On the afternoon of October 4, 2012, Eric Papenfuse sat before the Pennsylvania Senate Local Government Committee and testified about what he took to be a “pattern of criminal behavior” at the Harrisburg Authority.
The committee’s aim in the hearings was to determine what actions and oversights had led to the colossal incinerator debt, which was approaching $345 million. Papenfuse, a former member of the Authority’s board, had been critiquing its cavalier issuance of new debt for years. But before he began his testimony, the committee chair, Sen. John H. Eichelberger, Jr., asked Papenfuse to confirm that he was not—unlike most of the people who had testified so far—an attorney.
“I am not an attorney,” Papenfuse replied, with a curt sweep of his jaw and a faintly perceptible grin.
“You sounded like you had some pride in that response,” Eichelberger said.
Papenfuse lowered his head, adjusted his papers, and smiled. “I’m a small business owner, and I’m here willingly on my own to speak the truth.” Over the next 30 minutes, his pitch a notch below breathless indignation, he laid out his case.
Early this morning, ten months after October’s hearing and less than three months from the city’s mayoral election, a very different sort of hearing took place in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. Nevin Mindlin, the independent candidate who intends to oppose Papenfuse on the mayoral ballot this fall, took the stand to try to defeat a petition that seeks to invalidate his candidacy.
The petition, filed Thursday, claims that Mindlin’s nominating papers left a critical section empty. The section concerns the appointment of what is known as a Committee to Fill Vacancies, whose purpose is to name a replacement if the original candidate becomes unable to run.
Mindlin, who is not attached to a political party, claimed he believed he was supposed to leave the section blank, on the assumption that his candidacy would terminate if he became ill or died. Monday’s hearing, before Judge Bernard L. Coates, Jr., focused on two questions: whether Mindlin was indeed required to fill out the section, and if he was, whether it was his fault that he didn’t know.
The questioning was often abstruse, and occasionally testy. Both Mindlin and his campaign aide, Keldeen Stambaugh, testified that clerks at the Bureau of Elections had repeatedly told them his papers were complete as filed. But Ronald Katzman, the attorney for the petitioner, suggested the campaign could have gone further—for instance, by seeking the advice of a lawyer. (“I didn’t think it was a requirement that an American citizen would have to engage an attorney in order to file for political office,” Mindlin shot back.)
At the earliest, Coates will issue a ruling Tuesday afternoon; he advised attorneys to submit additional filings by noon tomorrow. (A second hearing, on a separate petition to oust Nate Curtis from the ballot, was postponed until Wednesday morning.) He said little to indicate his inclinations, which is the sort of reticence to be expected from a judge. There were others, however, whose silence was conspicuous.
The first was the petitioner himself, who was present at the hearing in a suit and tie, but did not take the stand. (“No, no, no,” he said when approached by the press, one hand raised, as he walked briskly from the courtroom.) Little is known about him beyond his name, Donald Lee Coles, Sr., and his registration in the Democratic Party. He appears in a list of state lottery winners (September, 2012—$2,500) and in the comments section of an article on the NAACP. Mindlin claims never to have met him. Why he targeted Mindlin—along with why he hired Katzman, and whether he or someone else is paying the fee—have been topics of intense speculation.
At the center of much of the speculation is the other unforthcoming party: Eric Papenfuse. At best, his response has been tepid denial. On Thursday, he told the Patriot-News that he “did not challenge anyone’s petitions” (referring to the nominating petitions filed by candidates, not the petitions that gave rise to the court hearings). On Friday, his campaign issued a press release that neglected to mention the petitions at all. Instead, it pledged a commitment “to vigorous and open debate.”
“I am committed to leading that debate this fall and beyond with all candidates for Mayor, whether they are write-ins or appear on the ballot,” he is quoted as saying.
On Monday, his communications director, Joyce Davis, said the campaign had nothing to add—and insisted, rather peculiarly for a spokesperson, that she only be questioned on background, and not for quotes.
These responses are disappointing. If Papenfuse has nothing to do with the challenges, then this is an opportune moment to prove his commitment to “vigorous debate”—by condemning Coles’ spurious effort to short-circuit it.
If, on the other hand, he is linked to the petitions, it’s time to make that known. After all, there are ways to be connected that are less than nefarious. It’s possible he was blindsided by a supporter who, without recognizing the ill auspices of a one-man ballot, initiated one or both challenges without his knowledge. It’s possible he heard about someone’s intention to challenge, and gave tacit approval.
One of the things that’s impressive about the October 2012 testimony is how unvarnished it is. A solitary figure, with lawmakers before him and lawyers behind, Papenfuse makes an impassioned plea that justice be served. Now, in place of the Papenfuse who came to speak the truth, we have a campaign issuing bland press releases. And without an express repudiation of the petitions, what conclusions are voters left to draw?
