would hold zero weight. I think thats the point that you are missing. The Mayor advertised to fill this board and recieved zero responses several times. Would you feel comfortable with the commission should he have recruited like you did.
Let's face it - the way I see it the motive to get these people on this commission is to make life miserable for a councilman who made a mistake and drove drunk and got caught. Not once but twice. If you have a complaint - call the state and issue a complaint. They will investigate and the process won't be tainted by a board who knows the person being investigated.
Now lets consider this. Who is qualified to sit on this board? Who. Not one name from your blog is a person I would consider qualified to serve in this capacity.
Noel - you are missing the point. This needs to be removed from the charter. Please don't give yourself too much credit for finding 12 unqualified people to fill this position. Having these 12 people on the ethics commission is the equivalent of having Pat Vulcano on the School Board. It would be a disaster.
Oh and by the way. You need to stop accussing people of breaking the law when they didn't. The city was required to advertise and they did....they didn't get a response. You are making false claims ....is there any attorney's reading that would disagree with that?
The State comm. works just fine. They resolved a problem between the boro and the municipal authority in a relatively short amount of time and provided the legalese behind their decision. The system works so why reinvent it on a local level. It's your tax money at work for you.
11:43/45
You are revealing yourself as one of the stalwart defenders of the status quo that comes out of the woodwork to passionately attack anyone who challenges it like a loyal guard dog who needs to know no more than "master is being threatened" to launch into action--and what's worse, you are not making any sense.
1. You said: "I think you are way off on this one. Local ethics commissions don't work. They just don't."
Is "they just don't" your idea of proving a point of reason? What evidence do you have that "they just don't" nationwide, and are you then calling El Warner and others who drafted the structure for the Board of Ethics idiots? Your tone suggests that anyone who doesn't accept "they just don't" as a proof must be an idiot.
2. You said: "The difference is that you RECRUITED citizens for the vacancies. The Mayor or any other elected official would be under fire if they were to recruit as you did and at the end of the day should there be an issue - the conclusion of findings by those recruited would hold zero weight. I think thats the point that you are missing. The Mayor advertised to fill this board and recieved zero responses several times. Would you feel comfortable with the commission should he have recruited like you did."
This makes no sense at all. The city put an open call in a print newspaper as required by law and did not get a response from anyone who happened to read that page of that paper that day. I put out an open call on my blog. They are both attempts to recruit members to the board. The mayor is responsible for appointing members to the board. The city advertises to recruit members for the board. As for you question at the end--how does that make any sense at all when the mayor stated publicly on my blog that he's posted in another unnamed "venue" and gotten responses? But then, the attacks of guard dogs are often arbitrary...
3. You said: "Let's face it - the way I see it the motive to get these people on this commission is to make life miserable for a councilman who made a mistake and drove drunk and got caught. Not once but twice."
What on Earth are you talking about? No one has said anything about that--that's YOUR mind at work, not anyone else's. Apparently YOU feel there might be an ethical issue there. The people I know who have volunteered don't have specific issues in mind, they just want to see the law obeyed and board filled.
4. You said: "Now lets consider this. Who is qualified to sit on this board? Who. Not one name from your blog is a person I would consider qualified to serve in this capacity." How would you know, when the citizens that posted mostly did so with first names and monikers, or contacted me via email and didn't post comments at all? Your bias is glaringly apparent here.
5. You said: "Noel - you are missing the point. This needs to be removed from the charter. "
Why is that? You give absolutely no back-up for that opinion and it's no more a proof of your point any more than "they just don't" was earlier.
6. You said: "Please don't give yourself too much credit for finding 12 unqualified people to fill this position. Having these 12 people on the ethics commission is the equivalent of having Pat Vulcano on the School Board. It would be a disaster."
Again--how do you know who they are and whether or not they are qualified? Answer: you don't. You are an insider guard dog.
If people want to assert that a state ethics board can suffice for local concerns, that is a point worth of debate. But no one can argue that the Home Rule Charter voted into law by The People FOUR YEARS AGO dictates that a Board of Ethics must be appointed and meet at least once every year, and that the city did not make a genuine effort to fill the seats when they could have easily been filled, and now the mayor wants to get rid of it.
