In Clatsop County a recurring topic of debate is conflict of interest. Conflict of interest between a public official and his/her “regular” job. Conflict of interest between two spouses when one is a judge and another is the city attorney. Conflict of interest between government employees “using” office time for private business.
Over and over again we have public officials who have to make a choice. Will the outcome of the decision before me give me an undue advantage? We want it to influence their lives. We want it to impact them just as much as it impacts us, but not more and not less. If it is good we don’t want them to have it better than us. If it is bad, we don’t want them to have it less.
How is it that these people, who we elected a mere matter of a few years, or even months, ago suddenly change into people who must be watched with suspicion? Perhaps it is the nature of the beast. We are raised with these ideas of ignobility. Thoughts like “the nature of the beast” and “original sin” are common threads most of us are familiar with. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and the root of all evil is the love of money. Success is looked at with a degree of suspicion, especially when it is in someone who is perceived as “flaunting” it or “suddenly” coming upon it. Carpet baggers are the worst of all people especially carpet baggers with money that aren’t sharing it by opening a series of small businesses that fail, one after another.
Perceptions are very important. In small communities where at the age of 50 you are still be referred to by a “y” at the end of your name or as a junior, one error in judgment can haunt you for decades, depending on who you are. Ask Julie Leonhardt.
Conflict of interest is about perceptions. Each year what is perceived as wrong and to what degree changes drastically. Recently the Daily Astorian reported a drug bust in which an “arsenal” of guns and ammunition was found in a home along with drugs and paraphernalia. The horror of Latino nationals being involved along with “Mexican Mafia” was a topic of conversation and news for the local rag for days.
Not even 20 years ago one of our own from the upper crust was caught after an intense six month long DEA investigation. When the agents burst through the door the man greeted them with a sub-machine gun in his hands. He had over twenty guns in his private “arsenal” along with all of the appropriate ammo. He also had cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and an assortment of prescription drugs bagged and ready for sale. The man was arrested, the DEA agents packed up and moved on to another county. Six months later the man opened a logging business. His first client? The then district attorney. After the next election Julie Leonhardt was the new DA. Conflicts of interest … never ending.
Over and over again we have public officials who have to make a choice. Will the outcome of the decision before me give me an undue advantage? We want it to influence their lives. We want it to impact them just as much as it impacts us, but not more and not less. If it is good we don’t want them to have it better than us. If it is bad, we don’t want them to have it less.
How is it that these people, who we elected a mere matter of a few years, or even months, ago suddenly change into people who must be watched with suspicion? Perhaps it is the nature of the beast. We are raised with these ideas of ignobility. Thoughts like “the nature of the beast” and “original sin” are common threads most of us are familiar with. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and the root of all evil is the love of money. Success is looked at with a degree of suspicion, especially when it is in someone who is perceived as “flaunting” it or “suddenly” coming upon it. Carpet baggers are the worst of all people especially carpet baggers with money that aren’t sharing it by opening a series of small businesses that fail, one after another.
Perceptions are very important. In small communities where at the age of 50 you are still be referred to by a “y” at the end of your name or as a junior, one error in judgment can haunt you for decades, depending on who you are. Ask Julie Leonhardt.
Conflict of interest is about perceptions. Each year what is perceived as wrong and to what degree changes drastically. Recently the Daily Astorian reported a drug bust in which an “arsenal” of guns and ammunition was found in a home along with drugs and paraphernalia. The horror of Latino nationals being involved along with “Mexican Mafia” was a topic of conversation and news for the local rag for days.
Not even 20 years ago one of our own from the upper crust was caught after an intense six month long DEA investigation. When the agents burst through the door the man greeted them with a sub-machine gun in his hands. He had over twenty guns in his private “arsenal” along with all of the appropriate ammo. He also had cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and an assortment of prescription drugs bagged and ready for sale. The man was arrested, the DEA agents packed up and moved on to another county. Six months later the man opened a logging business. His first client? The then district attorney. After the next election Julie Leonhardt was the new DA. Conflicts of interest … never ending.
19 comments:
There is the issue of "perceived" conflict of interest and then the legal definition, I believe. To have a conflict of interest in the legal sense, one has to receive some sort of pecuniary benefit or other advantage that could yield pecuniary benefit in the future because of the relationship.
Many situations that we think of as conflicts of interest, are not. However, it always will do an elected official good if, even if they are not legally required to, they announce the percieved conflict and then step away from decisions, especially a very controversial one. Again, not because they need to, but rather out of courtesy for all of us and to be extra cautious in appearance.
