Griffith, Salavantis disagree over conflict allegations

Luzerne County Councilman Walter Griffith tore up an unopened letter from county District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis and walked across the hall in the county courthouse to deposit the pieces through her office mail slot.

Griffith had been at a Feb. 6 interview session for county board applicants in the council meeting room when council Chairman Tim McGinley handed him the letter, indicating Salavantis was raising assertions Griffith should not be voting on matters in her office due to an alleged conflict.

Griffith said he did not read the letter because it was presented to the chair instead of him, and he believes Salavantis should notify him directly if she has any concerns about him, not through his colleagues. Griffith also disagreed he has a conflict and said the district attorney should file a complaint with the state or county ethics commission if she believes otherwise.

In response to a reporter’s inquiry about the document contents, Salavantis supplied the Jan. 14 letter Wednesday, verifying she had discovered it torn up on her office floor Feb. 7. She said her hand delivery of the letter to the council chairman was proper protocol because she believes the matter “affects county council as a whole” regarding decisions related to her office.

McGinley said he had no advance warning when Salavantis gave him the letter and said he did not share the letter with council colleagues or anyone else.

“I felt he (Griffith) should have the first opportunity to review it before anyone else would have that opportunity,” McGinley said.

McGinley said he mailed the letter to Griffith’s Kingston Township home address with a note indicating he was available if Griffith wanted to discuss the matter with him. When Griffith later informed him he had not received the letter, McGinley said he said would hand it to him the next time Griffith was at the courthouse, which was Feb. 6.

Letter details

The letter is tied to Griffith’s 2013 guilty plea to three misdemeanor counts of obstructing the administration of law for illegally recording three conversations when he was controller in 2010 and 2011: a phone call with county pension fund officials, a retirement board executive session and a call with a representative of the nonprofit handling the failed Hotel Sterling renovation in Wilkes-Barre.

In his plea agreement, Griffith agreed to resign as county controller, remove himself from the 2013 controller race and not to seek elective office during his three-year probation term. Griffith said he did not know he had to expressly obtain permission to record and made the recordings solely to have an accurate personal record of what was said.

According to the district attorney’s letter:

Salavantis said her correspondence raises a “serious conflict and retaliation concern” related to Griffith’s new role as a councilman.

Two detectives in her office had investigated Griffith’s possible violations of the state’s Wiretap Act along with Federal Bureau of Investigation agents. Attorneys affiliated with her office also approved search warrants. This office involvement had been disclosed to Griffith and his attorneys as part of the case discovery.

Her office referred prosecution to the state attorney general’s office because Griffith was county controller and had oversight responsibilities pertaining to her office. A referral was appropriate “based on the appearance of impropriety” and provisions in the county home rule charter and ethics code, she said.

”Naturally, we did not want the implication that a decision to bring charges was based upon retaliation for any recommendation of the then-controller’s to investigate funding, reduce the budget or cut line items,” she wrote. “Such an implication, we submit, certainly had the potential to adversely impact the trust of this office.”

The office is now in a “unique position where the reverse has become a reality” because Griffith will be voting on matters related to her office that investigated and referred the wiretap offenses, she wrote.

”Clearly, the same conflict and retaliation analysis would apply,” she wrote. “As a result, it is our position that Mr. Griffith is required by multiple county codes to abstain from votes pertaining to this office.”

Her letter cites provisions in the council by-laws and county ethics code that she said back up her argument that Griffith should recuse himself and abstain from voting on any district attorney office matters.

”Doubtlessly, everyone will recall Mr. Griffith’s repeated past calls upon county council and other board members for anyone with a conflict or appearance of impropriety to recuse themselves from such matters and even step down from their positions,” Salavantis wrote.

She added: “While I certainly do not suggest that such an extreme remedy of stepping down is required or even appropriate here, I inquire as to whether Mr. Griffith will be living up to his own standards or whether what was good for the flock is no longer good for the gander.”

Griffith said he has “no intentions” of recusing himself or abstaining from her office matters and was elected to make decisions on the behalf of residents. He said he has only one of 11 council votes and will point out concerns in any.

“I don’t have a vendetta,” Griffith said. “My motives are what’s best for the people of the county, not getting even with Stefanie Salavantis.”

He said the district attorney’s office was not the prosecuting office in his case because it was turned over to the state.

Griffith said he won’t “disenfranchise” his supporters by keeping out of decisions related to any county office. He said the “people spoke” when they elected him to a four-year council term that started in January, knowing about the past wiretap charges against him.

“It was my mistake, and I admitted it. I do not hold a grudge,” Griffith said. “I’m moving on. I paid my penance, and today’s a new day. Move on.”

In her letter, Salavantis acknowledged she has other remedies if Griffith refuses to abstain. However, she said she is “forced to inquire” if council has authority to take action to disqualify Griffith from acting on matters pertaining to her office or whether such matters are “left solely” to Griffith’s discretion.