Child Sex Abuse Advocates, Firms Push Ahead after 2016 Debate over Sol Retroactivity

By Kody Leibowitz
WJAC
February 9, 2017

http://wjactv.com/news/local/child-sex-abuse-advocates-firms-push-ahead-after-2016-debate-over-sol-retroactivity

[with video]

The Statute of Limitations Bill was a contentious one for state lawmakers last legislative session.

The bill, then known as House Bill 1947, ultimately failed as House lawmakers did not take up the bill for a final vote before the session ended in October.

A new session started with a new push to reform the statute of limitations for child sex abuse with a Senate bill and two House proposals.

But as that push continues in Harrisburg, 6 News took a look at how one of the most discussed bills of 2016 failed and who fought for and against its survival.

Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown grand jury report leads to SOL reform talks

The first statute of limitations bill was introduced last April following a grand jury report into the decades long allegations of systemic childhood sex abuse at the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown.

Current law allows victims of child sex abuse to seek civil action only until the age of 30, or 12 years after turning 18.

Local lawmakers, as well as state Rep. Mark Rozzi (D-Berks) openly spoke out against the Altoona-Johnstown Catholic Church amidst the release of the grand jury report and rallied for change in the law.

“These laws could have passed 15 years ago and we might not be in this position we are today,” said Rozzi speaking at the Cambria County Courthouse in Ebensburg in March 2016. “We could have saved hundreds of lives. Legislators have failed to act, and that is a fact.”

State Rep. Ron Marisco (R-Dauphin) offered up the bill, which would have pushed the civil statute of limitations to the age of 50, or 32 years after a person turns 18.

An amendment to the bill pushed by Rozzi would have eliminated the criminal statute of limitations and extended civil lawsuits until age 50. He added a retroactive measure to his amendment, which would have opened the window for past alleged victims to sue their alleged abusers and their alleged abuser's places of employment.

The Rozzi amendment overwhelmingly passed the House 180 to 15 in April.

But the bill faced scrutiny as it moved to the Senate.

The main debate: Is retroactivity constitutional or unconstitutional?

Lobbying for SOL reform

The accusations of childhood sex abuse and the bill pushing for change evoke strong emotions for those for and against a potential law change.

Mark Singel, the president of The Winter Group. He is a registered contract lobbyist and consultant at the Harrisburg-based firm. Singel's firm represented Foundation to Abolish Child Sex Abuse. a group fighting for reform in the statute of limitations law.

Singel is the former lieutenant governor under Gov. Bob Casey in the late-1980s to mid-1990s.

“It’s very much like a ‘David and Goliath’ thing,” said Singel. “We are outgunned.”

The Winter Group’s relationship to lobby on behalf of the foundation started in October 2011. But it ended at the end of last year on Dec. 23, 2016.

“We remain supportive of the cause, and I certainly have a good relationship with all the advocates [of FACSA],” said Singel in a phone interview on Thursday. “We’re hoping this is the year we finally get meaningful statute of limitations reform.

Singel said his support has not diminished, even though his professional relationship is over.

“I think it’s outrageous victims of child sex abuse can’t get their day in court just because of an arbitrary time limit placed on litigation,” said Singel. “The reality is they ran out of money. We are happy to assist in what’s a noble cause, but we have to operate a business here.”

Singel said his group spent zero dollars lobbying last issue on the issue of statute of limitations and prevention of child sex abuse. Records from the Department of State showed FACSA hasn’t spent a penny lobbying in Pennsylvania since June 2012.

Before that, the group spent a total of $8,400 between October 2011 to June 2012, according to lobbying disclosure records reviewed by 6 News.

Singel sat down with 6 News in September in an on-camera interview to discuss lobbying and lobbying reform. He said the group he represents fought for retroactivity to be included to legislation. But Singel added two opponents of that measure were the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference and the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, or PCC, is an advocacy group for catholic dioceses in the commonwealth.

The Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania is a nonprofit trade association.

“They have their representatives crawling the hill on a regular basis, and it shows. It shows,” said Singel. “I think the actions in the Senate reflect a, you know, a full-court press by the Catholic Conference, by the Insurance Federation to prevail.”

State senators remove retroactivity after June hearing

House Bill 1947 came in front of 15 state senators as part of a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 13, 2016.

Six people including members of the attorney general’s office, state professors and a lawyer testified to their expertise on the constitutionality of retroactivity in the bill.

Cary Silvernman, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, a law firm in Washington D.C., testified against retroactivity. He openly identified himself as being there at the request of the Insurance Federation and the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference.

