State high court to hear Montco ethics-policy case

The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments this summer on Montgomery County's controversial no-politics-for-staffers ethics policy.

The rule - which has twice been struck down by lower courts - prohibits certain government employees, including those in the county's nine row offices, from running for office or from fund-raising for or managing campaigns while on the government payroll.

Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman and then-Sheriff John Durante sued the county soon after the policy's approval in April 2009, arguing it restricted the ability of row officers to set their own rules as elected officials independent of the county Board of Commissioners.

Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel III, a Democrat and a primary backer of the ethics measure, said Wednesday that he hoped the Supreme Court would recognize the county's original intent when deciding the case. The policy he proposed would have avoided the appearance of politics tainting county decisions during election seasons, he said.

In its order granting the hearing, the court noted a specific interest in whether existing state ethics laws grant county executives authority to impose limited guidelines on the employees of independent row officers.

"I know they haven't ruled yet," Hoeffel said. "But the way they rephrased the question seems to recognize what we were originally trying to do."

Republican Commissioner Bruce L. Castor Jr., who voted against the original proposal, maintained that Hoeffel had read too much into the high court's language.

"I don't see the same significance," he said. "I think the court just wants to put this issue to bed for all time."

In August, a 7-0 Commonwealth Court ruling upheld a Montgomery County Court decision that trimmed the policy to exempt both Ferman's and Durante's staffs. Since then, it has applied only to certain employees under the direct supervision of the commissioners board.

The Supreme Court ordered both sides to submit by Feb. 23 legal briefs supporting their case.