Investigations -- Timing
Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert has been pilloried for waiting to act on Richard Ellis’s allegations until after the primary election. The delay, many argue, is a sure sign of cronyism, protectionism, good old boyism, etc. If that’s the case, and it's not just the experienced realization that a politically-motivated witch hunt might be going on, then Democratic Representative Phil Riesen must be part of that conservative cabal.
On June 18th, he and Rep. Sheryl Allen went toe-to-toe on the timing, manner and purpose of their planned ethics complaint against Rep. Mark Walker. While Rep. Allen was extremely eager to file the complaint immediately before the primary, accompanied by a splashy press release, Rep. Riesen recoiled at the political crassness. Instead, he wanted it to be less political, waiting until after the primary and doing it quietly through the ethics committee, instead of through the media. He won on one of those two points.
These kinds of things are important to know, if – as we are forebodingly told today – more, unspecified ethics allegations are to come (say, shortly before the general election?). There’s always the chance that politics are involved in politics.
Rep. Riesen, thank you for the restraint on the timing issue. I support organizations policing their members, whether that’s a bar association, a team, a family, or a legislature. But, as we see here and in so many other contexts, the concept of innocent until proven guilty has no meaning in election cycles and the media. Thus, it is important that members of an organization approach the organization’s disciplinary process with restraint – which usually means out of the public’s eye, until the disciplinary body reaches its conclusion, which, then, can be released along with the allegations; otherwise, the disciplinary process itself can become a tool for significant abuse.
posted by steve u. at 6/28/2008
Subscribe
14 Comments:
IMHO: The time to open an ethics investigation is at the time when investigation worthy charges arise.
You don't wait until after a funeral to open a murder investigation.
You don't wait until the weekend to start a bank robbery investigation.
So ...
When do YOU think is a good time for an ethics investigation? Would it change your mind if the targets were Democrats? (I think the answer is yes).
If history is any indicator, the sooner it gets done the sooner you guys can bipartisanly sweep it under the rug.
JM,
Phil and the LG were clearly right to wait.
Ellis himself waited over 2 months to bring anything forward. That raises a question of motivation; and, in any event, it suggests that waiting a bit longer until after the primary election is okay.
Also, the wisdom of waiting is ratified by the media's treatment of the LG's referral to the AG. There is no presumption of innocence. The articles I read suggest that Walker and Ellis both were involved in a conversation that is going to be investigated. (Where the main "witness" stood to gain far more financially from the outcome of the race than both of the candidates, giving great incentive to be a matchmaker/kingmaker and strike a deal for a candidate who might have wanted out of the race). Yet, the media has convicted Mark and asked no questions about the involvement of Ellis and Empey.
And, on your question whether my mind would be changed based on party, I'm a lot less partisan than many blogizens. On significant matters like this, I don't think you see a change in my positions based on party. Case in point, if Ellis was involved in a conversation and, then, turned it into political fodder, I'd have no problem actively supporting the Democratic candidate.
Steve,
Did the thought ever cross your mind that Riesen et al are doing this FOR THE CHILDREN?
If Ellis really sat on his complaint I seriously question his motivation.
I think Ellis was seriously contemplating the degree of his culpability in the issue. I, too, think he waited to long to pass it along, but, when you consider all of the "who's" involved on Walker's side, I can certainly understand Ellis' hesitancy.
I will respectfully disagree with on the LG. When you consider the high level shenanigans involving candidates and the authorities passing on looking into the shenanigans (Lahra Miller/Del Loy Hansen, anyone? Both the AG (r) and the SLCounty DA (d), bipartisan punting at it's best?), added with the punitive measures of certain legislators when they don't get their way ...
Do you reasonably expect me to believe that Ellis is the one in the wrong and everyone else is on the up and up? Or do you expect me to believe that because there are Democrats in involved with the ethics probe that Walker / Ellis / LG etc should be exonerated because these charges if illegal campaigning happen to have happened in an election year?
There's an election cycle running every day of every year. Perhaps we should just stop looking into the alleged bad behavior of office holders until, I don't know, ten minutes before the world explodes?
Election shenanigans happen during elections. That seems to be a good time to investigate them (and, yes, I'm also talking about looking deeper into Ellis' part in everything).
If you want to get bent about the timing, you ought to get bent at Ellis, Walker and everyone else involved in the whole sordid mess, not getting tweaked about an ethics probe, regardless of the party inviting it.
