Yesterday’s OpenCdA.com post about the arrest of Prince George’s County (Maryland) Executive Jack Johnson explains the allegations leading to his and his wife’s arrests by the FBI on charges relating to public corruption.
Today’s Washington Post story titled Jack Johnson’s arrest shows development as a blessing and a curse provides insight into how public officials’ conduct evolves into misconduct when big money is at stake.
In our own area, we need to be watchful not only of our elected officials’ conduct but the conduct of “unpaid volunteers” appointed by those officials to commissions and committees. They are often in positions to make official recommendations which financially benefit themselves or the elected officials who appointed them.
Bill,
You put this up right as I commented on the previous. My comment is more fitting to this post.
Comment by concerned citizen — November 14, 2010 @ 9:29 am
Statutes regarding ethics and ethics violations must be strengthened. Also, county Prosecutors must enforce ethics violations and enforce them in a timely manner.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — November 14, 2010 @ 10:01 am
Susie,
You are correct. The laws must first be enforceable, and that requires legislators to write and pass them. While some Idaho legislators may be willing to try, my sense is that an unhealthy number of them don’t really want to rock the campaign contribution boat being skippered by those who prefer status quo corruptus. Once we have enforceable laws, then we do need prosecutors who will investigate and prosecute. Unfortunately, we have to factor in elected judges who may be dead-enders and who may also be just a bit greedy themselves. There was an interesting article in the IdahoReporter.com. It was by Brad Iverson-Long, and it lamented the difficulty Idaho has getting and retaining qualified judges. One line in the article stood out:
No kidding!
Comment by Bill — November 14, 2010 @ 10:12 am
Bill, in order to properly evaluate your last post it is necessary that the word “best” be defined. Without this clarification I am afraid that since 99.9% of Judges are originally appointed by the Governor, who makes his decision based upon political ties, recommendations from “in-crowd” politically connected persons across the state,and whether a ‘nominee’ has a proven track record of not rocking the political boat (I guess that last one might be a little redundant because the first two would not occur if the last one wasn’t a “given”), that the “best” politically connected persons are in fact appointed as judges. The bottom line in judicial appointments is thus not who is “attracted” and who isn’t…It boils down to the Governor gets what he wants.
Comment by Happy Trails — November 14, 2010 @ 11:25 am
Happy Trails,
Best = Good + Better – Unqualified – Dangerous
Better = Most Politically Reliable
Good = Big Campaign Donor
Unqualified = Honest, Uncorruptible
Dangerous = Actually reads, understands, and follows the Constitution and the laws
Comment by Bill — November 14, 2010 @ 12:00 pm