Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

Councilman Reynolds here refines the basis for his motion to relieve Councilman Callahan as liaison to the Parking Authority by focusing on conflict of interest, that is, BGC’s advocacy for the proposal of the company for whom his brother works: it doesn’t matter that you didn’t have a vote; it doesn’t matter that you may disagree with your brother a lot; it does matter that you promoted a plan from which your brother would benefit.

• It’s not about criticizing [the Polk Street project].
• Your brother [John Callahan] was a great Mayor, and there are great projects that they are doing in the City of Bethlehem.
• They don’t look nearly as good when you advocate for them.
• Our behavior is not just determined by whether or not we vote, but it’s whether or not we advocate, how we have conversations . . .
• This is more about whether or not . . . the way you handled yourself is representative of this particular body.
• It doesn’t matter if you disagree with somebody that you are related to nine times in a row, it doesn’t make it any better to be able to advocate for any individual project.
• [You can believe that that report was biased but] I’m hard pressed to find that that’s an appropriate comment when somebody in your family is the one who benefits from this.
• As far as representing City Council to another entity, I believe the point has been made.

Councilman Callahan does not address Councilman Reynolds’s conflict of interest argument but stresses the context of AMK’s actions, that is, the recent corruption cases in Allentown and Reading, as the reason for his concern. He denies any active involvement in the BPA decision, indicating — as he has done many times — that he prefers to discuss matters out in the open, in public at Council meetings. And he ends — doing what he also has done many times — implying, without elaboration or specifics, that a Council member was acting “backstage.”

• I had no input in that [BPA] decision [on the Polk Street Garage].
• I did not speak at the meeting.
• I had no conversations with anyone on the Parking Authority that was voting.
• I had no voting rights there.
• And as I have said numerous times, I prefer to handle things here in front of this body instead of backstage.
• I feel . . . that in the wake of Allentown and Reading for [AMK] to make that phone call on the day of the vote and try to persuade people on the Board to go with Nova . . . I thought that was unethical.
• I feel in the wake of Allentown and Reading again, everybody’s sensors were up.
• My comments that I made were made here, I wasn’t hiding anything.
• I didn’t make any phone calls behind the scenes early in the morning.

Councilman Callahan offers to resign as Parking Authority liaison, but Council progresses with Councilman Reynolds’s motion to relieve him by Council action, and the motion passes 5-2 (Councilman Colon voting with Councilman Callahan). BGC again references a kind of predetermined plot by JWR, but in a dramatic coup de gras BGC asks that Councilwoman Van Wirt be barred from discussion or voting regarding the BPA because of an easement she has with them on her home property. What’s fair is fair, he claims. Gadfly doesn’t understand the correlation. Gadfly cannot understand this move by BGC at all. Anyone who has paid even the barest attention knows that PVW has been at virtually continual loggerheads with the BPA. To suggest favoritism, if that’s what BGC is doing, because of a deal in her benefit makes no sense. Very odd behavior, if you ask the Gadfly. This final move by BGC is an attempt to turn tables, to attempt to slur PVW, to intimate — what? — possible unethical behavior, possible conflict of interest on her part? Council doesn’t even stop to acknowledge much less consider BGC’s request.

• Obviously this was something Mr. Reynolds was working on
• I resign as liaison to the Parking Authority.
• I think parking is a very important thing in the City of Bethlehem.
• I would ask from this point on that Dr. Van Wirt not vote or have any discussion on anything dealing with the Parking Authority due to a easement that you have with the Parking Authority for access to your garage.
• I mean, if we’re going to be fair, we’re going to be fair.

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

Councilman Callahan, of course, defends himself. Gadfly wonders how effective you will think that defense is. Frankly, Gadfly sometimes has trouble following BGC’s train of thought. Now it must be said that BGC may have been caught by surprise. Councilman Reynolds seemed to be working from a prepared or roughly prepared text. No doubt he had the advantage of prior organization of his thoughts. BGC, on the other hand, had to answer in defense spontaneously. It is telling, however, that BGC’s first response to JWR’s motion to relieve him as liaison to the BPA is to see himself as a kind of victim of an “orchestrated” conspiracy, and his last response, similarly, is to see himself the object of game playing. That’s frustrating to Gadfly. That’s a tease. That’s innuendo much like what BGC aimed at AMK. What exactly are you talking about, Councilman Callahan? Tell me, tell us the public, what game is Councilman Reynolds playing? Out here in the cheap seats, we don’t know what you are talking about. What exactly do you mean so that we can judge your truth? That kind of framing by BGC seems to Gadfly a deflection from the charge of the “unequivocally inappropriate” behavior of advocating for his brother’s company and knowing more inside information than he should have if he were simply acting as liaison. In addition, Gadfly could not connect the relevance in BGC’s references to the Transfer Tax, to the Mayor’s role in building the Polk Street Garage, to the departure of Mr. Livingston. And to establish the “bias,” the “slant” of the proposal backed by the City but not accepted by the BPA would need concrete examples and deeper analysis.

