ShareThis Page
Former human relations investigator heads Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board |

Former human relations investigator heads Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board

Bob Bauder
| Wednesday, May 16, 2018 3:51 p.m
Bob Bauder | Tribune-Review
Pittsburgh’s Ethics Hearing Board has ruled two candidates for Pittsburgh City Council’s fourth district, which covers the city’s South Hill’s neighborhoods, violated an ordinance requiring them to file campaign finance reports.

Pittsburgh’s Ethics Hearing Board has a new executive manager.

The board hired Leanne Davis of Squirrel Hill, an attorney and former investigator for the Pittsburgh Human Relations Commission, to replace former manager Linda King, who resigned from the part-time position on April 25, according to the Mayor’s Office. Davis started in April and will be paid $63,758, according to the city budget.

The board handles complaints lodged against Pittsburgh elected officials and city employees involving issues such as conflicts of interest, nepotism and acceptance of gifts and is responsible for educating city employees about the Ethics Code. It has power to levy penalties ranging from public censure to a $1,000 fine for each code violation and can recommend that an employee be suspended or terminated.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-765-2312, or via Twitter @bobbauder.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff reporter. You can contact Bob at 412-765-2312, or via Twitter .

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.