SANATOGA PA – File this item under the heading “Sticky Wicket, Unstuck.”
Lower Pottsgrove (PA) Township recently found, and eliminated, what could have been a conflict of interest issue in its pursuit of disciplinary action against a member of its police department, Ofc. Matthew Meitzler.
The Board of Commissioners during July (2011) authorized Chief Michael Shade to suspend Meitzler for two 12-hour shifts without pay, following an earlier incident that involved a police vehicle. Attorney Blake Dunbar Jr. is representing Meitzler in an appeal of the suspension, expected to be heard by the township Civil Service Commission in coming weeks.
The conflict, defined late last month by township Solicitor R. Kurtz Holloway, is this: Dunbar works with the law firm of Robert L. Brant and Associates of Trappe PA. Its principal, Bob Brant, serves as solicitor to the township Zoning Hearing Board. That sets up a scenario in which the same firm both assists and opposes the township, albeit in far different judicial matters.
Of such stuff, legal ethics textbooks are written.
To ensure Lower Pottsgrove’s name doesn’t end up in one of them, Holloway and the attorney representing the township in the Meitzler appeal – Ryan Cassidy of the Eckert Seamans Cherin and Mellot law firm in Philadelphia – asked commissioners to issue a waiver that officially acknowledged and dismissed the conflict.
Board President Jonathan Spadt, an attorney himself, had no objection. No one in Brant’s firm is representing the township regarding the Meitzler case, he noted, and both Dunbar and Cassidy have a “good working relationship,” he added. Commissioner Michael McGroarty agreed, saying he saw “two separate issues here” that posed no problem for him.
Commissioners unanimously granted the waiver during their Sept. 28 meeting. A date for the appeal hearing, which is open to the public, has not yet been announced.
Related (to the Lower Pottsgrove Board of Commissioners’ meeting of Sept. 28):
- Conflict Waiver Keeps Township Out Of An Ethical Jam
- Lower Pottsgrove August 2011 Warrants Now Online
Photo from Clipart.com
Wow, open to the public, how do we know this? The cops that I know state that this officer has the right to ask for either a public or a private dealing with this matter. I guess the board, Chief and Township manager have already received notice that this officer wants a public hearing or did they just take this right away from the officer.
Karen, township Solicitor R. Kurtz Holloway said Aug. 18 the hearing would be open to the public. Read the story here:
http://sanatogapost.com/2011/08/19/township-pays-two-attorneys-in-police-discipline-case/
Joe, sorry my point was a little sarcastic. I know a little about these style procedures and I’m just wondering if the officer requested a public hearing, which is not the norm. If he did request a public hearing then no problem but if he didn’t there’s a big problem with his name being in the press.
Karen, to my knowledge nothing of what the officer may have requested (or not) was announced or revealed. I was led to believe, although I do NOT know this for a fact, that the work of the commission itself was open to the public and that the hearing was included among that work.
Joe in a First Class Township all personnel issues are to remain private until the employee requests public notice. If this employee did not request public notice the Township has now opened itself up to possible legal action.
Karen, you could be right. We’ll have to see what happens. Certainly makes life here exciting, doesn’t it?