The New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer have both reported that former Pennsylvania state Senator Vince Fumo has been convicted by a federal jury on “…all 137 counts of conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice, and tax violations … .”
There are lessons for us to learn from Fumo’s conviction.
Ruth Arnao, Fumo’s associate and former Executive Director of Fumo’s nonprofit, Citizens’ Alliance for Better Neighborhoods, was also convicted on all 45 federal counts charged. The Inquirer article noted, “In his closing argument, the federal prosecutor derisively characterized Arnao as Fumo’s rubber stamp.” The article about Arnao is noteworthy because it shows that blind followers, sycophants and toadies, will also be held accountable when their actions are illegal.
In her statement about the trial’s outcome reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer, United States Attorney Laurie Magid made several bullet points worth repeating.
- “Public officials must remember that public service is a privilege and an honor, not an opportunity for personal bias and gain.”
- “ ‘Everyone is doing this’ is not a defense, is not an excuse … Moreover, Vince Fumo was wrong – everyone is not doing it. There are legions of government workers who are both hard-working and honest.”
- “ ‘But I have worked so hard,’ even if it were true, is not a defense, is not an excuse, is not a basis for spending, to borrow the Senator’s term, OPM – ‘other people’s money,’… Hard work never, never, balances the scales against such abuse.”
- “Corruption cases are not easy to bring, but we have an obligation to bring them. When we know there is wrongdoing, it is our duty to pursue it, regardless of the obstacles we encounter.”
- “The public is weary of officials playing by their own rules and ignoring lines.”
Vince Fumo, like many local officials throughout the country, was seen as infallible, never wrong, never dishonest, by many of his constituents. The Philadelphia Inquirer article headlined Reaction: In South Philly, varied views of ‘fallen legend’ asks, “Is a man who does good but acts badly someone to revere or revile?”
It’s a good question to ask wherever one lives. Should public officials be allowed to exploit their public position for personal benefit as long as they do some good in their community? Is “He does good” ever an acceptable excuse for illegal conduct? Should citizens anywhere be willing to accept that excuse?
The corruption conviction of former Pennsylvania state Senator Vince Fumo raises questions there that we in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, need to be asking of and about our own public officials, both elected and appointed. As US Attorney Magid said, “Public officials must remember that public service is a privilege and an honor, not an opportunity for personal bias and gain.” Amen.
Bill, great article. I especially like the phrase, ““The public is weary of officials playing by their own rules and ignoring lines.”
That’s what Charlie Nipp did. He figured those darned old disclosure laws didn’t apply to HIM. Don’t they know who HE is? He’s just the most fabulous, incredible citizen ever to volunteer his time in this city, so he doesn’t need to follow the rules…even if he owns property within the urban renewal district. Even if he owns and develops big buildings right on the boundary of the urban renewal district. And even though he bought property in the middle of the downtown urban renewal district while he was sitting as chairman of the LCDC. Nope, he’s above any disclosure laws.
And the Chamber gave him a big award last week, so that means everything’s A-Ok!
Comment by mary — March 17, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Well, the chamber was just returning a $250,000 favor to Nipp, who voted in favor of using your and my property tax dollars to GIVE FREE to the non-profit Chamber for their new building downtown. The Chamber owes allegiance to the LCDC, Nipp, and the elected city officials. They pay homage, they do as they’re told. And we the people? We get to use the bathrooms in that building. Such a deal!
I should do up a “Thanks for the place to poop” plaque for the LCDC to honor the decision to give $250,000 to the Chamber.
Comment by Dan — March 17, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Mary,
Thanks. Take away the geographic differences, and Harrisburg and Philadelphia become less distinguishable from Coeur d’Alene.
Dan,
Please — no more plaques! The city library already resembles a columbarium, and now the folks want to put name plaques on bus benches. What’s next? Plaques on roadkill?
Comment by Bill — March 17, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
what is the objection to plaques on bus benches?
Comment by reagan — March 17, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
The same as the objection to plaques on roadkill.
Comment by Bill — March 17, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Great article Bill. It should be run on the front page of the Press. Arrogance and hubris know no bounds here. We can only hope that they will, one day, all be pulled up short and removed.
Mary, that is exactly why I have re-named him St. Charlie the Nipp.
Comment by Faringdon — March 17, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Bill: “The folks want to put name plaques on bus benches.”
