12 questions
For Del. Adrienne Jones, co-chair of the technically defunct Special Committee on Employee Rights and Protections , the pursuit of Craig Chesek is about one thing: “closure.”
That’s what she told me last week when I asked her why the state is continuing to try to enforce a subpoena ordering Chesek to be deposed by lawyers representing the committee. After all, the committee issued a final report nearly three years ago on alleged political firings under then Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich.
Chesek, an Ehrlich appointee to the Public Service Commission, is the lone holdout. He testified in 2006 but Jones and others felt Chesek failed to sufficiently answer some questions and subpoenaed him to testify a second time.
Since then, Chesek has refused to return to Maryland from his Pennsylvania home and said the subpoena of a defunct state legislative committee has no power outside of Maryland.
At issue is about a dozen questions the committee wants Chesek to answer, according to Dan Friedman, an assistant attorney general and legal counsel to the committee and the General Assembly.
But there are others such as … What are those 12 questions?
Friedman wouldn’t say. Jones would only say “(Chesek) knows what they are.”
Perry Hilbert, Chesek’s attorney, said there were no formal questions that he’s seen. Chesek hinted that he knows what they are and would be happy to answer them in a sworn deposition.
That leads us to a two-part question:
Why doesn’t Chesek just allow the committee to depose him?
Why won’t the committee accept Chesek’s offer of written answers?
Chesek would only say that he’s already testified and that he has no intention of returning to Maryland, something Friedman says is not necessary.
As for a sworn affidavit in response to the committee’s queries, Jones said she wanted Chesek to appear in front of the committee like everyone else.
“Anyone can write down anything,” she said.
How much money is this ultimately going to cost taxpayers?
The committee spent $1.1 million on its original investigation.
The continuing costs are not available. Friedman said costs “are minimal” so far and restricted to legal fees of a local attorney in York County, Pa. Those costs are likely to increase as Chesek appeals the order issued last week.
Finally, what’s the benefit to taxpayers?
The committee has already filed its final report and made recommendations to the legislature on possible changes to laws governing state employees.
It’s unlikely that anything Chesek said would change any of that, something Jones acknowledged during her interview with me last week.
I asked her what the committee hoped to learn? What did she think the committee would ultimately get from Chesek’s testimony?
“It’s a matter of closure,” Jones said.