It ain't over 'til it's over, but I am placing a bet that U.S. Rep. Bob Brady will be removed from the Democratic ballot for mayor because of his failure to file a complete financial disclosure form.
Judge Patrick J. Toole, the Luzerne County judge imported to hear the Brady case, really has no choice in the matter. If Toole takes a strict interpretation of the state Ethics Law – as recent state Supreme Court rulings seem to demand – he will have to declare that there are "fatal defects" in Brady's ethics filing and order him off the ballot.
Brady is in peril because he failed to list $8,300 in annual pension payments he receives from various government entities, including the city of Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and the city's Redevelopment Authority.
Worse for him, he failed to list nearly $60,000 in payments made since 1999 by the Carpenters Union to his union pension fund in exchange for various services rendered.
Tom Knox promptly labeled it a "no show job." That's campaign hyperbole, but not my much. It appears to have involved periodic Brady chats with carpenter apprentices and attendance at various union banquets. Brady is a member of the union.
Brady's attorneys argue that he did not have to report his pensions because they are "governmentally mandated" and those are excluded from the Ethics Law. They argue the Carpenters Union payments need not be listed because Brady has not drawn his union pension yet. Ergo, the payments are not income.
The judge may be able to buy the "governmentally mandated" argument on Brady's various city and state pensions. But, looking at the ethics law, it seems clear that the union payments are…well, payments and should have been listed.
When it comes to reporting "Direct of Indirect Sources of Income," the Ethics Commission offers this all-inclusive definition. You are required to disclose "any payments, fees, salaries, expenses, allowances, forbearances, any forgiveness, interest, dividends, royalties, rents, capital gains, rewards, severance payments, prize winnings, and tax exempt income.."
Brady's case is hurt by the fact that he has disclosed both the government pensions and the Carpenters Union payments on his federal financial disclosure form under "assets." You can see Brady's form here. courtest of OpenSecrets.org.
All legal arguments aside, isn't the whole purpose of the disclosure law to let people know about a candidate's holdings and investments that may influence his job as an elected official?
The law exists to lay out before the public exactly the kind of payments made on Brady's behalf by the Carpenters' Union. If payments like these are allowed to be excluded, we may as well not have a disclosure law.
Judge Toole is expected to rule this week. Whatever the ruling it is sure to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Comments (1)
By any definition, Brady's role in the Carpenters Union is a no show job. How do the union members feel about their dues being spent in such a manner? Hopefully this will prompt the next big investigative series into what unions have sweetheart deals on their books. This is turning into a lesser of evils choice for mayor. Fattah doesn't show for votes, Evans has no personality, Brady is the poster child for not having a clue or a conscience...hopefully it will be between Knox and Nutter, but Nutter can't get traction and Knox is about as exciting as Joe Banner explaining the salary cap.
Posted by jimmy mack | March 26, 2007 1:48 PM
Posted on March 26, 2007 13:48