Ethics commissioners should keep investigators in check

The Alabama Ethics Commission should review the conduct and practices of its investigative agents and staff following a “harmful,” “illegitimate” and “unnecessarily lengthy” investigation of Jefferson County Sheriff Mark Pettway, according to a letter from Atty. of Pettway and former State’s Attorney. Matt Hart to the ethics commissioners.

Ultimately, Pettway was cleared of any wrongdoing by both a Jefferson County personnel board and the AEC, and the plaintiff who launched the investigation—a subordinate within the Sheriff’s Office—admitted to fabricating more many statements.

Still, Hart, who once led the state investigative unit of the Alabama Attorney General’s Office and successfully prosecuted numerous lawmakers, including former House Speaker Mike Hubbard, has been sharply critical of several tactics used by AEC investigators. Those tactics, Hart said, violated the law, deprived the witnesses and Pettway of their constitutional rights to counsel, and apparently sought to harm Pettway personally and professionally.

Hart recommended that commissioners examine the tactics and propose rule changes to protect against future abuse.

“Sheriff Pettway’s reputation and effectiveness have been unfairly tarnished,” Hart wrote in the letter to commissioners. “Much of this harm was a direct result of the way in which the AEC combined illegitimate procedures with unprofessional performance in the conduct of the investigation. I hope that this letter will generate a productive analysis of these issues. In any event, this letter will be followed by productive and satisfactory communications with the AEC and/or a rulemaking petition under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act regarding the above-mentioned investigative practices.”

Hart’s main grievances in the letter centered on what he considered a misuse, or even “abuse,” of the state’s grand jury secrecy law. Hart says the law is bent to force witnesses to respond to subpoenas for hearings where they are denied the use of legal counsel and instructed they could be penalized for revealing what is discussed.

“The inconsistent and legally unsupported process by which the investigation was conducted is truly indefensible,” Hart wrote.

Tom Albritton, executive director of the AEC, said that while he disagreed with Hart, state law prevented him from responding to specific complaints. However, Albritton said the state ethics act allows the Commission to issue subpoenas — “a fact that has been well established for years.”

“While I disagree with the allegations made and the conclusions Mr. Hart draws, he knows I cannot comment publicly as it would be illegal and unprofessional to do so given the grand jury protections that surround all ethics investigations Albritton said in a statement. “These restrictions are intended to protect respondents, complainants, witnesses and any potential investigations by other law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over ethics allegations. Therefore, as much as I would like to, I cannot respond substantially to the letter that Mr. Hart shared it with you.”

The charges against Pettway stemmed from the demotion of a sheriff’s office sergeant earlier this year. Pettway said he removed Sgt. Judge Washington for violating numerous department rules and regulations and for conduct unbecoming an officer. Washington then claimed that the demotion stemmed from rumors that Washington was working with federal authorities to launch an investigation into Pettway and the sheriff’s office.

Throughout the AEC investigation, Hart’s letter claims, AEC agents acted favorably toward Washington, often treating him as if AEC agents were “part of (Washington’s) defense team. Their actions, Hart said, gave weight to Washington’s false charges against Pettway and created a rift between the sheriff and his deputies.

During this time, rumors of various acts committed by Pettway began to circulate around the state, along with whispers of a soon-to-be-launched FBI investigation into the sheriff’s affairs. Often, those rumors also implicated Pettway’s brother, Bruce Pettway, a prominent businessman who was the target of a botched investigation by the AG’s office. Bruce Pettway’s investigation focused on his alleged involvement in so-called illegal gambling operations in Jefferson County and AG Steve Marshall’s belief that Mark Pettway did not properly apply state gambling laws in serving the financial interests of his brother.

Bruce Pettway later sued Marshall for harassment over the seizure of a bank account, but a federal judge ruled that Marshall was immune from suit by virtue of his position. However, the judge also noted that “the actions against the plaintiffs were politically or personally motivated, were procedurally flawed, were all intended to harass the plaintiffs, and were all in bad faith.”

This also isn’t the first time the tactics of Alabama Ethics Commission investigators have been called into question. In fact, two years ago, Marshall stripped General Counsel Cynthia Raulston of her deputy AG status over allegations that she misbehaved during an investigation of former Montgomery Police Chief Ernest Finley. The AG’s office and the AEC have maintained a contentious relationship ever since.