An excellent question. As counsel to the public body, LCCCA, in negotiations with a private developer for a complex, private/public venture, Stevens & Lee should not be allowed to represent both parties. That obvious conflict would be laughable if it were not happening.
The problem is not just this conflict of interest, as you know, but the myriad conflicts that have been allowed to develop in this unhappy project from the beginning. Looking for reasons why things may have turned out this way I have thought that perhaps a basic problem has been that the principals within the partnership so outrank, and so out power any of the public officials involved, that the public benefit has always been defined and decided upon by the private developers alone.
When public officials charged with such responsibilities expressed their strong reservations on the project, based on several objective criteria, we all witnessed what happened. Molly Henderson & Dick Shellenberger come to mind rather instantly. The “mistake” which they made was to believe that their rank as public officials and their responsibilities to public really mattered. But, If Fulton Bank, High Industries, and Lancaster Newspapers, together says that such and such is the best public policy, who are they to say otherwise?
But that political reality put the private developers, effectively, (very effectively) on both sides of the negotiating table. (Was ithis not a Public/Private venture that the two parties were to negotiate?)
Also involved may have been the very human issue of “ego”. As long-standing and significant contributors to the welfare of the community on many fronts and over many years, there could have been a strong feeling on the part of the private developers of personal and corporate “entitlement” to sit on both sides of the table. After all, who better to define the common good, the group of us or two junior county commissioners?
Any challenge could also have been highly resented as personal affronts, especially if there was even a hint that the developers were acting for personal gain rather than the public interest. If they did think that way they may have even demanded to be on both sides of the table, and ordered “the boot” to the so-called public servants and public officials who opposed them. In any case, that is what happened.
Dick Shellenberger got the message quickly and [did not seek re-election.] Molly Henderson needed to be thrown out and that happened too.
Molly Henderson still has her day in court with a case that reads like a great investigative news story. I recommend it. We all really know what happened and how power, for its own purposes, reaches even into courtrooms. Too many examples. Far too many for a country with such revered traditions.
I wish both her and her case well. Henderson was purposefully, and maliciously injured for doing her public duty in the face of overwhelming odds. That is the classic definition of a hero. Her opponents have been heroes too. Just not in this particular case.
Too bad we cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again. But maybe we could. A first attempt would be to make peace with Molly Henderson, restore her good name and position. Make some apologies for overstepping boundries, for going too far to crush dissent. Make some concessions on the project, even token ones. Then we can have a peace treaty and find a way to make this project work for the good of the entire community.
