It’s becoming so common that it’s hardly news any more — city, county, and state officials accepting bribes for votes. When it does make the news, it’s usually because the corrupt public officials have been caught up in an FBI sting following a thorough investigation.
The latest fish to get reeled in is Detroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers (shown left), wife of Michigan US Representative John Conyers. She has just pled guilty in federal court to one count of conspiring to commit bribery. She could get five years in federal prison for her guilty plea.
With her guilty plea Conyers acknowledges receiving approximately $6,000 in bribes in return for her vote to approve a $1.2-billion city waste disposal contract for Synagro Technologies. The charging document and plea agreement provide the elements of the case.
Monica Conyers is hardly some uneducated public figure worthy of sympathy.
She earned degrees from the University of the District of Columbia School of Law (Juris Doctorate), Central Michigan University (Masters Public Administration) and Bennett College (B.A. Secondary Education/ Political Science) and served as a Lyndon B. Johnson intern in the nation’s capitol. She worked for 16 years as a teacher and administrator, managing staff and budgets with the Detroit Public Schools. She has served as co-chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus Spouse’s Association and sits on the Board of Directors of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.
Terrence R. Berg, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, has issued a formal press release about Conyers’ conviction and a statement about the investigation.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with the general slant of this website, this post seems to be reaching in a bad way. Stay focused.
Comment by eq72521 — June 26, 2009 @ 11:15 am
eq,
Could you please be more specific? In what way is it “reaching in a bad way?”
My focus is on showing readers the mechanics and processes of public corruption. Whether it’s in city hall or the statehouse, on Capitol Hill or the White House, public corruption undermines the public’s trust in our public officials.
Comment by Bill — June 26, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Only $6,000 in bribes? Piker.
Comment by Dan — June 26, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Bill,
My read of this site (which is admittedly new and probably shallow, I only went back a few weeks) is that it’s about Coeur d’Alene, with a particular emphasis on telling the full story about, discussing, and maybe bringing to task those in power in the area. Again, while I don’t disagree with that intent, to bring up a random story about corruption somewhere else way on the other side of the continental divide feels like a cheap shot, like intimidation by innuendo. Of course these things are happening (rampant, some would say) everywhere; it just seems to me that this site would stay focused on local issues and examples.
And yes, Dan, a $6000 bribe is rather disappointing. In the words the great Dr. Gonzo, “If something’s worth doing, it’s worth doing right.”
Comment by eq72521 — June 26, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
eq,
No, there is nothing shallow about your understanding of what we’re trying to accomplish. We are trying to hold local officials accountable for their behaviors. I choose public corruption cases with teaching points that encourage honest citizens to carefully and critically examine the behaviors of their local officials. It’s not about geography; it’s about learning to recognize unusual, abnormal, or outright illegal behaviors. We have officials in Kootenai County exhibiting some of the same behaviors shown by convicted officials in other parts of the country. That local officials have not yet been prosecuted does not justify illegal behavior or “prove” it is not occurring.
Unfortunately, the process of corrupting a public official follows closely the process intelligence officers use to spot, assess, recruit, handle, and control their agents. It doesn’t happen all at once; it happens gradually, usually to an official who steadfastly asserts, “It could never happen to me.” The official who denies it could happen to him or her is the one least likely to be willing and able to spot what is happening, the process of obligating him or her to someone else. Because the process is gradual, by the time the official realizes he’s been ensnared, it may be nearly impossible for him to escape.
You and Dan both caught something that caused you to say, “That doesn’t make sense.” Monica Conyers took what appeared to be a relatively small bribe to deliver a much larger return on investment for Synagro. Why? Why did she accept or demand so little? The answer to that question may have been the one that defined the criminal intent the government unquestionably proved.
If you were to interview some of Monica Conyers’ friends and constituents, maybe those who are also members of Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church or sorority sisters at Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., or Order of Eastern Star, I can absolutely guarantee you that before her guilty plea today, some of them would have said, “She would never do anything like what she’s accused of.” But of course, she did. She admitted in court she did. Unfortunately, I can also guarantee you that some of those same people would rationalize her illegal behavior by saying, “Well, so she made a little on the side. So what? Look at all the good she’s doing for her community. As long as nobody got hurt by her accepting a ‘little’ bribe, what’s the harm?”
Public corruption has little to do with geography, but we can learn the precursor behaviors indicating corruption by studying the behaviors of corrupt public official wherever they may be found. There is no reason why honest local officials should fear or resent that. In fact, they should welcome it, because an attentive, alert populace will help keep the honest public officials honest. Only the dishonest ones will feel “intimidated” by public scrutiny. Public scrutiny does not create illegal behavior; it draws attention to it. A diligent public asking questions is not implying guilt, but guilt may be inferred from an evasive, deceptive, or diversionary answer — or no answer at all.
Comment by Bill — June 26, 2009 @ 8:08 pm