(Pardon some perhaps peripheral Gadfly venting. Certainly, it’s a free country. People can do what they want. Certainly family relationships in business and politics need not automatically be looked on with suspicion, need not be thought of as or necessarily be nefarious. Because you are somebody’s relative shouldn’t mark you as some visible sinner like the Hawthorne character in the classic Scarlet Letter novel. (Pardon the professorial reference, but after the Gadfly follower brought up “Kabuki theater” yesterday, the metaphorical roof is off!) But what was Hunter Biden thinking when accepting that Ukraine appointment? Could the Mayor’s son not have a good job somewhere besides with the parent company of a business that does City business — enormous City business?  Why doesn’t BGC stay totally away from situations that involve his brother? It just seems to Gadfly that ethical quicksand is readily visible, but, sadly, people walk into it anyway.)

• I’ll step down if you feel that way Mr. Reynolds, I mean obviously this has been orchestrated.
• But know this, nobody, nobody on this Council has been harder on Peron Development [the company that BGC’s brother John works for and the company whose proposal was accepted by the Parking Authority] or BethWorks in what happened with that Transfer Tax.
• You can mention my brother all you want, my brother’s in the private sector right now.
• I had no vote for the Parking Authority on that . . . never had any conversations about it.
• All I knew is that report if you look at it line item by line item by line item, it would be very tough for anybody, rational, and not go, hmmm, there’s a slant to that.
• I didn’t speak to my brother for two weeks about it . . . he was upset.
• So to suggest that I don’t take a middle ground on everything to me is pushing it.
• You know what, I’ll step down from the Parking Authority [the Council liaison role].
• My issue with it is the fact that the Mayor runs the Parking Authority.
• Mr. Livingston [executive director of the Parking Authority] is leaving . . . because that garage is being built because the Mayor wants it built.
• If the Mayor didn’t want that garage built, it’s not getting built.
• [The Mayor] raised the fine increase to build it.
• Instead of throwing the Parking director out there to take all the heat, [the Mayor] should have stepped up.
• To suggest that I’m not fair and I’m not trying to play both ways is disingenuous.
• You know what, Mr. Reynolds, I know your games.
• I will step down as the Parking Authority liaison.

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

What followers are saying to Gadfly:

• There is no pay to play inferred here, which is exactly what brought down elected officials in Reading and Allentown. That connection between Bethlehem and those cities does not correlate.
• I hope the ethics ordinance is re-introduced and passed. Councilman Reynolds was going to introduce something on campaign finance.
• I absolutely agree with Council’s action to remove [BGC] as liaison to BPA.  His obstinance on this issue feels like a dentist’s drill at work.
• The Mayor does not control the hiring of the Parking Authority director, who [BGC]  announced is resigning effective sometime this month. His brother [John, former Mayor] was very good at jumping the gun on announcements others wanted to control by releasing at their discretion, not at a Callahan’s discretion.
• He’s [BGC] passive-aggressive. One minute he’s attacking, the next minute conciliatory.
• This issue is not attributable to the Mayor as he [BGC] keeps stating. He just won’t let any of this go.
• What we are witnessing at Council and in City Hall is “Kabuki Theater.” [There is no chopped liver among Gadfly followers]

What’s in your wallet, er, thinking?

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

Let’s see, can you follow this ethics controversy without a program?

Hey, you guys in the back of the room — you got this?

We better back up a moment. Councilman Callahan has made two claims of possible unethical behavior against AMK, what Gadfly has called the permit issue and the Parking Authority issue.

(Remember, if you need refreshing, click “Ethics” on the righthand sidebar to get past posts.)

The permit issue is still up in the air. BGC wants the Mayor to call in AMK’s staff and quiz them. There’s been no forward motion to settle this issue. BGC focused just on this issue in his November 25 press conference.

The Parking Authority issue is the one about BGC calling out AMK at the November 6 City Council meeting for unethical behavior relating to the the Polk Street Garage decision.

Got it? With me?

The Mayor wrote BGC a 4-page memo on this Parking Authority issue that seemed to clarify the situation and absolve AMK of bad doing. It is this memo that Councilman Reynolds referred to in his statesman-like statement covered in our previous post.

So in this next step at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, BGC takes JWR up on elaborating more on his unethical behavior suggestion in regard to the Parking Authority issue. He doesn’t take the apology-to-AMK option.

BGC says he already knew the nuance on which the Mayor focused in his absolution of AMK. He says the problem was not that AMK made a phone call to one of the parties bidding on the Polk Street project but that she suggested with BPA Board members (was it one phone call or more?) renegotiation with only one of the bidders — which happened to be her preference bidder — and not both bidders.

In addition, BGC claims that the decision of the Mayor’s ad hoc committee (did AMK chair it?) assessing the bidders and favoring AMK’s preferred bidder in an evaluation report provided to the BPA was not unanimous (thus, he claims possession of inside knowledge), and, moreover, that the report itself is obviously biased. No evidence given on that last claim.

Thus, the Mayor’s explanation did not address BGC’s specific concern, and BGC indeed complies with JWR’s request by providing more information about his position.

BGC sees a phone call to Board members on the day of the vote suggesting renegotiation with one — her choice — but not both bidders as unethical.

BGC keeps the issue from closure by moving the goal posts, as it were, in his explanation.

Think on this.

And where do you think the conversation will go next?

