The reason I asked is because something like this really happened. I give you state legislator Trip Pittman (R-Montrose). Senator Pittman, along with state Rep. Steve McMillan (R-Gulf Shores), was appointed to oversee millions of dollars for oil cleanup in and around Baldwin County. Of the $1.15 million allocated for Fairhope, fully half of it went to Pittman's company.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101127/NEWS02/11270313/1009
The Press-Register of Mobile reported that Pittman Tractor Co., owned by state Sen. Trip Pittman, R-Montrose, received $639,000 to help deploy oil-blocking boom around Fairhope, located on the eastern shore of Mobile Bay. As a legislator, Pittman was responsible for overseeing the use of the BP grant money.
Pittman, of course, claims he did nothing wrong, even though his actions at the time seem to bespeak his knowledge of guilt.
When Fairhope submitted its project proposals in May, county department heads realized Pittman's potential involvement, according to Charles "Skip" Gruber, who was the county commission chairman at the time.
Gruber said the county's chief attorney indicated the situation posed an ethics violation for Pittman, so he cautioned Pittman about potential ethics conflicts. The county administrator at the time, Michael Thompson, said Pittman subsequently provided a second set of grant documents that did not mention his company's involvement.
I'm sorry, but when warned of an ethics violation, you change plans to eliminate the violation. But that's not what Pittman appears to have done. No, it looks like Pittman's response was to try and cover up the conflict; gloss over it and hope nobody noticed.
Now here's the thing... What Pittman did may or may not have been illegal, and he probably won't be charged. Regardless of what the law SAYS, however, Pittman's actions SHOULD BE illegal, and if he's found guilty then he should spend time in prison for it. Whenever they get around to ethics reform legislation, they need to make certain it actually punishes actions like this.
And before anybody comments, I am STILL opposed to a special session in December to pass ethics reform legislation. The Legislature will be meeting in March, and we don't need to be spending another $300k or more just so they can do their jobs a few months early. If Riley decides his own personal political ambitions are more important than money belonging to the taxpayers of Alabama, that should tell us once and for all what kind of politician HE is. And if the newly elected Republican majority AGREES with him, that should give you a preview of what we may be in for during the next four years.
Well, you pegged it correctly Mr. Givens.
ReplyDeleteSumner just announced a technicality will allow Pittman to probably not even be investigated.
I did a search, and didn't find anything like this. The closest I found was an article dated this morning that says the new ethics laws can't be applied to Pittman because he was charged before they were enacted.
ReplyDeletehttp://baldwincountynow.com/articles/2011/02/02/local_news/doc4d485a7f33c02764742008.txt
But I still stand by my original prediction.
That is precisely what I meant by a "technicality," sir.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we're splitting linguistic hairs on this and I do agree, as before, with your prediction.
I'm sure you've seen more articles come out since that one like this one:
BAY MINETTE, Alabama — An ethics complaint resubmitted this week by a Silverhill businessman alleging he was unfairly shut out of oil boom work in Fairhope won’t trigger action under new, more powerful laws, a state official said Thursday.
“The standard we go by is ‘what was the law at the time it happened?’” said Alabama Ethics Commission Chief Counsel Hugh R. Evans III. The time of the complaint does not determine which guidelines are used, he said."
I must say when you compare the EC investigation of Roy Moore to Pittman's ethics breeches, there appears to be a double standard.
I say this from an objective observation and have no political leaning to Moore.