If Dems were running the show, there would be a chunk of your party doing the same thing, and guess what? I think they'd be right in doing it. I also realize that I'm I'm a little weird in that, I don't like the "my party right of wrong" game at all.
Grrr. Typo filled madness, above.
Apologies.
Steve,
I agree with you on timing. I would however like to see the inquiry done in the public eye. I think I understand the reasons to do it in private, but after the last few years where the public has been left with real questions at times about the ethics of those behind the curtain, can you at least see why the public in general, I believe, would like to see this all done in broad daylight?
As a jaded member of the public, I would fully expect a private ethics review to conclude with a brief statement that there were no violations and provide no details. And just like guzzlegate, we're not inspired in our confidence in our leaders, but continue to grow more and more wary of what goes on behind closed doors. I have come to grips with the fact that very rarely do Mr. Curtis or Mr. Valentine head into a vote on a bill without absolute knowledge about what will happen. The decisions were made by leadership behind closed doors, and then they "build concensus" by whatever means necessary.
If our leaders want our trust, don't they get there on this Walker investigation by giving us more info and not less? I think I know your answer but look forward to your explaination.
JM,
I think that now, for example, is a fine time to investigate the allegations.
I'm not bent that the complaint was raised. I believe in organizations policing themselves.
I do have an issue with the manner by which it was raised. Part of the intent of the complaint, it seems, was to explode a political bombshell immediately before the primary. But, as I wrote above, I'm very pleased that Rep. Riesen's statesmanship prevailed. (And, based on past experience, I would assume that Rep. McGee likewise argued for restraint).
As I stated in the previous post, I think the press release was disrespectful to the process and to the individual named.
And, I have an issue with the "legislator-to-be-named-later." If the complainants know something, name the legislator. If the investigation reveals something about a legislator acting inappropriately, name him/her at that time. Otherwise, the "perpetrator/communist/legislator-to-be-named-later" is a tactic that has been used to horrible effect in political investigations.
11:06 anon.,
If I were Rep. Walker, I'd want this thing aired fully and publicly, meaning subpoenas for all involved and production of all of Ellis and Empey's emails, not just the ones they selected to display. I'd want phone logs of who they talked to around the time of the allegedly inappropriate conversations, and then I'd want to subpoena those people. Competing candidates talk with each other and through intermediaries all the time; I'd want to recreate those conversations as best as possible.
But, I'm not really sure how it all works. I'm not sure the Ethics Committee could get access to all the evidence. And, until the misdemeanor charges are resolved, I'd want advice on whether I should say anything at all.
And, the biggest problem for Rep. Walker is that the media and, then, the public will say that anything he does to protect himself against serious charges is just sour grapes. But, the nature of the charges requires that Ellis be involved. The allegations are that an inappropriate conversation took place. The conversation needs to be fleshed out. And, on one side of the alleged conversation, it seems that Empey has admitted that he and Ellis were negotiating for a job offer ("until they realized it was inappropriate" or something like that was the quote, I believe).
As you mention, though, the public is impatient; and the media has been unfair in this matter, and likely will continue to be so. It seems that putting on any defense would be deemed offensive by many.
JM,
I think you're out of place on this argument. Comparing the investigation of election-related bribery charges to a murder investigation is apples to oranges.
Even the director of the U of U's Hinckley's Institute of Politics agreed that the Lt. Governor "provided a great service to our democratic process" by waiting to file an official investigation with the Attorney General until after the election.
You can read his opinion here:
http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=9685493&siteId=297
This post has been removed by the author.
Dave - I like Jowers, but, saying nice things about Republican office holders is like a second career for him. Stick him in a time machine and he'd apologize Nixon's role in Watergate.
That aside, he really is a nice guy.
Steve, You're a liar just like the rest of your cronies. Mascaro is the real deal. You my friend are a weasel.
You should apologize to Rep. Mascaro, but you never apologized for vouchers so why start now.
Sierra,
You are hilarious. As all, you're free to your opinion, but just because Rep. Urquhart has a different opinion than you do doesn't mean he owes anyone an apology! Unbelieveable Arrogance on your part!
I happen to agree with Rep. Urquhart on both the Rep. Mascaro issue and vouchers. I guess I owe you an apology too for failing to have the correct opinion?!
Can we all say Watergate. This is a classic example of I'm not a crook. Just how deep this culture of corruption runs is going to be the great headlines in Utah for the election. Just watch and see.
Post a Comment
<< Home