• I think that in the aftermath of Allentown and Reading, there was a little bit of spotlight . . .
• I know it wasn’t a bid process.
• You [the Mayor] appointed an ad hoc committee [on the Parking Authority design] to look in to it.
• I think if you sat down and you looked at each individual item, it’s probably one of the most biased reports I’ve ever read if you really look at it.
• It’s clear that that category of grading was very slanted.
• I also know that it was not a unanimous decision on that ad hoc committee.
• Is that correct, Ms. Karner? (pause, silence) That answers the question.
• After the ad hoc committee was formed they wrote up their summary . . . but the thing that’s upsetting and disturbing, especially in the aftermath of Allentown and Reading, is that Ms. Karner, and I know this is factual because it was told to me firsthand, called two people on the Parking Authority Board to try to convince them . . . to renegotiate . . .  not with both entities, that’s the problem.
• In my opinion, that’s extremely unethical.
• That phone call was made the day they were voting on it.
• Why the additional phone call?
• I didn’t vote on it, I didn’t even talk at the meeting.
• They [the BPA] were done with it in seconds.
• In the aftermath of Allentown and Reading, for a department head, after she released her report already, . . . for her to make that phone call on the day of the vote . . . I find that in my opinion unethical.
• I don’t think the phone call should have been made.

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

Gadfly is breaking down the section of the December 3 City Council meeting concentrating on the ethics issue raised by Councilman Callahan into small parts so that you can focus on how each Councilman responds to it.

Gadfly will always remind you that a core part of his project mission is to have you know your elected officials as well as you can so that you can be an informed voter.

This section of the meeting was dominated by interchanges between Councilman Callahan and Councilman Reynolds, veteran antagonists.

And just from information available recently in the course of this controversy, we can look forward to the possibility — if we didn’t know this before! — that both Councilman Callahan and Councilman Reynolds may run for mayor.

Which means paying attention to them is particularly important, especially at time of stress, especially at times when leadership is called for.

Councilman Reynolds, though still a young man, has been on Council about 12 years. President Waldron once referred to him as having the wisdom of an elder statesman.

JWR was certainly statesman-like here (O Gadfly, that sounds so pretentious, but we get the idea). He was calm. He hoped there would be a path to settling the permit issue. So he focused on the Parking Authority issue, the one in which BGC accused AMK of unethical behavior at a City Council meeting. He said the most serious charge that could be leveled at a public official was leveled at AMK, a bad thing for everybody and the City. He concluded, reasonably, that BGC should back up his charge or apologize.

Listen–

• Calling somebody unethical is the most serious charge that public officials can face.
• There’s an inherent trust that comes with the responsibility of being an elected official.
• Calling somebody unethical is not something that should be spoken of lightly.
• It’s not brought forward without strong evidence of wrongdoing.
• It’s not a verbal tool to be used in a disagreement.
• The public has not heard any more evidence or explanation.
• He has not elaborated on his accusation.
• I don’t believe that it does this body any good or it does the City of Bethlehem to have those accusations sit out there.
• The administration sent a 4-page memo that went through this whole process [the Parking Authority issue]
• Give Councilman Callahan the opportunity here to at least add information or explain his position or, absent that, I do think it would be paramount for him to apologize to [AMK] for the accusation of being unethical and the Allentown comment [that some people went to jail for that kind of activity].

How will Councilman Callahan respond?

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

Gadfly had wanted to get back to another post on Councilman Callahan’s role in this ethics controversy before tonight’s meeting.

Gadfly has been a dedicated Council watcher for 15 months now.

He has always said that one important aspect of the Gadfly project is to help you know your elected officials better so that you will be the most informed voter you can be come election time.

He has always said that it is likely that current Council members will run for re-election and that some at some time are likely to run for mayor.

And that’s why we should pay attention.

Twice in the last few weeks Councilman Callahan has remarked in passing at Council meetings that Mayor Donchez has 1 1/2 years left as Mayor and he [Callahan] doesn’t know who will be the next Mayor.

Odd things to say, thought Gadfly to hisself.

Was Gadfly the only one who noticed?

The Mayor is only in the 6th or 7th inning, not time to write him off yet.

But those seemingly-in-passing remarks might be a clue that Councilman Callahan has running for mayor on his mind.

In fact, he clearly said as much at the very beginning of the Q ‘n A after his November 25 press conference, in the context of his knowledge of a deal Councilman Reynolds made for the Mayor’s endorsement of the Reynolds’ candidacy come next election.

“I am thinking about it, especially with all the things going on right now. I haven’t made up my mind yet.”

So we should be paying attention.

We can learn a lot about leadership qualities from a controversy like this — not only about Councilman Callahan but other members of Council and the Administration as well.

This is a great opportunity to see what people are made of.

And who might make a great next Mayor.

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

Steve Melnick is a retired economic development executive and a 25-year resident of Bethlehem.

Gadfly:

In the past I have not been a big fan of the way AMK runs her department. Speaking from personal experience when I was purchasing another townhouse, her staff seems to be less than professional. However, the recent attacks upon her ethics are way off base. During the review of the Parking Authority RFP, I wondered to some people why an award was made to a developer who not only came in with a higher cost but also asked for tax relief through the KIZ. Was the other developer unaware of the KIZ benefits? It seems to me that AMK was using sound logic in trying to recommend the equally qualified developer who submitted a lower bid. Why would you arbitrarily agree to pay more for something than you have to? Of course, the lowest bidder did not employ any relatives on city council. That is what makes this whole incident so baffling. The relative WON the bidding. What more does BGC want?

