'Precedent setting' investigation to remove councilman stirs anger
By: Joe Holden
Updated: November 14, 2012
Plymouth, Luzerne County- Nobody could recall the last time a block of majority council members voted to investigate one of their own. In a daring, possible precedent-setting move, four Plymouth councilmen cast votes to hire former prosecutor Charles Coslett to investigate Councilman Bill Dixon at a meeting Tuesday evening.
There were actually two votes. Council botched the first vote after violating the Sunshine Law when the vice chairman rammed through an agenda that lacked any public comment. Council members eventually voted 4-2 to hire Coslett to investigate Dixon at a rate of $200 an hour. Council did not set a cap on how much the investigation may cost.
The majority of councilmen believed Dixon's felony convictions disqualified him from holding an elected office. The stigma of a conflict of interest hung heavy as the council hired a taxpayer-funded attorney to hunt a perceived political foe.
Dixon, a decorated Vietnam vet, acknowledges in 1976 he was charged with and later pleaded guilty to counts of burglary and drug-related offenses. He spent a year in jail. He was also charged with a federal crime, but his attorney couldn't determine if it was a felony-graded charge.
Since his time in jail, Dixon has married, had two children, coached little leagues, has been promoted seven times over the 25 years he's worked for UGI and according to a document provided by his attorney, was the top vote getter among four candidates in the 2011 municipal election.
"There were thousands of us that came back and we just couldn't adjust," said a teary, broken-voiced Dixon. "It's not my fault. If I had to do it all over again, I would still serve my country."
Dixon spelled out the alleged motives of his colleagues on council, claiming they're using taxpayer money to fund a witch hunt to remove him from office. Then, he says, they'll be able to appoint a person of their choosing to his seat.
Borough council had initially set an emergency meeting for Saturday, but the lack of a quorum forced them to meet at a regularly scheduled meeting.
Ron Kobusky, vice chairman of council, attempted to place the vote to hire Coslett ahead of public comment. Eyewitness News objected and asked that council's decision be properly reflected in the meeting's minutes.
Council backed up, listened to about 30 minutes of public comment and re-voted to investigate Dixon.
"Bottom line is you're telling people to disregard the law," Coslett angrily shouted at the crowd. "We have had enough of that. We have had enough of that in the County of Luzerne."
Coslett balked at the length of time it has taken the district attorney's office to respond to at least three letters he says were sent by Plymouth leaders inquiring about Dixon's eligibility. He said the first one was sent in February. The district attorney has the discretion to initiate proceedings to inquire about the eligibility of an elected or appointed official.
A first assistant district attorney responded to a question for comment writing that the matter was still open and no conclusions had yet been made.
In the meantime, as the majority members of Plymouth Council were undertaking efforts to unseat Dixon, he successfully received a unanimous 5-0 pardon from the Pennsylvania's pardons board, according to his attorney, Jim Haggerty. The recommendation awaits approval by the governor's office, according to Haggerty.
The members of council who voted to hire Coslett couldn't account for their votes when questioned after the meeting.
Councilman Al Petcavage repeatedly told Eyewitness News to speak to the attorney, referencing Coslett. When pressed about his vote, Petcavage told this reporter "don't push it." Pushed further, Petcavage closed the conversation saying, "have a good night."
Dixon said he feels a tremendous amount of support from tonight. "I'll keep fighting."
There were actually two votes. Council botched the first vote after violating the Sunshine Law when the vice chairman rammed through an agenda that lacked any public comment. Council members eventually voted 4-2 to hire Coslett to investigate Dixon at a rate of $200 an hour. Council did not set a cap on how much the investigation may cost.
The majority of councilmen believed Dixon's felony convictions disqualified him from holding an elected office. The stigma of a conflict of interest hung heavy as the council hired a taxpayer-funded attorney to hunt a perceived political foe.
Dixon, a decorated Vietnam vet, acknowledges in 1976 he was charged with and later pleaded guilty to counts of burglary and drug-related offenses. He spent a year in jail. He was also charged with a federal crime, but his attorney couldn't determine if it was a felony-graded charge.
Since his time in jail, Dixon has married, had two children, coached little leagues, has been promoted seven times over the 25 years he's worked for UGI and according to a document provided by his attorney, was the top vote getter among four candidates in the 2011 municipal election.
"There were thousands of us that came back and we just couldn't adjust," said a teary, broken-voiced Dixon. "It's not my fault. If I had to do it all over again, I would still serve my country."
Dixon spelled out the alleged motives of his colleagues on council, claiming they're using taxpayer money to fund a witch hunt to remove him from office. Then, he says, they'll be able to appoint a person of their choosing to his seat.
Borough council had initially set an emergency meeting for Saturday, but the lack of a quorum forced them to meet at a regularly scheduled meeting.
Ron Kobusky, vice chairman of council, attempted to place the vote to hire Coslett ahead of public comment. Eyewitness News objected and asked that council's decision be properly reflected in the meeting's minutes.
Council backed up, listened to about 30 minutes of public comment and re-voted to investigate Dixon.
"Bottom line is you're telling people to disregard the law," Coslett angrily shouted at the crowd. "We have had enough of that. We have had enough of that in the County of Luzerne."
Coslett balked at the length of time it has taken the district attorney's office to respond to at least three letters he says were sent by Plymouth leaders inquiring about Dixon's eligibility. He said the first one was sent in February. The district attorney has the discretion to initiate proceedings to inquire about the eligibility of an elected or appointed official.
A first assistant district attorney responded to a question for comment writing that the matter was still open and no conclusions had yet been made.
In the meantime, as the majority members of Plymouth Council were undertaking efforts to unseat Dixon, he successfully received a unanimous 5-0 pardon from the Pennsylvania's pardons board, according to his attorney, Jim Haggerty. The recommendation awaits approval by the governor's office, according to Haggerty.
The members of council who voted to hire Coslett couldn't account for their votes when questioned after the meeting.
Councilman Al Petcavage repeatedly told Eyewitness News to speak to the attorney, referencing Coslett. When pressed about his vote, Petcavage told this reporter "don't push it." Pushed further, Petcavage closed the conversation saying, "have a good night."
Dixon said he feels a tremendous amount of support from tonight. "I'll keep fighting."
Comments
As a kid, I've made mistakes. They helped shape the person I am today. As an example: If there was a law saying that a woman who's had an abortion would be allowed to have a child, but would be deemed to be an unfit mother...and the state would have to take the child at birth - you'd have people coming unglued. It is/was a past action. He has changed. Circumstances change. The fact of the matter is, people can, and do change. The Bill Dixon that we, as a people, that *I* as a voter chose to serve us and represent us on our council is there because he is and has been - an amazing man. People are entitled to their opinions... as a community - our opinion is that he represents us better than any other that was elected. Not saying anything ugly about the ones that do not stand against him... but the ones that do...and voted against him - AFTER community outcry... we, again... as a community... will be sure that they will NEVER represent us again. We'll do all in our power to remove them from their seats. If they cannot listen to what we need/want... we don't want them. Plain and simple.
Remona P.
November 14, 2012 at 10:39 pm
OK, I'm glad this man has changed his life, he made mistakes when he was younger, lots of us did. But if he should not be there he should step down, the law is the law. If you don't like the law fight to change it. He sounds like a nice man, I wish him luck with this hard choice he must make
Jp Z.
November 14, 2012 at 7:42 am
