Monday, November 26, 2007

Major Rulings In Wecht Case

U.S. Attorney Buchanan & Doctor Wecht


A federal judge is barring Doctor Cyril Wecht's defense team from trying to claim during his trial that his prosecution by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan is politically motivated.

The order by Judge Arthur Schwab sets the stage for Wecht's federal trial in January on charges he used his public office for private gain while he was Allegheny County Coroner. It came as part of a ruling denying a pre-trial hearing on the defense claim there is a political motive behind the prosecution. The 84 count indictment of Wecht includes charges of mail fraud wire fraud, and theft of services.

In a separate court order, Judge Schwab ruled that there is no evidence that FBI Special Agent Brad Orsini falisified any evidence in the Wecht case. The judge refused to suppress evidence against Wecht in 29 boxes seized with a search warrant obtained by Agent Orsini.

Wecht's attorneys declined comment on the rulings.

Judge Schwab also issued an order for a jury pool of 400 potential jurors for Wecht's trial. They'll be summoned in groups of sixty to fill out jury questionnaires, on various dates leading up to the start of Wecht's trial on January 28th.


Here are some quotes from Judge Schwab's court orders:

• "Defendant is precluded from referencing or attempting to interject at trial matters relating to his accusations that this prosecution is motivated by politics."

• "There is no evidence on the record that Special Agent Orsini falsified any...FBI form in the case."

• "This court does not make personnel decisions for the FBI, and does not sit in judgement of its disciplinary proceedings or the punishments it metes out to errant agents."

• "Defendant would, in effect, have this Court find that the discipline imposed by the FBI and OPR was inadequate, and impose an additional sanction of prohibiting Special Agent Orsini from testifying in a court of law and disqualifying him from ever swearing an affidavit. In the absence of legal authority or factual basis, this Court cannot impose such an extraordinary, additional sanction for Special Agent Orsini's past transgressions".

.

Read More...

Monday, November 19, 2007

Requests Redux For Ethics Board

Apple "Pages" Icon


Here's my e-mail back to the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board. In light of board chair Sister Patrice Hughes' response to my original message, I'm restating my requests.

What I'm asking for falls into three categories.

• The first is documentation; Assistant City Solicitor Kate DeSimone had provided board members with a memo about the legal basis for holding closed-door meetings under Pennsylvania's Sunshine Law. While the law department could counsel them that the memo is protected by attorney-client privilege, if--for purposes of discussion--that were the case, it doesn't mean board members couldn't waive that privilege in the interest of transparency. As I wrote in this exchange with Assistant Solicitor DeSimone, "respectfully, since the purpose of the Sunshine Law is 'sunshine', i.e. an open view for the public on the operation of government, I would suggest that the interpretation of how an exemption to the Sunshine Law is being applied should not be confidential." I've also asked separately for any legal citation that justifies holding executive sessions for reasons other than the six spelled out in the law.

• The second is policy. The Sunshine Law does allow the board to hold a "Conference", which it defines "any training program or seminar...for the sole purpose of providing information to agency members on matters directly related to their official responsibilities". The law says a conference "need not be" open to the public. The wording "need not be" suggests that such a conference _could be_ open to the public. The board clearly could legally exclude the public from its meeting to educate its members about the ethics laws of other cities and how those laws are applied. It also could legally open that conference to the public. As a reporter who covers city government, I'm asking them to choose an open meeting.

• The third is compliance with the law. The Sunshine Law spells out that "the executive session may be held during an open meeting, at the conclusion of an open meeting, or may be announced for a future time. The reason for holding the executive session must be announced at the open meeting occurring immediately prior or subsequent to the executive session." The law also narrowly defines the purposes of excluding the public. (See my e-mail for details.) The ethics board had once discussed holding bi-monthly closed door meetings in executive session. If the board were to hold "umbrella" closed meetings covering a variety of topics, the prospect increases for discussion of matters beyond the narrow scope permitted by the Sunshine Law. That's one reason why adopting the legally-required practice of publicly announcing the specific reason for a narrowly-focused private meeting is important.



From: Bob Mayo
Subject: Re: Sunshine Act
Date: November 17, 2007 7:49:49 AM EST
To: Sister Patrice Hughes, Kathleen Buechel, Rabbi Daniel Schiff, Rev. John Welch, Penny Zacharias
Cc: Kate DeSimone, Bob Longo, Roberta Petterson, Bob Mayo


To Chair Sister Hughes & Members of the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board:

Thanks for getting back to me. It's not clear if your response constitutes yes-or-no answers to my specific requests for action, so I'll recap them here.