Steve

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

On November 6 Gadfly was in his usual 3 o’clock position in the cheap seats at City Council when in the course of a routine discussion about funding a proposal to study the Southside, Councilman Callahan turned to Department of Community and Economic Development head Alicia Miller Karner, who was sitting in the 11 o’clock position of sparsely filled Town Hall, and unexpectedly said:

“Miss Karner, did you or did you not call the Board and put pressure on them [members of the Bethlehem Parking Authority Board], did you not ask two people the day of the vote to renegotiate a lower bidded contract?”

Gadfly gasped audibly.

Gadfly is an old dawg (and a mixed metaphorist).

He was watching the Army-McCarthy hearings on tv in 1954 at the moment at which lawyer Joseph Welch famously nailed the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy with

“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

Gadfly gasped, his mind spontaneously went to the Welch moment, and he may even have mouthed Welch’s words.

It was that striking a moment for Gadfly, who is basically still experiencing his first rodeo in Town Hall.

Relive the moment with him.

City Council meeting, November 6, 2019, begin min. 1:26:40

Councilman Callahan: “Who will be making up the committee? . . . I’d like to be on that committee . . . I’m worried that there are some influences being put there that have been in the past month with some pressure being put on other entities during voting on RFPs . . . I have a big concern where this is going with Ms. Karner at the helm of this . . . She had reached out to people on the Parking Authority Board the day of a vote which I thought was highly unethical to put pressure on them to accept a lower bid. There are people in Allentown who went to jail for doing that . . . Miss Karner, did you or did you not call the Board and put pressure on them, did you not ask two people the day of the vote to renegotiate a lower bidded contract?”

Gadfly has been asking you “what if” questions. What if you were the city employee? What if you were Councilman Callahan? What if you were the Mayor?

What if you were Alicia Miller Karner in Town Hall the night of November 6 at approximately 8:26PM?

These pictures kind of tell the story. AMK is the woman in the audience on the left side of these pictures.

AMK before Callahan addressed her:

AMK as BGC started to direct his comments to her:

A relaxed AMK coiled into lineman stance ready to do battle.

But a time-out was called before she could engage.

And she is the quiet one in this “contentious spectacle” — to quote the previous post by follower Barbara Diamond.

Or should Gadfly say, the “quieted one.”

She has no forum, no soapbox, no microphone.

The Mayor defended her; she has not been able to defend herself.

Yet, “guilty” or not, AMK’s professional career could be seriously damaged or ended.

The Councilman and the Mayor will survive whatever happens.

Guilty or not, AMK was done wrong here.

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

Barbara Diamond enjoys retirement as Lehigh University Director of Foundation Relations by engaging in various activities and organizations hopefully for the betterment of the community. Her particular interests at the moment are preventing gun violence, local government ethics reform, and Bethlehem Democratic Committee work.

Dear Gadfly:

The escalating situation between Councilman Callahan and the mayor provides the opportunity to revisit the effort two years ago to pass an ethics ordinance, which aimed to strengthen the ethics environment in Bethlehem with high standards now in practice by many municipalities. The effort was launched by Councilwoman Olga Negron and included Councilman Michael Colon and a number of community members. It had the endorsement of the Northampton County League of Women Voters and was considered a model for other communities by the state LWV.

Unfortunately other members of the council at that time (Councilmen Callahan, Reynolds, Martel, and Evans) opposed the effort, and it was defeated. Instead, they passed a mandatory training ordinance and a gifts ordinance, both of which were window dressing — they looked good to the public but didn’t accomplish much (I can explain why on a later post) as demonstrated by the current situation.

In opposing the ethics ordinance, Mr. Callahan and the others cited the existing process of reporting accusations of improper conduct to the State Ethics Commission for investigation as the proper way to handle these issues and that there was no need for the city to enact anything more robust. In his [November 25] press conference, Mr. Callahan admitted that he didn’t follow this procedure. It would be useful to know why he didn’t pursue this avenue; he was certainly aware of it. I hope he will explain why.

So instead of filing a complaint with the state, Mr. Callahan asked the mayor to launch an investigation into a senior member of his own administration. Needless to say, it is not a sound practice for an administration to investigate itself. No matter the outcome, the results are bound to be unsatisfactory because the independence of the investigation can and likely will be questioned, as happened here. Mr. Callahan has now publicly made serious but unfounded accusations of unethical conduct by the mayor, a member of his administration, and a fellow councilman. With no confirmation or exoneration, the public is left to wonder about wrongdoing.

So in the absence of the well-defined, independent, confidential, and fair process in which to investigate and adjudicate his complaint that we could have had with the ethics ordinance, Mr. Callahan has now plunged us into a contentious spectacle that will tarnish reputations, including possibly his own, and erode public trust in their local government.

I hope this incident will serve as an impetus for city council to dust off the ethics ordinance, update it, and finally pass legislation that will provide the kinds of safeguards municipalities need to both aid public officials in serving the public interest and ensure confidence in our local government.

Barbara

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

The suggestion of possible unethical behavior at City Hall raised by Councilman Callahan should remind us that Council debated an ethics ordinance in 2017.

And Councilwoman Van Wirt talked leading up to her successful primary victory earlier this year about re-introducing similar legislation.

Gadfly remembers that there was some controversy over the ethics of Councilman Callahan’s campaign lending or giving money to an unsuccessful candidate for City Council at the time of the May primary earlier this year.

See “Passing the Campaign Finance Money Around,” which I think was the first post in a series right up to election day and beyond — an issue in which ol’ Gadfly was accused of “spewing fake news,” yes, yes, he was

There was a link to “City Council Member Ethics Training Certificates of Completion” on the old City web site. But Gadfly can’t find that on the new one.  And has reported the MIA link to headquarters and has heard back that it’s on the way to reappearing.

