Mayor defends secret probes |

Mayor defends secret probes

Plum Mayor John Schmeck testified Wednesday that his secret investigations of borough police officers fell under his role as head of the department.

Schmeck said he never has abused his authority as mayor and did not orchestrate the firing of former police Chief Terry Focareta.

“Did you ever check on your authority to collect information?” asked Pat Sorek, the attorney for Focareta.

“As overseer of the police department, it’s my responsibility,” Schmeck answered on the third day of a trial in Focareta’s federal lawsuit.

The former police chief’s lawsuit charges that Plum Council fired him Jan. 24, 2002 as retaliation for investigations that he and the department had conducted of Schmeck, several councilmen and their relatives.

Plum officials, though, contend that Focareta was fired for having mishandled the hiring of a police officer in fall 2001.

During his questioning of the mayor, Sorek portrayed Schmeck as a man who ran roughshod over the police department — targeting officers for secret investigations and abusing his office by getting a ride in a Plum police car during a night of drinking.

The Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office cleared Schmeck of wrongdoing in both cases after its investigation at Focareta’s urging.

Schmeck said he launched the secret probes to determine whether three officers — including Focareta’s son, Mark, and Plum police Detective Ken Farmerie — had obtained copies of police entrance exams before they took the tests.

Schmeck testified yesterday that Focareta would not allow him to speak with Farmerie back on April 1, 1999. Schmeck said that following the refusal, his attorney, Mark Rush, and Solicitor Bruce Dice advised him to “make something up” to lure Farmerie to Dice’s office.

The mayor said he called back the same day and fabricated a story, telling Focareta that a suspected aggravated assault actually was a case of a woman falling off her bicycle. In response, a suspicious Focareta sent the detective — equipped with a wire as part of the district attorney’s investigation — to Dice’s office.

“Did it ever cross your mind that it was wrong to mislead the chief about an investigation?” Sorek asked Schmeck. “Did you ever think it might be a crime to do that?”

“No,” Schmeck responded.

The Plum Civil Service Commission eventually cleared all the officers of cheating on the police entrance exam.

Sorek then turned his questioning yesterday to Plum police Officer Eric Fluent’s claim that in January 1999 he drove Schmeck from the American Legion, hall where the officer said the mayor had been drinking, to a party on Center Hill Road.

Schmeck denied the allegation.

“Did you take action against (the officer and dispatcher)?” Sorek asked. “They were misrepresenting things to borough officials.”

Schmeck said he took no action.

In Focareta’s case, Sorek said, Schmeck and borough officials fired Focareta because they say he misrepresented a memo to council as having come from the Plum Civil Service Commission. The Sept. 4, 2001 memo referred to police-officer job applicants, including polygraph-test results.

Focareta denies misrepresenting the origin of the memo.

Sorek then turned to the decision to fire Focareta, saying Schmeck and borough officials spent little time deliberating the move.

“Other than the actual hearing (for Focareta), what discussion did the defendants discuss about the statement of charges?” Sorek asked.

“I don’t recall any large discussion,” Schmeck said.

The trial will resume at 9:30 a.m. today. Sorek said he expects to call Dice and Council President Clem Barbarino.

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.