Federal Investigation of Schools

SCHOOL SCANDALS

April 23, 2009

Trouble varies for bribe payers

Expert attorneys comment on peril faced by people who allegedly paid officials.

By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter
Terrie Morgan-Besecker on Facebook   |   @TLTerrieMorgan on Twitter

The person or persons who allegedly paid kickbacks to two local school officials could also face charges, but whether federal prosecutors will pursue them likely will be dependent upon the circumstances surrounding the payments, legal experts said.

William Manifesto of Pittsburgh, an attorney who specializes in federal law, said prosecutors have wide discretion in deciding whom to charge and not charge. That decision will likely rest on a number of factors, including how complicit the person who allegedly paid the money was in developing the scheme.

“If I go and apply for a teaching job or contract to remove snow and the people in charge say ‘I’ll make a recommendation for you, but it’s going to cost you,’ so you pay the money. You might say the person who paid the money under those circumstances is less culpable than someone who went in and said, ‘I’ll pay you if you do this for me,’ ” Manifesto said,

Wilkes-Barre Area School Director Brian F. Dunn and Pittston Area School Superintendent Ross Scarantino each were charged within the past week with accepting kickbacks in exchange for influencing the awarding of contracts within their districts. Dunn also is accused of accepting money to influence teacher hirings.

The identity of the persons who made the payments has not been publicly released as the affidavits filed in support of the charges remain sealed.

U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson said the federal bribery statute allows authorities to charge both the payer and recipient of illicit money. He declined to comment on whether others involved in the schemes would be charged.

Manifesto and attorney William Costopoulos of Lemoyne, who also specializes in federal defense law, said prosecutors are often willing to work out deals – including complete immunity – with the person who paid the money in exchange for their testimony.

That would be dependent on their degree of participation as well as how important their testimony is in securing a conviction against the recipient, the attorneys said.

In some cases, that testimony may be crucial. But in others there could be other evidence, such as the contracts themselves and banking records, that could prove the crime, Manifesto said.

If prosecutors do ultimately charge those who paid, Manifesto said he suspects those persons might try to use extortion as a defense.

“You could argue ‘I know what I did was wrong, but that was the only way to get a job.’ Those folks generally fare much better and may not be prosecuted,” Manifesto said.

Costopoulos said he thinks that defense tactic would be a “stretch.”

“Extortion suggests the person being extorted was in some kind of fear – fear of harm or fear of loss of reputation,” Costopoulos sad. “To say the reasons I paid money was I really wanted to get the contract or get the job and I knew if I didn’t pay I wasn’t gong to get it, therefore I’ve been extorted, that’s not going to fly.”

That doesn’t mean prosecutors will not consider the circumstances to be a mitigating factor, he said.

“If I want a job I’m qualified for and I’m told ‘If you want this job, you are going to have to pay so much,’ I make a distinction between that and the contractor who wants to land a contract and is willing to pay for it. The latter is an indication of more criminal complicity on both parties,” Costopoulos said.

Tweet	Follow @TLnews

Send Question or Remark to the Publisher