Besides, this county is rife with conflict of interest issues if you just look around. I mean, come on, its like the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon or whatever that game is called, only most people here can be connected using one or two people.
I think that's why it its never ending?
You must also remember that elected official, no matter how altruistic they proclaim to be, ALL aspire to become elected officials because they have a larger than average ego.
Just something to keep in mind. Its the absolute truth and if you know that ahead of time, it explains lots of stuff.
LOL! I don't know that I agree with that statement. Maybe in bigger offices but for the non-paying offices thats kind of hard to swallow. Jeff Hazen doesn't seem to have any bigger ego than the average store manager. Loren Matthews barely has an ego and he was in public office for years. Hell, maybe he still is in public office?
Maybe I just don't understand what the average ego is?
Trust me, they have a least a little bit bigger than average one if they wish to hold elected office. Even if it is voluntary. I am not saying that is a bad thing, case in point is Jeff H. who seems to be doing much good so far. I am just saying it is a component of their personality. Not good or bad, just there for you to put into perspective with how you view them.
Thanks for the kind words. Ego is an interesting thing. First of all, everyone has one. The important thing to remember is that your ego can be used as a positive rather than a negative. I am fortunate because I have a wonderful wife that keeps my ego grounded. That phrase from a long time ago "too big for his britches" is as timely today as it has been over the generations. Just be sure to not confuse ego with drive. I am driven to make this county a better place to live and work, however I don't even begin to think that I have all of the answers.
Talking about ego, the DA of our county is way to big.
I don't even consider him a representative of the county, just a representative of "josh marquis"
As Jeff and Josh know good things are rewarded and bad things are constantly dragged through the mud on the blogs and local forums. Jeff has used good common sense, and he is of the temperment and is articulate enough to explain his decisions rather than declairing a position as case closed as other commissioners have in the past.
I just heard Josh pissing and moaning for the last half hour on Lars Larson. He is balming everything on everyone but himself. He mentioned that he is unpopular for prosecuting the corrections worker. No Josh, it's for all the other unjustified convictions you are going for. We've been telling you about them for months. We know you read what we write. Can you now make the connection? I don't recall anyone saying anything about your work with the correction worker. We did write about how you handled Don Schreiner and the fishing kids. Wake up!
While Josh is a shit, and no doubt, Jeff is very articulate about why recommendations have been made.
The FACT that both Cindy and Josh are taking it as a slap in the face shows who is doing the most reading on all of the blogs and forums.
While Jeff certainly knows the temperature of a few hundred people those that know him know that he does NOT talk out of two sides of his mouth. If the stipend had been removed because of poor performance Jeff is not afraid to say so. Richard Lee would say so. Did anyone even tell Lee about Cindy's little trick using his name? No, because the locals don't have PROOF and don't jump to conclusions the way that Josh Marquis ALWAYS is ready to.
The FACT that Josh believes the removal of his stipend to be an assessment of his performance (and has PUBLICLY whined about it) says a hell of a lot more than Jeff's denial of it! I think Jeff now has a clearer picture of the frustrations many experience when dealing with the DA and his jumping to the wrong conclusion without looking at facts or listening to reasonable explanations.
Cindy, as you are so fond of telling others, grow up. Your husband has a set of balls let him use them.
Oh, if EVER there was going to be a conflict of interest you can see by the way this is going already how it would have been had Cindy and Jeff sat on the board together. That was a nasty and snarky comment she made on Jeff's blog. Josh, are you sure she loves you? Love hurts, man!
Let's not forget Dr. McIver, the Mclaren's and Mike and Sandy Jones.
Huh? Where's the conflict of interest in those stories?
Wouldn't they price/Marquis be in a pickle now if she were on the board?
Yeah, come to think of it Price, like Lee could have been one of the two "no" votes and still he would be faced with a case of "stipend-b-gone".
Though I have heard from many that her real agenda in running for the commission position was to try, on behalf of her husband, to fire the county administrator Derrickson though. Sounds like she would have been the lone vote on that too.
Hey Hey Goodbye
Lets send this message, loud and clear!
You have to be kidding, what recent wrong doings? Josh Marquis is the one who has been doing wrong in our town. Take a few hours and read what is being said about him.I did and have learned alot. He was asked to leave one county in Oregon. Do you know why?
The only reason the above was removed was because it was an exact duplicate. Scott must have hit enter twice.
Post a Comment