By Kevin Zwick
Staff Reporter
Capitolwire
HARRISBURG (Oct. 23) – A bi-partisan Senate committee will examine whether embattled Attorney General Kathleen Kane can perform the duties of her office in a move that could lead to the chamber voting to remove her as the state’s top law enforcement official.
Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, told reporters Friday the special committee including himself, three Republicans and three Democrats will examine Kane’s ability to perform her duties in light of her indefinitely suspended law license.
The committee, Scarnati said, will not immediately make a recommendation about whether to remove Kane from office, but instead will return a recommendation to the full Senate outlining whether she can perform her duties. Any action toward removal would be considered at a later point in time, he said.
“I believe we’re on firm footing and I think there will be disagreement, and we’ll accept that,” Scarnati said. “But clearly we’re moving forward with a deliberate and slow process maybe in some eyes, but we want to make sure what we’re’ doing is not disputable.”
Kane says the process is “premature” and “inappropriate,” according to her spokesman, Chuck Ardo.
“She believes the course of action the Senate is considering is inappropriate in that it has been attempted once before and it failed because it was found the constitution has specific clauses for offenses that are either impeachable or indictable,” Ardo said.
“Consequently, she believes the process should follow the constitutional mandate,” said Ardo. “They shouldn’t try direct removal. If they’re doing to something, they should impeach her.”
“She continues to believe she could perform the vast majority of her responsibilities despite the suspension of her license,” he said.
Ardo said the office has not conducted its own research on precedent of the removal clause, but forwarded to reporters an article written by local Harrisburg author Bill Keisling, one of Kane’s ardent supporters. Keisling’s article highlights the 1891 case when Gov. Robert Pattison attempted to remove state Treasurer Henry Boyer and Auditor General Thomas McCamant, both duly elected row officers, who were both accused of taking bribes.
A vigorous debate occurred on the issue, according to the Senate Journal for the extraordinary session, which can be accessed via Google Books HERE.
Keisling’s article quotes a book, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” which said:
“The counsel for all officers objected to the jurisdiction of the Senate upon the grounds that the governor had no power to institute charges, that the proceedings upon such charges were not ‘executive business,’ and consequently could not be considered at an extraordinary session of the Senate, and that no officer could be removed for an impeachable offense without a previous conviction upon an impeachment or indictment.”
Kane has not yet faced a jury trial for the several criminal charges she faces stemming from an alleged leak of confidential grand jury material by her office to the Philadelphia Daily News. The Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office claims she orchestrated the leak, tried to cover it up and lied about it under oath. She has denied any wrongdoing.
Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution says all elected civil officers other than the governor, lieutenant governor, legislators and judges “shall be removed by the Governor for reasonable cause, after due notice and full hearing, on the address of two-thirds of the Senate.”
Senate GOP general counsel Drew Crompton said the committee’s report should address one area of reasonable cause: “incompetency – an inability to do the functions of the office, not incompetent as in the idea of being not a good public servant,” he said.
“Certainly there’s going to have to be a lot of discussion on ‘reasonable cause’ because that is the trigger in which effectuates the allow-ability of removing someone,” Crompton said.
Gov. Tom Wolf’s office has been discussing the action with Senate leaders, Crompton said.
“With her law license now suspended, the governor’s administration has been engaged with Senate leadership to discuss ensuring that the citizens of Pennsylvania have an effective and properly functioning Office of Attorney General,” said Wolf spokesman Jeff Sheridan. “The governor will review the findings of the committee as soon as its report is completed.”
Kane’s law license suspension went into effect Thursday.
Scarnati’s office said the special committee will, within 30 days, issue a written report on the preliminary findings and outline the procedures the committee will use should they elect to move forward. Within that 30-day time period, the committee will be tasked with determining if there is sufficient evidence that warrants notice and a hearing as required under the Pennsylvania Constitution before the special committee.
Names of senators chosen for the committee will be announced Monday during Senate session.
-30-
I read-through these hyperlinks, and I believe there are key “distinctions with major differences” between the two situations, notwithstanding the fact that PA adopted a new Constitution in the interim [1968].
It seems that the circumstances under which jurisdiction was denied in the old case [not choosing to be triers of fact] differ in the instant case [assessing ability to function without an active license]. Indeed, one could argue that the latter situation affords a level of “infirmity” that would comport with how to conjure the “original intent” of the clause.
The key-discussion occurs on page 32 [page 34 of the hyperlink], noting the exclusion of “impeachable or indictable offences”; not being able to act as the AG [for whatever reason, including what the Supremes imposed] would seem to comport with empowering the Senate to act.
Note that “incompetency” is included, a “reasonable” cause that could relate directly to the job-requirements of the AG; furthermore, this would correlate with concern that the internal turmoil therein would have been triggered and then could impede the AG’s office from administering justice.
Therefore, it would seem that the Senate could act summarily, after having afforded the due process requirements [in a hearing] that would be delimited by whether she could faithfully discharge her duties; the Supremes wouldn’t harbor any “fingerprints” in this regard, even if the proceedings are perceived as having been triggered by their disciplinary activity.
I would think that some elements of what transpired legally [in the MontCo indictment, which BTW would survive any electoral results] could bleed into the proceedings noting, for example, her having signed-off on maintaining ALL Grand-Jury secrets [and not just those impaneled during her reign] despite what she swore thereafter.
It would be intriguing were she to “plead the 5th” under such circumstances for, surely, she’d be desirous of defending herself against losing her job; perhaps this enhanced pressure would yield her resignation, recalling how RMN was encouraged by Kissinger/AuH20/Scott/Rhodes to hang-it-up just before the Senate was to tackle this “crook.”
Regardless, despite aggressive attacks from AG-Kane’s defenders, I’ve argued for months [@ PoliticsPa] that the Commonwealth [and both political parties] would benefit by her earliest possible exit [mediated perhaps by Metcalfe]; this pathway would appear to be the least painful and, further, it seems the idea has caught-on [finally!] and will be tackled ASAP.
Additional discussion of this issue has been provided elsewhere…
http://www.politicspa.com/breaking-state-senate-to-consider-whether-to-remove-kane/70185/#comments
…although the reader is advised that there’s lotsa tangential comments through which it will be necessary to wade.