TUE

High:65 Low:43

65°

43°

WED

High:49 Low:31

49°

31°

THU

High:50 Low:29

50°

29°

Subscribe to the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader
Wilkes-Barre, Scranton and NEPA Garage SalesWilkes-Barre, Scranton and NEPA JobsWilkes-Barre, Scranton and NEPA Cars for SaleWilkes-Barre, Scranton and NEPA Homes
Times Leader FacebookTimes Leader TwitterTimes Leader YoutubeTimes Leader RSS Feeds
View Story As PDFView story as PDF
February 5, 2010

Pizzella guilty of corruption

Former W-B Area school director admits to passing “gratuity.”

SCRANTON – Former Wilkes-Barre Area school director Frank Pizzella Jr. could have challenged a corruption charge based on the statute of limitations, but his attorney said he decided to plead guilty so he could put the matter behind him.

Read more Federal Investigation of Schools articles

click image to enlarge

Frank Pizzella Jr., left, enters the federal courthouse in Scranton followed by attorney Joseph Blazosek on Thursday afternoon.

BILL TARUTIS/FOR THE TIMES LEADER

click image to enlarge

Pizzella

Pizzella, 65, of Plains Township, appeared before U.S. District Judge James Munley on Thursday and admitted he passed $5,000 in cash to former school director Brian Dunn to reward Dunn for his influence in helping a person Pizzella knew obtain a teaching job. The money was paid in 2004, three years before Pizzella became a board member.

Prosecutors had declined to identify the school board member to whom the money was paid until Thursday, when Assistant U.S. Attorney William Houser revealed the information in court. Houser did not identify the teacher who paid the money, however.

A grand jury in September indicted Pizzella on a charge of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States. He signed a plea deal this week and resigned from the school board on Wednesday.

In court, Houser said that had the case gone to trial, the evidence would have shown Pizzella conspired with the teacher, the teacher’s spouse and father-in-law to pay Dunn in hopes it would help the teacher get a job. The teacher borrowed the money from the father-in-law. Pizzella then passed the funds to a relative of Dunn’s.

Dunn pleaded guilty in December to accepting $5,000 in exchange for helping a teacher obtain a job. That case appears to be separate from the Pizzella case, however, because Dunn took the money in 2005, whereas the Pizzella case involved a payment made in 2004.

In a surprise development, Houser revealed Pizzella could have challenged the charge by arguing that the statute of limitations had expired.

Houser said Pizzella’s attorney, Joseph Blazosek, had brought to his attention a recent federal appellate court ruling that could “very well” have given Pizzella a defense to the charge.

Questioned about his legal strategy after the hearing, Blazosek would say only that there were “factual issues” and there was a “certain process involved” in challenging the charge. Pizzella opted not to go that route, he said.

“Mr. Pizzella said he wanted the matter to conclude. He felt it was in his best interest to see a resolution,” Blazosek said. “It’s been a long road for him.”

In an interview with The Times Leader on Wednesday, Pizzella said he wanted to fight the charge, but agreed to plead guilty because prosecutors indicated they would charge him with perjury if he didn’t.

Pizzella also admitted he gave Dunn’s wife, Jodi, the money, to pass on to Dunn. But he insisted the cash was a campaign contribution, not a payment for the teacher’s job.

Pizzella did not repeat that statement in court on Thursday, however. He simply answered “yes” when Munley asked him if Houser’s version of the case was correct.

Houser also clarified that the payment to Dunn was a “gratuity,” not a bribe.

Federal law treats bribes and gratuities differently. A payment is considered a bribe if the money is paid in advance of an action being taken and with the understanding the payment is for that action. It is considered a gratuity if the payment is received after the action is taken, as a sort-of “thank you.”

The differentiation is important for Pizzella because sentencing guidelines call for a more severe sentence for a bribe versus a gratuity. Guidelines in Pizzella’s case call for a sentence of eight to 14 months in prison, but prosecutors have agreed to recommend a lesser sentence if Pizzella continues to cooperate in the investigation of others.

Pizzella made a point to tell Munley that prosecutors had been very “cordial” and “friendly” with him.

The cordiality of their relationship was evident before the start of the hearing, when Pizzella discussed the loss of his beloved dog, Babe, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Phillips, who co-prosecuted the case.

Pizzella told members of the media he was forced to put the 12-year-old Chihuahua down on Wednesday. He pulled out several pictures of the pooch and showed them to Phillips.

“I’m sorry about your dog,” Phillips said.

Munley allowed Pizzella to remain free pending sentencing, which is scheduled for May 10.






Send Question or Remark to the Publisher



Times Leader Commenting Guidelines
Friday February 05, 2010, 4:13:34 EST


The Times Leader Directory



Find Local Restaurants, Shopping & Businesses


Place Quick Ads