Check out this Gadfly follower Morning Call letter to the editor from the 2017 archive to find out reasons for and the nature of a strong ethics ordinance.

Barbara Diamond, “It’s time to pass a strong ethics ordinance for Bethlehem.” Morning Call, February 23, 2017.

Gadfly’s trying to find time to go back and refresh hisself on the components of that 2017 debate.

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

Follower comments that have been aimed at Gadfly’s attention:

• I don’t think [Callahan] trying to communicate to the mayor via a comments section of an article is the best way to go about trying to establish dialogue or conduct public outing/shaming.
• As a woman said during [Callahan’s] press conference, report it to the state!
• I don’t understand why Callahan won’t follow through on Donchez’s request for any pertinent info. If you have it, provide it.
• It’s like we don’t know why Callahan is conducting himself in this twisted way. What is his final desired outcome? To embarrass folks? Raise legitimate concern? Out people and get them fired? Actually report wrongdoing?
• Hard to believe much when you [Callahan] are only making public statements, but then say you don’t want to get anyone in trouble and you actually make your case more difficult!
• I’m not understanding what [Callahan’s] goal is.
• It seems [Callahan] is acting as a whistleblower of sorts, but at this point he should refer it up the flagpole, and if he feels so strongly, provide info to authorities so it can be properly investigated.
• If true, it is concerning, but by going public, he is risking any future investigation and potentially slandering folks who in the end might be innocent of wrongdoing, and opening the city up for legal action against it.
• The whole thing is slightly odd.
• The public is not sure who to believe.
• It’s another instance IMO of Callahan not thinking this process through completely. Now he has to go to an independent party because he believes internally, it’s not being addressed. Yet, he says he doesn’t want to report it to the state?

Gadfly wants to come back to Councilman Callahan’s role in this controversy, but not sure he can do it before tonight’s meeting and possible further developments there. He wants to consider AMK’s position first and is trying to get to that today.

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

“Here,” of course, is the unpleasant situation of a City Councilman marking a City administrator with possible career-damaging wrongdoing and, in effect, charging the Mayor with dereliction of duty.

Ugh.

Not a place we want to be in.

Gadfly has asked you to think about what you would do if you were a City employee concerned about a superior whom you thought was encouraging unethical behavior.

He has asked you to think about what you would do if you were Councilman Callahan to whom a City employee communicated that concern.

We will want to come back to these two topics, especially that of Councilman Callahan. Gadfly is not finished with him! He’s kind of fascinating.

But let’s go on to think about the two other main figures in this controversy, Mayor Donchez and Alicia Miller Karner.

First, Mayor Donchez.

What do we know and what don’t we know about his involvement in this controversy?

• Mid-September: the Mayor received a call from Councilman Callahan informing him of the possibility of unethical behavior by the DCED department head in encouraging a slow down in permit approval
• We don’t know if the Mayor did anything in response
• October 17/21: the Mayor receives an email from BGC asking for an investigation of that possible unethical behavior relating to permits
• We don’t know if the Mayor did anything in response
• Somewhere in this time frame the question of going into executive session may have come up, and, if so, the Mayor is against it
• November 6: the Mayor is in attendance at the City Council meeting in which BGC unexpectedly addresses a direct provocative question to AMK about her actions involving the Bethlehem Parking Authority in a context in which BGC is clearly questioning her leadership
• November 13: the Mayor is present at a Budget Hearing in which BGC engages in a contentious interchange with another City official in a matter unrelated to the permit or Parking Authority issues
• November 18: in a letter to BGC delivered just before a City Council meeting, the Mayor indicates that he has not done the requested investigation of the permit issue but that he might do so if BGC presents his evidence
• November 19: in a public statement delivered at the City Council meeting, the Mayor implicitly calls out BGC for the attack on his department head and for BGC’s general disruptive behavior — the exoneration of AMK would seem to imply that at least some investigation had been done
• November 20: after BGC calls a press conference, the Mayor tries unsuccessfully to arrange a meeting
• November 25: before BGC’s press conference, the Mayor writes a letter to Council President Waldron arguing the false basis of BGC’s Parking Authority issue with AMK but not the permit issue

So with this background information, let’s think about the Mayor’s actions here.

Can we agree that the Mayor has responsibility to investigate suggestions of wrongdoing in the course of city work on the part of his employees? Probably no disagreement.

Might we further agree that because of their special relationship as elected officials at the head of our City government that the Mayor should be especially responsive to such suggestions of wrongdoing coming from a Councilman? Ha! or do I stretch your willingness to agree here? Is this but an airy notion from an ivory-towered academic’s image of the ideal city government and ignoring on-the-ground realities and relationships?

Councilman Callahan made two claims of possible wrongdoing by AMK — what for shorthand purposes we can call the permit (stalling) issue and the Parking Authority issue. Let’s look at them one at a time.

The permit issue

The Mayor waited two months before responding to BGC on the permit issue and responded to say only that he had not done the requested investigation in that two months but might do so under certain conditions. Why did it take the Mayor so long — two months — to respond to BGC if, in fact, nothing was done in that two months to warrant a delay in responding? Seems like a reasonable question. Why couldn’t such an answer be given, say, almost immediately? Didn’t that two month delay help escalate BGC’s blood pressure to the boiling point and help instigate this public flap? Wouldn’t it have done the same to your blood pressure?

