Connect with us

Bill Britt

Jefferson County indictments raise serious questions about Ethics Commission’s actions

Bill Britt

Published

on

When indictments were reported by Al.com against Scott Phillips and Onis “Trey” Glenn III for multiple violations of the Alabama Ethics Act, the pair had not been arrested or served with the indictments.

However, Alabama Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton spoke in glowing terms about the hard work his office and the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office had done to bring a felony case against the men.

Albritton’s disclosure of the indictments before Phillips and Glenn were arrested and indicted may be a severe breach of state law.

Alabama Code Title 12. Courts § 12-16-210 reads: “Any judge, district attorney, clerk or other officer of court or grand juror who discloses the fact that an indictment has been found before the person indicted has been arrested or has given bail for his appearance to answer thereto shall, on conviction, be fined not less than $200.00, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than six months.”

According to sources within Jefferson County, the Clerk’s office has raised the issue that the men were not arrested and served in accordance with the law. These actions have resulted in what one individual describes as a “Massive bureaucratic CYA in Jefferson County.”

Advertisement

“Albritton and his people took the true bill from the grand jury and headed straight to the press,” said a person within the Jefferson County system.

Albritton’s conduct may have also violated the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct as stated in Rule 3.6.(6), which reads, “the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.” Nowhere in Albritton’s statements to Al.com does he add this disclaimer.

According to multiple sources, Albritton’s people gave Al.com’s Kyle Whitmire the story over the weekend so the news would break after Veterans Day. Al.com reported the men were indicted on Friday, Nov. 9.

Attorneys for Phillips and Glenn learned about the indictments early Tuesday morning. They asked for copies of the charges before noon on Tuesday but were informed that they could not receive the indictments until the pair turned themselves in to authorities. Their attorneys were then notified that the men could not turn themselves in until Friday.

But this is just part of the story which, according to an APR source, “looks more like a grab for relevance by an irrelevant ethics commission using a DA who’s on the way out the door.” Anderton, a Republican political appointee, is leaving the DA’s office having lost his bid for election to Democrat Danny Carr.

In Al.com’s report, Albritton says Jefferson County District Attorney Mike Anderton had requested the Ethics Commission help in indicting the two men. But it was the Ethics Commission who approached Anderton, sources within his office have confirmed.

Multiple sources tell APR that it was the Ethics Commission who approached Anderton in a hurry-up play to grab headlines before the Attorney General’s Special Prosecution Division could investigate the pair properly.

Albritton told APR that he couldn’t comment publicly on any specific conversations between the Ethics Commission and the JeffCo DA’s office. But in general terms, he said, the Commission routinely engages in conversations with DAs and other agencies. Albritton also said that Anderton’s request came in the form of a letter, and he said Anderton asked if the Commission “would be willing to” open the investigation because Anderton’s office lacked the personnel to effectively pursue the case.

According to state and Jefferson County insiders not authorized to speak publicly, Anderton was not even aware of an investigation into Phillips and Glenn until two weeks ago, and he was not pursuing the issue until he was asked to take the matter before a regularly impaneled grand jury by Albritton’s office.

“It’s a lie,” said one of APR‘s sources who monitored the process and knows what took place, “They ask Anderton.”

Albritton’s move was prompted at least in part by a letter reportedly sent from the environmental group GASP allegedly detailing Phillips and Glenn’s questionable activities.

Founded in 2009, as a 501(c)(3) health advocacy organization called “Alabama First,” the group changed its name to GASP in 2010, according to its website.

GASP attorney David A. Ludder told APR that he felt it best not to comment on the matter. Gasp’s Executive Director Michael Hansen agreed with Ludder that it was best not to comment on a pending case.

The GASP letter also is believed to have shown that the statute of limitations for an indictment was drawing near. Albritton told APR that timing is what prompted his office to move quickly without consulting Special Prosecution Division Chief Matt Hart.  However, the statute doesn’t seem to expire until around December 21.

Another significant question is why Albritton’s office went behind the attorney general’s back to present the case to a Jefferson County Grand Jury when the Special Prosecution Division already has a Special Grand Jury impaneled in Jefferson County.

There is little doubt that attorneys for Phillips and Glenn will pick apart the Ethics Commission’s actions involving these indictments.

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | Public corruption unpunished, public left in the dark

Bill Britt

Published

on

Two former state public officials appear to be receiving extraordinary leniency, and the public should demand to know why.