“I work with [the registered lobbyists and representatives of PCC and the Insurance Federation],” said Singel. “They're doing their job as best they can. But I do think both entities are pouring a lot of money into an effort that is misguided.”

The retroactive language was ultimately stripped in a June vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee. State senators then unanimously passed the amended HB 1947 without retroactivity. The bill failed to be voted on again in the House before the end of the 2015-16 session.

State Sen. John Rafferty, a Republican lawmaker representing counties in eastern Pennsylvania, sits as vice chair on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he supported retroactivity. He voted against removing retroactivity from the bill in committee. He voted for the amended bill on the Senate floor last session.

“The underlying crime here has never been permissible, acceptable or legal in Pennsylvania and never will be. So that's why I support it for retroactivity for any private or public institution that was engaged in this,” said Rafferty.

Money spent advocating by groups

Between April and September 2016, when the Statute of Limitations Bill was in the spotlight, PCC spent nearly $342,000 on lobbying a number of issues affecting the state, according to lobbying disclosure records with the Department of State.

Department of State records showed the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania spent nearly $1.1 million during that same time frame.

But 6 News Investigates cannot determine exactly how that money was spent. Current Pennsylvania law doesn't require those details released.

The current reporting system only shows money spent towards direct communication with lawmakers, indirect communication and gifts, hospitality, lodging and transportation, as well as a list of general lobbying subjects a principal and its lobbyists advocate.

The law doesn’t reveal who lobbyists and groups spoke with, time spent with lawmakers and money spent on lobbying subjects or on a particular bill, like HB 1947.

“There’s been a lot of pushback from various lobbying groups and special interest groups that have a financial interest in this. They don't want to have huge payouts,” said state Rep. Frank Burns (D-Cambria).

Questions to the Insurance Federation about its opposition to retroactivity have gone unanswered. As 6 News Investigates reported in November, insurance dollars and diocesan funds pay for claims of child sex abuse against clergy members.

But PCC has kept no secrets on how it feels about its disagreement of HB 1947 with retroactivity. Last April, the group posted a lengthy message on its website, opposing the legislation with time-barred language.

"Nothing in the proposed Pennsylvania legislation would send any perpetrators to jail,” said Robert J. O’Hara, Jr., executive director at the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference in a statement written on PCC's website. “Rather, it will put individual parishes and neighborhood Catholic schools in the firing line for lawsuits that are nearly impossible to defend against."

PCC declined multiple requests to comment on-camera for this report.

Amy Hill, a spokesperson for PCC, sent 6 News a lengthy statement:

“We reiterate what has been stated before and is often overlooked in the debate about the statutes of limitations. The Catholic community is committed to encouraging healing among survivors and their families, and offers lifelong resources for survivors, including counseling and addiction treatment.

“In addition, the Catholic dioceses of Pennsylvania adhere to strict safe environment practices, including training for employees, clergy and volunteers in identifying and responding to signs of abuse. Our dioceses enforce a zero-tolerance policy for clergy, employees and volunteers accused of abuse. Past allegations have already been reported to local district attorneys and were now also shared with the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office. Credible allegations of misconduct result in permanent removal from ministry, no matter how long ago the abuse took place. Every adult who interacts with children — including clergy, employees and volunteers — is subject to thorough background checks.

“The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference does not oppose the elimination of the criminal statute of limitations. We can all agree that anyone involved with the sexual abuse of a child should be severely punished by the law. Sexual predators should be locked behind bars and removed from society so they cannot hurt anyone else.

“We do share concerns along with the business community about how a retroactive measure will conflict with the Pennsylvania Constitution. No matter the final resolution with House Bill 1947, the Catholic Church will continue to keep its sincere commitment to the emotional well-being of individuals who have been impacted by the crime of childhood sexual abuse, no matter how long ago the crime was committed.

“We will do all we can to offer healing to those who suffer, and we encourage anyone who is a survivor of abuse by someone in the Catholic Church to first contact authorities and report it, then contact their local diocese to get assistance for support services.”

Moving ahead into 2017-18 session

The fight to reform the statute of limitations for child sex abuse isn't over. Three bills or proposed legislation are currently being discussed by lawmakers in the Capitol building.

The Senate passed Senate Bill 261 last week, which looks exactly like the last session’s version of HB 1947 that passed in the Senate.

There’s no retroactivity. Criminal and civil statute of limitations would be eliminated. Victims could sue their alleged abusers at any time, but could only sue the employer of their abuser until they turn 50.

Meanwhile in the House, Marsico is looking to re-introduce a bill similar to his original statute of limitations bill from last session.

Rozzi is also planning to introduce a statute of limitations bill with retroactivity.