A local story out of the Washington Post, mirrored on Another Loud Blog.

I’ll just give you the first line, and please read the article for yourself:

Loudoun County Supervisor Bruce E. Tulloch has repeatedly tried to leverage contacts he has developed as a public official to promote his personal interests, according to interviews and records.

Really? Wow. Let me ask my illustrious audience something. Has anyone EVER met a politician who got into politics NOT to leverage contacts they develop as a public official to promote his personal interests? Notice the wording, here. It does not say, he has used his public official capacity to promote his personal interests. There is no evidence of “electioneering,” or “selling” of land-deal votes. Just utilizing contacts “developed as a public official.”

So, Mr. Tulloch should just take his $22,000 dollars a year he makes from the county and refuse to utilize his entrepeneurial skills to better his financial situation? What country did I wake up in this morning? So if he meets these contacts in an official capacity, he is barred from having financial dealings with them in a completely non-official capacity?

I remember a discussion a few years back regarding the public income of Supervisors and the comment was made that if they were paid too much, too many people would just do it for the money, and not out of the public interest. Well it appears they can’t win. If they are paid not enough, they might want to…I don’t know…invest in something.

washingtonpost.com

Appearance of Impropriety

2 thoughts on “Appearance of Impropriety

  • So if he meets these contacts in an official capacity, he is barred from having financial dealings with them in a completely non-official capacity?

    Pretty close. If he votes on issues relating to people he has private dealings with, that’s corruption. It is possible for private entrepreneurs to serve on public boards, but they have a moral and usually a legal obligation not to vote on issues that affect people they have private dealings with.

  • you could be right, but isn’t timing relevant? Again, note the wording. “repeatedly leveraged contacts he has developed.”

    There was no reason to recuse himself from voting BEFORE he had any dealings with them. If he had dealings with them before, that would be different.

    What if they met after–or congruent with–the vote? Are they still barred from investing in a project together in another state? I do not see that as corruption.

    Corruption is a tit for a tat. You vote yea on this, and I’ll hook you up with this or that business deal.

    Look, I don’t know the guy, but I do know, as is often the case in stories such as this, that there is no evidence of corruption in this story, just the APPEARANCE of what possibly COULD be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *