K_girl
Contributor
The Providence Journal (Rhode Island)
November 26, 2005 Saturday
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A-03
LENGTH: 822 words
HEADLINE: Ethics case leaves hard feelings in Jamestown
BYLINE: BRUCE LANDIS, Journal Staff Writer
Some residents want to know why it took so long to find that former council member David Swain broke the law, but the Ethics Commission isn't saying.
Jamestown residents are wondering why it took the state Ethics Commission almost five years to decide that a former Town Council member repeatedly broke the law by voting on matters affecting his business partner.
They're not likely to find out, since the officials who know won't say. Whatever the reason, the residents who filed the complaint against David Swain think that ethics law enforcement is pretty well discredited in Jamestown.
After so long, the decision "loses any impact that it should have," said Dorsey M. Beard, one of the complainants. The commission, she said, agreed with her and the other complainants that Swain had committed multiple ethics violations, but failed to follow through on the case.
As the case against Swain dragged on, he was able to run for reelection, serve a two-year term and retire from the council without the commission deciding the case.
Ethics Commission officials say the case was unusual, even unique, in the amount of time it took to resolve. They insist that there is, as one of them put it, nothing "sinister" about the delay.
But, "I can't discuss it," said Kent A. Willever, the commission's executive director, who joined the commission in August 2001.
Ten Jamestown residents, including a few town officials, filed the complaint against Swain on Nov. 1, 2000. They said that Swain, who operated a scuba diving and kayak-rental business, was using his government position to vote in favor of the interests of his business partner William Munger, the owner of Conanicut Marine Services, which does business on the Jamestown waterfront.
The commission's staff completed its investigation in August 2001, presenting its case to the commission that same month. The commission voted Aug. 21, 2001, to find probable cause to believe that Swain broke the state ethics laws four times.
The next step was for the commission to hold a trial-like hearing on the charges and then decide the case. The alternative was for Swain to negotiate a settlement, which is how most ethics prosecutions end. And that is how the Swain case was disposed of.
However, it didn't happen until Oct. 11, 2005, when Swain admitted that the commission had enough evidence to show that he had broken the law. Swain agreed to pay a $750 fine.
Ethics officials say that the Swain case stands alone.
"It's unique," said commission prosecutor Jason Gramitt. "It's not characteristic of any other complaints I'm aware of. You can't judge the Ethics Commission based on one complaint." Of the backlog of cases he inherited in 2001, Willever said, the Swain case was the only one to drag on for so long.
The Jamestown residents who filed the complaint, however, say that the Swain case is what forms their town's perception of the Ethics Commission.
"It's worse than ineffectual," said Darcy Magratten, one of the complainants.
At the time the complaint was filed, the commission was at a low point. Long-running internal disputes ended with the commission firing its executive director, Martin F. Healey, in April 2001. Government-reform groups accused the commission of failing at its job of maintaining ethical standards among state and local officials. Getting little help from the governor or the General Assembly, the commission's staff had shrunk to four. It is 12 now. Katherine D'Arezzo, the chief prosecutor, became temporary executive director and was for a time the commission's only lawyer. There are five lawyers on the staff now.
To replace Healey, the commission hired Willever, a former chief Navy appellate judge, who became executive director a week after the commission agreed to prosecute Swain. That left Willever in charge and D'Arezzo handling the Swain case until she went on maternity leave from the commission early this year.
Jamestown residents became upset over Willever's assurances that the case was about to move forward. After repeated complaints about lack of action, Willever wrote to two complainants in November 2002 to reassure them. He wrote, "This complaint is the next matter to be scheduled for adjudication, absent the parties reaching an agreement in the interim." Neither happened.
The Jamestown complainants say the Ethics Commission not only took an absurd amount of time to dispose of the case, it settled for a fine so small that it won't deter other misconduct.
What was needed, Magratten said, was a strong message to public officials in Jamestown and elsewhere that they must play by the rules, "that you can't do these things."
Instead, she said, the fine levied against Swain was like a parking ticket, a modest penalty that a violator can absorb as a cost of doing business.
Gramitt, however, said that the settlement marks Swain as an admitted lawbreaker. "If you settle a case, you're admitting to a violation of the code," he said.
