Att. Gen. Tom Corbett this week said that there will be no more charges brought before Election Day in the legislature's Bonus Scandal. Corbett earlier announced his entirely voluntary policy not to bring charges between October 1 and Election Day, a policy criticized by most, if not all, editorial boards. See the August 29 edition of DR News.

"The grand jury will sit one more week before the election... I know that my office cannot present to the grand jury in that one week all of the testimony and evidence that will be necessary to complete the next phase of the investigation," he said.

Corbett announced the investigation the week of January 28, 2007. The probe will be in its 22nd month by Election Day. Yet only House Democrats face charges, announced July 10 when Corbett himself predicted there would be more.

This development forces voters to enter the voting booth not knowing whether they're voting for candidates who will be consumed defending themselves for the next two years at taxpayer expense. They will not have the choice of write-in candidates or the chance to decide, regardless of ultimate innocence or guilt, that they'd rather be represented by lawmakers whose focus is on constituents rather than themselves and whose integrity has not been questioned.

Case in Point: Frank Serafini
Apart from the obvious reasons, why does this matter? The case of former Rep. Frank Serafini, R-Lackawanna, provides an illustration.

In October 1997, federal prosecutors indicted Serafini for lying to a grand jury about receiving a $2,000 reimbursement from Empire Sanitary Landfill in exchange for a contribution to the presidential campaign of then-U.S. Sen. Robert Dole, R-Kansas. Four others also were indicted for illegally laundering corporate funds masquerading as personal contributions to several candidates, both Republican and Democrat.

As the prosecution played out over the next 23 months, Serafini won re-election to the House in 1998 by a mere 205 votes before being convicted in August 1999. The conviction created yet another controversy when Serafini refused to resign so that the Speaker of the House could call a special election for that November.

PA's Constitution (Article II, Section 7) prohibits anyone from serving in the legislature who is "...convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime..." A 1939 PA Supreme Court decision, however, had ruled that conviction did not occur until sentencing. At first, Serafini considered an appeal that would postpone his scheduled November 14 sentencing indefinitely, but the actual sentencing occurred just four days later on the 18th.

On December 6, House Democrats, then in the minority, introduced a resolution (HR 325) calling for Serafini's expulsion from the House. The resolution went to the infamous Rules Committee and never received a vote.

On December 20, then-Attorney General Mike Fisher, R-Allegheny, facing a re-election campaign in 2000, stepped in. He unsuccessfully filed a petition in Commonwealth Court to have Serafini removed from office.

The beginning of 2000 found House members with varying convictions about what "conviction" means. Despite the 1939 decision, the matter was not clear because Article II, Section 9 of the PA Constitution says the House and Senate, "...shall judge of the election and qualifications of its members."

Democrats argued that the 1939 case should control. Republicans argued that a "conviction" required all appeals to be exhausted.

In January, 16 members introduced HR 332 to create a select committee to determine the procedure for expelling members. In March, 36 members introduced HR 395, which charged the Ethics Committee toward the same end. Like HR 325, both resolutions entered the Rules Committee never to be seen again.

Ultimately, Serafini finished his term, three years and a month after his indictment but without running for re-election in 2000. He also did federal jail time.

Back to the Future
The pace of Corbett's prosecution makes the Serafini scenario a possibility for the legislative session that begins just four months from now, but with potentially even greater stakes. In 1999, the Serafini seat did not determine which party controlled the House. In 2009, another seat could.

Today Democrats control the House by one seat. It's not hard to imagine that citizens can awake on November 5 to find that one party or the other has a one-seat advantage. Any lawmakers who are indicted, convicted and sentenced thereafter could throw the House into legal chaos.

This would cost taxpayers a small fortune in legal fees and low productivity as partisans try to get the upper hand in the lower House. Each side will introduce futile resolutions, stage posturing press events, and otherwise avoid dealing with the real issue: the criminally low standards of public integrity that created the Bonus Scandal in the first place.

A Correction

September 25 -- Yesterday's DR News wrongly stated that former state Rep. Frank Serafini, R-Lackawanna, finished the term to which he was elected in 1998 after his indictment, conviction and sentencing for perjury. In fact, Serafini resigned on February 7, 2000. Three days later, then-Speaker Matt Ryan, R-Delaware, called a special election to fill the vacancy on June 20. Rep. Jim Wansacz, D-Lackawanna, won the special election and has represented the district since.

We regret the error and are grateful to Patrick McKenna, associate editor of the Scranton Times-Tribune, and Bill Patton, communication director for Speaker Dennis O'Brien, R-Phila., for setting us straight.