Ethics commissioners must keep researchers in check

The Alabama Ethics Commission should review the conduct and practices of its investigative agents and staff following a “harmful,” “illegal” and “unnecessarily protracted” investigation into Jefferson County Sheriff Mark Pettway, according to a letter from Pettway’s attorney and former prosecutor Matt Heart to the Ethics Commissioners.

Pettway was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing by both a Jefferson County personnel board and the AEC, and the complainant who initiated the investigation – a subordinate within the Sheriff’s Office – admitted to fabricating several claims.

Still, Hart, who once led the state’s white-collar investigative unit in the Alabama attorney general’s office and successfully prosecuted numerous lawmakers, including former House Speaker Mike Hubbard, was sharply critical of several tactics employed by AEC researchers were used. These tactics, Hart said, violated the law, deprived witnesses and Pettway of the constitutional right to an attorney, and sought to harm Pettway personally and professionally.

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

“Sheriff Pettway’s reputation and effectiveness were unfairly damaged,” Hart wrote in the letter to commissioners. “Much of this harm was a direct result of the way the AEC combined unlawful procedures and unprofessional conduct in conducting the investigation. I hope this letter provides a productive review of these issues. In any event, this letter will be followed by productive and satisfactory communication with the AEC and/or a petition for rulemaking under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act regarding the above investigation practices.”

Hart’s main grievances in the letter were about what he considered a misuse, or even “abuse,” of the state’s secrecy law. Hart says the law is being twisted to force witnesses to respond to subpoenas for hearings that deny them the use of legal counsel and tell them they could face penalties if they disclose what was discussed.

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

Tom Albritton, the AEC’s executive director, said that while he disagrees with Hart, state law prevents him from responding to the specific complaints. However, Albritton did say that state ethics law allows the commission to issue subpoenas — “a fact that has been well established for years.”

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

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

Hart’s letter alleges that the AEC agents acted favorably toward Washington throughout the AEC investigation, often treating him as if the AEC agents were “part of (Washington’s) defense team.” Their actions, Hart said, gave weight to the false accusations Washington made against Pettway and drove a wedge between the sheriff and his deputies.

During this time, rumors of various misdeeds committed by Pettway began to circulate throughout the state, along with whispers of a soon-to-be-launched FBI investigation into the sheriff’s actions. Often those rumors also involved Pettway’s brother, Bruce Pettway, a prominent businessman who was the target of a botched investigation by the AG’s office. The investigation into Bruce Pettway focused on his alleged involvement in alleged illegal gambling operations in Jefferson County and AG Steve Marshall’s belief that Mark Pettway failed to properly enforce state gambling laws in deference to his brother’s financial interests.

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

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