Petrolati was ordered to answer questions about his role in securing jobs for family, friends and political supporters.
LUDLOW - State Rep. Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow, is challenging a subpoena to testify before an independent counsel investigating hiring practices of the state Probation Department.
The third-ranking leader in the House of Representatives was ordered to appear August 25 before independent counsel Paul F. Ware Jr. to answer questions about his role in securing jobs for family, friends and political supporters.
But the testimony was postponed after Petrolati’s lawyer, John P. Pucci of Northampton, challenged the subpoena on the grounds that Ware was appointed to investigate the Probation Department, not the state Legislature.
“This is a unique and unparalleled intrusion into the legislative branch,” Pucci said Monday, adding that overriding issue is the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.
“He feels obligated to raise the issue and have it addressed,” said Pucci, adding that Ware had indicated that his client is not a target of the investigation.
The probe was launched in response to a Boston Globe review of hiring and promotions in the Probation Department during the tenure of Probation Commissioner John J. O’Brien, who was suspended in May.
More than 90 of Petrolati’s financial backers are on the department’s payroll, along with his wife, a former staffer and the husband of a top aide, according to the Globe, which described Petrolati as “the king of patronage” in courthouses across Western Massachusetts.
A spokesman for the Massachusetts Trial Court, which oversees the Probation Office, said the agency had no comment Monday.
In a motion filed Friday with the state Supreme Judicial Court, Pucci said requiring his client to testify was unnecessary, and beyond the scope of Ware’s mandate, and could provoke a confrontation between the Legislature and the court system.
“Does this court plan to hold the petitioner in contempt? Will this court jail (Petrolati) until he submits to the subpoena? It does not strain the imagination to foresee a constitutional crisis precipitated by the judiciary’s breach of the separation of powers doctrine if this subpoena is enforced,” Pucci wrote.
The subpoena also required Petrolati to provide any documents in his possession involving a list of state employees; based on Pucci’s motion, the court ordered the list to be impounded.
No date has been set for a ruling on the challenge for Petrolati’s subpoena. Both sides were asked to file legal briefs by Sept. 10.