Office of the District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
|
Read the Court Order - click here Read the full report - click here FILING OF GRAND JURY REPORT Read the Commissioner Responses- click here Supervising Judge Louis J. Farina signed an Order today finding that a Report issued by the Lancaster County Investigating Grand Jury on December 14, 2006 was based upon facts received in the course of an investigation and was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This Report, which relates to an investigation involving the hiring of Gary Heinke as Chief Services Officer of Lancaster County and the sale of Conestoga View Nursing Home, has been filed in the Lancaster County Clerk of Courts Office as a public record, along with responses from Lancaster County Commissioners Richard Shellenberger and Howard “Pete” Shaub. The decision to submit the Heinke matter to an Investigating Grand Jury was made after the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners and their designees initially failed to respond to a request for production of documents through traditional investigative means. Furthermore, J. Thomas Myers, former Lancaster County Director of Human Resources, issued a report about the hiring process of Mr. Heinke in which Myers stated that important emails involving the commissioners were not archived, none of the commissioners recalled engaging in a 32 minute conversation with Mr. Heinke from the commissioner’s office during the time period Mr. Heinke allegedly fabricated his resume, and interview notes with Mr. Heinke were “no longer available” from at least two of the commissioners. These factors were significant in concluding that an investigation to determine whether any crimes were committed could only be accomplished through the resources of an investigating grand jury, and demonstrated that immediate action was necessary to preserve any remaining documents. In addition to allowing for the retrieval of all relevant documents through issuance of a subpoena, the grand jury provided investigators with the legal authority to compel testimony from witnesses who were previously unwilling to cooperate or were reluctant to do so for fear of retaliation. After the grand jury began their investigation of the Heinke matter, it was alleged by certain witnesses that laws were violated during the sale of Conestoga View Nursing Home. As a result, county detectives interviewed additional witnesses in regard to the sale of Conestoga View. During these interviews, many of those involved in the process were extremely vague about their recollection of events, or they provided inconsistent statements about details of the transaction. Therefore, the grand jury was asked to expand their investigation to include the sale of Conestoga View Nursing Home. As noted in the Grand Jury Report, testimony before the grand jury established that all three Lancaster County Commissioners committed violations of the Sunshine Act by conducting secret meetings in relation to the sale of Conestoga View Nursing Home. Consequently, the commissioners were charged with and pleaded guilty to the following offenses: Richard Shellenberger: Violation of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S.A.§708 (March 23, 2004). Violation of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S.A §704 (April 1, 2005). Howard “Pete” Shaub: Violation of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S.A.§708 (March 23, 2004). Violation of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S.A §704 (April 1, 2005). Molly Henderson: Violation of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S.A.§704 (April 1, 2005). However, jurors noted in the Report that they were “hampered by inconsistent testimony (both among witnesses and within a witness’s own testimony) and a consistent lack of any documentation to support or refute certain claims.” While declining to recommend additional charges, the grand jury stated as follows: “Without independent documentation, the grand jury was forced time and again to conclude what had transpired based solely on conflicting testimony. Moreover, many (if not most) of the witnesses who testified regarding the secret and non-public meetings were found by the grand jurors to be either less than forthcoming or actively deceitful.” The Grand Jury Report clearly documents a betrayal of public trust by those who were elected to represent the citizens of Lancaster County. Furthermore, the Grand Jury Report identifies a number of recommendations for legislative action to address deficiencies in the law. Consequently, this Report will be forwarded to all Lancaster County members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly for any action they deem appropriate. Read the Court Order - click here |