And how reasonable was the condition the Mayor laid down for a possible investigation after that two month delay? That is, the condition that BGC reveal his sources, do his own investigation? To do so would probably have required BGC to violate confidentiality. If the “informants” didn’t feel comfortable going directly to the Mayor or other superiors in City Hall, why would they want BGC to name them? How could BGC in good conscience name them? Seems impossible for BGC to comply to that condition. Moreover, the most important evidence in this case might well be collection of data on a number of permit applications over time, interviewing inspectors as well as applicants, and comparing processing time from start to finish, looking for changes. How would BGC get that information? Another seemingly impossible condition.

The Parking Authority issue

The Mayor handled this issue quite differently. It apparently came to public light for the first time at the November 6 City Council meeting when BGC was questioning AMK’s leadership in the context of a proposed study of the Southside. Contrary to the way he handled the permit issue, the Mayor responded quickly and publicly to this suggestion of impropriety by AMK in regard to the Parking Authority. He confronted it dramatically and directly but superficially in his statement at the November 19 City Council meeting. As part of his response at that meeting to that statement by the Mayor, Councilman Reynolds called for full transparency, and, indeed, on November 25, specifically acknowledging the request of said Councilman Reynolds, and now faced with the imminent potentially damaging effects of BGC’s press conference, the Mayor provided a 3-page memo, “in the spirit of full transparency,” that looks like it positively and effectively resolved BGC’s specific question about unethical behavior in this issue. What took about two months to reach an unsatisfactory resolution on the permit issue, now took only about two weeks to come to a satisfactory conclusion in the Parking Authority issue. Why the difference? Curiously, the Mayor responded here quickly to a request by one Councilman, slowly in the other case to a request by another Councilman. Why the difference? And the Mayor responded only when he was forced to by public disclosure. Or that’s what it looks like.

Comparing the two issues

The permit issue has yet to have its transparency. It has been called a personnel matter, mandating secrecy. Gadfly is not attuned to the fine legal points here. What makes the permit issue a personnel matter and not the Parking Authority issue? Gadfly needs to be schooled here. On the surface they look the same to him — both about unethical behavior by a City employee. But there might be significant difference here that explains why the Mayor felt comfortable providing public transparency to one and not the other. But that still doesn’t explain why apparently the Mayor resisted acceding to the call for executive session, for, as Gadfly understands it, personnel matters can be discussed there under the expectation of confidentiality — and in this way BGC’s request might have been satisfied completely and much sooner.

But something is glaringly discrepant when one looks at the language of the BGC’s request for an investigation and the Mayor’s November 18 letter denying it. BGC is informal, the Mayor legal. In his October 17 email, BGC describes “hav[ing] heard of a number of concerns,” which, “if true,” would be “most disappointing.” The tone is soft; there is nothing accusatory here. However, the Mayor’s long-awaited reply characterizes BGC as making “allegations.” Huh! Where did that come from? In fact, the Mayor’s letter is full of such legalese: “sufficient cause,” “indicia of corroboration” (O, puleeze!), “good cause.”

It’s obvious the Mayor has lawyered up. Why?

Gadfly is an outsider. He can only see what he can see. But what he sees from a comparison of these two documents is that the Mayor (and his team) for some reason have totally mischaracterized BGC here.

It’s perfectly possible, of course, that BGC’s personal conversations were different than his email and his approach in the press conference.

But from what Gadfly can see, the Mayor may not have handled this situation in the best possible way to avoid the public display of dirty laundry that the City is now experiencing.

What do you think?

Gadfly awaits the slap upside the head.

Ha! Should he lawyer up!

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

                                                photo April Gamiz/The Morning Call

If you are going to stand in front of the Bethlehem world as Councilman Callahan did a week ago and mark a City administrator for possible career-damaging wrongdoing and, in effect, charge the Mayor with dereliction of duty, you’d better have a good story.

Agreed?

Read through the extensive timeline on the previous post with Gadfly.

Then put it aside.

Reflect and reconstruct from memory the story from Councilman Callahan’s position.

Boil it down.

See it through his eyes.

Here’s what Gadfly gets.

• I was told about potentially unethical behavior by the head of DCED
• I heard that from employees past and present
• I heard the same thing from outsiders
• I didn’t know if the stories were true
• But as a Councilman I felt a responsibility to do something
• At first I wasn’t sure what to do
• I talked with a few fellow Councilmen
• But I basically sat on the information for a couple months
• Finally, I talked with the Mayor, assuming he would handle it
• I simply wanted the truth, if there was nothing to the stories, so be it
• But I heard nothing for a period of time
• I tried to get the Mayor and Council in executive session to air the matter
• The Mayor refused, as did Council, following the lead of one member
• Who has a deal for the Mayor’s endorsement in the next mayoral election
• I felt that I was being stonewalled
• Finally, I wrote the Mayor asking for an investigation by “his guys”
• My purpose was to let the Mayor handle it
• I simply wanted the truth by their calling members of the dept in and asking them
• I wasn’t trying to get anybody fired
• If wrongdoing, the penalty might be a letter in the file or furlough, etc.
• I wanted accountability
• Again, I heard nothing for a period of time
• All the while the matter was private, confidential
• But, again, I felt I was getting stonewalled
• I was angry, and I did legitimately directly question the DCED head in public
• Finally, the Mayor wrote me that he had not investigated
• And would not do so unless I provided my proof/evidence
• Simultaneously, the Mayor attacked me in a public statement
• What was I to do?
• I went public with my information
• I didn’t want to do that, but the Mayor left me no choice
• I was a wrestler, I have a gym teacher’s voice, I am intense
• My attitude toward life changed dramatically with the tragic death of my wife
• That’s my personality, and I can’t change
• That explains my “tone” that seems to offend some people
• After the Mayor attacked me, I had no choice but to do a press conference
• When I announced a press conference, the Mayor wanted to meet: I said no
• I would have preferred not to do a press conference
• What I want is for the Mayor to do his job, to do an investigation
• Let the chips from that investigation fall where they may
• I may run for Mayor
• I hope to spend the next ten years working for the good of the City

