Inside the Stephen Reed scandal |

Inside the Stephen Reed scandal

Dan Gleiter |
Former Harrisburg Mayor Stephen R. Reed appears for his preliminary arraignment at District Judge William Wenner's offices in Lower Paxton Township on July 14, 2015,


Eighteen business days before she was charged with crimes, Attorney General Kathleen Kane filed 499 criminal charges against ex-Harrisburg Mayor Stephen Reed.

Reed was accused by Kane of using public moneys to buy thousands of historic artifacts for his dream — carried out largely in secrecy — of making Harrisburg a can't-miss tourist stop while allegedly keeping some for himself. He was accused of diverting earnings of bond funds to buy artifacts to open a “Wild West Museum” to go with the city's Civil War museum and planned sports and black history museums.

Reed's attorney says he is innocent. Kane maintains her innocence. Kane is accused of an alleged scheme to lie and cover up a grand jury leak.

A new book tracing the city's fiscal demise and providing a peek inside Reed's fall from grace is “Capital Murder” by Chris Papst. He's a former Harrisburg TV reporter who now works in Washington, D.C. Papst's book provides some fascinating anecdotes about Reed. It's a story about Harrisburg's financial collapse and the underbelly of municipal bond dealing.

I began working in Harrisburg in 1983. I watched the transition from a seedy capital city to one with new hotels, a “restaurant row” and a Washington Nationals farm team that plays in a stadium on City Island. Reed, mayor for 28 years, was the driving force.

But Reed ran the city like a “dictator,” Papst wrote in an email interview.

Still, Papst said, “In 1982, Reed took over a city in ruin. He was able to turn it around. … He did wonderful things and this God-like aura surrounded him.

“He used that reputation to do whatever he wanted and people just believed he was acting in the best interest of the city,” Papst said.

And the media frequently didn't challenge him, Papst added.

Attorney Mark D. Schwartz, of Bryn Mawr, was quoted by Papst as saying Reed “seemed like a bond addict, as he went crazy in his conviction to make Harrisburg a first class destination city.”

Schwartz, who worked for the city council during the crisis, said he questions whether Reed should have been charged and whether statute of limitations issues will derail the case.

“Kane is dead wrong for indicting Reed with respect to the bond issues, particularly as primary liability exists with the bond lawyers, investment bankers and advisers who put together and approved the deal,” he said. As for the alleged theft, Schwartz said that's a different issue.

It's unusual for criminal charges to be filed against a former elected official more than five years after he has left office, PennLive's Charlie Thompson reported.

Thompson cited legal sources saying that Jan. 4, 2015, apparently was the cut-off date for charges.

“We are confident that what we've charged is within the statute of limitations,” Kane said at her July 14 press conference.

“It's entirely political,” Schwartz said of the timing of Reed's charges.

But Papst stated that Kane deserves credit for holding Reed and others accountable.

Brad Bumsted is the Trib's state Capitol reporter (717-787-1405 or [email protected]).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.