Philadelphia Government Won’t Talk about the Scott Brown Firing

Three times on Wednesday afternoon I asked whether the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office had seized the computer of Mr. Scott Brown, who until this week had been the Director of the City’s Veterans Advisory Commission. And three times the spokesperson there refused to comment.

The tight lips of Mr. Cameron Kline at the DA’s Office foreshadowed my ensuing interactions with members of the Philadelphia government, including Ms. Jane Roh, the Communications Director of City Council President Mr. Darrell Clarke. Mr. Clarke in a statement said Mr. Brown’s job was eliminated due to a re-organization of the office in an effort to deliver better services, yet sources allege that Mr. Brown had been misappropriating funds, earmarked for public activities, upwards of $300,000.00.

Such malfeasance wasn’t confirmed or denied by members of the government, all whom simply refused to talk about both the allegation, and the reorganization of the Veterans Advisory Commission. The unwillingness of anyone to talk about the reorganization, given that it’s supposed to be good news, appears odd, as is the fact that no one decried the allegation of Mr. Brown as a thief, as a vicious rumor.

Mr. Ari Merretazon, a Vietnam Veteran who’s a part of a lawsuit against the Philadelphia City Council for its role in what he calls a “service scandal,” said the secrecy from officials has only “increased” his suspicion that something is afoul.

“Something is up that Clarke doesn’t want to be transparent about. You don’t just get up and fire the Executive Director of your Commission… the Executive Director who you said was doing a fine job,” Mr. Merretazon said.

Last month, when a Prisoner of War memorial was unveiled at City Hall, Mr. Brown was characterized by the Mayor of Philadelphia as a guy who pulls off great events, like that which on April 10th paid respects to soldiers who were held captive. And Mr. Clarke, who has for years resisted the demands of Mr. Merretazon, told me in one of the last interviews I conducted with him, that he was satisfied with the infrastructure in place for serving veterans in Philadelphia and wouldn’t pursue drastic change.

In the spirit of fairness, it’s possible Mr. Clarke has evolved on the issue, maybe after doing an analysis of the agency, and was sold on a new direction. But, when you consider that Ms. Roh wouldn’t even answer a question on what has informed Mr. Clarke’s impending reform, it seems less likely that the change is evidence-based and more likely that it’s a response to a controversy that the City desperately wants to mute.

Mr. Merretazon said that he’s disappointed that Mr. Clarke won’t elaborate on neither the firing of Mr. Brown nor the reorganization of the Office. He also suggested that transparency and accountability is a debt owed to the veterans’ community.

A few in local government view Mr. Merretazon as having an agenda. He doesn’t deny having one.

Mr. Merretazon, who with his comrades on Thursday at noon will rally outside the Veterans Advisory Commission, wants established, based on his interpretation of a 1950’s law, a County Director of Veterans Affairs who serves within an independent and permanent office.

What Philadelphia offers now is a resolution-based office which serves at the pleasure of the City Council President. In other words, the only real infrastructure Philadelphia has for veterans is implemented at a politician’s discretion.

The VAC’s lack of independence was affirmed Wednesday when Ms. Roh, after I attempted to question workers in the office, said only Mr. Clarke can speak for that office. And in the same breath, Ms. Roh said Mr. Clarke will not speak about the office, and that his statement speaks for itself.

“Scott brown’s firing didn’t flow in from the sea, something happened that cause this thing, and that’s what we have to find out about,” said Mr. Merretazon.