November 26, 2005 Saturday
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A-03
LENGTH: 822 words
HEADLINE: Ethics case leaves hard feelings in Jamestown
BYLINE: BRUCE LANDIS, Journal Staff Writer
Some residents want to know why it took so long to find that former council member David Swain broke the law, but the Ethics Commission isn't saying.
Jamestown residents are wondering why it took the state Ethics Commission almost five years to decide that a former Town Council member repeatedly broke the law by voting on matters affecting his business partner.
They're not likely to find out, since the officials who know won't say. Whatever the reason, the residents who filed the complaint against David Swain think that ethics law enforcement is pretty well discredited in Jamestown.
After so long, the decision "loses any impact that it should have," said Dorsey M. Beard, one of the complainants. The commission, she said, agreed with her and the other complainants that Swain had committed multiple ethics violations, but failed to follow through on the case.
As the case against Swain dragged on, he was able to run for reelection, serve a two-year term and retire from the council without the commission deciding the case.
Ethics Commission officials say the case was unusual, even unique, in the amount of time it took to resolve. They insist that there is, as one of them put it, nothing "sinister" about the delay.
But, "I can't discuss it," said Kent A. Willever, the commission's executive director, who joined the commission in August 2001.
Ten Jamestown residents, including a few town officials, filed the complaint against Swain on Nov. 1, 2000. They said that Swain, who operated a scuba diving and kayak-rental business, was using his government position to vote in favor of the interests of his business partner William Munger, the owner of Conanicut Marine Services, which does business on the Jamestown waterfront.
The commission's staff completed its investigation in August 2001, presenting its case to the commission that same month. The commission voted Aug. 21, 2001, to find probable cause to believe that Swain broke the state ethics laws four times.
The next step was for the commission to hold a trial-like hearing on the charges and then decide the case. The alternative was for Swain to negotiate a settlement, which is how most ethics prosecutions end. And that is how the Swain case was disposed of.
However, it didn't happen until Oct. 11, 2005, when Swain admitted that the commission had enough evidence to show that he had broken the law. Swain agreed to pay a $750 fine.
Ethics officials say that the Swain case stands alone.
"It's unique," said commission prosecutor Jason Gramitt. "It's not characteristic of any other complaints I'm aware of. You can't judge the Ethics Commission based on one complaint." Of the backlog of cases he inherited in 2001, Willever said, the Swain case was the only one to drag on for so long.
The Jamestown residents who filed the complaint, however, say that the Swain case is what forms their town's perception of the Ethics Commission.
"It's worse than ineffectual," said Darcy Magratten, one of the complainants.
At the time the complaint was filed, the commission was at a low point. Long-running internal disputes ended with the commission firing its executive director, Martin F. Healey, in April 2001. Government-reform groups accused the commission of failing at its job of maintaining ethical standards among state and local officials. Getting little help from the governor or the General Assembly, the commission's staff had shrunk to four. It is 12 now. Katherine D'Arezzo, the chief prosecutor, became temporary executive director and was for a time the commission's only lawyer. There are five lawyers on the staff now.
To replace Healey, the commission hired Willever, a former chief Navy appellate judge, who became executive director a week after the commission agreed to prosecute Swain. That left Willever in charge and D'Arezzo handling the Swain case until she went on maternity leave from the commission early this year.
Jamestown residents became upset over Willever's assurances that the case was about to move forward. After repeated complaints about lack of action, Willever wrote to two complainants in November 2002 to reassure them. He wrote, "This complaint is the next matter to be scheduled for adjudication, absent the parties reaching an agreement in the interim." Neither happened.
The Jamestown complainants say the Ethics Commission not only took an absurd amount of time to dispose of the case, it settled for a fine so small that it won't deter other misconduct.
What was needed, Magratten said, was a strong message to public officials in Jamestown and elsewhere that they must play by the rules, "that you can't do these things."
Instead, she said, the fine levied against Swain was like a parking ticket, a modest penalty that a violator can absorb as a cost of doing business.
Gramitt, however, said that the settlement marks Swain as an admitted lawbreaker. "If you settle a case, you're admitting to a violation of the code," he said.