In my role as a journalist who covers city government, I am asking that ethics board members:

1) provide a copy of the law department's memo summarizing Pennsylvania's Sunshine Law;

2) not attempt to use "executive sessions" for its educational briefings on other cities' ethics laws;

3) use "conferences" for this purpose and open these conferences to the public;

4) adopt the legally-required practice of announcing the specific reasons for each executive session at a public meeting immediately prior or subsequent to the executive session.


Would you please clarify: are each of these requests granted or denied?


Also, you responded "that information can be shared and discussions can be held [in Executive Sessions], but no decisions can be made during these sessions".

As you know, the Sunshine Act has six specific justifications for holding an "executive session" which, by the law's own definition, "is a meeting from which the public is excluded". (Section 703, Definitions; Section 708 a, 1 through 6, Executive Sessions, Purpose.) They are discussions of: personnel matters, labor relations, property purchases, litigation, confidential investigations & deliberations, and academic admission or standing.

For the sake of clarity, I'll add this yes-or-no question:


5) Is it the board's position that it can use executive sessions to exclude the public from meetings for any reasons other than these six specifically and narrowly defined in the law?


I'll again quote the 2003 publication from the Governor's Center for Local Government Services entitled "Open Meetings/Open Records: The Sunshine Act and the Right to Know Law". It notes on page 9:

"The concept of a meeting where members are simply informed and do not discuss issues ignores the basics of group dynamics. Members are all too likely to ask questions, pose possible responses by the municipal government and debate various courses of action. The court decisions cited above do not provide any support to the theory that so-called "informational sessions" are anywhere authorized as closed meetings by the Sunshine Law."

The same publication notes on page 6:

"The reason for holding an executive session must be announced at a public meeting occurring immediately prior or subsequent to the executive session."

...and...

"The appellate court stated even though it is in the public interest that certain matters be discussed in private, the public has a right to know what matter is being addressed in private sessions. The reason stated by the agency must be specific, indicating a real, discrete matter that is best addressed in private."


6) If the answer to question 5 is yes, will you please provide specific citations which contradict the guidance in the Governor's Center publication?


I look forward to your responses.


Thanks again.



Bob Mayo
Reporter
WTAE-TV



.

Read More...

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Ethics Board Response

Sister Hughes, chairing an Ethics Board meeting.


You may recall my recent requests to Pittsburgh's Ethics Hearing Board.

Here's a response from the panel's chair, Sister Patrice Hughes.
On Monday, I'll be sharing with you my message back to her.


From: Sister Patrice Hughes
Sent: 11/13/2007 05:58 AM PST
To: Bob Mayo
Cc: Kathleen Buechel, Kate DeSimone [Blog note: DeSimone is an Assistant City Solicitor.], Rev. John Welch, Rabbi Daniel Schiff, Penny Zacharias
Subject: Sunshine Act


On behalf of the Ethics Hearing Board, I thank you for your prodding us to examine carefully the PA Sunshine Act as it refers to Executive Sessions. We are now very aware that information can be shared and discussions can be held, but no decisions can be made during these sessions. As ethical persons, we shall conform to the law.

Let me also thank you for the coverage that you have given to our meetings. You are keeping the public informed and adding to our credibility.


Sister Patrice Hughes



.

Read More...

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Twanda Carlisle's Resignation Letter


H
ere's Twanda Carlisle's letter of resignation from Pittsburgh City Council filed with the City Clerk's office Tuesday afternoon. You can click on the image above to enlarge the view.

The letter makes no mention of her no-contest plea or the criminal charges in the kickbacks case against her, except for a reference to her salary having been frozen through "court proceedings".

In the letter, she thanks council members, staff, and residents of her council district and asks for prayers and support.


.

Read More...

Monday, November 12, 2007

Crouching Lawyer, Hidden Attorney, Part 584: ...The Tale of the Snake



As I've said before: "following the Wecht case is like watching a martial arts film. As you read the court papers, you'll witness gleams of razor-sharp prose and rhetoric from lawyers on both sides."

Here then, are the first pages torn from the latest exchange. Clicking the images below will enlarge them.

