Here is the lede
graph of a story, Ethics opinion: Aresimowicz can be House Speaker, union staffer, found in CTMirror: “The Office of State Ethics has advised Rep.
Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, that nothing in the state ethics code bars him from
continuing his job as education coordinator with AFSCME, an influential
public-employee union, once he becomes Speaker of the House of Representatives.”
The Office of State Ethics
(OSE) decision was in reply to a query put to it by the Office of the House Majority Leader:
“… let us know whether there are any apparent ethical issues arising from his [Aresimowicz’s]
employment, including a conflict of interest with his legislative duties? If
there are any further actions that Rep. Aresimowicz should take to protect himself
from ethical concerns, we would appreciate that advice.”
Righto. The OSE
knows very well, as do all legislators, that the Speaker of the House in
Connecticut is not merely an equal legislator among equals; the Speaker is a
gatekeeper who may determine whether legislation lives or dies. His job is
comparable to that of a guard protecting a hen-house from unwanted intrusions
by hungry foxes.
So then, the OSE
confronts the following circumstances: A fox's representative approaches the OSE and asks if it
would be ethical for the fox to be selected by his peers to guard a hen-house
against unwanted intruders. And the OSE disgorges the following opinion: “There is nothing in the state ethics code that
bars [soon to be] Speaker of The House Joe Aresimowicz from continuing his job
as education coordinator with AFSCME, an influential public-employee union,
once he becomes speaker of the House of Representatives.”
The question before
the house is not: Does present law permit an education coordinator with AFSCME
to assume a position in the House that allows him to put the kibosh on
legislation that could be unfavorable to union organizations?
The OSE already has determined that present law does not prevent the selection
of a fox as a gatekeeper to the hen-house.
The more important
question is: Does the OSE’s judgement on this matter have anything remotely to
do with ethics? If the staff of the OSE is concerned only with legal
advisement, the state of Connecticut could save a good deal of money by
abolishing the office and assigning its functions to one of the hundreds of lawyers
in Attorney General George Jepsen’s office.
No member of the OSE
who unquestioningly accepts the proposition “all things lawful are ethical” or
its corollary “all things ethical are lawful” should be allowed to serve on a
body that proscribes unethical behavior.
We all remember Mr.
Bumble’s discomfort when he is told by a court in Charles Dicken’s Oliver Twist that the law supposes that
your wife, an unusually domineering lady, acts under your direction. “’If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing
his hat emphatically in both hands, ‘the law is a ass - a idiot.’"
Apparently, there
is not a sufficient number of Bumbles in the General Assembly – no one to
protest that if the OSE thinks it is ethical to allow Mr. Aresimowicz “to continuing his job as
education coordinator with AFSCME, an influential public-employee union, once
he becomes speaker of the House of Representatives,” then, sir, the OSE “is a ass - a idiot.”
A prior Democratic
Speaker of the House, Chris Donovan, run out of office owing to the ethical lapses of people on his staff, was
employed “by an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union
representing community college employees while he was majority leader, but he
resigned from the union after becoming Speaker in January 2009,” according to
the CTMirror story.
Mr. Donovan noted at
the time, “I’d be more in the limelight, and my opponents would use my job as a
reason to put into the public eye questions about my motivations.”
Mr. Donovan bowed to
political considerations, but he might as easily have bowed to ethical
obligations. If Mr. Aresimowicz is installed as Speaker of the House on January
4th, as seems likely, will his opponents “use his union job as a
reason to put into the public eye” questions concerning his motivations? The
OSE already has weighed in on the question and determined that ethical motivations
apparently fall outside the purview of the state’s ethical watchdogs.
Everyone else, including
legislators, should be concerned with the ethical propriety of appointing to an
office that screens legislation someone employed by a union who may be able to
turn aside measures adversely affecting unions – such as, for instance,
legislation that may impact union friendly contracts and pension obligations.
Just as the law is
too important a matter to leave solely in the hands of lawyers and
lawyer-legislators, so ethics is too important a matter to leave entirely to
the discretion of lawyers working for the state’s misnamed Office of State
Ethics.
Comments