In one case, former Sumter County Sheriff Tyrone Clark pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges including ethics violations and drug charges. However, District Attorney Greg Griggers who oversaw the investigation announced after Clark’s plea that he didn’t want to see the former sheriff go to prison. “It was never my goal to send Tyrone Clark to prison,” said Griggers.

Grant Culliver, a former top official at the Alabama Department of Corrections, is being allowed to retire after an investigation into allegations of misconduct. The Alabama Ethics Commission, the Department of Corrections and the Attorney General’s Office refuses to acknowledge publicly what the inquiry uncovered.

In both instances, the public is being denied a full accounting of why these high-ranking government employees are being shown preferential treatment. It is also becoming evident that there is no appetite to punish office holders or hold them publicly accountable for misconduct.

These two cases are just a small sampling of how public officials are being given a pass under Attorney General Steve Marshall.

Advertisement

Marshall has no real interest in prosecuting public corruption which is evident by his firing of Chief Prosecutor Matt Hart.

It is estimated that nearly two dozen public corruption investigations are languishing after Hart’s firing. Perhaps more egregiously, Marshall, according to several well-placed sources still inside the AG’s office, has denied subpoenas, withheld vital documents and generally hampered investigations that involve state lawmakers and business leaders.

More troubling, Marshall is not only compromised by his debt to his political donors but also by those in his office that have critical knowledge about his personal conduct.

As one source close to Marshall explained, “Steve is a dark character with a lot to hide.”

Under former attorneys general, Clark and Culliver would have been treated like any other individual accused of misconduct, but Marshall is side-stepping both cases.

It is entirely within the attorney general’s authority to take control of Clark’s case, as well as revealing Culliver investigations, but Marshall is doing neither.

Culliver, who served as associate commissioner for operations at the Department of Corrections, is being allowed to quietly retire without the public ever knowing what the investigation uncovered.

Clark confessed to numerous crimes including two counts of unlawful employment of county inmates, three counts of ethics violations for using his office for personal gain, one first-degree count of promoting prison contraband, another second-degree count of promoting prison contraband and a count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.

The county DA wants him to walk free.

Former Sumter County sheriff pleads guilty to criminal ethics, drug charges

Marshall, with his appointment by disgraced Gov. Robert Bentley and his subsequent election, has ushered in an era where public officials are free to do as they please without fear of prosecution as long as it is in Marshall or his handler’s interest.

Marshall also serves as co-chair of the Ethics Reform and Clarification Commission which is rewriting the State’s Ethics Act to ensure that convicted felon former Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard is the last high-ranking political figure ever to be punished by the once championed “toughest in the nations” ethics laws.

Both Clark and Culliver were paid with state tax-dollars and should be accountable to the citizens of our state. Clark’s crimes are clear and he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law because, not only did he break the law, he violated public trust.

Culliver, it appears, did something to warrant a forced retirement. He, too, was paid by tax-payers who have a right to know what he did.

The public should demand more, Gov. Kay Ivey should intervene, but for now, there is little hope for equal justice under the law as dispensed by the likes of Marshall.

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | In the arena

Bill Britt

Published

on

Alabama Political Reporter does one thing: it covers politics, more specifically state politics. Along with our news coverage, we publish opinions about issues facing the state. We do include the state’s congressional delegation in D.C., but that is limited in scope.

As for APR’s opinion columns, we err on the side of free speech. As our nations first president, George Washington, said, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

APR has two categories of opinions, feature opinions, which are ones we solicit, and guest views, which are those provided to us by individuals with political credentials or expertise that warrant giving their ideas space in our publication.

At APR, every opinion column has the name of the author and their contact information.

We don’t feel it necessary to affix a disclaimer to every opinion piece saying this material is solely the opinion of the writer and does not reflect the opinion of APR. We think our readers are smart enough to know that already. However, due to the rapid response of the internet, people sometimes do confuse what is an individual’s opinion and APR’s willingness to support free speech.

Advertisement

On occasion, our contributors and columnists wander off into national politics. As editor-in-chief, I cringe on those days when opinion columnist focus on President Trump, Sharia Law, Supreme Court nominations or other national hysteria. Not because it is unimportant but because it is not our core mission, and it enflames passions that have little to do with good state government.

When we first envisioned APR, it was with an understanding that there was little we could do to change Washington or national politics. What we saw was an opportunity to do good by reporting on matters facing the state. If it holds that all politics is local, then dogged coverage of state issues might result in better local policies and governance.

When APR remains focused on Legislative accountability, fiscal responsibility, public corruption and those things that directly affect the lives of our state’s citizens, we are most relevant. However, when we stray into national hot-button issues already beaten to death on cable news, we enter fights that are unwinnable and distract from the primary mission.

In an era when even cold facts make people angry or are greeted by alternative ones, it should come as no great surprise that opinions often irritate and cause consternation.

APR doesn’t print opinion columns merely to make anyone mad but to perhaps cause us all to think.

As President John F. Kennedy said, “Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

Thinking is a tough business, especially in today’s political climate where much of the civic conversation is based on entrenched political identity and not necessarily on sound reasoning. On the right and left, there is an established dogma that labels competing ideas as wrong and even evil. But these national party convictions do not always translate to sound state government policy.

As a news organization, APR does not take particular positions on issues. The closest we come to an official stance on any given subject is when I, as editor-in-chief, offer an opinion, but even then it is not ex cathedra.

APR’s mission is simple, to inform, educate and alert the public on issues facing our state. When we stay true to that edict, we succeed. When we do not, we fall short of our purpose. There are times when we as a news organization must call to action those who care about good government – that is the job of our opinion page. Sometimes, we do so nobly, other times not so much.

As President Theodore Roosevelt wrote, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.”

APR and its writers and opinion columnists are women and men who have chosen to enter the arena. We are a small band of committed individuals working hard to bring you news and opinions that will promote good government here in Alabama. That is our job.

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | Get Hart

Bill Britt

Published

on

Years of political pressure from shady defense attorneys and crooked lawmakers culminated last week in the firing of Special Prosecution Division Chief Matt Hart.

Gov. Robert Bentley’s appointed attorney general, Steve Marshall, delivered the blow just 13 days after being elected attorney general, but the move against Hart was orchestrated by some of the state’s most powerful political figures.

Make no mistake, Hart’s firing was no less than a political coup de grâce by those who operate most efficaciously in the dark corners of politics.

Hart’s removal serves as punishment not only for prosecuting some of the state’s most influential men, it is also part of a broad scheme to allow those who are currently under investigation to walk free.

There should be an immediate and thorough federal investigation into Hart’s termination as well as a joint legislative committee created to conduct an inquiry with public hearings. A former senator, such as Dick Brewbaker or Gerald Dial, should be appointed to oversee the joint committee to eliminate political chicanery. Perhaps, more importantly, Gov. Kay Ivey should name a special prosecutor working under Montgomery District Attorney Darryl Bailey to investigate the matter.

Advertisement

For nearly two decades, Hart served as a widely respected career prosecutor who was once a hero of state Republicans when he successfully convicted dozens of high-profile Democrats, but that changed when he turned his sights onto corrupt Republicans after their victory in 2010.

When Hart began investigating Republican Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard in 2011, he immediately went from a conservative champion to a political pariah who must be stopped by any means.

Under oath during a July deposition, Bentley testified that lawmakers, attorneys and a major Republican donor, on several occasions, asked him to intervene in the Hubbard case by appointing a special prosecutor to replace Hart.

The goal was to appoint a special prosecutor who would remove Hart and launch an investigation to discredit him personally and the underlying case against Hubbard.

Deposition: Bentley was pressured by lawmakers, attorneys, major donors to upend Hubbard trial

After Hubbard’s conviction, Bentley and his alleged girlfriend, Rebekah Caldwell Mason, increasingly paranoid, believed Hart was coming after them which led to Bentley appointing Marshall to attorney general with the expressed agreement that he would investigate Hart.

Marshall has publicly denied this allegation, but those with direct knowledge of the quid pro quo may soon go on the record.

While under questioning in the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by former Alabama Law Enforcement Agency Secretary Spencer Collier, Bentley testified that Great Southern Wood owner and Republican super-donor, Jimmy Rane, approached him on three different occasions about appointing a special prosecutor.

Additionally, Rob Riley, son of former Gov. Bob Riley and a Hubbard attorney, also contacted Bentley about opening an investigation into Hart and acting Attorney General Van Davis. Hubbard’s other attorneys, Augusta Dowd and Lance Bell, also met with Bentley about replacing Hart as Bentley swore under oath. Bentley conveniently could not recall the sitting legislators who pushed him to upend the Hubbard prosecution but did admit that all these individuals shared a common goal to get Hart.

Up until his firing last Monday, Hart was overseeing dozens of investigations believed to be targeting business elites, lawmakers and other public officials, but a swift ax ended those probes.

If there is a shred of justice left in the state of Alabama, a full hearing into Hart’s firing will be conducted immediately.

Those who care about the rule of law must now demand that Gov. Kay Ivey, the Legislature and law enforcement act decisively to ensure that those who perpetrated this coup are held accountable. If Gov. Ivey, the Legislature and law enforcement fail to act, then all hope for law and order is lost here in Alabama because those who got Hart can now get anyone.

 

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | What nobody (and everybody) is talking about

Bill Britt

Published

on

When a politician doesn’t want to address an essential but thorny policy issue, they say, “Nobody’s talking about that.”

Expanding health coverage to low-wage earners and passing a meaningful lottery are just a few of the things nobody’s talking about but are at the forefront of needful things that should be addressed by the State Legislature.

Recent estimates show that between 235,000 to 300,000 people in Alabama would gain access to Medicaid if the state were to accept federal funding to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

In 2018, the federal government pays 94 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion. That funding will drop to 90 percent by 2020, but will remain at that level going forward.

Just two years after the future of Obamacare seemed to be in jeopardy, it became a winning issue for Democrats in midterm elections.

Advertisement

While the Alabama Republican Party sought to use the repeal of the health care law as a wage issue, certain aspects of the statute, like coverage of preexisting conditions, resonate well, even in deep-red states.

Early exit polling from the midterms found that healthcare was the most important issue on voters’ minds. This same statistic was borne out in a PARCA survey conducted earlier this year that saw a plurality of Alabamians citing healthcare their number one voting priority.

While Republicans in Alabama won every statewide office and held its supermajority in the Legislature, ignoring ACA will become increasingly difficult as rural hospitals continue to close and doctors flee the state for surrounding areas with better medical reimbursement plans.

Since inception, Republicans have fought ACA, but again in the recent Midterms, more red-states are adopting the plan.

Three deep-red states: Idaho, Nebraska and Utah joined the 32 expansion states with ballot initiatives on Election Day, as reported by Business Insider. “Solid majorities in each state voted for expansion, which will help roughly 325,000 people gain access to Medicaid.”

While some in Republican leadership still resist the idea of a gaming lottery, a substantial majority of both Republicans and Democrats support gaming expansion.

Some detractors want to keep the state free from the ills of gambling, yet those troubles already exist from casinos owned by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians. PCI pays no taxes on its billion-dollar gaming operations, but they do contribute hundreds of thousands to political candidates who do their bidding.

A study conducted by the Institute for Accountability and Government Efficiency at Auburn University of Montgomery (AUM), found that a lottery proposal presented in 2015 would generate $400 million in new state revenue and provide more than 11,000 people with new jobs.

Business leaders of all stripes also backed the proposal submitted by Republican Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh. However, Marsh’s plan was killed by then-Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard to protect the Poarch Band of Creek Indians’ gaming monopoly.

At the time, Marsh said, “Hundreds of millions of Alabama dollars are going to Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia to play in their lotteries, their casinos. Hundreds of millions of Alabama dollars give their children pre-K, their children scholarships, and their seniors’ benefits. And it gives their state governments funding for essential state services. They receive those benefits while creating new jobs for their people, new investments for their towns and cities, new hotels, restaurants, entertainment facilities, new tourism dollars. All for them and none for us. With our money. Folks that makes no sense.”

Even in Alabama, many portions of the current healthcare law is favored by a vast majority of the state’s voters, that is also true of allowing a vote to create a lottery.

The state faces many challenges. Chief among them are the physical health of its citizens and fiscal well-being of the state budget.

In March, the State Legislature will begin the first session of the quadrennium facing many of the same problems it did four years ago. It’s time for lawmakers to make wise, forward-thinking choices.

Nobody may be talking about expanding healthcare coverage or allowing an open vote on a lottery, but it is on the minds of everybody who is thinking seriously about the state’s future.

Continue Reading

Authors

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Jefferson County indictments raise serious questions about Ethics Commission’s actions

by Bill Britt Read Time: 4 min
0