From the prosecution:

"...In the fourth century, B.C., Aristotle first identified the logical problem of circular reasoning in Prior Analytics. Over two thousand years later, Wecht's lawyers have finally perfected the art of begging the question. To support the grave accusation that Mary Beth Buchanan, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, targeted Wecht for prosecution because of his political affiliation, Wecht's lawyers cite as "evidence" their own accusations that she did so. Rarely is the rhetorical snake so clearly seen swallowing its own tail as in this passage from p. 8 of Wecht's motion..."


From the defense:

"...the United States Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan ( Ms. Buchanan) evidently decided she did not, after all, want any part of a factual inquiry regarding whether her prosecution of Cyril Wecht, and associated failures to prosecute similarly situated Republicans, was motivated by political considerations on her part. Thus, Ms. Buchanan has now moved to strike the cross-motion of the defense for discovery and evidentiary hearings on the specific issue of whether she engaged in improper selective prosecution. In doing so, Ms. Buchanan attacks the views of Dick Thornburgh, who was the Attorney General of the United States under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, as faux facts and lies being disseminated on the ECF filing system in this case..."


Read More...

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Clinton, Scaife: "So Happy Together" -Newsweek



Here's some national news of local interest in the Newsweek that hits newsstands Monday.

According to a PR Newswire release:

POLITICS: "So Happy Together" (p. 31). Investigative Correspondent Mark Hosenball reports that the Clintons' billionaire archenemy, best known as the man behind a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton said was out to destroy her and her husband, Richard Mellon Scaife, is recently eager to endear himself to the former president. While Scaife isn't ready to sign on to Hillary's campaign-he's still a Republican. But Scaife's lawyer, Yale Gutnick, says Bill Clinton and Richard Mellon Scaife are now members of a "mutual admiration society."


In the story, Mark Hosenball (with help from Michael Isikoff) writes:

Clinton, pouring on the charm, greeted Scaife like an old friend. "President Clinton believes in redemption and moving forward," says spokeswoman Jennifer Hanley. Ruddy says they talked about Clinton's charitable work and avoided opening old wounds. After receiving the full Bill treatment, Scaife left with a new outlook on the man he had once set out to crush. Scaife isn't ready to sign on to Hillary's campaign—he's still a Republican. But his lawyer, Yale Gutnick, says Bill Clinton and Richard Mellon Scaife are now members of a "mutual admiration society." Cue the apocalypse.

NEWSWEEK: Media Lead Sheet/November 19, 2007 Issue (on newsstands Monday, November 12)


.

Read More...

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Ravenstahl, DeSantis, & Peduto: Notes & Quotes



Appearing here in three parts:
notes and quotes from day-after-the-election interviews.

["Wake Up Cat: The Morning After Election Night" can be found here.]



.

Read More...

Part 1: Ravenstahl


Mayor Luke Ravensthal:

Is his 2-to-1 margin of victory enough to ward off challengers in less than two years?


• "My thoughts are focusing on governing. I'm a believer that good government equals good politics, and that's what we'll try to do over the course of the next year. And 2009 will take care of itself when it approaches. But I'm a believer that if we continue to do what's necessary, and deal with the issues that are of importance to the residents, that will all take care of itself."

What he has to say to those residents in the only two wards to go for DeSantis:

• "Focus on this issues. I think if they do that, they'll realize that we have an administration that's working for them. I know, just reading some of their comments, they're focused on perhaps my age and my youth and inexperience. And I understand that, that's part of being a 27 year old mayor. But I just ask them to give me the opportunity over the next two years, and judge us on how we're able to achieve."


The political climate ahead:

• "I anticipate that while we'll focus on government and try to, as I said earlier, talk about the issues that are of importance, the reality is that the May of 2009 primary is, what, 18 months away? So that will always creep into the discussion. But I can tell you that I'm more prepared to handle that type of situation, just based on the last couple of months here."

What he's learned from the mistakes to which he referred in his victory speech:

• "I've learned that every decision that you make is something that is of public record now, and everything you do as mayor is vetted in the light of day. And I'm comfortable with that now. As I mentioned last night, mistakes have been made. We've moved on, we've learned from them. I like to believe that we're a better administration as a result of it, and I'm a better mayor as a result of those decisions over the past 14 months. And it's my hope that those issues are put into the past and we're able to move on an focus on a new day and turn the page, and talk about the issues, and go from there."

