House Democrats should provide records
That’s the amount of taxpayer money the House Democratic caucus, headed by DeWeese, doled out to provide free legal representation to 110 caucus employees in connection with state Attorney General Tom Corbett’s investigation of Bonusgate, the scandal that thus far has led to criminal charges against 12 people. Nowhere is it written that if one of Corbett’s investigating grand juries subpoenaed a caucus witness, or if one of Corbett’s investigators merely wanted to talk to one, that the House had to provide free legal advice. In fact, some of those folks reportedly retained their own attorneys.
Inherent in accepting any service paid for by tax dollars is a presumption that the public is entitled to find out exactly how that money was spent.
But William Chadwick, the top-shelf lawyer and high-priced consultant hired by DeWeese to assist House Democrats in Corbett’s investigation, says no one can see the list.
Why? Attorney-client privilege, says Chadwick, and the fact that presiding Judge Barry Feudale has issued a sealed order prohibiting release of the names. Feudale’s order says that witnesses called before the grand jury “are prohibited from disclosing their subpoena and the date, time, location and content of their testimony to anyone, except their attorney.”
However, it contains no specific prohibition against releasing detailed information on House expenditures for taxpayer-subsidized lawyers. Chadwick, the caucus spokesman on this matter, is no doubt aware that acceding to a media request for the names would provide a back-door way to find out who had been approached by investigators. But that’s all it would reveal – the substance of what was discussed between attorney and client would remain secret.
It appears to us that Chadwick has made a judgment call on behalf of his client, in this case House Democrats led by DeWeese, which is what all good lawyers generally do. But that doesn’t mean Chadwick’s word should be treated as the gospel, especially when others – including Pennsylvania Newspaper Association attorney Melissa Melewsky and Pittsburgh media law attorney Charles Kelly – view things quite differently.
Melewsky debunks the theory that attorney-client privilege applies, noting, “These rules don’t apply to the Legislature, they apply to the attorneys.” Kelly says that if DeWeese truly believes in open records, House Democrats should challenge Feudale’s order on behalf of taxpayers.
“If DeWeese actually believes what he’s trying to espouse (regarding open government), then he should hustle his backside into the courtroom,”says Kelly, who has represented the Herald-Standard in several legal matters.
It is quite ironic that as House Democrats like DeWeese tout their key involvement earlier this year in passing a new open records law, one that for the first time covers the Legislature, they apparently don’t think it necessary to allow anyone to see exactly how $677,284 of tax money was spent. Letting the public know that Law Firm Agot $320,000 -which is the type of bare-bones disclosure that they are offering – isn’t exactly the stuff of which open records champions are made.
Unless House Democrats provide a more complete breakdown, including the names of each person who got a taxpayer-funded lawyer and how much that cost, we’ll never be able to independently verify how a huge gob of tax money was spent. And that’s a continuation of the same type of secretive behavior and “we know best”attitude that got the Legislature in trouble in the first place.
Tim Potts of Democracy Rising PA, which advocates open government, says House Democrats continue operating under a “cloak of secrecy”that must be lifted. We share that assessment -and we urge voters across Pennsylvania to keep in mind that actions indeed speak louder than words.
(This editorial was originally published in the Herald-Standard.)