Judge's nondisclosure in Williams Township landfill case has unpleasant odor
February 17, 2009
By Bill White
The [Allentown] Morning Call
The saga of Williams Township and the proposed rezoning and expansion of Chrin Landfill has had a fetid smell all along.
Supervisors promising one thing as candidates and then doing another. Top-secret negotiations and a general lack of openness and responsiveness. Questionable benefits for the community.
The reek got even stronger last week with the discovery that Judge Anthony Beltrami, who recently threw out a Sunshine Act lawsuit by residents who oppose the landfill expansion and believe the closed-door negotiations were illegal, received a $5,000 campaign contribution from landfill patriarch Charles Chrin in 2005. It was Beltrami's largest contribution except what he gave to himself.
If Beltrami had disclosed the contribution and decided it didn't constitute a conflict -- the plaintiffs, the Committee to Save Williams Township, say they'd have asked him to recuse himself -- we could have a reasonable discussion about whether he made the right call. Chrin wasn't actually a party to the suit, although the company was inextricably tangled in it and even sent lawyers to make arguments in the case.
But Beltrami didn't disclose it, even though he spent considerable time discussing other parties' potential conflicts.
Although the state Code of Judicial Conduct gives judges the power to decide whether campaign money might reasonably create the perception of bias, the American Bar Association recommends judges disclose information that might be considered grounds for a recusal, even if a judge believes there is no basis.
Bottom line? Beltrami's decision is tainted.
Understand that I'm not saying his legal opinion was right or wrong. Nor am I saying that I believe his relationship with Chrin was a factor in his decision. I have no way of knowing.
I'm just saying his nondisclosure created not only the appearance of conflict, but the appearance of deception.
The plaintiffs wrote a letter to President Judge Kimberly McFadden, complaining about Beltrami's behavior. ''The purpose of this letter is to inform you of what we believe was unethical and improper judicial conduct on the part of Judge Beltrami,'' it began.
Beltrami, McFadden and Judge Paula Roscioli, who recused herself from the case because she received $6,000 in contributions from Chrin, among other conflicts, all declined comment because the case might be appealed, although committee spokeswoman Kathy Lilley said that's unlikely. She told me last Friday that committee members still were weighing their options. Finances have been a consideration, since the committee would need to hire another lawyer to help fight the rezoning that would allow Chrin to expand.
An appeal might have solved some of the lingering problems in this case. Commonwealth Court could at least have vindicated Beltrami's decision, if not his conduct. And if the decision were overturned, it would have given the plaintiffs a chance to press their case further. They said they found Beltrami's ruling inexplicable.
Because they went the route of writing to McFadden instead of filing a formal motion for reconsideration, Beltrami and the rest of the court had no recourse to respond to their complaint. So the judge decided to file his own motion Monday for reconsideration and recusal, bringing the issues into the open and setting a hearing date of Feb. 26.
Under the circumstances, that's about the best that could have been hoped for. At least we'll hear Beltrami's explanation.
But it's hard to imagine him saying anything that would put the genie -- or the stink -- back in the bottle.
The [Allentown] Morning Call
The saga of Williams Township and the proposed rezoning and expansion of Chrin Landfill has had a fetid smell all along.
Supervisors promising one thing as candidates and then doing another. Top-secret negotiations and a general lack of openness and responsiveness. Questionable benefits for the community.
The reek got even stronger last week with the discovery that Judge Anthony Beltrami, who recently threw out a Sunshine Act lawsuit by residents who oppose the landfill expansion and believe the closed-door negotiations were illegal, received a $5,000 campaign contribution from landfill patriarch Charles Chrin in 2005. It was Beltrami's largest contribution except what he gave to himself.
If Beltrami had disclosed the contribution and decided it didn't constitute a conflict -- the plaintiffs, the Committee to Save Williams Township, say they'd have asked him to recuse himself -- we could have a reasonable discussion about whether he made the right call. Chrin wasn't actually a party to the suit, although the company was inextricably tangled in it and even sent lawyers to make arguments in the case.
But Beltrami didn't disclose it, even though he spent considerable time discussing other parties' potential conflicts.
Although the state Code of Judicial Conduct gives judges the power to decide whether campaign money might reasonably create the perception of bias, the American Bar Association recommends judges disclose information that might be considered grounds for a recusal, even if a judge believes there is no basis.
Bottom line? Beltrami's decision is tainted.
Understand that I'm not saying his legal opinion was right or wrong. Nor am I saying that I believe his relationship with Chrin was a factor in his decision. I have no way of knowing.
I'm just saying his nondisclosure created not only the appearance of conflict, but the appearance of deception.
The plaintiffs wrote a letter to President Judge Kimberly McFadden, complaining about Beltrami's behavior. ''The purpose of this letter is to inform you of what we believe was unethical and improper judicial conduct on the part of Judge Beltrami,'' it began.
Beltrami, McFadden and Judge Paula Roscioli, who recused herself from the case because she received $6,000 in contributions from Chrin, among other conflicts, all declined comment because the case might be appealed, although committee spokeswoman Kathy Lilley said that's unlikely. She told me last Friday that committee members still were weighing their options. Finances have been a consideration, since the committee would need to hire another lawyer to help fight the rezoning that would allow Chrin to expand.
An appeal might have solved some of the lingering problems in this case. Commonwealth Court could at least have vindicated Beltrami's decision, if not his conduct. And if the decision were overturned, it would have given the plaintiffs a chance to press their case further. They said they found Beltrami's ruling inexplicable.
Because they went the route of writing to McFadden instead of filing a formal motion for reconsideration, Beltrami and the rest of the court had no recourse to respond to their complaint. So the judge decided to file his own motion Monday for reconsideration and recusal, bringing the issues into the open and setting a hearing date of Feb. 26.
Under the circumstances, that's about the best that could have been hoped for. At least we'll hear Beltrami's explanation.
But it's hard to imagine him saying anything that would put the genie -- or the stink -- back in the bottle.