On being elected as mayor in his own right:

• "I think that was the most exciting thing for me last night. I never had the opportunity to run for mayor citywide before. This was it, this was the first time. And so, you don't know how voters are going to react to you. To receive the overwhelming support that I did last night was really, really exciting. And it really validated what I believed to be broad support.

On the goodwill of Pittsburghers:

And the people of Pittsburgh have been great from day one here. When I took office they have embraced me. And they've continued to embrace me through some of the tougher times we've had as an administration. And we're grateful for that, and I'm looking forward to hopefully doing good things for them over the next couple of years."

Read More...

Part 2: DeSantis


Mark DeSantis:

On the margin of his 2-to-1 loss in Tuesday's election:


• "To get one-third of the vote in a city where it's 5-to-1 democratic is actually quite an accomplishment. Apparently we got one of the highest vote totals as a republican candidate since 1965. So these are accomplishments. We're disappointed. We wanted to win. This race from the beginning was about getting 51 percent."

His role from this point forward?

• "I need to think about that. I'm always going to be involved in public affairs. I love this city. I'm going to be deeply involved in the future of this community, and personally involved. As to whether or not that's political office, I don't know yet."

If he doesn't run again, what would be his advice for the next republican to run for mayor?

• "Start sooner."

• "...I would say, if you are a republican and you're going to run in the city, you can win. It's just going to take more than five months. It's going to take a year of effort."


Read More...

Part 3: Peduto


Councilman Bill Peduto:

Do Tuesday's results make it worth it for anyone to get into the 2009 Mayor's race?

• "I think--definitely, in the sense that you couldn't the numbers that DeSantis got, plus the other candidates, without over one-third of the democrats voting for these other candidates. Certainly the numbers are at an historic high for a republican and a historic low for a mayor, a democratic mayor."

• "I have to work with the administration to push an agenda next year on reform. I think that Luke has the opportunity to join me, and to be a partner with me in that. By doing the right thing, I think he's also doing the politically correct thing, because he's taking away issues which could be critical differences."

On cooperation and competition:

• "I have a very advantageous position. I can push an agenda that I think that this city needs. And the mayor is in a position where he--both politically and policy-wise--should be supporting it. So, I think that's going to be the interesting thing to watch in the next year."

• "And I'll tell you this, too. If I do decide to run, I'm going to run without a net. I'm going to give up my council seat and I'll run for mayor and put everything I have into it. And if I lose, I'll be out of politics. But if I choose not to run for mayor, I will run one more time for city council."

When will he have to decide?

• "After the presidential race is over. That said, conversations are always continuing. So, in many ways the race for 2009 has already begun. But in putting together the actual campaign and the structure itself--in 2008."

• "This past year... I had to withdraw when over 4 out of 5 people in the city of Pittsburgh said Luke was the better choice. Those numbers have dropped significantly. What was 4 out of 5 is now less than 2 out of 3. Where's it going to be a year from now? That's what I'll gauge it upon."

Read More...

Wake Up Cat: The Morning After Election Night


"Wake Up Cat" from YouTube.


Our cat Sky, practicing his pounce.

A
friend e-mailed this video to me last weekend. It seems especially appropriate, since I hoped to get some extra sleep this morning after putting in some long hours for election night.

My wife and I had tried to slowly adjust our cats' mealtimes to match setting the clocks back by an hour. Even so, it doesn't seem that they were ready to accept the idea of sleeping-in past their breakfast time.

I swear, the "Wake Up Cat" video seems like someone placed a sleep study camera in our home.

If you're interested, here's a second link to the video by animator Simon Tofield of Tandem Films.


.

Read More...

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Paper Chases, Pennsylvania Style


Here are some interesting twists involving proposed changes in Pennsylvania's open records law.


Open records law: Maimed but breathing

The Morning Call, Editorial

"For instance, e-mails would be excluded. As open-records advocate Timothy Potts put it, in the 21st century, that's like exempting paper."



Politicians fight against openness

Editorial, The Daily Review
And, in a true revelation of how these politicians view the public, agency officials would be allowed to deny any request they deem “harassing.”

Citizen: “I’d like to see how much of my money you spent on travel last year.”

Public official: “Stop harassing me.”



