FAIRHOPE, Ala. - Police Chief Bill Press could face either felony criminal charges or a minor administrative complaint at a hearing in Montgomery Wednesday morning at the Alabama Ethics Commission in the highly publicized ethics case involving how a private bank account has been used to pay off-duty officers.

The agency’s charging document that sets out the allegations and laws involved, similar to an indictment in other criminal cases, has not been disclosed, and efforts to obtain it from the city have not been successful.

From the information disclosed thus far, it is unclear what exact ethics law may have been violated.

The charges might involve public office for private gain because Press has stated repeatedly that neither he nor his office have taken any money privately from the account.

The hearing will occur in a private executive session before the commission, which will reconvene in public to vote on whether there is probable cause to refer the case to the local district attorney or state attorney general for prosecution.

Press first brought the case to light at a City Council meeting in March, when he explained that a complaint had been filed against him by the mayor. He stated in an email and letter to the council that he had been cooperating with investigators at the agency, as well as the district attorney’s office, but that he had refused to settle the case on a minor administrative violation basis.

Kant has declined to release the letter he sent to the agency, which initiated an investigation leading to today’s hearing, stating the agency said it should remain sealed.

A decision in the case is expected this afternoon.

Just as the facts and charges in Press’ case are not clear, the ethical and legals issues raised by off-duty police work are complex and far from clear-cut, not only in Alabama but throughout the country.

In March this year, news stories from New Orleans and Trenton, N.J., revealed the possible corrupting influence of off-duty police work in those cities.

In Trenton, a $2 million “off-duty scheme” was detailed in a March 23 article in the Trentonian, which came to light from the testimony of several police whistleblowers.

The article described how off-duty assignments were doled out without regulation by one police officer to a handful of other officers.

The “City Council is on the verge of reigning in off-duty police officers with (a local ordinance) featuring new guidelines regarding assignment of all off-duty police and compensation due the city,” the article stated.

In New Orleans, the Times-Picayune described how prevalent and visible off-duty work was in the city in a March 18 article, stating, “But the report this week by the U.S. Department of Justice about widespread problems within the New Orleans Police Department singled out private details for criticism, saying they have a deeply corrupting influence on the agency.”

In Fairhope, a 1999 resolution adopted by the City Council and signed by then-Mayor Jim Nix sets out the procedure for off-duty work.

That resolution does not state how payments are to be made to officers, which could be at the heart of the current case.

One of the allegations Press has made as a reason for bringing what he said is a new accountability to off-duty work procedures, was the custom in the past where officers received money “off the books” and “under the table.”

While he would not confirm what has been speculated as some very large amounts paid to officers, he did say,

“It is my understanding they were getting above the standard $30 per hour.”