Five pending Luzerne County ethics complaints are in the preliminary investigation stage because they met minimum requirements to advance under the County Council-adopted ethics code, outside attorneys said Tuesday.
A sixth complaint has also been filed but not yet reviewed.
The complaint status updates were provided by the county ethics commission’s two enforcement attorneys — Qiana Murphy Lehman and Rachel L. James — during Tuesday’s commission meeting.
Under the code, complaints must be opened and initially reviewed by an outside enforcement attorney contracted by the commission. These enforcement attorneys must recommend whether complaints should be dismissed or upgraded to formal complaints presented to the commission.
This separation of duties was imposed after attorneys publicly questioned the legality of the commission both investigating and adjudicating cases.
From the commission’s end, complaint details remain confidential unless the matter results in a commission finding.
However, two citizens speaking during public comment Tuesday indicated they filed the complaints.
Attorney Carly Levandoski, of Kingston, said she filed three complaints in February.
Levandoski told the commission she was forced to reveal her identity as a complaint filer because months went by without acknowledgment that the complaint had been received.
At the June commission meeting, there was a discussion about emails from the county law office about new complaints not reaching an outside attorney. Levandoski said email delivery should not be a factor because the commission’s December meeting minutes indicated complaints would be sent by regular mail to enforcement attorneys.
Levandoski pointed out the code requires the forwarding of complaints to enforcement attorneys within five days of receipt.
She said she did not receive an enforcement attorney’s acknowledgment of her complaints until July 7.
James noted a small portion of the delay stemmed from a review over conflict of interest. Murphy Lehman said she informed the commission June 16 that two complaints assigned to her had to be forwarded to James due to a possible conflict of interest regarding the subject matter of those complaints.
Prior county controller Walter Griffith said he filed the other two complaints that were part of Tuesday’s enforcement attorney status report.
Murphy Lehman and James provided similar updates on the five cases — four before James and one under review by Murphy Lehman.
According to the attorneys, all five complaints met the minimum requirements under code section 105.01B, which requires written submissions to identify a respondent covered by the code and to state alleged facts and circumstances that the complainant “believes in good faith” constitute a code violation.
In the preliminary inquiry stage now underway, enforcement attorneys have 45 days to determine whether they will terminate complaints or advance them to a full investigation, the code says.
Both attorneys said they have requested documents as part of their preliminary investigations.
Griffith said one of his complaints at the preliminary investigation stage was against County Councilman Chris Belles for Belles’ online posting of a link to view signatures of voters who signed a petition seeking a referendum repealing the county’s new anti-discrimination ordinance.
Belles had argued, “There is no such thing as a private public referendum.” Griffith and Duryea resident Ben Herring maintained the release was not done for a “legal electoral purpose” and filed a lawsuit against Belles that is now pending in federal court.
Griffith said he did not have readily accessible information on the specifics of his second complaint, which is in the preliminary investigation stage.
Griffith said he subsequently filed two other ethics complaints, one of which may be the sixth one cited Tuesday as not yet reviewed.
The five-member commission is filled by the county controller, district attorney, county manager, and two council-appointed citizens — currently Republican Mike Attanasio and Democrat Adiel Tyson.