It’s taken more than a year and a half, but there seems to be a glimmer of hope for legislation I have been championing during these long 18 months.

The Pennsylvania Senate has passed Senate Bill 897, introduced by Lisa Boscola, D-Northampton, that would correct an incredibly damaging omission that has allowed several felons to get away without paying restitution to their victims.

Why? Because their victims are not human beings.

One was the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or, in other words, all of us taxpayers; one was Bethlehem Township in Northampton County, and the other was a community church in Easton.

The corrective legislation would expand the definition of “victims” to include government agencies, nonprofits and religious organizations.

This all started in November 2016 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in the case of former Beaver County state Rep. Mike Veon that he did not need to make restitution of $136,000 to the state after being convicted of public corruption in the infamous “bonusgate” scandal.

Supreme Court Justice David Wecht, speaking for the majority, wrote that after scouring the Crime Victims Act, he could find no justification or pronoun that would make it applicable to anything other than a human. The act, Wecht wrote, defines a victim as “an individual who suffers physical or mental injury, death or loss of earnings.”

Attorneys were quick to pounce on this oversight and concluded that if the law does not apply to a government agency, then it doesn’t apply to a municipality, a nonprofit or any other nonhuman entity either.

As soon as the Veon verdict became public, Boscola, along with a colleague, Pat Stefano, R-Fayette, co-sponsored a bill in 2017 to try to plug this unintended loophole in the state law — a no-brainer, right?

Well, this shows how slowly the wheels churn in Harrisburg. Understand, too, that just because the Senate has approved the proposed law, it still needs to pass the House of Representatives, after which it would need the signature of Gov. Tom Wolf.

The House passed a similar bill in 2017, but the Senate did not act on it, deciding, instead, to pass its own bill.

In applauding the Senate’s affirmative vote, Boscola said that legislators need to ensure that those who steal from taxpayers or nonprofits are obligated to make repayment.

She echoed what I have said in previous columns on this matter: “It’s just common sense.” I also made the point that the state and townships are made up of human beings, who must foot the loss if thieves are allowed to weasel out of their restitution obligations to make up for their wrongdoings. The church involved in this issue is made up of congregants who are adversely impacted by the actions of one of their own.

A state Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Robert Kearns, a Scranton-area businessman who was serving time for stealing $832,000 from Bethlehem Township involving a streetlight scheme. Kearns and a co-defendant sold many municipalities, including some in the Times News area, on a scheme by convincing officials that they could save thousands of dollars by buying streetlights instead of leasing them.

The same is true in the case of Ann Marie Ballentine, who is challenging a ruling that orders her to repay the $362,000 she admitted that she stole from the First Presbyterian Church of Easton where she was once treasurer.

Ballentine was sentenced to nine to 23 months on work-release after pleading guilty to theft. She was paroled in September 2015, but she still owes more than $350,000 of the restitution she was ordered to repay. At first she promised to make good on the amount in installments, but all that is on hold as she appeals the restitution order.

Even if the law is changed, it is unlikely that it will have any impact on cases going through the courts such as Ballentine’s. The implications are dizzying. Think of all of the people who have been charged with embezzlement of nonprofits — fire companies, ambulance corps, Little League teams, etc. — as well as private companies and other nonhuman entities. Many of these defendants are under order to make restitution. Will these orders now be subject to review and, possibly, overturned under the existing law? If that is the case, it will be a really bitter pill to swallow.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com