Public records bill comes under fire
Philadelphia Inquirer
"HARRISBURG - The proposed new open-records law for Pennsylvania declares that any document created by a public or government agency shall be considered an open record.

Unless, of course, it falls under an exempted category. That list runs six pages."



You can read more about the issues at PassOpenRecords.Org and The Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition .



Finally, there was an attempt to keep from public view this vital state secret: the locations where Pennsylvanians can vote in Tuesday's election.

The (real) Associated Press story:

HARRISBURG (AP) (October 26, 2007, 2:31 a.m.)- State officials have decided not to publicize their list of polling places in Pennsylvania, citing concerns that terrorists could disrupt elections in the commonwealth.

...inspired this (satirical) column by Rich Lewis:


More great ideas for protecting us from terrorism
By Rich Lewis, Sentinel Columnist
After discussions with my colleagues over at State, it is clear to me that our long-standing practice of putting the names of cities on highway signs is imprudent in these dangerous times, and so I am ordering all such signs removed immediately. To further thwart potential terrorist activity, we will erect special “Distractor Signage” close to densely populated areas. For example, signs on the outskirts of Philadelphia will say, “PHILADELPHIA 200 MILES OTHER WAY.”


The Sentinel's editorial takes a more serious tone:

Secrecy officials’ default mode
By The Sentinel
"Fortunately, Gov. Ed Rendell on Friday stepped in and reversed the policy. Noting that withholding the information was a violation of the state’s open records law, he also correctly acknowledged that the information is easily obtained from county elections offices — making the Department of State’s move not only outrageous but pointless."

"But it is yet another indication that those running the state operate in a culture of fear and secrecy. Concealing information is second nature to them."



.

Read More...

Thursday, November 1, 2007

My Requests To The Ethics Board



[The following e-mail was first sent on October 14, 2007. It was my follow-up to the story described in this blog post one day earlier.]



• From: Bob Mayo
Subject: Requests To The Ethics Board
Date: October 14, 2007 6:47:32 PM EDT
To: Sister Patrice Hughes
Cc: Bob Longo, Roberta Peterson, Bob Mayo

Sister Patrice Hughes
Chairwoman
Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board


Dear Sister Patrice,


I'm writing to you in my role as a journalist who covers city government. This e-mail concerns the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board proposal to hold bi-monthly closed-door "Executive Sessions". Among the board's stated uses of these sessions would be to educate its members about the ethics laws of other cities and how those laws are applied. At Friday's meeting, you noted that Assistant City Solicitor Kate DeSimone had provided board members with a memo which serves as the legal basis for these closed-door meetings.

The city law department refused to provide me with a copy of that memo, which outlines its synopsis of the Sunshine Act, so I did some research on my own.

Here's my understanding of the law.

The Sunshine Act has six specific justifications for holding an "Executive Session" which, by the law's own definition, "is a meeting from which the public is excluded". (Section 703, Definitions; Section 708 a, 1 through 6, Executive Sessions, Purpose.) None of them apply to the educational and informational meetings the board is considering.

The Sunshine Act does provide for a "Conference" meeting of the board, which it says "need not be" open to the public. (Section 707 b, Exceptions, Conference. Section 703, Definitions. ) The wording "need not be" suggests that such a conference _could be_ open to the public. As a journalist who covers your meetings, I formally request that you do open the meetings, and I request that you forward this e-mail to your fellow board members for their consideration.

As you know, Kate DeSimone says that her boss "advised against" releasing the memo in question. Respectfully, since the purpose of the Sunshine Law is "sunshine"--i.e. an open view for the public on the operation of government--I would suggest that the interpretation of how an exemption to the Sunshine Law is being applied should not be confidential.

The assistant city solicitor was acting in an official capacity in advising the board, and members would be adopting an official meeting practice based on that advice. I ask that the board members individually reconsider and provide us with a copy.

I also request that the board adopt the practice required by law: announce at every open meeting--immediately prior or subsequent to an executive session--the specific reasons that the public was excluded.


The Sunshine Act, section 708 b (Executive Sessions, Procedure) states:

"The executive session may be held during an open meeting, at the conclusion of an open meeting, or may be announced for a future time. *The reason for holding the executive session must be announced at the open meeting occurring immediately prior or subsequent to the executive session*. If the executive session is not announced for a future specific time, members of the agency shall be notified 24 hours in advance of the time of the convening of the meeting specifying the date, time, location and purpose of the executive session."

