Senate Hearing on Proposed Sex-abuse Law Called ‘biased’
By Kathleen E. Carey
The head of the state Senate Judiciary Committee was labeled “biased” and his oversight at a hearing on extending the statue of limitations for child sex abuse victims to file civil lawsuits called “legislative ethics at its worst” because of his law firm’s representation of Catholic interests contesting a similar statute in Delaware. State Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf, R-12, of Willow Grove, headed the Judiciary Committee hearing on HB 1947 Monday. He chairs that committee. The bill would extend the time child sex abuse victims can file civil lawsuits 20 years to when they are 50 years old. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia launched an aggressive campaign earlier this month urging its members to oppose the proposal because of the potential financial peril it could pose to parishes and services. Thomas S. Neuberger of the Wilmington, Del., law firm that represented more than 110 child abuse victims under the Delaware Child Victims Act of 2007, said Greenleaf has “an irreconcilable conflict of interest” in this matter and called for him to step down. Greenleaf’s firm, Elliot Greenleaf, represented the Norbertine Fathers, who founded Archmere Academy, in the case of a student who alleged 33 months of continuous sexual abuse by a teacher and campus minister at the school during the 1980s. In addition to representing the Catholic entities in this case, Greenleaf’s firm also legally fought the constitutionality of this case and a Delaware law similar to the Pennsylvania proposal. Greenleaf’s spokesman, Aaron Zappia, pointed to a decision by the parliamentarian of the Senate, Megan Martin, issued the day of the hearing that determined since the senator was not voting, no opinion was necessary but that he was free from conflict of interest regardless. Neuberger disagreed. “(Greenleaf), as the named partner in his own law firm, appears to have benefited financially from legal fees earned representing various institutions of the Roman Catholic Church in its litigation in Delaware,” he said. “In other words, he and his law firm have been paid money to make arguments against the legality of relief for victims of childhood sexual abuse.” Martin’s letter said the senator was clear to act. First, she said, “I provide opinions on whether a conflict exists that would prevent a (m)ember of the Senate from voting on a bill ... but here, there will be no vote today ... the Pennsylvania Constitution governs conflicts of interest for members of the General Assembly when voting on issues pending before the respective body.” Even if there had been, the parliamentarian said it was permissible for Greenleaf to participate. “Senate precedent fully supports that a (m)ember does not have a conflict of interest voting on a bill that may or may not impact a client of a law firm with which a (m)ember is associated,” she wrote. Neuberger pointed out inconsistencies in Monday’s hearing. He said Greenleaf provided four witnesses and 135 minutes of testimony against the bill and one witness and 60 minutes of testimony in favor of it. Neuberger said in various criminal proceedings or civil cases before a judge, both sides are given the same amount of time to present their cases. Zappia said originally there was going to be two testifying in support of the legislation and two opposing it. He said the witnesses had to have expertise on the constitutionality of the bill based on Pennsylvania’s standards. Zappia added that Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, had been scheduled to testify in favor of HB 1947 but was unable to do so and his written testimony was submitted into the record. Zappia did not address why ultimately four witnesses testified against the legislation. Neuberger pointed to the availability and willingness of Delaware Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Lewis to testify. According to his spokesman, Lewis was asked to give his personal views on the background of a similar law in Delaware. Neuberger said Greenleaf refused Lewis to testify. Zappia questioned Lewis’ knowledge of Pennsylvania’s law. “Does he know Pennsylvania law?” Zappia asked. “Delaware law is different than Pennsylvania law.” The Elliot Greenleaf filings in the Archmere case included a request by the Delaware Superior Court to consider dismissing the case and determining the Child Victim’s Act of 2007 to be unconstitutional in part questioning the right of due process of law in retroactive cases. That court maintained the constitutionality of that law was based on precedence created by the U.S. Supreme Court and opined, “The lengthening of a statute of limitation is the resurrection of a lost remedy, rather than the destruction of a right.” In addition, Neuberger questioned the conduct of state Solicitor General Bruce Castor, who was a part of the Elliott Greenleaf firm from 2008 to 2013 and who testified against the Pennsylvania proposal before Greenleaf’s committee. Zappia offered no comment on this matter. Neuberger said Greenleaf will let the bill die a slow death. “(Greenleaf) did not remit the bill to the floor for a vote but is simply allowing the bill to die in his committee without action,” the attorney said. Zappia said the committee needs sufficient time to consider the merits of HB 1947. “I wouldn’t say that even though there isn’t any time line established on the legislation,” he said of Neuberger’s assertion. “We don’t have a time line. There’s no time line for this to be considered. It’s a two-year session. Anything that doesn’t pass has to be reintroduced.” He said Monday’s session revolved around HB 1947’s legality. “The scope of the hearing was to consider the constitutionality of the bill,” Zappia said. “If they wanted to come in and discuss the cases or the (Attorney General’s) report, that’s just not what we were considering. It was the legality of the bill “Most of the experts that are out there who are knowledgable on Pennsylvania law would agree that that retroactive provision ... is in conflict with the Pennsylvania Constitution,” he said. Neuberger, on the other hand, decried the proceedings. “This is legislative ethics at its worst,” he said. “Greenleaf should have revealed to the voters beforehand that his firm profited financially in making the same legal arguments in Delaware that failed before its court system. Greenleaf’s conduct does not pass the smell test. The process to consider this bill is unfair and corrupted because it is not disinterested, to the shame of the Senate and Pennsylvania.”
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.