Is Gadfly’s rendition fair?

Has Councilman Callahan made his case?

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

Yes, Gadfly is a slow thinker.

To wit: he should have framed the point of his previous post as what would you do if you were a city employee with a serious ethical or criminal concern that you couldn’t discuss inside City Hall?

Actually, the employees did a pretty good thing in regard to the stalling issue. Contacting Lehigh Valley Ramblings got them a public audience, and they hoped Councilman Callahan would get them a political one.

Public and political. Inside and outside. Covering the bases. Good strategy.

Following that cue, I would ask you here in this post to think about what you would do if you were Councilman Callahan and were told things that City employees and you found ethically troubling.

What did Councilman Callahan do?

Here’s the timeline Gadfly has pieced together from the documents, the press conference, and from BGC’s comments at the Q ‘n A after his press conference.

Note that the first two bullet points refer to the firing of Zoning Officer Borzak referenced in Gadfly’s previous post.

• April 16: at the City Council meeting BGC asks Council to go into executive session with the Mayor to discuss the Borzak firing, but there was no second to his motion
• May 7: at the next City Council meeting BGC asks Council again to go into executive session with the Mayor to discuss Borzak; this time he gets a second, but the motion is voted down 6-1
• May 22: BGC is prepared to continue his mission to get Council to deal with the Borzak firing but defers, declining to darken the happy mood of the retirement celebration for Mrs. Kelchner
• June: BGC receives contacts from the 3 City employees (Borzak one of them) about the stalling instruction from AMK
  • here begins a period of uncertainty for BGC about what to do, he “sat on it for a couple months”
  • during this period of uncertainty BGC had conversation about this stalling issue with 2 councilpersons in the garage under the City Center after a Council meeting (date uncertain)
  • BGC also speaks of having two conversations about the stalling issue with a couple councilpersons during this period (dates uncertain)
  • the upshot seems to be that other people knew and knew that it was on his mind
• August 28: Bethlehem Parking Authority votes on Polk Street Garage, which will become the occasion of BGC’s second issue with AMK
• Approx mid-September: BGC has a phone conversation which seemingly is the first time he tells the Mayor about the stalling issue, thinking naturally that the Mayor would look in to it, but time went by and BGC heard nothing (the Polk Street Garage issue doesn’t seem to have been part of this conversation)
  • chronology gets murky here –it is not clear whether that which follows about executive sessions occurs before the mid-September phone call or between it and the October letter, which is the next bullet
  • during the press conference BGC talks of a phone call in which he asks the Mayor to go into executive session with Council, but the Mayor refuses, after which he talks with Council solicitor Spirk about how to make that executive session happen
  • Spirk says he needs to make a motion to that effect
  • Which BGC says he does over a period of maybe 4 meetings — but Council refuses each time
  • either BGC is mistaken or Gadfly’s research is faulty, for he can find no evidence of executive session discussion at Council meetings during the June-October period.
  • Gadfly thinks BGC may be confusing this executive session activity with his activity on the Borzak issue detailed in the first three bullets above
• Oct 17/Oct 21 (referred to by different dates): BGC emails the Mayor asking for an internal investigation by the City solicitor and business administrator of the stalling issue
• November 6: During a contentious discussion at City Council of a proposed Southside study, contention he initiated, BGC expresses lack of confidence in leadership by AMK and discloses the issue with the Polk Street Garage for the first time, referring only obliquely to the stalling issue
• November 13: BGC initiates another contentious discussion with a City official over driving range fees at Budget Hearing #2 (no mention of either AMK issue here)
• November 18: the Mayor responds by letter negatively to BGC’s October request for an investigation on the stalling issue unless he provides his proof/evidence while expecting BGC to keep this personnel matter confidential
• November 19: the Mayor calls out BGC, though not by name, at the City Council meeting for “provocative comments and personal attacks,” attacks that were “unwarranted,” attacks that were “unprovoked, out of order, without cause, completely out of line” (not specifically citing either issue) (text version)
• November 19: BGC responds at the meeting by offering to disclose his information about both issues of unethical behavior that he has with AMK, but the matter is declared a personnel issue — BGC shares info with the media after the meeting
• November 20: the Mayor seeks a meeting with BGC through a phone call by Business Administrator Eric Evans, but BGC, upset at the Mayor calling him out, declines a meeting: “that ship has sailed”
• November 20: the Mayor follows up the Evans phone call with a letter inviting BGC to a meeting with the solicitor, the business administrator, and the Human Resources director — same response by BGC
• November 21: in an email BGC tells the Mayor it is his job to find out what happened with the stalling issue (no mention of the Polk Street Issue), indicates Council’s unwillingness to go into executive session as the result of a Councilman  “currying favor for a Mayoral endorsement from you” (Councilman Reynolds), and connects the “tone” of his behavior to the death of his wife 13 years ago
• November 22: BGC announces a press conference
• November 25: several hours before BGS’s  press conference, the Mayor sends a letter to Council president Waldron (quickly available to all) in which he addresses just the Polk Street Garage issue, indicating that Councilman Callahan was confusing a “bid” and an “RFP” (Request for Proposal) and thus that his “attack” on AMK on this point was based on a false premise (no mention of the stalling issue)
• November 25: BGC holds the press conference at Town Hall, focusing just on the stalling issue, explicitly stating that he is not dealing with the Polk Street issue at this time (text version)
• November 26: BGC comments on an online media story about his press conference, blaming the Mayor for the situation they are in now, and repeating that it is the Mayor’s job to clear up the stalling issue: “Stop hiding behind your lawyers and advisors and ……. Do your job” (again no mention of Polk Street)