A 2003 publication from the Governor's Center for Local Government Services entitled "Open Meetings/Open Records: The Sunshine Act and the Right to Know Law" notes on page 9:

"The concept of a meeting where members are simply informed and do not discuss issues ignores the basics of group dynamics. Members are all too likely to ask questions, pose possible responses by the municipal government and debate various courses of action. The court decisions cited above do not provide any support to the theory that so-called "informational sessions" are anywhere authorized as closed meetings by the Sunshine Law."

The same publication notes on page 6:

"The reason for holding an executive session must be announced at a public meeting occurring immediately prior or subsequent to the executive session."

...and...

"The appellate court stated even though it is in the public interest that certain matters be discussed in private, the public has a right to know what matter is being addressed in private sessions. The reason stated by the agency must be specific, indicating a real, discrete matter that is best addressed in private."

The Governor's Center publication is available online at this link:

http://www.penntrain.net/NewFiles/Boards/SunshineAct.pdf


Section 703 of the Sunshine Act defines a "Conference" as "any training program or seminar, or any session arranged by State or Federal agencies for local agencies, organized and conducted for the sole purpose of providing information to agency members on matters directly related to their official responsibilities". The same section defines an "Executive Session" as "a meeting from which the public is excluded, although the agency may admit those persons necessary to carry out the purpose of the meeting".


To recap, I am requesting that the ethics board:

-provide a copy of the law department's memo;
-not attempt to use "executive sessions" for its educational briefings on other cities' ethics laws;
-use "conferences" for this purpose and open these conferences to the public;
-adopt the legally-required practice of announcing the specific reasons for each executive session at a public meeting immediately prior or subsequent to the executive session.

I also ask that you please forward this e-mail to your colleagues on the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board.


Finally, here's a link to a post on my blog, in which I discuss my difficulties in getting a specific citation of the law from the law department. There's a link to an online copy of the Sunshine Act at the end of the blog post.



Thanks for your time and attention to these concerns.


Sincerely,


Bob Mayo
Reporter
WTAE-TV




This next e-mail was sent three days later.




• From: Bob Mayo
Subject: Requests To The Ethics Board
Date: October 17, 2007 4:08:14 PM EDT
To: Sister Patrice Hughes, Kathleen Buechel, Rabbi Daniel Schiff, Rev. John Welch, Penny Zacharias
Cc: Bob Longo, Roberta Peterson, Bob Mayo




Dear Ethics Board Members,

The e-mail below [Blog note: I'm referring here to the October 14th e-mail] was originally sent to Sister Patrice on Sunday. I've since learned that she is out of town for a few weeks, so I'm passing this along directly to you as well. I didn't want too much time to pass before your next meeting without giving you the opportunity to review it.

If it appears that I've used an incorrect e-mail for any of the board members, please let me know.

I look forward to your feedback.

Thanks.


Bob Mayo
Reporter
WTAE-TV



That evening, I received this response from an ethics board member.


From: Rabbi Daniel Schiff
Subject: RE: Requests To The Ethics Board
Date: October 17, 2007 9:38:21 PM EDT
To: Bob Mayo, Sister Patrice Hughes, Kathleen Buechel, Rabbi Daniel Schiff, Rev. John Welch, Penny Zacharias
Cc: Bob Longo, Roberta Peterson, Bob Mayo

Dear Bob:

I am sure that I speak for all on the Ethics Hearing Board when I thank you for your keen attention to this matter and for your exhaustive research. I know that we will want to consider your points carefully.

Please be aware that Sister Patrice, our chair, is currently in Israel. Kathy Buechel, our Vice Chair is also out of town for the next week. I believe that Penny may also be travelling.

Consequently, you should not expect any response to your email within the next week to ten days. After that, we will have to deliberate on the questions you have raised, and that might not allow us to respond until after the next meeting.

I just wanted you to be aware of the movements of my colleagues, so that you do not interpret any failure to respond in a timely fashion as a lack of concern about the issues raised. As I indicated - in public - at the last meeting, we certainly desire to maximize public access to the Ethics Hearing Board and its deliberations.

Best,

Rabbi Danny Schiff


Earlier this week I spoke by phone with Sister Patrice Hughes, who is now back in town. She notes that the next meeting of the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board is scheduled for Friday, November 9th.



.

Read More...