Noel,
Facially, this seems like a good idea. What people are trying to tell you is that, in practice, they do not work locally. Although I am unaware of any national study, and doubt one exists, I can tell you from my own experience that they do not work, as was pointed out by an anonymous reader. That has been what I have seen, both in Allentown and Bethlehem.
Moreover, i see all kinds of problems with a locally selected board. There would always be questions of bias, favoritism and politics. That is removed, or at least lessened, with the state system. And the state system is very responsive.
Dave cites the recent example in Bangor. I can point out that two Upper Macungie Supervisors were tossed as a reslt of a complaint filed by blogger Chris Casey.
More propaganda for Sal Panto on the hate blog. What is he afraid of with a citizen advisory board. We don't need anymore sleaze in county government.
All I know is this years "Little Miss Easton Pageant" better not be fixed. Like the other contests in Easton. There is a crew filming it from TV's Toddlers and Tiaras. You don't want a bunch of 4 year olds crying on national TV because there was a predetermined outcome.
The last thing Panto wants are citizens looking behind the curtains in Easton.
The last thing Panto wants are citizens looking behind the curtains in Easton.
Of all the things stated here the most rediculous is that Panto doesn't want anyone loking behind the curtains in Easton. Give it a break, Sal has been, and will always be, under a microscope. That's becasue he is doing such a great job. I know him to be honest and very conscious of ehtical behavior and his role as a leader.
The good news is that he will probably name people to this board, the bad news is that he will name people to this board. It has become mighty visible that this is a small, very small, group of very negative people. The blogger states that she has recruited 12 poeple with just a post on her blog. Look at the people - they are all the same. They are fromt he same neighborhood, the same issues, the same negativism, etc.
Mayor, we love what is being done in our city. Don't cave. Your reasons form wantng to remove this from the Charter are sound. My concern is that these people make allegations and put them to the board in a very public manner. When it is proven that there is no ethical violation it getslost in the news media. But the initial allegations is what makes the press. It's like so when did you stop beating your wife and kids mentality. You never get a fair chance.
At the state level I believe that all allgations are kept confidential until proven. Is that the same in the city>? I would love toknwo that answer.
The anti-Panto comments are intended as a warning from Democratic hacks who do not want him running for County Exec. They already have their candidate - Callahan - and have no interest in a person who will choose the best person for the job as opposed to rewarding cronies. So they're slamming away.
Wow, the Stoffa campaign bullshit just morphed easily into the Panto campaign. If he is such a great mayor, good. keep him there, Northampton County has enough crap to deal with from the incompetence of John Stoffa.
We don't need another Angle and O'Hare pal.
If Sal runs for County executive - Game Over.
Game over for Gracedale. Panto will be heavily opposed in the primary. People now know his true colors and he will be opposed.
We don't want another Angle/O'Hare/Stoffa puppet.
Anon, you crack me up. Panto is no ones puppet. Get over it, if he runs he wins. He has cross party support and is know throughout the county, nt just in his own city. More importantly he is not only known, he is respected!
Panto gets protection from Bernie by deleting comments but he can't be protected from voters who know what he is up to.
I am tired of the repetitive Panto-bashing by someone with a very obvious political agenda.
LMT elected officials make a good case for it... http://lowermacungie.patch.com/blog_posts/lmt-commissioner-president-displays-hypocrisy-101
But yes, the state ethics committee does handle this. From what I understand the state committee can only punish after a transgression. Unfortunately this doesn't stop bad outcomes.
Panto has NOT made a decision about running for executive, so all the Callahan people can stop being affraid,and stop taking cheap shots. Noel, I understand your point, but c'mon loading an ethics board with Mike Krill, Ronald Delbacco, Terrance Miller etc......... If the mayor were to pick a board with his friends, you would be livid. Those 3 people have nothing more than an axe to grind with the mayor. And after 4 years not one council member recommended anyone to fill the positions, but 1 week before its to be discussed publicly,El Warner throws two names in... That was a GREAT political move on her part. However, she will never be the mayor of Easton!
S.s
The Panto campaign machine is terrified of an ethics probe in Easton. Could end up worse than a rigged beauty pagent.
Post a Comment