The reason for the plaques is so a business or organization can sponsor the bus benches. That way, taxpayers don’t have to pay anything to purchase and maintain the benches. The use of plaques instead of the unsightly advertizing one sees with STA is by far the best way to accomplish this.
I would think you would be pleased that a public entity is looking for ways to accomplish something useful for the thousands who rely on public transit as their only means of conveyance, and to do it without the use of public funds to make it happen.
Comment by JohnA — March 17, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Welcome, JohnA! I have no problem with plaques on bus benches. I agree with you that private or corporate sponsorships can help offset the cost to the taxpayers. They should be done tastefully, however, and not look like big billboards. Hasn’t Spokane had an issue with this lately and aren’t they removing/remodeling many of their bus benches, I think for this very reason?
Comment by mary — March 17, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
JohnA,
You’ve incorrectly assumed that I am not in favor of the bus benches. I would have thought you would have asked before you jumped to an uninformed conclusion.
Businesses and organizations can sponsor the benches without attribution if their motives are genuinely charitable and benevolent. If their sponsorship qualifies as a tax-deductible charitable donation, they can quite properly claim it. Of course, if their motive is self-aggrandizement, then they would want their name on it. This may come as a shock to you, but some people do donate and contribute anonymously.
Comment by Bill — March 17, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
god bless those saintly folks who donate anonymously. but sponsoring things, such as bus benches and libraries, is a viable method of fundraising that allows for a public benefit and some recognition to those contributing.
Comment by reagan — March 17, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
great lets fund all of the discretionary costs of government with fundraising instead of taxes then.
Comment by TheWiz — March 17, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
I’m with Bill on this one. Sponsoring and or charitible donations are their own rewards. You can take the tax deductions (and I do) without broadcasting your name to all and sundry. True charity doesn’t demand recognition, in fact, it shuns recognition. I’m always somewhat curious about those who publicize their charitible deeds. Are they endeavoring to do good or advertise themselves?
Comment by Faringdon — March 17, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Here’s the deal, folks. Rather than making one more trip to the public teat, we are endeavoring to seek an alternate waty to accomplish our goal. How to fund 97 benches at $500 a piece, plus the cost of maintenance. Rather than have gaudy signage on each one, which most cities don’t allow anyway, we are trying to seek sponsorship of the benches. One small plaque, placed where perhaps only those using the bench can see it, is all we are asking of our sponsors. And, please be reminded, we are asking for benches in places not readily visited or often seen, as well as the conspicuous places one might hope to have visibility. For each visible site, we’re asking for one that is not at a well-travelled site.
I realize the distain some people have for public transit, that it is beneath them to even consider using such a thing. But, I can assure you, for those accessing the 500,000 free rides annually, having a place to sit and wait for their ride is a very big thing indeed.
Comment by JohnA — March 17, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Bill: “You’ve incorrectly assumed that I am not in favor of the bus benches”
OK, Bill, you compared plaques on bus benches with plagues on road kill.
Next time, try being a part of the solution by attending the KMPO Public Transit Roundtable (see http://www.kmpo.org). You’ll find it is much more rewarding than chastising the solutions found therein.
Comment by JohnA — March 17, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
JohnA,
Apparently you are unable or maybe just unwilling to recognize that I am not opposed to bus benches. I simply commented on one part of what you are calling a solution.
The topic of this post is public corruption.
I intend to continue to be part of the solution to that local problem by drawing public attention to dishonest public officials and their misconduct. Helping people understand just how predatory public officials and some of their hirelings think and work is my contribution to the solution.
Certainly not all elected and appointed officials and community volunteers are dishonest and deceitful. On this website and in my Whitecaps blog I have identified some who are, and I have provided ample evidence to support the allegations against them.
Please go back and read my Whitecaps post of June 22, 2006. It was titled Not Your Father’s Kootenai County.
It should not surprise you to learn that some local people have tried to use social, political, and economic intimidation to silence those willing to expose official misconduct. It alarms this community’s Vince Fumo clones that fewer and fewer of their intended victims are willing to submit to that intimidation. Moreover, it concerns the Fumo wannabe’s that elected and appointed public officials beyond their reach have begun to pay attention to what is going on in Coeur d’Alene and Kootenai County.
Comment by Bill — March 18, 2009 @ 7:30 am
I have to agree with Faringdon’s post #12 on this one. So many in this community just have to have their name on the front page of the press. As long as one has been active and generous, it does not matter if they are an ax murderer.