Ok, so here, as best Gadfly can put them together, are the facts so far of what Councilman Callahan did after receiving information from 3 City employees whom we might as well call “whistleblowers.”

This timeline took longer than Gadfly thought to put together. Plenty enough for us to digest on an icy Cyber-Monday morning. We’ll come back next time and think about these facts.

How are you feeling about Councilman Callahan’s actions?

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government 

Gadfly,

Perhaps if Mr. Callahan would have been much more supportive of the comprehensive ethics ordinance advanced by Councilwoman Negron, and worked on by a number of residents, a process would have been put in place to address an issue such as this.

No retribution, confidentiality, a review board, all these features would have existed thereby providing a mechanism for dealing with this kind of matter.

Dana

Dana speaks of a proposal debated in 2017. More on it later.

Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government

What do we know about where this controversy began?

In his November 25 press conference statement, Councilman Callahan states that for him this issue of possible unethical behavior by Alicia Miller Karner “came to [his] attention” in June of this year, June 2019 (he verbally corrected “June of last year” in oral delivery at the press conference) when 3 Department of Community and Economic Development employees — “2 current and 1 prior employee” — told him of AMK’s encouragement to “slow, delay, and stall all permits” to bolster her case for more staff.

(Gadfly thinks BGC might have said he was hearing complaints from developers too, so maybe there might be outside corroborative evidence as well.)

These people came to BGC in June 2019. He did not solicit them. It is not clear whether the contact was individual or group. It is not clear whether the contact was personal contact, phone, or email. It is not clear whether BGC had extended conversation with any of them in which he could determine how strong their claims were or that he was simply put on notice. It is not clear whether the contact was concerted, whether there was association among the employees, or whether the contacts were unrelated individual acts.

BGC apparently did not do any investigation of his own.

It is not clear what it is about the particular timing — June 2019 — that precipitated the simultaneity, the clustering of the contacts.

It is clear, however, that something was in the air in June 2019, for the Lehigh Valley Ramblings blog called attention to a “spike” in Zoning Hearing Board appeals because AMK was instructing staff to delay so she could request more staff. The blogger says, “When you hear it from three different people, it does not [strain credulity].”

So the same 3 employees seemed to contact the same 2 people at the same exact time to air their same complaint.

What would make the employees make such a complaint? Why is it such a big deal that it triggered what might seem a moral response? Perhaps their sense of general fair play, their conscience, their sense of professionalism. Perhaps, on the other hand, animus for some reason against AMK.

Why would the employees go “outside” City Hall to make their complaint (all indications so far are that they did not do so inside City Hall) to a blogger and a Councilman? Perhaps fear for their jobs. Perhaps fear of retribution. Perhaps because there is no system or procedure within City Hall for a person to bring forward such issues in a protected way.

Why would the employees go specifically to these two people — for instance, why not one of the other Councilpersons? Perhaps because the blogger has the reputation for dealing in inside information, has published this kind of whistleblowing, and has outed some situations successfully. Perhaps because BGC has a reputation for siding with the common person/underdog, for being a voice for them.

Who are these employees? We know one of them — Suzanne Borzak, former Zoning Officer — the person not a current employee, who was fired for officially vague reasons (personnel matters would, of course, be confidential) by AMK in January 2019, 6 months before the employee contacts about the stalling tactics with Lehigh Valley Ramblings and BCG.

“Bethlehem/s Popular Zoning Officer Forced to Resign, Lehigh Valley Ramblings, January 11, 2019.

Why in June of 2019, 6 months after dismissal, would Borzak be involved? Perhaps still hurting from being terminated. Perhaps from a sense of doing no wrong. Perhaps because the issue of stalling was a reason for her termination. Perhaps because of her professionalism. Perhaps, on the other hand, animus against AMK for firing her.

So what are you thinking about in regard to this initial phase of the issue? What do you think of the Gadfly’s “perhaps’s”?

Gadfly — ever the problem solver — goes first to the need for employees to go “outside” City Hall with a complaint. Is there no trustworthy “inside” mechanism or system to handle such matters? No suggestion box? No ombudsman? No “whistleblower” procedure? If not, does this issue indicate the need for one in which there is the possibility that some satisfaction, some mediation, or some reconciliation occurs before the issue blows up in public?

to be continued . . .