You have to wonder what Hellam is getting from Perdue?

Hellam tries to silence former consultant

See the Osman letter here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312768626/Osman-Letter

http://www.ydr.com/story/news/2016/05/19/hellam-tries-silence-former-consultant/84347932/

The engineer received a letter from Hellam Township barring him from working for any group that opposes Perdue's $59 million construction plan.

An environmental consultant finds himself in the crossfire between Perdue AgriBusiness and a group of citizens who oppose the company's plan to build a soybean processing plant in Lancaster County.That consultant, Fred Osman, received a letter from Hellam Township barring him from working for any group that opposes Perdue's $59 million construction plan. 

Osman said he interprets the letter as a threat to discredit him as an engineer if he opposes the multi-billion dollar agriculture company. However, Bradley Leber, the Hellam Township solicitor who penned the letter, said it is simply part of the township's process of ending its fight with the company.The Department of Environmental Protection approved Perdue's plan last week, and with less than 30 days left for groups to appeal the result, Osman must decide whether to risk his career by working with an area citizens' group that is considering an appeal.

Township involvement

From 2012 to 2015, Osman worked as a paid consultant for Hellam Township, where he looked at possible health risks for some York County residents associated with Perdue's planned facility. During that time, the township's board of supervisors spent about $20,000 in township money working to get Perdue to install pollution controls at the plant. Among other tasks, Osman wrote a letter to DEP addressing issues with Perdue's application, which Perdue responded to as part of its DEP application process.The supervisors who hired Osman were voted out of office in November 2015. Incoming supervisors, who took office in January, ran on the platform that they would spend no more taxpayer money on the issue.The Feb. 18 letter is part of the township's effort to keep that promise and untangle itself with the prior board's opposition to the plant, Leber said."We've essentially closed the book on Perdue," Leber said.

To Osman, however, the letter reads less like the township is cutting ties and more like the township is doing Perdue's bidding."It seems to me that someone else went to them and said, 'Hey, can you get Osman off the case?'" he said.Leber said that Perdue did express concern to the township that Osman could be a potential adversary, but it never asked the township to write a letter or take any other specific actions. The township alone decided to write the letter, in part to show Perdue that it was formally ending its opposition to the company's plan, he said.“We wrote to Mr. Osman to make it known to him that the town was no longer interested in opposing the project, and in order to ensure we’re completely closing the book on this we didn’t want him to advance a position that is contrary to that," Leber said.A political action committee for the incoming supervisors, Conservative Values for Hellam Township, did receive $250 in campaign contributions from a public relations firm called Versant Strategies, which lists Perdue AgriBusiness as a client, county records show. Versant Strategies' president, MeeCee Baker, said the company often contributes to causes it supports."We appreciated the work they were doing in the community to ensure residents had all the facts and information they needed to make an informed decision about the Perdue project," Baker said in an email.Leber said he was unaware of the donation, having only been appointed by the board of supervisors after those supervisors were elected.

Perdue also didn't know about the contribution, said company spokeswoman Julie DeYoung.

The letterThe letter says his profession's code of ethics blocks him using expertise gained through a former employer against the interests of that employer. The idea is that Osman would be representing "an adversarial interest" after having "gained particular specialized knowledge," the letter states.There isn't much precedent for letters like this one, said Arthur Schwartz, the National Society of Professional Engineers' executive director and general counsel."I've not seen that language applied to a public issue or circumstance, where it appears someone representing a public authority is using that language to try to limit an engineer to continue offering professional services," Schwartz said.At any rate, Schwartz said, the code of ethics has to be understood in its entirety, and the code begins by stating that engineers "hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public." Even proprietary information could be revealed if public safety was at risk, he said.That said, the township could still file a complaint against Osman, which would lead to an administrative hearing, Schwartz said. Even if the township lost, it could appeal to civil court, threatening Osman financially, if not professionally.

 What's next? Since DEP approved Perdue's plan, the window of opportunity is sliding shut for those pushing for the environmental devices at the plant. Lynn Mackley, who leads Citizens Against Perdue Pollution, said the group wants to appeal to the Environmental Hearing Board, a state agency that handles DEP cases.The problem, she said, is that the appeal will cost between $25,000 to $100,000 in attorneys' fees. Mackley said the group is meeting with area business owners concerned about the pollution to seek funding.Should Osman choose to work with the group, it would be up to the Hellam Township board of supervisors whether to take action against him, Leber said. However, he suspects that the township would stay out of any activities involving a citizens' group.Osman said he hasn't decided whether he would work with Citizens Against Perdue Pollution if they appeal. But after speaking with his attorney, he was sure that the township has no right to limit his involvement."Everything I responded to is public comment," he said. "The basis for their objection is not justifiable."