Did you know, at the Kootenai County fair there is just one 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place ribbon for any given catagory? Where am I going with this? Did you know at the Spokane County fair EVERYONE gets a ribbon of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd? It is hard to claim ones outstanding contribution when everyone is either tooting their own horn or that everyone is entitled to recognition. Let alone the COST for ALL of these plaques that should be going to the contribution itself.
The plaque wall in the library is AWEFUL! It is UGLY! It looks PRETENTIOUS!
Look around this town. There are plaques on everything.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 18, 2009 @ 8:00 am
Thanks for getting us back on topic, Bill. I wonder what JohnA thinks about disclosures from urban renewal board members in general and in particular Charlie Nipp’s failure to disclose his role as a board member for Mt. West Bank? John?
Comment by mary — March 18, 2009 @ 8:37 am
mary, after being subject to bill’s mocking tone and disdain for what appears to be just about everything, do you really think johna, or anyone for that matter, really wants to comment on this site? even the suggestion that you folks try to be a proactive part of the decision making process and contribute to the community, rather than to attack every decision made and every individual involved in the process, is met with hostility.
Comment by reagan — March 18, 2009 @ 11:06 am
I’ll give it a shot anyway, Reagan.
Mary, I believe in total transparency when public dollars are involved, including full disclosure by all public officials whether elected or appointed. I also believe Charlie when he stated he didn’t know he had a disclosure issue, to which the AG agreed.
I will also state that I believe this episode will remind all public officials to review more closely any potential conflicts and disclose them totally.
Thanks for the chance to comment.
Comment by JohnA — March 18, 2009 @ 11:59 am
“reagan”,
“mary, …, do you really think johna, or anyone for that matter, really wants to comment on this site?”
Apparently you and JohnA still do.
Comment by Bill — March 18, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
“reagan”, I think JohnA is a big boy and can handle questions on this own.
Thanks for the reasoned answer, John. I don’t agree that Charlie didn’t know he had a disclosure issue. As you know, Charlie didn’t file any disclosures for the first almost 10 years, even though he owned property that should have been disclosed and 2 other board members did openly file theirs. The AG found that Charlie DID violate the state statues, but the time limit for prosecution was up and they did not file formal charges.
That said, the best thing Charlie could have done, in my opinion, would have been to apologize and advocate for more detailed and complete disclosure forms. He should lead the charge to change the way LCDC deals with disclosures and champion the right of the public to ask about how tax dollars are spent and the people making those decisions.
Instead we have seen denial, defensiveness, attack and intimidation. Not a picture of transparency.
Comment by mary — March 18, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
johnA..you are welcome here as Mary previously stated. Whether or not we all agree, intelligent well thought opinions are always welcome. I understand what you were saying about donated benches as opposed to tax paid benches. And believe me, I prefer the donated idea better. I have always believed that (and this may sound corny) virtue is its own reward. And that is all I was saying. I may be wrong, but I believe that Bills remark about plaques on roadkill was not directed at you. While I may not always agree with a post, I do respect a posters right to their opinions…as long as they are done with the aim to contribute and not to cause conflict.
Comment by Faringdon — March 18, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Mary and Faringdon:
Thank you for your comments. I hope this site can be one in which contrary opinions are shared openly. I’ve always been an optimist when it comes to local govenment, placing high expectations on myself as well as other public officials to do what is in the best interests of our constituents.
It must be that way if we are to correctly serve the public in the charge entrusted to us.
Comment by JohnA — March 18, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
I agree, John, and look forward to your contributions to our conversations here!
Comment by mary — March 18, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Adults can disagree, even get a tad strident in that disagreement but they remain adults. Children pick and whine and try to create dissension. Sometimes they grow up. When they don’t, they vote their emotions. We call them liberals.
Comment by Pariah — March 18, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
Sometimes they grow up. When they don’t, they vote their emotions. We call them liberals
now there is a constructive post! way to keep the dialog on topic and moving forward.
Comment by reagan — March 18, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
You may respond to the liberal charge, “reagan”.
Comment by mary — March 18, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Sure he could Mary but he’d apparently rather play childish games in a vain effort to belittle the site and the posters here. He has failed but like all those driven by childish motives has also failed to notice his own failure.
Comment by Pariah — March 18, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
Pariah, I think your rhetoric is too strong. Let’s keep on our topic of community interest and not devolve into personal insults. You may use respectful, firm language about the subject of public corruption, for example, but let’s keep personal issues out of it. Thanks.
Comment by mary — March 18, 2009 @ 10:44 pm